User talk:Jamalwalal

inquiries ==

July 2017[edit]

Your recent editing history at Somaliland shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Koodbuur (talk • contribs) 18:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Brother, please stop the edit warring and contribute positively to wikipedia. There are not many Somalis on here and it is a shame that the few of us would be so hostile to each other. Wadaad (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are hostile to the Samaale page and want to make it seem as if the Samaale never claimed descent from Arabia Jamalwalal (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamalwalal: No, I accept that this hypothesis exists, but it should not be in the introduction as it is a contentious and controversial statement. The Arabian hypothesis should be left lower down in the article. Readers can still find it, but it should not be in the introduction as it is not supported by all. Wadaad (talk) 17:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not an hypothesis since Samaale genealogical traditions goes through Aqil Abu Talib. It's WP:Mainstream. All agree that the genealogical traditions or abtirsi in Somali goes through Aqil Abi Talib. This is not up for debate. I have agreed upon the fact it should be left out of the preface, but it's vital part of Samaale's genealogical tradition and should not be left out.Jamalwalal (talk

@Jamalwalal: It is a hypothesis as there are competing theories on his origins. Some claim Cushitic, others claim he is mythological, and some others claim Arabian. All these contentious claims should NOT be mentioned in the introduction but lower down in the article in their proper sections. Wadaad (talk) 18:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are clutching at straws no Historian mentions the genealogical tradition of Samaale going through Cush. I agree not the introduction, but his Arabic genealogical tradition should not be removed. You are trying to spread propaganda and I will not allow it. I don't see you debating the Arab origin of the Isaaq or Darood. You are biased. Jamalwalal (talk

@Jamalwalal: First of all, I do not believe any Somali clan is of Arabian origin. Including the Isaaq and Darod. Secondly, the reason why it is significantly more contentious for the Samaale page is that A) He is possibly the person behind the name Somali B) Is significantly older than most other patriarchs C) Written documents on him are sparse and the oral traditions about him differ from place to place. Wadaad (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamalwalal: You are free to limit the Arabian content on the Isaaq and Darod pages, in my opinion. I would not stop you.

To be honest I do not care about the Darood or Isaaq pages, but the Darood especially are a large chunk of all Somali's, which makes their claim contentious too. I am not here to spread my perspective, but to highlight the fact that all Somali genealogical traditions trace descent from Arabia including Samaale. The genealogical traditions of Samaale go through Aqil Abi Talib. it would be propaganda to remove it. - Jamalwalal (Jamalwalal)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalisation[edit]

Hello. I have reverted your edits capitalising headings and other words at Demographics of Somalia. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters, which explains that Wikipedia articles should use sentence case in these instances. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC) I see.[reply]

I'll have a read now. Thank you. Jamalwalal (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April 2020[edit]

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock| I believe that there may have been a mistake as to why this account was blocked. The issue could be sharing an IP address with someone else. See:

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Jamalwalal (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I believe that there may have been a mistake as to why this account was blocked. The issue could be sharing an IP address with someone else. See:

Policy shortcuts

Therefore, I feel as if though, there must be some mistake.Jamalwalal (talk) 12:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Checkuser data shows that more than an IP address is shared. Having run a CU check, I concur with Callanecc's findings and block. Yunshui ^雲 _水 14:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.