User talk:Mameab1989

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Article. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

December 2017

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that in this edit to North Africa, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Jim1138 (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa. Cahk (talk) 08:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Jim1138 (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring notice

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on North Africa. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

North Africa

What the World Bank says is wrong and what the US says is correct? Rather US-centric? Please discuss on talk:North Africa Thank you Jim1138 (talk) 08:47, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Hey, The "world bank" does not and can not define people or regions. It is a finical institution. However, the U.S Census is a governmental body who's whole purpose is to study people ethnicity, race, and regions of the world. My argument is not based on U.S-centric, but on argument of who actually studies population ethnicity, race, and culture. The U.S Census wins hand down, also, the U.N define Sudan as part of North Africa.[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Mameab1989 reported by User:Jim1138 (Result: ). Thank you. Jim1138 (talk) 09:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at North Africa. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mameab1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked wrongly I have added the correct link to the definition of North Africa by the U.S Census and it has been removed and replaced by a forum discussion link, which has no bearing on the current U.S Census definition of North Africa. Also, I have edited and provided links and evidence on the Sudan page. I am requesting to be unblocked and for my revision to remain I have provided the most accurate and current definition. It is not about Emotion, but facts. I am from Sudan I have many links to books and sites to prove my edits are correct. Please fix this! I am new to editing on wikipedia, but I am noticing that whoever wrote the history of Sudan and North Africa has clear bias against Sudan and is febricating historical facts and removing genuine ones. Also, Check the link for yourself for the table of the world bank definition it provide no definition and no proof. Also, whoever is removing my edit in North Africa is removing Ethnic groups who have been apart of North Africa since ancient times. I wish for you to check everything I said you will see it is the truth.

Decline reason:

The block is correct. The content you added is entirely irrelevant to the block, and attempting to defend its inclusion is a clear sign that you do not understand what you are blocked for. You are blocked because of your behaviour, not because of the content you were adding; this is explained in the block template above. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:23, 22 December 2017 (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.

Hey, Thank you for getting back to me. I know that I am blocked for using the undo 3 times. First, I did not know about the rule and second, I had no choice the person kept removing my content and link and adding febricated ones that has no bearing on the definition of North Africa. Also, the person who wrote the English version of Sudan Clearly excluded a large portion of Sudan History and fabricated the dates of the British Occupation. I do not know how to stop them from undoing the edits, I tried to speak to them and reason with them. Also, I told them I am more than happy to send them the links and proof to everything I wrote, but they keep removing the correct content. This is really frustrating because someone is deliberately removing and altering the history of a people and a region, and no one is stopping their abuse. I do not know how to use wikipedia well to stop this, so can someone of the adminstration pay attention to this. Thanks!

Orphaned non-free image File:Location of North Africa on the Earth.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Location of North Africa on the Earth.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:18, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan conflict edit

Although it is necessary to shorten the information in the Sudan article, in order to be appropriate with the content template presented to the reader. This additional information is of no use and necessity and the article will become crowded with scattered characters, I do not want go with you in edit war. Pay attention and caution I think you can be our blog active in Wikipedia but, this is not a good way to deal with and I hope to maintain the atmosphere and accept mutual views. Lcxzdf56 (talk) 21:30, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa, you may be blocked from editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 21:56, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 00:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at North Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 23:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at North Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 08:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sudan. - Arjayay (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

January 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Still edit warring and this edit summary is completely inappropriate. Anyone can edit the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah friend what have you done Lopethanekoase (talk) 11:23, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

hi my friend

Hey i am lophethanekoase from Asia can i be your friend. Lopethanekoase (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sudan

Your recent editing history 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. LeGabrie (talk) 11:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. LeGabrie (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mameab1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not edit warring. The page Sudan contained the Historical accurate narrative of the people and the Country. Till LeGabrie changed it and reverted it multiple times to push an incorrect historical narrative of Sudan that shows his clear bias. I posted many links to the historical facts, but he kept changing it to push an inaccurate and bias narrative that support a Christian Ethiopian narrative. I request that I am unblocked and that LeGabrie is blocked for war editing

Decline reason:

You say you were not edit-warring, and then proceed to explain how you were edit-warring. And you were. The block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 22:00, 1 May 2018 (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.

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring, as you did at Sudan. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your last article talk page post was in January. You can either start discussing your edits and working towards consensus or face longer blocks. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Mameab1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not war editing, user:LeGabriel reverted the page multiple times and is clearly trying to write the history of Sudan and its people in an inaccurate and historical false Christian Ethiopian point of view. it is not his first time pushing an inaccurate and bias point of view. I request the block to be lifted and user:LeGabriel to be blocked for edit warring. Also, I provided the link to every historical fact. The narrative and historical point of view of a people and their land should be written on how the indigenous inhabitants of the land perceive the narrative, not a narrative that people from another land push. For example, WWII in the USA we are taught that we won the war and played the most major part. while in Russia they are taught they are who won WWII and played the most major part. In Germany and Europe the role of the U.S in the world is not a large role. So do you expect that in the U.S historical page you put the Russian narrative? No, nobody in America would accept it. Likewise, a false narrative of the history of my people by someone not from my land, can't read my language, twisting historical facts, deliberately removing historical facts, and pushing a bias point of view not accepted or taught as the narrative of Sudan by it people. Should not be put on its page as its narrative. For example, I don't go to the Ethiopian page and Axusm page and right the point of view of Sergew, H.S, that the indigenous Ethiopians had a primitive culture to the Arabs, and it was the Sophisticated and civilized Arab who migrated into Ethiopia and built the Kingdom of Aksum. That is a point of view. However, it is not written as the point of view in the Aksum and Ethiopia page and I don't go write that point of view in their page.

Decline reason:

I checked the diffs and you were edit warring. Otherwise, articles are written to the Neutral Point Of View, not a sympathetic point of view. PhilKnight (talk) 23:16, 1 May 2018 (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.

Hello PhilKnight, Thank you for the respond. on 17:27, 27 April 2018‎, 11:27, 29 April 2018‎, and 13:46, 1 May 2018‎ User:LeGabrie reverted and altered the sound and historically neutral article to fit his bias point of view, which I have not read from any foreign or Sudanese historian. I provided the links you can read the articles yourself. Thank you Mameab1989 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You complain about "bias" while you literally write "(RA)" behind Islamic caliphs and warlords. Your lead is too long, too unreferenced, too erroneous and too badly written, as already pointed out by me and others. I also wonder where your doubt about Aksum's involvement in the fall of Kush comes from. Must be because of modern politics. Perhaps you can make use of your holidays and read actual literature on that matter, like Hatke's "Aksum and Nubia": http://dlib.nyu.edu/awdl/isaw/hatke2013-aksum-and-nubia/ LeGabrie (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LeGabrie, Thank you for your comment. I hope with this discussion we can come to an understanding, and a neutral point of view that is not bias. I assume you are formalier with the christian faith. In christianity there is the honorific title of saint given to holy and noble people. For example, St. Nektarios, or St. Gregory The Theolgian. When articles are written about them it is not written as Nektarios or Gregory The Theolgian said or done. When they are mentioned St. is put behind their name to indicate that their are saints. There is no bias involved in that. Likewise, The companions of the Prophet(PBUH) in Islam are saints and RA is an honorific abbreviation to indicate that. Nothing is bias about it. Also, None of the companions I mentioned were warlords. They were the rulers of the Muslim world and the title for the ruler is Caliph. Again, nothing is bias about that. Thank you for the criticism of the length of the lead. However, I think the lead is quite short given the length of History of the land that is considered the cradle of civilization, the people who gave the world the first kingdom and Monarchy, and was a significant political and military for a significant portion of human history. I could try to shorten it with you guys and I have attempted that.

My doubt about Aksum involvement in the fall of Kush comes from many sources. First, its one of the historical point of view of many historians^[1]. Here is a translation if you can not read Arabic; In regard to the collapse of Kush, "Due to unknown reasons in the 4th century Meroe political power waned. It moved its capital three times further south, and a fourth time to the current location of Sennar. Whatever the reason might be there is no evidence that support the theory that Meroe collapsed due to a Military campaign by the Kingdom of Aksum.^[2] Also, Dr. Muahmmed Adam Abdul-Rahman Hamad published a research paper with many different possibility of why the Kingdom of Meroe collapse one of them is the possibility of a war with Aksum, that is one of his many theories. Nothing was conclusive, even after examining the 2 Ge-ez stele found in Sudan, and the Meroe artifact found in current Ethiopia. Also, yes I have read Hatke Aksum and Nubia and in his work he state that the campaign of Ēzānā's is against the Noba(Nuba) not the Kushite(Nubian). The Noba broke the oath and kill the diplomates and Ēzānā went to battle them. He attacked two Kushite towns which was occupied by the Noba. Here is a passage from Hatke's work that shows the distinguish between the Noba nd Kushite, "Of the Kushites, who are distinguished by name (Kāsū) from the Noba, we hear nothing until later on in RIE 189.457 It may well have been the case that there were Kushites still living in the towns now occupied by the Noba, it was the latter who held real political power. If so, they would have done so not from Meroë, which is nowhere mentioned in any of ‘Ēzānā’s inscriptions in connection with his Nubian campaign." This passage also indicate that he did not reach Meroe, but towns occupied by Noba. He Further states, "As we will see, however, none of ‘Ēzānā’s inscriptions state that his Nubian campaign dealt the final death-blow to Kush, only that he fought the Kushites in the course of his war with the Noba. This being the case, the evidence from tomb Bagrawiyya W 130 at Meroë, suggesting that Kush survived as late as 360-370, is not relevant for dating ‘Ēzānā’s Nubian campaign. Nor does Consantius’ letter help either, for the case that the letter was addressed to two still-pagan kings of Aksum is difficult to sustain." meaning that Aksum did not deal the death-blow to Meroe and collapsed it. The Kingdom of Meroe existed and had multiple kings after Ēzāna war with the Noba. There is also multiple theories to the location of the battle one is Southeast at the most southern boarder of Meroe and the other is Northeast of Meroe, with no definite conclusion on this matter. I think that the Southeast location is the more accurate because the Noba taunt Ēzānā and say “They (i.e., the Aksumites) will not cross the Takkazē!”. if the location of Takkazē was Aṭbara or al-Qaḍārif Northeast there is not enough of a barrier to make the Noba confident in the Aksumites will not cross, but further Southeast is much difficult as explained in Aksum and Nubia. A war between Aksum and Meroe is very unlikely from the evidence of the time. Moreover, the evidence point to a strong friendship between Aksum and Meroe as mentioned by Heliodoros in his book Athiopica Meroe and Aksum had a strong friendship. So the whole campaign could have been a Military Aid from Aksum to Meroe to quell down the revolt and rebellion by the Nuba. Mameab1989 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current political event has nothing to do with it. I just want to have the page reflect the historical narrative as my people see it in a non-bias way. The historical narrative of a people and their land should be the narrative they perceive, not that of a person from a different nation narrative of their history. Mameab1989 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I don't go to the Ethiopian and Aksum page and write that the indigenous Ethiopians were primitive and the Kingdom of Aksum was built by the culturally advance and civilized Arab migrants into Ethiopia. That is a point of view that is given, but is it the point of view taught in Ethiopia or written of the wiki page of Ethiopia. No! Also, there is the view that Arabs invaded Ethiopia and created the habsha hybrid race, and it was only because of that the Kingdom of Aksum was possible.Mameab1989 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC) I do not write these historical narrative on your page, because it is not a narrative that Majority of your people perceive, and it is bias to a certain degree. How gave the right for a historian to call Ethiopians primitive or call a kingdom pitiful. I hope you that you can understand me and leave the historical narrative of my people as the majority of my people see it.Mameab1989 (talk) 18:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The companions of the Prophet(PBUH) in Islam are saints and RA is an honorific abbreviation to indicate that."
Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, so there is no place for "(RA)" or "(SAW)". See the entry for Muhammad.

"However, I think the lead is quite short given the length of History of the land that is considered the cradle of civilization"
Lead sections should be as short and concise as possible. Check entries of other countries for comparison, like Egypt or France. If you want to go more in-depth you must edit the "history" chapter.

"A war between Aksum and Meroe is very unlikely from the evidence of the time. Moreover, the evidence point to a strong friendship between Aksum and Meroe as mentioned by Heliodoros in his book Athiopica Meroe and Aksum had a strong friendship. So the whole campaign could have been a Military Aid from Aksum to Meroe to quell down the revolt and rebellion by the Nuba."
"And I reached the Kushites and killed them and took [others] prisoner at the confluence of the Nile and the Takkazē rivers" Also read chapter 4.2.

Nevertheless, I altered my lead a bit. It says now that Kush was "perhaps" destroyed by Aksum. Any other complaints? LeGabrie (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LeGabrie Please read my answers carefully for each one of your comment and questions.

Wikipedia is a secular encyclopedia, so there is no place for "(RA)" or "(SAW)". See the entry for Muhammad. okay if it is completely secular why does the page of Peter, and Paul start of with Saint Paul, and Saint Peter? RA is an honorific title posted of the Companion of the Prophet(PBUH) just like like the title Saint. Mameab1989 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lead sections should be as short and concise as possible. I did shorten the lead a bit and I will try to shorten it further. However, like I said it is a lot of history that even predates Egypt and France so the lead will obviously be longer. Mameab1989 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"And I reached the Kushites and killed them and took [others] prisoner at the confluence of the Nile and the Takkazē rivers" Also read chapter 4.2.

I have read his work. you should reread it again for better understanding. He states,"Of the Kushites, who are distinguished by name (Kāsū) from the Noba, we hear nothing until later on in RIE 189.457 It may well have been the case that there were Kushites still living in the towns now occupied by the Noba, it was the latter who held real political power. If so, they would have done so not from Meroë, which is nowhere mentioned in any of ‘Ēzānā’s inscriptions in connection with his Nubian campaign." 1st As you can see the Noba occupied towns where Kushites lived, and it appears that the Noba had the political control of the town. So it is possible they forces the Kushites men to fight with them against Ezana. 2nd Ezana's inscriptions never mention Meroe. Nevertheless, I altered my lead a bit. It says now that Kush was "perhaps" destroyed by Aksum. Any other complaints?

There is no perhaps, maybe, or properly. This view of your is not supported by Hatke work, which you accept as a source and you quote. Heikes says, "As we will see, however, none of ‘Ēzānā’s inscriptions state that his Nubian campaign dealt the final death-blow to Kush, only that he fought the Kushites in the course of his war with the Noba. This being the case, the evidence from tomb Bagrawiyya W 130 at Meroë, suggesting that Kush survived as late as 360-370."

Also, Ezana whole campaign was against the Noba. He fought 6 towns 4 of them are Noba towns and 2 are occupied Kushitan town. Key word Occupied. He did not fight fight free and controlled Meroe towns. Again, there is no perhaps, maybe, or properly. Aksum and Ezana campaign was not the reason the Kingdom of Meroe collapse. The reason as to why it has collapse is not clear from the perspective of Sudanese and foreign historian and archeologist. Mameab1989 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC) Moreover, the empire of Kush is not the Kingdom of Meroe. Yes it is the same land and people, but different government, different period, different language, and writing system that is completely different than kush and Egypt.^[3] Read the link please. Just like when Egypt was ruled by Pharaohs, the Romans, Assyrians, and Ptolemaic dynasty. Even though the land and the people are the same the governments, and time period is different. Also, the cause of collapse for each empire was different. The Empire of Kush existed at a different time period from the Kingdom of Meroe, and the cause of collapse is completely different than Meroe, and very complex. The collapse of the Empire of Kush had many factors. I will list a few of them. 1st a young inexprinced leader who just inherited the throne from his father who was in a decades long war with the Assyrian in the near east. Assyrian having a very experienced and dynamic king. Internal dispute in Nebotia. The military campaign that succeeded in pushing kush back to Luxor caused major casualties on both sides. Kush retook Egypt from the Assyrian creating another major war between Kush and Assyria. The young king moved the kingdom as far south as possible to maintain power after losing the war, the central government of Kush in the eastern, western and, southern side collapsed. Nobatia split from kush Meroe began to be formed. There was two separate kingdoms Nobatia and Meroe and it seems that Nobatia royalty took the throne. eventually Meroe formed as a new Kingdom. The cause of collapse of the kingdom is unknown and their is many archeologist working on figuring out why. Do you really think that a Kingdom with over 20 large towns and more than that in medium and small towns could collpase by a military campaign against 2 occupied towns? What a Joke. Mameab1989 (talk) 09:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 19:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in North Africa page

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa. Ryanoo (talk) 20:02, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at North Africa, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Ryanoo (talk) 17:48, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ryanoo, I have left you a message on your talk page and links explaining the current definition of North Africa. However, you refuse to accept facts, and deleted the whole message. you gave me a link to the meeting and forum for MENA as a source that Sudan is not in North Africa. Guess you did not read the link you referenced. I advice you to actually read the source you reference because if you did actually read your link you will see that Sudan is included in North Africa just look at table E-1 of your source. ^[4] Here I left you the link directly from the U.S Census page. Here are 4 more sources that include Sudan in North Africa. Mameab1989 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC) Blij, H.J. Muller, P. (2007).Geography: realms, regions, and concepts (3rd Edition). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Mameab1989 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bradshaw, M. White, G. Dymond, J. DeLyser, D. (2004) Contemporary World Regional Geography Global Connections. New York: McGraw-Hill Co, Inc.Mameab1989 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbs, J. Salter, C. (2006) Essentials of World Regional Geography (5th Edition). Thomson Learning, Inc.Mameab1989 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

World population data sheet (2006). Washington, DC: Population Reference Bureau.Mameab1989 (talk) 14:20, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You know that what makes wikipedia a joke and not a accepted reference source. User like you Ryanoo push their bias agenda that goes against all cited and documented sources and Users like me how cite facts get blocked when they confront you on your bias because simple you know how to get other users blocked and the administrators seem like they can't read.Mameab1989 (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Drmies (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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).

Mameab1989 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was not war editing user:LeGabrie altered the original template and wrote a bias version that disregard the correct history for the country and its people on 11:27, 29 April 2018‎, 11:04, 30 April 2018‎, 13:46, 1 May 2018‎, 14:25, 1 May 2018‎, 14:43, 1 May 2018‎. LeGabrie is writing a bias and incorrect narrative of the History of the region mixing historical facts with false ones on purpose. Mameab1989 (talk) 11:08, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You are claiming you were not engaged in an edit war, and then proceed to describe edit-warring. Looks like the block is appropriate. Yamla (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2018 (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.

hello Yamla, can you explain how is it appropriate it was user:LeGabrie who altered the text multiple times I just returned it to the original templet with the correct citation. Can you elaborate why I am blocked and user:LeGabrie is not the one blocked?Mameab1989 (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Your last article talk page post was in January. You can either start discussing your edits and working towards consensus or face longer blocks."-NeilN. 13:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Enjoy your holidays... again. LeGabrie (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LeGabrie, Thank you I did enjoy my vacation. I hope your days been well :) Mameab1989 (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in North Africa page

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at North Africa. Ryanoo (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism in Sudan page

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Sudan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanoo (talk • contribs) 00:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.marefa.org/مملكة_كوش

[2] ttps://www.marefa.org/مملكة_كوش

[3] ttp://www.ancientsudan.org/writing_02_meroitic.htm

[4] ttps://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/working-papers/2015/demo/MENA-Forum-Summary-and-Appendices.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]