User talk:Harari234

Harari234, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Harari234! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! AmaryllisGardener (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Emir Abd Allah II ibn Muhammed.jpeg

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Emir Abd Allah II ibn Muhammed.jpeg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Puffin ^{Let's talk!} 01:43, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Image tagging for File:Emir Abd Allah ibn Muhammed.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Emir Abd Allah ibn Muhammed.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:05, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. AcidSnow (talk) 04:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

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. AcidSnow (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

Kuru (talk) 02:06, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harar. 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:

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

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. 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. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:55, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to Abadir Umar ar-Rida. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. The "History" section already placed the subject in the 11th and 13th century. Your edit placed him in the 10th, as well. Gyrofrog (talk) 15:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

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. AcidSnow (talk) 03:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring at Adal Sultanate

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 4 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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.

The full report is at WP:AN3#Harari234 reported by AcidSnow (Result: Blocked). You were previously blocked on 11 March. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Sir.,

Why did you remove Harari from the Benadiri page? I found the similarities interesting that both groups were forged from city centres. Zekenyan (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Hahah, didn't you state they weren't related? AcidSnow (talk) 01:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC):

Dont follow me around. Zekenyan (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not. In fact, I was here six days before you.[1]

Because the Hararis and the Benadiri people are not related. Harari234 18:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I didnt say they were related. they are both city exclusive ethnic groups. Zekenyan (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your post on my page

Reply:

I'm well aware... In fact there's some proof that there are some likely very old "Harari" loanwords (more specifically Southern Ethio-Semitic) in Somali [-], but it's just that the current "ethnicity" as we know it owes a lot of its "existence" to Somali figures like Nur ibn Mujahid & has a lot of weird dubious connections to Somalis (claiming an ancestor shared with the Sheekhaal clan etc.) but I dunno why you felt the need to post this on my page; knowing that Southern Ethio-Semitic peoples ancestral to Hararis existed before Harar's existence requires only common sense. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:27, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

You must have entirely misunderstood. I was saying that by De La Editor's logic Hararis would be Arabs simply because they're a group in the Horn claiming an Arabian genealogy. None of these genealogies are legitimate as the genetic data on the Horn has been showing us as of late although Hararis have sadly not been tested for their autosomal DNA data but I doubt they'll come up with real "Arab" ancestry to be connected to their genealogy as Somalis from all over Greater Somalia, Oromos, Habeshas like Amharas & Tigrinyas and Xamir Agaws have not. Also, I'm not saying there is a true connection between the Sheekhaal and Hararis in terms of blood but both groups claim descent from Abadir-> this does turn into a "connection" between the two. I'm just assuming it was you who left that post on my page and forgot to sign? Awale-Abdi (talk) 05:58, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

"He was Arab, not Somali"

If you can't grasp what the two genealogies for the Walashma clearly point to then I don't know what to say to you. By your logic all Somalis & all Hararis are "Arabs"... What you need to get is that both genealogies including one shared by Harari historians [-], Cerulli got this genealogy from Harar point to Somali figures who in turn claimed Arab genealogies just like you as a Harari would claim Abadir as an ancestor or I would claim Aqeel Ibn Abi Talib as an ancestor-> these genealogies are mostly fake as the genetic data on Horners has been showing us. Anyway, there's really no arguing with those genealogies and how they clearly connect the Walashma to Somalis... Stop warring, mate. Awale-Abdi (talk) 10:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me tell you that it wouldn't make any sense if Walashma was a SOMALIZED Arabs or Arabized Somalis dynasty. Walashma was a dynasty that spoke Semitic, not Cushitic [2]. So I don't see the point that you have to claim the dynasty SOMALIZED Arabs or Arabized Somalis. The dynasty though would have been multi-ethnic by the backgrounds they have including: Arggoba, Harari, Gurage, Arabs and etc. Perhaps their would've been a little Somali background in the dynasty because of what you added before. Also Umar was an Arab from hijaz, you may deny this all you like, but this is the truth. And there is a reason to argue about this because what you said that the dynasty was "Somalized Arabs or Arabized Somalis" even though it isn't true. Hararis234 (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2015

Um, other than Somali they spoke Arabic which itself is a Semtic. Are you listening to what is said to you? I am pretty sure Midday has already pointed this out. AcidSnow (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

no original research. I can tell you that they spoke Swahili. Zekenyan (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they spoke Arabic, but they were not Somalized so get that in your mind. Hararis234 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015