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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

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

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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)[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. AcidSnow (talk) 00:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Let me tell you that it wouldn't make any sense if Walashma was a 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 Arabized Somalis. The dynasty though would have been multi-ethnic by the backgrounds they have including: Arggoba, Harari, Gurage, 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 " 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)[reply]

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

Also the Arabs were not Somalized and stop this foolish non-sense Acidsnow and Awale-Abdi. You guys should both gain consensus. Hararis234 (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2015

^ You're being foolish, I've shown you their two genealogies-> you cannot argue with how conclusive they are. Second you really know nothing about linguistics, do you? The Walashma are noted to speak Arabic, yes. Arabic was spoken by ever single Somali dynasty since the Middle Ages from the Barbara Sultan Ibn Battuta encountered in Mogadishu around the 14th Century [-] to the Warsangali who began reigning in the 13th Century to even Early Modern Sultanates. Arabic is Central Semitic (like Aramaic or Hebrew) so don't try to draw a connection between it and the Semitic languages in Ethiopia (not that you did) which are South Semitic.

And for God's sake when will you realize that both of 'Umar's genealogies tie him to Somalis?! Is this so hard to grasp, man? Yes, they're Arab genealogies (all Somalis have them) but they're Arab only via Somalis. As in they claim descent for example (even via Harari records) from a Somali saint/ figure who in turn claimed completely impossible Arab origins (claiming to be a descendant of Ali, the Prophet's cousin) and then the other genealogy is tied to the Darod clan ancestor:

Al-Masudi wrote about the specific Arabian families and tribes that lived in Jabarta and Zeila in his 9th century book Aqeeliyoon. This book sheds light on one individual, a Sufi Sheikh of the Qadiriyyah order called Isma'il ibn Ibrahim al-Jabarti

Walashma:

The claim to Akīl ibn Abī Tālib is based on the tradition that their ancestor Ismaʿīl Jaberti is the same man as Sharaf-ad-Din Ismaʿīl ibn Ibrahim al-Jaberti al-Aqeeli, a famous Sufi theologian of the Qadiriyyah order

^ Jaberti only had one son who is known to have effected the Horn in anyway and that's Abdirahman whom even the Jeberti People claim ties to

Unless you're telling me all Somalis are Arabs-> these guys are just Somalis with Somali genealogies that claim Arab origins that genetic data in the Horn has proven to be fake... Not that we needed genetic data; the likelihood that we're all Hashemites was always low. Really, man. These genealogies are clear cut.

And again; the majority of their troops were Somalis (this is clear in the Futu7 and most historical consensus and you know it) but yes; the realm they ruled was multi-ethnic. I noted this to Zekenyan once very clearly and shared sources that show you they ruled over Ethio-Semites, Somalis, Arabs & likely Afars too...

Seriously your own historians in Harar believed these guys were Somali-tied and tied them to the saint: [-] , [The History of the Walashma is a Harar document & it claims the saint too] & Enrico Cerulli noted the Barkhadle genealogy down in Harar and I.M Lewis took note and it's not me calling them "Somalized Arabs" or "Arabized Somalis" but historians like Lewis and others who studied them: [-] and they based this consensus on how their genealogies while "Arab" were also Somali. I.e. They claimed Aqeeli origins but this is basically a Darod genealogy. They claimed Hasani origins (Ali's son) but this is only through the saint Yusuf 'Aw Barkhadle' (a known figure in Somali history)-> do you get it?

You don't grasp that these people have Somali genealogies tied to Somali clans like the Darod who then claim Arab origins like all Somali genealogies do and that's your issue, chap. I'm done here... Awale-Abdi (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On a final note:

"There are, as has been mentioned, six clan-families- Dir, Hawiye (and "Pre-Hawiye), Daarood and Isaaq in the 'Soomaali' group; and Digil and Rahanwiin in the 'Sab'. The Isaaq and Daarood clan families are represented as descending from their Arabian founders' marriage with Dir women in the early years of the spread of Islam among the Somali.

All clan-families can establish connections with each other without going as far back as the Prophet's lineage, but the breach between 'Soomaali' and 'Sab' is only bridged by tracing descent to the Qurayshitic line of Mahammad."[-]

Arguing that this clan was "Arab" for having a typical Somali "medieval Arab proselytizer" genealogy (their legitimate one even tied directly to a clan) is akin to saying all Somalis are Arabs too (If the Isma'il Hijazi Qurayshi genealogy is legitimate for them; it's legitimate for the Darod-> it's the same genealogy). Which is nonsensical because you are saying "They can't be Somali because they are Arab" but then by your logic (using these genealogies all Somalis have & they even share with a particular Somali clan) you are saying "Somalis are Arabs" (if you get the fallacy in that). Anyway, khalas. I'm done with this nonsense from you. Awale-Abdi (talk)

The only one who is foolish you. First of all I told you that the Walashma had a little bit of Somali or Cushitic background, but still was a Semitic Dynasty meaning the people that ruled it was Semitic group( which you can deny all you like). Second of all you said that the Somali dynasties spook Arabic? Which I see does not make any sense because they have their own language, which is the Somali language. Third of all Umar is not Somali when are YOU going to get that. Forth of all Somalis were not always the majority in battles, so don't expect that Somalis did everything. So am done arguing with you pal. Hararis234 (talk)

At this point, your input means nothing. Not even how trivial and baseless it is just like this one. Nonetheless, best of luck. AcidSnow (talk) 15:24, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Harari234. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Zekenyan (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I found a source from the Norwegian university. "Ifat came to an end in the 1st half of the 15th century. The descendants of its Walasma Dynasty established a new state in Adal. Their capital was Dakar located Southeast of Harar near Fuganbiro. The nomadic of Afar and Somali dominated the state. However, the leaderships were controlled by Semitic Argoba and Harari ethnic groups." Page 14 (footnotes) [3] Zekenyan (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That document is not from the University of Norway but rather Kassaye Begashaw. Ironically, he too takes his work from Braukamper whose work has already been proven fringe. AcidSnow (talk) 21:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sock

Please don't engage in sock puppetry like you have been doing with the IP 70.74.238.17. Please see WP:SOCK while you're at it. AcidSnow (talk) 22:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]