User talk:Halaqah

I TRIED TO BE ON SEMI-HOLIDAY. I Tried to retire, But every time I try to get out someone (does nonsense) and pulls me BACK

Hello. Have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethiopia? —Viriditas | Talk 23:14, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a dispute over at Mohammed Al Amoudi about his ancestry. Can you help out and arbitrate? — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 21:21, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i will try .--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 22:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope it Will help [1]--203.173.50.197 12:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks , we know this is true, but they will not allow the site because it is a blog, hence anyone could have written it. dont worry he is one person pushing a serious pov, i saw his activity re-writing the def of Arab, saying they were a white race. his agenda has been exposed.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 12:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see on your userpage, you describe how you have spent a long time studying African. What do you mean? The language? The culture? The lot? Rosenkreuz 13:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the lot--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 13:58, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I changed the bit saying "denied" to "stated", more neutral. - Francis Tyers · 14:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Halaqah, please be mindful of your reverting relative to the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. I strongly recommend you read that policy for I believe you are already in violation of it. The individuals whom you are reverting against have a history of relying upon 3RR enforcement to block those with whom they are in content disagreeance. (→Netscott) 15:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For what is he best known in areas of Africa beyond the points you have contention with? (→Netscott) 15:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you honestly say that were it not for the controversies he has created he would be known across the world? I tend to agree with User:Beit Or (who I have conflicted with in the past) when he says that Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani isn't as well known as Ahmadinejad precisely because Rafsanjani was never anywhere near as controversial. (→Netscott) 15:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it appears that you are describing your perceptions for what he is known in Ethiopia but again can you honestly say that he's known for those perceptions in places like Russia or other countries in Asia? Essentially what I am asking is what can be said about what he is generally known for across the globe? I will be surprised if you respond that he is best known in the world relative to what you've described. (→Netscott) 15:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Will Beback · † · 19:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted Will Beback, the administrator who blocked you, and he says he is willing to reduce the block if you promise to discuss controversial changes to articles on article talk pages before you make them. I hope you decide to do this, and keep on editing Wikipedia. KazakhPol 21:28, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you run into the position in which you want the page reverted, but you cant revert because of WP:3RR, contact me and I will be more than happy to assist. KazakhPol 19:54, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added citation tags there, but feel free to remove the whole section, because it's pretty much nonsense. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 00:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Might I politely suggest that your most recent posting at Talk:Kwanzaa sounds like you are asserting control or ownership over the article, and that Telling People What To Do often has exactly the opposite effect from what you intend. Declarations like that are waving a red flag at a bull. Just a thought. (You are of course correct -- consensus is clear that the article is about Kwanzaa, and that unsavory facts about Karenga belong on his page. I'm just referring to the tone of the comment, not the content.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how anything i my comments could suggest that, people using the Kwanzaa page to attack and critic Karenga is very popular and despite making it clear they continue. You have unsuccesful interprited what i have said. It is a valid statement which says these wild pov to discredit kwanza by injuring karenga cannot be allowed and i will delete them if they continue. i c no issue with that , it isnt open season on Karenga and he doesnt have an entire camp to protect him like some people on wikipedia, its not fair, and i am fed up of the attacks by lazy people who hate any progressive succesful african that makes black people African--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 07:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry you seem not to have understood the intent of my message; we're not on different sides here, and I've been protecting that article from vandals since long before you started editing here -- and this includes working keeping irrelevancies and side issues out of the article, and working to maintain the consensus to do so. No, I don't catch every single one of them, and I'm glad you're there too. Note that it's not all vandalism -- a good argument can be made that perhaps more detail about Karenga should be in the article, but the consensus is that less is better than more in this case, and edits against consensus aren't necessarily vandalism. (Depends how persistent the individual is.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah. Unfortunately, there's no shortage of both virulent and subtle racists in pretty much every sector of the World Wide Web, and that most certainly includes Wikipedia. Some think that's a function of the whiteboy geekdom domination of the medium, and it might be -- I necessarily have a blind spot in that regard, being a whiteboy geek. I think it's more general -- there are a lot of jerks in the world, and an inordinate number of them have learned to use computers. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 07:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

they attack kwanza, karenga farrakhan, y? mayb something they r saying.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm basing my edits on the standard modern Arabic-English scholarly dictionary, while it seems extremely likely that you wouldn't even know how to use an Arabic dictionary, it's highly hubristic of you to accuse me of "vandalism"[sic]. If you can't conduct an honest disagreement without stooping to accusactions of "vandalism"[sic], then it reflects negatively on yourself, not to mention being rather poor form according to the conventions of Wikipedia. Furthermore, I notice that from the contents of this user talk page that you've been blocked or suspended multiple times, while I never have been once -- so according to that criterion, you're the "vandal"... AnonMoos 02:32, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes i get blocked so what? Look at why i get blocked. u cant revert against a ref all the time, why r u doing this to what end. keep adding something against the 3 seperate refernce, 3 sources say East African. black people is a broad social construction, you can delete this if you like. i bring a case and you just revert it. because of one outdated source which is a rude generalized book of ancient terms like Negro.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 02:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your request but I really don't have any expertise on the subject. I just noticed a blatant heckler edit, and took the liberty to revert. This was because of my ...um... frequent bickering with this person. Ya know? I may begin some studying on the subject. Then I may attempt to contribute, if I feel it's helpful. I will though, watch the subject because I am interested. Jeeny 20:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Okay, I'll keep an eye on the article. I understand as I've been a little busy with other issues today. LOL. Not with youknowwho though, thank goodness. Keep up the good work. I really admire your passion. :) __Jeeny 22:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

After doing more research on the issue of black=Zanj I have to agree that it does mean just that. From my research, as far back as c.750 Arabs began traveling to East and West Africa for gold and other reasons. They did meet up with the black Africans. According to Arabic dictionary zanj does refer to Black people of Africa. I don't know about now, because of all the intermarriage that resulted from their travels many years ago the people resulted in the darker Arab featured peoples of North Africa today. Anyway, I have a friend who is from Iraq, and he confirmed it. I also did research and found that at least a form of it does, or did refer to black Africans (people) and also in a similar, but different form means black in some Turkish. I made a comment of the Zanj talk page too. I feel it does have value per encyclopedic use. History and life is not fair, but truth is truth. Maybe it has changed since. But, it was used in that sense, at least at one time. (And some Arabs still use the term, from what my friend said) I have other issues with the Black people page though. That is all messed up. <shrug> __Jeeny 03:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering about your addition of Category:Pan-Africanism to the article. What I know of Williams doesn't come across as a Pan-Africanist at all. Do you have a source calling him this? Guettarda 22:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting here because of some problems ongoing on the Kriss Donald page. Basically it's similar to what happened with the reverse discrimination page - someone is trying to present a biased perspective by adopting the language of a particular point of view and repeatedly reverting against inclusion of material which doesn't fit into this POV. This user has argued that patently relevant material is irrelevant, that anti-racist views are "tiny minority" and that the positions taken in anti-racist sociology and postcolonial theory are irrelevant.

While I'm aware there's a few problems with my own contribution, I don't really have time to clean them up when they'd just get deleted anyway.

-82.31.15.153 04:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you try tagging the article with {{onesource}}? Also, does this source meet WP:RS? Perhaps you can improve the article by adding additional sources. Khoikhoi 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 04:59, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halaqah -- I'm dropping a note about the rating of Environmental issues in Ethiopia: I moved it down from "Top" to "Mid" "High", mostly because I'm not comfortable about rating it at this importance without a discussion. (It would also help if related articles for other African countries had a comparable rating -- or even any rating at all.) I'm not hard-&-fast on this, nor is this intended as a reflection on you, (nor do I want to get into an edit war about this), so I'd like to discuss this over on this article's Talk page. -- llywrch 20:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my rating of importance wasn't about whether the article was complete, it was about its importance rating -- Top, High, Mid, Low. If you feel that it should be rated Top, let's discuss it at Talk: Environmental issues in Ethiopia. (If not, don't answer & I'll work on something else.) As a last note, if you are looking for more information for that article, the Oromia Reginoal government website was a lot of information on its economy & ecology at http://www.oromiagov.org/gerenal.asp that you might find useful. -- llywrch 01:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If its just one editor place warnings after each of its edits then report at WP:AIV after the forth for a block. Gnangarra 09:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just been browsing at some of your contributions, in particular the stuff about Desmond Tutu at talk:racism. You've certainly picked yourself some tough battles! Anyway, I just want to offer you a little moral support. I've encountered similar tactics in my own corner of Wikipedia and the experience has been far from pleasant.

I added a comment at the end of all that stuff about Desmond Tutu by the way. If you ever want me to take a look at something that is going on then please ask and I will do my best (inbetween whatever I am doing in real life of course).

For maximum long-term sanity always remember to breathe slowly and deeply, take wikibreaks when you need to, and never edit on an empty stomach. Ireneshusband 22:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are right, Khoisan were often classified as coloureds, but I cannot imagine that this was done to create more tension between them and the Zulu (in areas where Khoisan mostly lived during the Apartheid (Northern Cape) there were hardly any Zulus, so this claim doesn't make much sense to me). I haven't found much literature on the topic, there is a general article on Nama in Richtersveld with few facts about the Apartheid time (Berzborn, Susanne. 2003. “Ek is ‘n Nama want ek praat die taal”. The Richtersveld and the national language policy in South Africa. In T. Hohmann, ed., San and the state. Contesting land, development, identity and representation, 327-367. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag), but it might be difficult to get (depending on where you are). The mere fact of classifying Khoisan as Coloureds is stated for instance in Saunders, Christopher, and Nicholas Southey, 2001, A Dictionary of South Africa History. Cape Town & Johannesburg: David Philip.
Greetings, Newydd, 11 January, 2007

do u have any info on the khoisan under apartheid? i read they were sometimes clased as colored to create more tension between them and zulu people.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 23:39, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey Halaqah, if you are trying to recreate Arabic حَلَقَة, the correct Ge'ez script would be ሐላቃህ. Arabic ta-marbuta (ة) usually corresponds to EthioSemitic "-at" (for Ge'ez) or "-et" like Hayaah/Hayaat vs. Hiywet. Also, arabic short "a" corresponds with first order "-e," so it would be "ለ" to make it cognate, but "ላ" just to recreate the same sound (compare Shermut'a - ሸርሙጣ, vs. Arabic Sharmut'a with short "a"). Just a suggestion. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now i can spell my username, but the (ቃ) isnt that like Kebe a very K sound as opposed to a "QUAH"?---HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:21, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"ቃ" is the ejective "k," yes, but it's spelled "q," because that's what it means. Think of the letter "q" and "ቃ," don't they look alike? They both come from the same ancient Egyptian hieroglyph. Whenever the word in arabic has qaaf, it has "ቃ" in Ethiopian languages (think Qemis, for example, which is a loan from Arabic, which in turn is from Aramaic). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 01:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling my edits "vandalism" when you know very well that they're not "vandalism", and stop calling them "unsourced" when you know very well that I've given multiple sources on past occasions. This does nothing whatsoever to lay the groundwork for futre constructive and mutually productive discussion. If your Arabic is up to par, then please inform yourself by looking up the meanings of the words زنج and related words derived from the same triliteral root ز ن ج in a suitable Arabic dictionary. If the state of your skills is such that you are not able to look things up in an Arabic dictionary in this way, then you probably shouldn't be trying to lay down the law on the meaning of Arabic words. AnonMoos 20:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, you added the RFC to the "certified" section of page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct when your request was NOT "certified" (and in fact you hadn't even begun to go through the first necessary steps of starting up an RFC process) -- this is incompetent at best, and deceptive at worst. Furthermore, considering that you have constantly been accusing me of being racist and a bigot, and calling my edits "vandalism" when you know very well that they aren't vandalism, and calling my edits "unsourced" when you know very well that they aren't "unsourced", and dismissing standard scholarly linguistic sources like the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic without offering the slightest relevant reasons for doing so, and without bringing in any relevant sources of your own, you're treading upon a very thin ice of hypocrisy here, since your own behavior would seem to be far from being above reproach.

Of course, I'm still waiting for you to either look up the meanings of the words زنج and related words derived from the same triliteral root ز ن ج in a suitable Arabic dictionary and report back the results, or to admit that the state of your skills is such that you are not able to look things up in an Arabic dictionary in this way. Doing either one of these would do much to clear the air (but judging by your past performances, you'll do neither). AnonMoos 20:52, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed to be an Arabic speaker, and have never claimed that my knowledge of the Arabic language to be anything other than it is -- based exclusively on written Arabic, using knowledge derived from dictionaries and grammars of written Arabic, aided slightly by my knowledge of ancient Hebrew and comparative Semitic linguistics. So what I know is what is in my dictionaries (which include the standard modern scholarly English-Arabic dictionary). Halaqah in that form (with three syllables) is not included in the standard modern scholarly English-Arabic dictionary, so it would appear not to be a common form in Modern Standard Written Arabic (though several other words with meanings somewhat similar to "circle" derived from root ح ل ق do appear in this dictionary). Halaqah could very well be a popular word in several spoken vernacular dialects, but that is not a kind of Arabic that I have tried to learn or have ever claimed to have any knowledge of.

Meanwhile, Halaqah is not relevant to article Zanj, but زنج , زنوج , and زنجي are highly relevant, so that it would greatly facilitate bringing this matter to a conclusion if you could look these words up in an Arabic dictionary, and report back what you find.

And if you would stop calling my edits "vandalism" when you know very well that they aren't vandalism, and calling my edits "unsourced" when you know very well that they aren't "unsourced", that would pretty much end the "personal attacks"... AnonMoos 21:18, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never attacked your knowledge start there, u attacked mine. What does Sudan mean, but you have the Arabic def for Sudan for Arabic, is this correct?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since consistently from beginning to end you have never employed your claimed Arabic knowledge in any way that would be useful for settling the disputed points about article Zanj, that naturally serves to create doubt concerning the status of your aforesaid claims. And I discussed the meaning of Sudan (as well as the fact that "Zanj" in Arabic does not mean "black" in the sense of the abstract color) in old Decemnber comments on Talk:Zanj. AnonMoos 21:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed your "Where is the source?" ranting from my user talk page, since my primary source (as I've said repeatedly over and over again many times) is the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic and other comprehensive scholarly Arabic dictionaries -- which all say basically the same thing, and which you haven't presented anything relevant to cast into question. (I actually have other sources, which we could get to if and when you ever get around to acknowledging the dictionaries, and stop trying to prove that Hans Wehr beat his wife.) AnonMoos 21:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What "three sources" are those? The burden is on you to show that these sources, whatever they are, prove the incorrectness of the the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic and the other other comprehensive scholarly Arabic dictionaries -- which all say basically the same thing. So far you haven't presented the slightest evidence that anything in any sources does any thing to cast any doubt on the accepted linguistic facts of the Arabic language. AnonMoos 21:48, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed your second round of "NO SOURCE!" ranting from my user talk page, since you know very well (as I've said repeatedly over and over and over again many many times) that my primary source is the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic and other comprehensive scholarly Arabic dictionaries -- which all say basically the same thing, which you haven't presented the slightest relevant information to cast into question... AnonMoos 21:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source, the user doesnt understand you must add valid source, inline sources. You cant tell me some book says so, i am an editor not a reader. You are giving misinformation without evidence in the article of where it comes from. you have mangled or confused the def of zanj with Sudan, two different words. Sudan is a place (land of the Blacks) Zanj was a term for some East Africans, excluding groups like the Dinka, an many Sourthern Ethiopian poeple. Zanj doesn mean Black people as this term includes too many ethnic groups and Zanj was not inclusive of these groups.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't tell me what I am finding and not finding in the dictionary, when what you are saying is contradicted by the direct and immediate evidence of my own eyes. Root س و د (from which words meaning "black" in the sense of an abstract color are derived) is defined on page 513 of the dictionary, while root ز ن ج (whose historically-changing range of meanings I have adequately explained in past comments on Talk:Zanj) is defined on pages 445-446 of the book. These entries are over 50 pages apart in the dictionary.

I'm perfectly happy to add a formal reference to the Dictionary of Modern Written Arabic in article Zanj, but the process is not facilitated by you telling me things which I know are factually false. AnonMoos 22:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how one dictonary could be Gods final word on anything, how it could be such an authority, why? if that is true everything on wiki should be deleted and replaced with what some dictonary says. Should we do that, delete all the zanj content and let this Arab-English dictonary tell us all about the Zanj?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an "article", it's a book of 1,301 pages (4th edition of 1994). The root ز ن ج appears on pages 444-445, and the dictionary definitions of the various forms derived from this root are pretty much what I already gave you in my December comments on Talk:Zanj (don't feel like retyping those in here). AnonMoos 22:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

y r u giving them to me, give them as stated in the source, i am just an editor, And dont change my sources to fit your definition. how can this be valid, you can only state your source dont change mine, to fit yours. or are you saying your sources are better? --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:28, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey dude, I think we had that Dravidian issue allready on th black people page. We discussed it before.---> Dravdians (Indians) do not belong into the Black people article. I removed it from the Sociopolitical definitions, but let it ont the Criticism of definitions part. Nirmala Rajasinghams POV isn't whished either. thx ****Asian2duracell 00:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)****[reply]

How do you know i am not a Nubian Queen? I am not from Cali, and dont plan to go back to Cali anytime soon--re LL cool J.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why, isn't Cali nice? Anyway, I don't really understand why your page has been nominated twice for Afd, you surely noted that the second time apart of being an anon, the user only tags user:page. He's obviously mistaking Wikipedia for a social networking site. I really don't understand why you are asked (by whom?) to "clean-up" your page, I've looked a bit in the history and there is nothing shocking in it, no hate speech that I've seen of, so it's totally tolerable. Just compare the loads of non-sense you find on thousands of others user-pages. Beside, you'll surely love that advertisement here... Cheers mate! Tazmaniacs

WP:NOT#SOAPBOX. That thing about Archbishop Tutu was out of line. WP:NOT#MYSPACE. Userpages should relate to Wikipedia, not be a collection of random thoughts. And the image clearly violated fair use guidelines. Totally not tolerable. 132.161.187.62 19:53, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

when they cant stop you one way they try another and make a point out of it.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Y dont u show your face and show up as a real user. That "OUT OF LINE CONTENT" comes from his Dam page what are you talking about!!!!!!!!!!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want me to make a user account? What good would that do? 132.161.187.62 02:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha! Man, this user "Halaqah" seriously has some rage issues going on. I've been reviewing his edits especially and he removes ANYTHING that doesn't fit with his narrow minded views on the world, no matter how well sourced the contribution may be. Wikipedia needs less people like you "halakawakaaa"65.93.163.236 02:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say I completely disagree with your views on Israel, and even your edits, but I admire the way you handle yourself. I admire the way you deal with Humus, who I think is being a bit unfair to you, and presumptous perhaps at time. I just want to tell you that I'm Jewish and that even though I disagree with your views I respect your conduct and you bring credit to your position. Tell me if you need a hand on a certain article. Peace friend, --Urthogie 02:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am sending you this message in regards to a report I am filing against Asian2duracell to the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. He has been found guilty of racial intollerance, name calling, trolling, sock puppetry, and vandalism. All other methods of conflict resolution have been tried and failed. Please let me know that you are aware of this request and if you would like to participate in this. Regards. Wiki Raja 01:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, Raja got banned for.... (drumroll)... SOCK PUPPETRY! good job Raja! 65.93.163.236 02:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 3RR. Since this is your 3rd 3RR block I've made it 48 hours. I suggest that when you come back you discuss on the talk page making a compromise version of the Israel section. JoshuaZ 21:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could tell, the removal of the section was due not to vandalism but a claimed NPOV concern in the section. As has apparently already been explained to you on prior occasions, calling something vandalism does not make it so. I again repeat my earlier comment and suggest that you hammer out a compromise version of the section on the talk page. JoshuaZ 19:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as i can tell wiki works on discussion before making controversial deletions of entire sections. Given the balance of power, it is clear that no criterion will be good enought for inclusion of any critic of the state of Israel. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

do you have unresolved issues with israel? i'd be happy to share of my knowledge. Jaakobou 23:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note: this is not meant as a personal attack but more of an inquery in regards to your general recent edits. Jaakobou 10:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment please use the sandbox. Thank you.

"And when i first started doing some non-related research, i started to realize most of the cover-up surrounded Israel." ^[2]

this type of language both assumes lack of good faith and is defamatory to anyone editing the israel-palestinian related categories. if you have issues with regards to a topic you can deal with it in the proper channels rather than make accusations. Jaakobou 10:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:500yearslater.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your arguments are barely intelligable. If you wish to get outside opinion on this matter file and RfC. Paul B 09:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you didn't delete undisputed facts as "OR" without even checking on them and them=n make confontational comments on talk pages then there would be no edit war. The Jackson connection is already explained in current footnote. More can easily be added. Why don't you try reading up on the subject before you start cutting material. Paul B 09:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see this pro-Farrakhan site http://www.blacksandjews.com/Nyhan_Globe.html. Paul B 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could provide me a diff of which version you think I restore. The history is a complete mess with everybody throwing accusations at each other, and it is very hard for the uninitiated to separate the slander from the general mudslinging behind the scenes. – riana_dzasta 10:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted to that version. Tell me if you need anything else. – riana_dzasta 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the entire allegiations of anti-Zionism for now. I'm not going to be online for about half an hour, but please leave me a message either on my talk or on the article talk if you need anything else out. – riana_dzasta 11:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to invite you to help me putting Coulter on the Anti-Islam Sentiment category, as well as putting islamophobia in her See Also section. We both know islamophobia is very pertinent to Ann Coulter, but there are some Coulter lovers on her page who seen eager to remove any information that could lead people to the conclusion that she is a bigot. Thank you. CuriousDog 14:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is afraid of Islamism, this doesn't make him an Islamophobe. --Vladko 19:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it technically does. 65.93.163.236 00:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These guys dont stop. it is like the only thing they can do is cause trouble. Look at "Janjaweed" article Once again they have written "Arab tribes who've long been at odds with African farmers". this time they put link to a "UN" definition site to back it up, I will try to change it to Arab African, or "Arab speaking African militias" against non-arab african farmers" or sth. But their source is complete LIE. It is a UN definition page but it looks suspect. I think anyone can add definitions, and on the actual site , the main one unterm.un.org it says it is not endorsed by UN and it is being searched for discrepancies etc. But i may need your help, they have made it look pretty professional.

Hope to hear from you soon.

Gmflash 06:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is the problem with Wiki, Mob rule, and very difficult to stop. True or false, doesnt matter. You change it, they revert it. They cite CNN and that is like God Speaking. Personally i have lost interest in Wiki as most pages exposed to these kinds of people have no hope of reflecting balance.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes i know - i have lost interest too - but i still do it. because we need balance man. You would think they would have better things to do but they really dont. The only thing we can do is keep trying to get the balance out there, get the truth out there. even if it is simply a neutrality tag or something, it makes a difference to one person reading it and thinking it has an agenda and the same person reading it and trusting it/believing the lies.

Gmflash 12:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha im glad you are back in if this is the case. I've seen your contributions and its good to know you are an editor of wiki man. we have stayed and are trying to present balance and they are still putting out their propaganda, imagine if we just left it, if all the open minded ppl from wiki left, it would be overrun by bigots and ppl with an agenda, imagine the trash going into ppls minds! But it truly is sad that its is the 21st century and still ppl have the same agendas as 200, or even 2000 yrs ago, - vilifying ppl, spreading hate, lies, deception etc. All thats changed now is that it is easier for them because of technology!

Gmflash 12:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to avoid this whole controversy by not even including ethiopians. Deeceevoice wanted to so I am doing my best to reach a compromise. I know this issue has caused stress in the past, so I wish to handle it as delicately as possible Iseebias

Hal I've now made the wording even more neutral. All it says is that scientists know very little about the ancestry of North/East Africans. You have to remember that because of the controversy over ancient egyptians this is a huge area of controversy so I'm trying to be as neutral as possible. Please read what I've done Iseebias

Ramadan riots which is actually the same thing as French riots. Claims that the french unrest in the ghetoes was motivated by hatred of jews and christians as allegedly commanded by the quran, rather than povery, discrimination, and alienation of arab and black people in france. Aaliyah Stevens 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should arab and black people stay in a xenophobic country like France? Why don't they join their Muslim brothers in a Sharia country? --Vladko 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated your userpage for deletion per WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, among other WP:USERPAGE violations. Just so you know. 132.161.33.98 19:47, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed a fair use image from your page. I don't have the link handy, but if you look around you'll find that such images can only be used on appropriate articles in the article namespace, and never on userpages. 132.161.187.62 00:21, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What polite people do is advise a user of an issue, they dont nominate something for deletion. i just removed the content so now what is your issue?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 01:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No issue. Thank you for removing the offending contents from your user page. Hopefully now my MfD will fail and we can be done with this. I'll ask you, though, to keep in mind the userpage contents guidelines in the futures. Word. 132.161.187.62 07:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This was quite ill mannered of who ever was editing at that IP. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 05:14, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your opinion, jpgordon. I value the input of others. 132.161.187.62 07:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that section gave way too much weight to a narrow discussion about ethiopians. It wasn't me who introduced it. In fact I tried to remove it twice & the person accused me of trying to censor scientific information. So finally I went along with it & tried to make it better, but I'm glad you removed it because it will cause instability Iseebias

Okay Isseebias, now it is gone. its all strange to me, why Ethiopia? 1 country one race the Amhara and Tigre? y focus on them. anyway.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:54, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the compromise of 8 lines. It removes a lot of the Ethiopian focus, and boils everything down to 8 lines, much shorter than the huge amounts of space devoted to Genesis, black baketball players, filmakers, or white guys in South Africa saying colored people look mixed. It confirms your point about the double standard in definign balck people. It could work. Take a look and see.

NEW SECTION:

A number of other scholars (Keita and Kittles, Armelagos, et al.) have challenged methods used to define black peoples as using pre-determined, arbitrary categories to cluster various African peoples. In particular, questions center on studies putting populations like the Nubians, Ethiopians, and others into Caucasoid or "mixed" groupings. [63]. It is argued that black peoples vary in skin color, hair, facial features, etc. just like other human populations, and cannot be pigeonholed into narrow clusters, nor are these variations always the result of mixed races. Critics charge that too often methods define a "true" black somewhere south and all others not meeting the narrow, stereotypical definition are assigned elsewhere.[64] They call for a truer picture of the geentic diversity of black peoples and less arbitrary categorizing.[65]

Adrunkman 05:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, please see the archives of Talk:Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This has been discussed at GREAT length, and the consensus is to retain those categories and remove Category:Anti-Semitic people. Please do not remove information from wiki pages to fit your particular Point-of-view, as that may be considered both a POV violation as well as vandalism. Thank you. -- Avi 20:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to review WP:BLP. Well-sourced statements are 'not volations. Continue this disruption, and you will be blocked to prevent further disruption of wikipedia. -- Avi 20:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom avi, seems a little strong form of action. Am i not free to edit this page? or is there a new rule the 2rr rule in place?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been an extreme amount of discussion regarding these categories, which needs not be rehashed every few months. In a nutshell, the fact that MA is notable regarding anti-semitism is unvarnished fact. Whether he himself is anti-semitic is not. That he is anti-Israel and anti-Zioistic is. That is the reason for the particular distribution of the tags. Is there new information otherwise? Also, WP:BLP says:

We must get the article right. Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately, and without discussion from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space.

— WP:BLP

We HAVE high-quality references regarding the anti-semitism. Thanks. -- Avi 20:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay i agree, but why then have all the other tags. Holocaust denier, antizionism on and on, isnt anti-S enought? i am intrested because i was in the ann coulter debate and it was the opposite verdict.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 21:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VINDICATED AGAIN. Ha Ha. Its been a few years but my initial objection seems to have worked out. This pro-Zionist nonsense Wiki was being used for. De Cat be DEAD. So much for all what Avi said above. Happy Sukkot--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 07:51, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the deletion discussion about your userpage here. Please take a moment to review the userpage guidelines when you have a moment. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 02:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is an interesting discussion at the ANI. One of your diffs was cited, and 'educational' blocks have been threatened. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Personal attacks and claims of COI. For some reason, the threatening user, User:Jayjg, did not notify the people he was considering as targets. Somehow that seems contrary to the 'educational' objective. I thought you'd like to know. The Behnam 08:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

intrsting i only edit so i dont understand some of the terms and policies, but its seems jigs got save by all the fam faces. there is a quality issue and if wiki needs to remain trusted i think it needs to look in2 certain areas. people have eyes and they start to notice stuff.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 09:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those "familiar faces" you mention are actually familiar with wikipedia policy, and apply it properly, as opposed to reactionism. Just an idea . -- Avi 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed fine to me. You can also try AfD if you think your proposal will be controversial. Khoikhoi 04:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thnks, i gues it was 2 contro after all--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 08:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the edits you made to Template:African American ethnicity, as your edit summary indicated you may be pushing a particular point of view. I can understand your sentiment and personally agree with you, but I think you discuss this issue on the template's talk page before re-making these edits. Thanks! Natalie 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

take a look and c why i made those changes, thank U. we dont need an edit war over something like this, if we agree then let it b. all my changes r valid, to reflect the photo. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been invited to join the WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort focused on improving Wikipedia's coverage of Africa. If you'd like to join, just add your name to the member list. Thanks for reading!

Belovedfreak 20:09, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got hooked up!--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did, indeed! Congratulations! 132.161.187.25 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! This award is in recognition of you having been "hooked up" with WikiProject Africa! It is a disco ball (or something)! YAYS and HUZZAHS! 132.161.187.25 22:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say on your userpage that Nok was the first iron-age civ in Africa "and in the world". The Iron Age began 700 years earlier in the near and middle east, than it did in Nok. Perhaps there's some truth to the Igbo Jews' assertion that they're descended from refugees from the Assyrian Siege of Jerusalem or Babylonian Conquest of Jerusalem after all. Tomer^talk 01:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew this info, i have to check this out. What i find intresting is how peoples have been mixing and moving around long b4 the history books claim. The Biblical world traditionally has been so narrow, now we are seeing the world is more inclusive than ever b4. chow.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's rather annoying of you to have again gone back to your old unpleasant and unconstructive practice of describing as "vandalism" edits which you know very well are NOT "vandalism". Furthermore, your "dispute" tags have been removed on two separate occasions by people (not me) who have seen no validity to your objections, and your statement of the alleged "dispute" is garbled and incomprehensible. Since no one who has come across the article page Zanj or the talk page Talk:Zanj has seen any validity in your arguments (and you still stubbordnly refuse to either look up Zanj in an Arabic dictionary, or admit that you're incapable of doing so), it could well be argued that it's your edits which should be considered borderline vandalism. AnonMoos 23:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you noticed that when the dispute tags where moved the article was not how you constantly revert it to. or didn you notice your version is not the version that people have removed the dispute tags from. ur a disruptive editor as i have sourced my content and shown your mistakes, my sources are clear. U have mistakes in the opening translation, i have tags to say this is not in any reference. YOu delete that 2. Do not enage me in what i should do,or where i should look. edit the article not me, my ref add up.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 23:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, I did absolutely nothing whatsoever when you added a "dispute" tag to article Zanj, not once, but twice -- I let events play out and fully take their slow course, which was that BOTH TIMES the dispute tag was removed by SOMEONE ELSE (not me) who saw no merit in your arguments (in fact, no one who has come along on the article page or the talk page has ever seen any merit in your arguments). Now, I'm not going to let you add a dispute tag for a third time, simply because you're either unwilling or incapable of looking up the word Zanj (and related words) in an Arabic dictionary (a very simple action on your part which could have ended this pointless dispute months ago). You're really going to have to try something else, because the adding of a dispute tag is done and over with and has a fork stuck in it with respect to this particular article -- it has not led to any productive results the last two times around, so it would be truly futile and meaningless to give it a third attempt. And you stalking me around (WP:STALK) and attempting to harass and intimidate me by following me around and reverting my edits on unrelated topics isn't going to change anything on article Zanj -- all it means is that you're going to get yourself in trouble and possibly get banned again (as you have been before). Maybe you should think things over a little more before resorting to such pointless behavior. AnonMoos 01:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else? cant get banned unless i break the rules now can i. u will get banned because you vandalise peoples content, u add original research, you have never added a reference. you edit blind. you violate civility, you call people dude. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 09:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see below: This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason. The important part is the disruption - disruption is considered harmful. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 13:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling something "original research" when you're very well aware that it's NOT "original research". Why do you do this? It doesn't have the effect of impressing anybody who knows the actual facts at issue, and it sure doesn't create a positive tone for future constructive and cooperative mutual collaboration! AnonMoos 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pls do not make personal attacks against me anymore, you have been warned about this. u will also find that you will not push me over in an area i am fully learned in.Your intrest are in disruptive vanity, to show again and again your new found knowledge. As i have discovered you were doing the same thing on another Arabic term page. With the same arguments forcing it into the argument. Yet you never showed any understanding of Arabic lingua Franca when i asked you, your technical Arabic is nice but this is wiki not technical Arabic School. --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 17:53, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who calls things "vandalism" when you're very well aware that they're NOT "vandalism", who calls things "unsourced" when you're very well aware that they're NOT "unsourced", and who calls things "original research" when you're very well aware that they're NOT "original research", so you're not in a very good position to start accusing others of personal attacks. Furthermore, if you're so "learned" on the subject matter, then why is it that you're absolutely and utterly unwilling or incapable of looking up the word Zanj زنج in an Arabic-English dictionary, a very simple step which could have settled this increasingly pointless dispute months ago??????

Furthermore, while my limited knowledge of Standard Written Arabic (backed up by linguistics and grammar) may be useless for striking up a conversation on the street in Cairo, it's actually a lot more relevant to the articles Zanj and Sham than your limited knowledge of informal spoken colloquial conversational dialect Arabic. AnonMoos 01:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been warned about vandalism, and apparent inability to use standard Arabic dictionaries. Also your disruptive edits to wiki in general will inspire us to suggest a block. You do not develp articles you troll and create problems with your pointless obsession with the race of Ethiopians. Christmasgirl

you are abusing these warnings, Christmasgirl. This is just wrong. You are being hypocritical. You revert pages you have no knowledge of, except little buzz words that you are obsessed with.

And use FOUR tildes to sign your post. Be respectful, and less vindictive. Halaqah has been working on the Zanj article and has put more effort into it than you. You have no right to put these warnings on her page because of your vandalizing of that article.

Your warning to this user is crazy, as it applies to you more so. Your accusation on the warning is exactly what you are doing. Your obsession with Black people and derogatory use of hybrid to refer to people of mixed ancestry is at best annoying. You are also vandalizing her user page. I believe you are a nuisance to the Wiki project. And should be banned. Jeeny 15:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Please no personal attacks. You calling me a troll here [3] was a direct and very serious violation of wikipedia civility policy. But far more serious than that was your comment that I would never marry a certain wikipedia editor because I wouldn't want to darken my purity.[4] This comment was extremely inappropriate and an extremely serious violation of wikipedia policy that is not constructive on any level. Christmasgirl

Blanking warnings from your talk page hides disputes you have been in and is considered vandalism. Please refrain from doing so repeatedly. Christmasgirl

Hi Halaqah, it is best to request page protection in the standard fashion (i.e. over at WP:RFPP) so that an uninvolved third party can take care of it. Best wishes, – riana_dzasta 02:57, 18 March 2007 (UTC) ill do dat.thnks --Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 03:07, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for violating the three-revert rule on Zanj. As this is your fourth violation, the block duration will be 72 hours. Please discuss controversial changes or request dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss your take on the disagreement here so we can move forward with this thing at the Galloway art. Thanks.--Jackbirdsong 01:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Asahilliard.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Africancode.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Halaqah, I made an edit to this page. It altered comments you had added. I am sure they are intended to be constructive, but they need to be a little clearer. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 04:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:BasilDavidsonbook.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 23:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:GAfrikancongress.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Gigialbumart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Runokorashidi.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Ethiopia museum old koran.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Angr 20:17, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Halaqah, can you answer this response soon? I don't want the image to be deleted. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 22:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry i was away.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 14:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:500yearslater2.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 11:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still in retirment as wiki is a joke and too many people who without license can do what they want. To the death of development. Anyone who was calling i am sorry i couldnt do my thing.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 15:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an afrocentrist encyclopedia! Your ideas about the Sahara are idiotic and do not hold! While you may desire the elimination of the divide, others do not and nor does fact! If you keep assuming that you are the sole ediotor you will be blocked! Mariam83 14:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged Image:Asantejrbookcover.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert my talk page. It is my right to blank my talk page once all messages have been read, particularly as I am solely interested in the content. Please refer to this page [5] for further information. Thank you. Mariam83 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not blank your talk page as you are hidding the remarks and warnings which expose your mindset and your conduct on wiki. your link is not relevant to the blanking of talk pages.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 19:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Barakaamiribook.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Vmaealbum.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 11:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I would ask you to take the numbers conflict to the talk page. The topic has been discussed there a few months ago and the 9.4 to 12 was somewhat of a consensus (somewhat because only 2 editors were involved in this discussion). I would ask you to name the "many African historians" there, so other contributors can check this. I'm personally not aware of any prominent contemporary historians who estimated numbers far out of this range as "arrivals". Thanks. Malc82 14:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not post copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder, as you did to Kimani Nehusi. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites (http://www.kimani.info/ in this case) or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

• If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Kimani Nehusi with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on the article Talk page. Alternatively, you may create a note on your web page releasing the work under the GFDL and then leave a note at Talk:Kimani Nehusi with a link to the details.

Otherwise, you are encouraged to rewrite this article in your own words to avoid any copyright infringement. After you do so, you should place a {{hangon}} tag on the article page and leave a note at Talk:Kimani Nehusi saying you have done so. An administrator will review the new content before taking action.

It is also important that all Wikipedia articles have an encyclopedic tone and follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you want to edit constructively, take a look at the welcome page. Thank you. Malc82 19:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "few lines" were the entire article except for the "professional memberships" and "external links" section. Please read WP:COPYVIO (and maybe WP:EQ) before calling this "silly". Thanks. Malc82 22:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EXACTLY A FEW LINES--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ 00:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the Sahara is a myth, then so is the mediterranean sea. The fact is, you are BLACK and sub-saharan africa means black, your history is different, you do not belong to north africa, which is a white, Arab, berber (and not the blacks who pretend to be berber), civilized region. I think you just have an inferiority complex, but don't forget that the north africans started the slave trade and that in north africa black illegal immigrants are attacked and were killed in Libya etc. Try becoming saudi arabia instead. You should distance yourself from people who enslaves your ancestors. Mariam83 15:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to the talk page of your excellent article on Accents · Michel 18:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:500yearsamharic.jpg. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 11:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have been reading your posts in the Islam and slavery discussion page. I agree with everything you write, and I believe that there is a concerted effort to paint Islam in a negative light, using Africans as a proxy. I suggest seeing these pages: http://www.zanzinet.org/zanzibar/images/ali_hamoud_sultan_of_zanzibar_scaled.jpg

http://www.zanzinet.org/zanzibar/historical_pictures.html

One can clearly see that the slave trade in Zanzibar was not racial, nor was it an Arab on black issue. As most Arabs in Zanzibar are black, themselves (Afro-Arabs). This also includes the Sultan, as shown in the image above (earlier sultans were clearly mixed). For more examples of black Arabs, one simply needs to research the “Janjaweed” of Sudan; those militia men responsible for the atrocities currently taking place in that country. Upon typing “Janjaweed” into Google image one is greeted by dozens of images of pure black Africans, armed to the teeth and dressed in Arab style. Watching the news or reading a Wikipedia article one would think that the Arabs in Sudan are Middle Eastern... They are black!

Blacks in Zanzibar were not only slaves. They were also rulers and respected members of society:http://www.zanzibarhistory.org/Zanzibar_Women.htm . Most of the slave trading that took place in Zanzibar was carried out by black people.

OREE ABOUT THE EAST AFRICAN SLAVE TRADE:

It is now an accepted fact among serious historians of East Africa that long distance trade routes between the interior and the coast were established exclusively through African initiative. In other words trade routes were forged by Africans from the interior going to the coast, not by the Arabs, or the Swahili, setting off from the coast into the unknown, hostile interior. Swahili traders only began to forsake the security of the coast in the second half of the eighteenth century, and travelled along well-established routes which had been developed decades before. Only after the nineteenth century was underway did Arab traders dare follow this lead. ^[1]

In West Africa these routes were driven inland from the coast by Africans who were primarily seeking slaves. Slaves dominated the West African trade from the first. In East Africa neither of these conditions was matched. The slave-trade must be seen in the context of earlier, well-established, and profitable long distance trade which was based overwhelmingly on ivory. This is particularly important to remember for the southern region which was always the main reservoir for the East African slave-trade. ^[2]

[Please leave me a message if you are interested in collaborating on making Wikipedia less of a anti-Islamic propaganda machine] --70.68.179.142 14:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sankofa.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Isispapers.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Osovdvd.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Themightygabby.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:500yearslater2.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Strothra 00:56, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Mayaalbumart.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Theidea.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Sankofafilm.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]