Hello, Abcsomwiz!

I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

• Editing
• Referencing
• Images
• Tables
• Policies and guidelines
• Talk pages
• Navigating
• Manual of Style

---

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

---

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

• Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
• It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
• If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
• Always use edit summaries to explain your changes.
• When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
• If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
• Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:50, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes). This is a standard message to inform you that the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. Contentious topics are the successor to the former discretionary sanctions system, which you may be aware of. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. For a summary of difference between the former and new system, see WP:CTVSDS. Magherbin (talk) 17:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment, or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I thought I added the tildes.

Is it ok now? Abcsomwiz (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All good now, thanks. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Abcsomwiz,

You are very new to editing this project. I'm here to tell you that disputes between editors is extremely common. Reviewing content about conflicts is basically much of what I do all day as an administrator. We are here to handle misconduct but not to determine who is "right" in a disagreement about what content should be in an article.

The editor you are having a disagreement with is not an admin but they do have 6 years of experience editing. But what I don't think that you realize is that you added a LOT of content to the talk page Talk:Harla people. Typically when a new editor does this, they are ignored because others assume that they don't know much about how Wikipedia operates or our rules on sourcing and other policies. But this editor actually engaged with you about your ideas and suggestions. This doesn't happen often. While you two might disagree, they took your contributions seriously and offered you feedback, drawing on their experience as an editor which is invaluable. It is much better than being ignored.

If you thought you could pop on to Wikipedia and rewrite an article to your preference without interference, well, that's not how Wikipedia works. Editors are regularly challenged when make large additions or removals on content. And you are editing in an area of the project that is considered "Contetious" so there is extra scrutiny on editing here (see the message on your User talk page above).

I recommend that you find a way to work with the other editor and if you can't resolve your differences, try going to Wikipedia:Third opinion which is a resource to use when there are two editors who disagree. Only resort to noticeboards if there is misconduct or vandalism going on as they are generally an unfriendly place, especially for new editors.

And for general questions you have about editing on this project, I always direct new editors to the Teahouse which is staffed by experienced editors who are there to offer you advice and support. Good luck. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take your points and acknowledge that I was wrong.

I was just frustrated but I didn't realise the large amount of text would be a negative rather than evidence for the proposed edits. Abcsomwiz (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say I didn't think I could just do what I want. It just seemed like sources were being rejected for no reason. Abcsomwiz (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Third opinion

Hello! Abcsomwiz, you are invited to the Teahouse, a forum on Wikipedia for new editors to ask questions about editing Wikipedia, and get support from peers and experienced editors. Please join us! Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Timtrent was:

This is a WP:COATRACK. Instead, write the articles listed

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:List of Somali Inventions and Discoveries and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Ruwaayad. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:36, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Gabay (Poetry). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to Shareero. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thank you. Tbh I wanted them to be a draft but it published it live and I didn't know how to undo it Abcsomwiz (talk) 06:40, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Meemo (company), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meemo (company) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Shareero. Thanks! Greenman (talk) 09:35, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MrOllie (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

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

---

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

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:35, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, why have you done this? I'm not aware of breaking any rule the closest was the 3 revert rule but I did not pass 3 ?? Abcsomwiz (talk) 13:00, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked as a sock... 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who requested this? I never even edited Wiki until recently? Abcsomwiz (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish apparently checkuser'd you. Appeal the block if you will 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked another cu to check my work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow-up. I appreciate that you asked another cu to check. I would like to clarify that I am not the same person as the user I was blocked for allegedly being connected to. I'm not evading a block or ban, and I have not used multiple accounts for any illegitimate purpose.

I'm happy to answer any questions that may help clarify the situation. I'm also willing to follow any guidance to contribute constructively moving forward. However, some of the potentially relevant context may involve private information that is not appropriate to share here. Abcsomwiz (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

use the WP:UTRS 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you requesting deletion of all my pages before they've even confirmed what they were doing?? Abcsomwiz (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should be focusing on the appeal. You can always WP:REFUND the articles if it appears to have been a mistake 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 13:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you labelling academic work as a hoax? Abcsomwiz (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

because somalia didn't invent coffee. Plus @MrOllie said that the citation you added to the article does not mention Somalia at all [1] 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 14:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate being falsely accused.

I admit there were some errors in the wording of the section, however, you are accusing me of a deliberate attempt to falsify information. The claim made is backed by academic evidence. Whilst the cited source does not mention Somalia, the historical polity mentioned included large portion of the modern nation as it was a regional power. Additional sources can be included to specify the territorial extent of this historical polity and others that mention it in relation to the Somali. 'Drink' I suppose can go pending review of available academic sources.

It can be viewed as poor/incomplete edit and can be changed to reflect the country forming part of old historical polity associated with it. Unless you just believe the Horn was not involved at all?? I have seen other lists where a country is mentioned if it formed part of older territory where something was invented/practiced.

On the other hand, you seem to oppose literally anything regardless of the academic evidence provided. Respectfully, simply asserting a claim does not make it so and there is academic consensus on its origin in the Horn of Africa. It seems to me that you are just insisting on a position you favour rather than considering all evidence and making neutral judgement. Abcsomwiz (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not appreciate being falsely accused. I admit there were some errors in the wording of the section
Well then, you haven't been falsely accused.

The Adal Sultanate stuff is already in the third paragraph of the lede and the first paragraph of the Coffee#Historical transmission section. There is no reason to include it for the third time. There is nothing else for me to say other than next time try not to issue personal attacks towards other editors, if there is a next time 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 15:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you I was confused? I apologise if it came across that way Abcsomwiz (talk) 15:41, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I read it again I would like to apologise once again and wish you well Abcsomwiz (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How can modern eastern Ethiopia be associated with the term "Somali" from a historical perspective, given that it was never included in the contemporary state of Somalia established in the 1960s? Even if one contends that the Adal region extended into what is now Somalia, it is important to note that the Adalites communicated in a unique language and designated regions using their own linguistic terms. This linguistic heritage explains why certain islands such as Abd al Kuri currently belonging to Yemen are of Adal origin; for instance, "Kuri" translates to pond in the Adalite language. Magherbin (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is 'eastern Ethiopia' not almost entirely inhabited by Somalis?

What you are doing here is akin to erasing the Germans who lived beyond modern Germany and who were finally ethnically cleansed from central/Eastern Europe.

Modern 'eastern Ethiopia' does not need to be included in the contemporary Somali state to be included in a wider historical discussion of a now defunct polity!

There is no evidence for your last two sentences whatsoever and I never claimed it was an ethno-state anyways so this is a pointless tangent. Furthermore, whatever they speak, they had nothing to do with the Abyssinian highland kingdom that would after Menelik's conquest become known as 'Ethiopia'. It is anachronistic to describe a vast region as 'Ethiopia' in an historical period where it wouldn't exist until centuries later- this is why I stuck to ethnic label/s or label of this regional polity which I repeated spanning multiple present day countries and was not limited to Somali territory I have already acknowledged the errors in the present wording. You are projecting a state and identity onto people/s who not only did not identify that way but fiercely resisted it. Abcsomwiz (talk) 17:03, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]