User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Feedback?

Bro, has the message gone through? --Scoobycentric (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Lol Bro i know what you mean, they are very biased and i think many nomads have found out by themselves this whole 'Pan-Madow/Africa' thing is in many ways anti-Dadkeena. I will keep an eye! The Somali studies article i did that in 5 min after i saw the Horn of Africa page lol but i'm impressed with how much the Somalist scholars articles have been expanded, good job! this will be of great help when we start expanding the new article.(expect many more new articles in the near future) --Scoobycentric (talk) 04:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Haye waan ku suugaya sxb i will reply thoroughly there aswell. The prominant Somalist scholars on the Somali studies article should have a list of at least 15/20 scholars with their discipline(s) next to their name. We can then add to that section 5 pictures of real influential scholars such as Siad S. Samatar,B.W. Andrzejewski,Muusa Haaji Galaal etc(i've seen B/W images of the last two but we have to find a way to get permission, maybe emailing their families - who are scholars in their own right - would be a good idea)--Scoobycentric (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Alright brother take your time! --Scoobycentric (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I added some info at the sports page section of the HOA article --Scoobycentric (talk) 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It's just a test, the template seems to suck up half of the article, i need to find out the problem first, the rest of your question waad garaanesa meesii ku soo diraya the reply Insha-allah --Scoobycentric (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Iman

It's only move-protected; it's not protected from editing in any way. It's a pretty standard thing to do when there's a dispute about page naming, and it's only temporary. Black Kite 09:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Sea article

Hi, this new section may need expansion Red Sea#Security. --Mr Accountable (talk) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Piracy Primary

RE undo of edits at revision [1], the use of a UN document so close to the tsunami disaster might seem like a primary source violation, but it's being cited by piracy apologists, and is therefore an appropriate source to cite. If you follow the discussion you'll note that UNEP folks have called for a full assessment, but none has been made. Therefore, i know of no better source addressing this issue. - Rgrant (talk) 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

i see you have the following concern.

UNEP's pronouncements were based on more than one report, not just one, as its spokesman Nick Nuttall himself has indicated.

i would be happy to see the article link to Nick's claims, so that the UNEP can act as a better source. note also that sometimes primary sources are accepted, and if, as in the UNEP article i quoted, they say "reportedly..." when introducing a claim, then it is not much "interpretation" to report such claim as unsourced by the report in question. i would further submit that a written report about an event is already a secondary source! - Rgrant (talk) 10:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me. Now let me quote for you the relevant policy on this issue:

"Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors."

Since the edit I originally removed was of an editor literally interpreting firsthand for readers what the UNEP report (i.e. the primary source) stated and sourcing that interpretation directly to the UNEP report itself, that is obviously and very much a WP:PRIMARY vio. It's as simple as that. Middayexpress (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Piracy in Somalia

Please could you take a one week holiday from Piracy in Somalia. I know that you mean well, and that your edits have significantly improved the article, but the editing that you and another user are doing is taking on characteristics of an edit war.

I will also take a one week holiday from this article as a gesture of good faith.--Toddy1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the editing does indeed appear to be moving in the direction you describe. However, that is bound to happen when folks are as obviously non-neutral as that other editor (have a look at this for examples of what I'm talking about). Don't get me wrong; I would love to take a break from the article, but only under the condition that the other editor does as well. But I'm still not sure if a one week lay off is enough to change a person's entire ethos. Remember, this is the editor that wrote "Personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals that cost the world billions of dollars and who have no problem hijacking shipments of UN food aid." Hardly neutral. Middayexpress (talk) 01:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Why exactly do you think I should change my entire ethos? Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about the editors having to be amoral in order to edit articles on criminals. Last I checked you can personally hate something on Wikipedia and still objectivity edit it and I have been trying my best to remove biased language, original research, and statements of fact from opinion pieces in the Piracy in Somali article. Of course like any person I have made and will make mistakes but I am reasonable and I am willing to listen. I am hoping that you are willing to do the same. --GrandDrake (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I asked the other editor to take a break from the article, and he agreed.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, but whether the other party is sincere remains to be seen. Middayexpress (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I was willing to do this to see if it could result in calmer and more objective discussion but you reverted my edit less than a day after this idea was proposed. As such how can you question my sincerity when you were the one who tossed out this idea in under a day? --GrandDrake (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your edit because it was not at all NPOV, as has quite clearly been explained on the article's talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 03:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

You have said in the Piracy in Somali talk page that "Ould-Abdallah has stated outright that there is both toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing going on, and he links them not just to European and Asian firms, but to European and Asian countries as well" but I would point out that last part is wrong. Though Ould-Abdallah has mentioned illegal fishing from European and Asian countries he never said that the countries were part of it. In fact Ould-Abdallah said that "I must stress however, that no government has endorsed this act, and that private companies and individuals acting alone are responsible". Could you explain why you have twice removed this quote? --GrandDrake (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Ould-Abdallah does indeed state outright that there is both toxic waste dumping and illegal fishing going on, and he links them not just to European and Asian firms, but to European and Asian countries as well:

"Because there is no (effective) government, there is so much irregular fishing from European and Asian countries," Ahmedou Ould Abdallah told reporters."

And no, I did not twice remove the Ould-Abdallah quote you added, as quite clearly explained to you here. Middayexpress (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that you had left in the Ould-Abdallah quote in your most recent edit and I apologize for saying that you had removed it. As for the quote you posted you should read it again. What it says is that "irregular fishing from European and Asian countries" and that is not an accusation that the countries did it. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't mean that "the countries did it". Countries aren't people; they are concepts, and as such, they don't ever literally do things. Only actual organisms such as humans do, and that is what I was obviously referring to. *Sigh* For the rest, your apologize is graciously accepted. Middayexpress (talk) 01:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Request to stop making personal comments in the Piracy in Somali talk page

Since you continue to make personal comments in the Piracy in Somali talk page I will try to explain this again. The reason I made the comment on "personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals" was in relation to the original research and statements of fact from opinion pieces that I have found in this article. I should not have posted that in the Somali pirates in Piracy in Somali talk page but I have requested twice now that you stop making personal comments in the Piracy in Somali talk page. Could you please do that? --GrandDrake (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was merely pointing out your obvious bias and POV with regard to the Piracy in Somalia article, bias you can't even find it in you to conceal. And I was doing this by quoting your own words (e.g. "personally I do not understand why some people defend the Somali pirates who are criminals"). You see GrandDrake, it doesn't matter whether you made the "mistake" of making those comments or not. That actually wasn't even where you erred. It was in harboring those obviously biased views in the first place. This is the difference between someone who is caught lying on national TV and then regretting having lied, and someone who is caught lying on national TV but only regrets having been caught lying. In other words, what actually matters is what your own words betray you as really believing i.e. that the pirates are all no good "criminals" and that you can't for the life of you understand why some nebulous "people" "defend" them. This reveals two things about your edits that I've suspected for quite some time: 1) You are editing from a very biased, non-neutral place, and 2) You believe other editors are similarly biased as you yourself have ironically revealed yourself as being, albeit without a shred of evidence in that direction. So actually, if anyone should take offense to what has transpired on the talk page and especially in the article itself, it should be me and all of the other editors you have indirectly accused of "defending" pirates. Your own words, however, make it impossible for anyone not to sense your obvious hostility and bias towards the very subject of the article (i.e. the pirates), and to therefore always remain vigilant with regard to your edits. Such strongly expressed beliefs don't, after all, change overnight, even if one "regrets" having aired them. Remember GrandDuke: it's not me removing all of that information indicating that pirates are anything other than common "criminals"; it is you. Middayexpress (talk) 23:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that the Wikipedia guideline on NPOV states that "All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article." You think my point of view is wrong only because you have a different point of view. Also once again I ask you to avoid making personal comments in the Piracy in Somali talk page. --GrandDrake (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes GrandDrake. WP:NPOV acknowledges that people have biases in the sense that they have opinions. However, what it also specifies is that one shouldn't let those biases get in the way of one's editing:

Neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles, and of all article editors. For guidance on how to make an article conform to the neutral point of view, see the NPOV tutorial; for examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ.

Unforunately, however, that is exactly what you have repeatedly done when you keep removing references that portray the pirates as anything but the common "criminals" you keep insisting they are (I don't see you relentlessly tampering with any other section of the article; just the lone one that tries to air the other side of the story). That is not NPOV. And if you want to talk about harassment and actually have a leg to stand on, you'll first have to stop littering my talk page with these pointless and redundant comments. Middayexpress (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Horn of Africa is four states - not just one

Dear Middayexpress,

I respect the fact that you are deeply interested in Somalia and I wish you every success in enhancing wiki-scholarship about the country. My interests are much broader than just the one country, and I am certainly not in the least bit ethnocentric. So, I think it most unfortunate that you have taken such a needlessly belligerent attitude towards my edits on the Horn of Africa page. I will not rehearse the arguments here. Suffice to say that your remarks about 'Habesha' on the scoobycentric page convinced me that you are not interested in reaching a consensus and clearly do not respect the other nationalities in the region. Therefore, I have referred your declaration of an Edit War to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Horn_of_Africa

Kind regards Ackees (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

lol My comments on Scoobycentric's talk page were specifically about your edits. I was poking fun at your obsession with Habesha, not of Habesha themselves:

"Some Afrocentrist has just targeted the Horn of Africa page, and he's been adding things that don't really jibe with reality and that are too pro-Ethiopia (you know how they're obsessed with Habesha! lol). I've re-balanced the page, but he'll probably be back soon enough... Nice edits bro. The page was too Ethio-centric, so I tried to add some Somali info to it to balance it out a bit."

As can be seen above (and unfortunately for you), I did not insult Habesha and actually have no reason to. Your relentless Ethiopia-centric edits on the Horn of Africa page, on the other hand, are definitely worth taking umbrage at, as I and another editor have already neatly logged on the article's talk page. By the way, the image I added in this edit is of an Eritrean ethnic group (the Tigre), not Somalis. That's in direct contrast to all of the almost exclusively Ethiopian images and text that you have been relentlessly spamming the page with. So much for your notion that I'm on the same ethnocentric wavelength as you. Also remember that:

• It's me that had to restore the sourced statement upholding the linguistic and ethnic similarities of the people of the Horn of Africa ("Besides sharing similar geographic endowments, the countries of the Horn of Africa are linguistically and ethnically linked together") that you tried to delete
• That it was you who casually and ungrammatically insisted on the article's talk page that "Somalian sport has been hampered by the continuing conflict in Somali", and then callously defended that statement with the following unprovoked ethnically-directed cheap shot: "I really don't think that it is 'dismissive' to acknowledge the great difficulty which decades of invasion and civil war are causing. Are these the type of things that you think 'shouldn't be discussed'?", whereas I made no such pronouncements with regard to Ethiopia or any other country in the Horn
• That it was me who ironically first called you on ethnocentrism in your edits.

Next time you want to accuse others of wrongdoing, try and make sure that you yourself are not guilty of those same wrongs you have the temerity to accuse others of. Middayexpress (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A favor?

Would mind taking a moment & looking over an article I just wrote, Ugaz Abdulrahman Abd Ghani? I made some assumptions (for example, Ugaz = chief) & need someone with more expertise than me to point out my mistakes. Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was the meaning of Ugaz. However, my memory is not always reliable. -- llywrch (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

re Shifta War

I find these edits on Shifta War confusing. It's partially a revert but also partially redoing what I did, e.g. replacing a {{fact}} tag with an associated date with a {{fact}}. You readded a sentence - "Both governments realised it was necessary if they were to hold onto the Somali lands, they had to sign a defence pact as the Somalis were far superior in military strength." - before a non-supporting citation after I removed it, reintroduced the mispelling "reffered," and removed a valid citation for the sentence "These bore fruit in October 1967, when the governments of Kenya and Somalia signed a Memorandum of Understanding that resulted in a ceasefire." Can you clarify your intent so I can decide how to respond? Thanks, BanyanTree 02:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

That "rebuilding" picture

Inkastoo a WP name that is gaalish, your interest and determined reverting of Somali articles suggest a personal absence of Gaalnimo. Have it as MGQ rebuilding if you feel impelled. I forget where else I found this photo, something like You Tube. Why not before you revert mar kale, follow my suggestion in MGQ talk and look in Google Earth at the sad utter destruction of much of Xamar, look for any steep hill covered in verdant trees. And weep for Somalia and its scattered people.--SilasW (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, SilasW; your pitiable schadenfreude has already been noted. Until you have a way of actually proving that the picture you keep harping about isn't of Mogadishu, we have no recourse but to conclude that you are letting your POV get the best of you again. Cheerio! Middayexpress (talk) 21:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue of Somaliland's status

Greetings. I have recently added my first Wikipedia page, for the Edna Adan Maternity Hospital in Somaliland. I know the article has serious shortcomings and I appreciate most of your contributions to it. However, your edits have caused some considerable pain among certain citizens of Somaliland over the issue of their country's status relative to Somalia. Please look at my new extended comments on the discussion page connected with the new Hospital page and let's see if we can arrive at some compromise language that will help to alleviate their pain? Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Mogadishu revert posts

Thank you Middayexpress for reverting my edit to Mogadishu regarding the incumbent Somalian president, my edit was off topic, my sincere apologies. Matt Zero (talk) 12:06, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, S. Ahmed is actually from Jowhar, not Mogadishu, and he was inaugurated in Djibouti and not Somalia. The edit also discussed fighting in Somalia in general and not specifically Mogadishu. Your talk page post, however, was spot on and well-observed (thanks for the kind words, by the way). Middayexpress (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10