User talk:Middayexpress

Welcome!

Hello, Middayexpress, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Somali/Bantu

According to this Article, the Somali immigrants in Lewiston are mostly ethnic Somalis, but there are Bantu as well. Furthermore, even though widely used in the media to refer to the "Bantu refugees" from Somalia, the term "Bantu" is not entirely correct in this case since Bantu is originally a linguistic term including more than 400 ethnic groups with around 200 million people in Central and Southern Africa. For the Bantu of Somalia, the more specific term "Somali Bantu" should be used. Therefore I propose that the article about immigration to Maine and the section in the Lewiston article be renamed to "Somali and Somali Bantu immigration". Béka (talk) 12:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

sxb leave the Somali page pics alone, there is no qabiil influence whatsoever, Qassim is not hardly notable world wide, the rest are. Somaliwarrior (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somaliwarrior (talk • contribs) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

sxb if you have the means produce one large pic (like mine) with one internationaly known Hawiye/non-darod, if not leave this one on for the time being. Somaliwarrior (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

the idea is that we show well known (internationally) somali figures, not a bunch of politicians. i see you're excuse for removing Barre was that he is highly divisive character, ironic then that you add Abdullahi Yusuf. Why replace two darood figures with two others if your reason for editing is too many daroods? You remove two great heroes in Bille and the Mad mullah and you put in two politicians of the same clan (mj), one of whom is highly 'divisive' himself and is president of a highly 'divisive' transitional government.

I think YOU need to respect the page and not transmit your qabiilist attitude on to the page. Somaliwarrior (talk) Somaliwarrior (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC) 

I added Barre not you, you added Yusuf and Abdirashid Ali Shermarke both Majerteen, both pale in comparison to Siad Barre when it comes to contribution to Somali history.

This isnt about who is good and who is evil, this is about famous Somalis period. Get that through your thick head.
Secondly, unless you can get pics of the Mad mullah a statue will be in its place.

I'd appreciate it if you left the page alone. If you can manage to produce your own collated image then by all means do so, but stop this stupidity of uploading daroods to YOUR liking and justifying it with merely one non-darood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somaliwarrior (talk • contribs) 22:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You fool, dont try to point me towards wikipedia rules when you are so blatently un-neutral. You havent explained why you've added 2 majerteen darood politicians, and abdullahi yusuf is a) highly divisive and b)has not contributed one thing to Somali history. And the feelings of the somali people when they read the article are immaterial, this is an information page not a newspaper article. Wikipedia deals with facts. You will either spare the page from your vandalism or you won't, just know that i'll see you banned from editing this article. Somaliwarrior (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you perhaps Duke from SOL? Somaliwarrior (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Somali people. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am posting the same message for you that I just left for User:Somaliwarrior: : I haven't gone through the edit history but at least one of you, possibly both of you are already in violation of the three revert rule. My opinion is that you should work it out on the talk page. I don't know much about Somali clans beyond what I've read on Wikipedia, other than knowing there is some enmity between Hawiye and Darod clans. If this edit war represents some kind of attempt to come out on top, then you are hereby advised to do it some place besides Wikipedia. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider this your final warning. I've removed the picture until the two of you can decide on something less contentious. Please use the talk page (Talk:Somali people) to figure this out. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate your reasoning, but edit warring is not the way to go about this. Please work it out at Talk:Somali people. If the two of you can't agree on a neutral image then I think it's better (for Wikipedia) to leave it out. If he reverts again, then you can report him at WP:AN/3RR. Thank you. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 02:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've left comments at Talk:Somali people. Please keep in mind "it takes two to escalate." Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Khadija_Qalanjo.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Khadija_Qalanjo.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Melesse (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit war over Arab World

Please stop revert warring with other editors over the content of Arab World, and instead discuss your concerns on the talk page. Wikipedia is at its very best when editors work collaboratively to build consensus on a topic, while edit warring serves no one. If the reverting continues on this article, I may be forced to protect it. --Kralizec! (talk) 12:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop reverting the false information on Somaliland

You have been warned previously by moderators. Please stop reverting false information.

Igor akb80 (talk)

Can you please return the document Egypt to its Original state before Troy 07 inserted his evil ideas in it; I’m new here and I don’t know how to change it. --Great Sphinx (talk) 18:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you're affected. I kept Putty's figures and added figures that only yourself and Putty disagreed with. Putty was blocked; not my issue. However, if the 6% figure is allowed (it's older than NY Times), then so should the others. I will not revert your edit right now, but there needs to be an explanation. I am ready to discuss that with you; however, I will not allow Putty to use socks like Great Sphinx to canvass users so that they go against me. I'm not an "evil editor" like Great Sphinx said. ~ Troy (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. I believe that as I pointed out there, Putty's sources were unreliable as well (sources like Looklex encyclopedia is, I'm sorry to say, no better ...but I haven't removed them they Putty removed sources. Many of the "interviews" added by Putty and stuff like that is not "reliable" but counts as sources; similarly, I believe that mine do). Also, if the 6% figure can be included, so can the New York Times—NYT was dated '93, the Egyptian Govt' census was around '86. I have given ample proof that the estimates vary, we all agreed upon that. Thus, the very point of the proposal was to allow for other figures on the main page via better incorporation. Since you have reverted it, you realize that you do hold some responsibility in this as well, so I'd like to see if you have anything else in mind. There—and I know you can't deny this—is a way to properly incorporate such things. ~ Troy (talk) 21:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a bundle! I would still like a way to properly weight things, but at least there's more reasonable efforts. If you do have any suggestions on how to avoid those incidents altogether, I'm all ears. I'm not that particularly interested in a revert—discuss—revert again type cycle for dealing with content disputes like that. ~ Troy (talk) 23:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Somali Britons

I don't understand why you keep reverting the changes, the sources are reliable, especially the one from the BBC stating that 70,000 Somalis live in London, which would suggest an even higher population in the whole UK, I don't think even counting every single Somali in the UK myself would please you! Stevvvv4444 (talk) 13:38 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

You may be interested in the claim that is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Edit war and false information war going in Somaliland article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Somaliland map

As you see, all maps of Somaliland in this article are unreferenced, are homemade and are inaccurate. On Image:Somaliland.png I presented borders according government of Somaliland (same as on Image:Map of somaliland border claims.jpg), and this border is presented by doted line (in cartography used for disputed borders). Image:Somaliland.png is phisical map, and don't duble Image:Map of somaliland border claims.jpg (politcal one) nor Image:Somaliland map regions.png (political). This phisical map is placed in "Geography" section and is very suitable for it. On Image:Somaliland.png Somaliland is presented as region (in the same way Somaliland is presented in infobox's map Image:LocationSomaliland3.png. So, you should remove all maps or leave all maps - other way will be only your unjustified POV. Aotearoa (talk) 08:07, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've taken a good look at the map you've created, and you're right: Somaliland is presented as a region of Somalia in it. I was for some odd reason under the impression that you showed Somaliland bordered by Somalia itself rather than other regions of Somalia. I sincerely apologize for this mischaracterization of your map and sloppy oversight on my part. The map, though indeed "homemade", is quite nice and, as it turns out, fairly accurate to boot. Again, apologies! Kind regards, Middayexpress (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about presentation areas od Somaliland (according to gov.) that are under control of Putland or Maakhir. But there're no reliable sources, and situation in that areas is very changeable. Aotearoa (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Page move

No problems. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Middayexpress, I am convinced that if you stop the page moves and we discuss it some, this can all turn out fine. I responded to your message on the article's talk page. SamEV (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

OK so the page is at Immigration of Africans to the United States, with the talk page attached, and all double redirects to the article and the talk page now point directly to that page. And I think that most of the redirects, African immigration to the United States and Black Americans of African immigrant origin now have several edits meaning the page, with history, can't be moved there without administrative help. Please no copy and paste moves. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 15:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Middayexpress, you asked for more debate. Here's some more: [1] and [2]. RSVP. SamEV (talk) 23:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Message for Middayexpress: [3] SamEV (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Another message: [4]. SamEV (talk) 07:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And another: [5]. SamEV (talk) 08:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know whether you still object to my renaming the Black Africans in the US article. SamEV (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Do you have plans for substantial expansion any time soon? SamEV (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

---

That's not good enough ([6]). I'm willing to drop the issue if you promise to expand the article in a reasonable amount of time. Do you promise it or not? SamEV (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Somaliland protection

Please see m:The Wrong Version and discuss your concerns with other editors of the article at Talk:Somaliland. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

As I have stated on the article talk page, I have no interest in the dispute. I protected the article to stop the endless stream of reversions. If you think protection is not needed, place a request at WP:RFUP, if you want input from others then I believe that WP:RFC will advise you of the route to go down. I am sorry I did not respond earlier to your messages, but I do not see them until now. Thryduulf (talk) 00:50, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I've been saying. If you want to request unprotection, request it at WP:RFUP. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI: The page is still protected against page moves (due to "User:Haggar" vandalism or some such; unrelated to recent disputes). The template is getting deleted as part of the revert. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just asked Gyrofrog if he thought semi-protection would be in order. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Swahili in Somalia

Hi,

If you have sources that Swahili is no longer spoken in Somalia, please provide them. I understand that many Swahili have fled since 1990, but I've not seen any reason to believe the language is no longer spoken there at all.

kwami (talk) 07:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

See the CIA World Fact Book profile on Somalia from 2008. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't support anything you've said. The closest it comes is "Bantu and other non-Somali 15%". You're also deleting the Swahili from Somali history (Kismayo, Barawa), which is inappropriate regardless of whether they still live there.

I've never seen evidence that Mogadishu was ever a Swahili city state, but Kismayo evidently was. I'd appreciate evidence that the info you're removing is incorrect. kwami (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure it does. The CIA World Fact Book profile on Somalia from this year identifies the languages actually spoken in Somalia, and those are Somali, Arabic, English, and Italian (Maay being a dialect of Somali). Furthermore, Barawa and Kismaayo are and were never Swahili, as the article absurdly seems to be implying. They were never a part of the Bilad al Zanj which denoted the Swahili city-states. Swahili language and culture sprang from interaction and intermarriage between an Arab trader/enslaver ruling minority and their majority Bantu subjects, not their Somali ones.

From Sanjay Subrahmanyam's The Career and Legend of Vasco Da Gama, pp.120-121:

"Kilwa, we may note, was visited by Ibn Battuta in the 1330s, and described by that time as having surpassed Mombasa as the dominant center of the Bilad al Zanj (as the Swahili coast was known to the Arabs). However, by the late fifteenth century, sharp trading and political rivalries of some importance existed between these centres; if, in the Somali coast (Arabic, Bilad al Barbar) to the north, Muqdisho (Mogadishu) preserved its pre-eminence, the dominant position of Kilwa further south was under challenge by both Mombasa, and the ruling family at Zanzibar."

I'm not 'deleting' anything. I'm correcting untruths. Middayexpress (talk) 01:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not your job to "correct untruths", but to make sure the material is based on reliable sources. You are violating basic Wikipedia policy.

You're using the CIA as a source? Common, the World Fact Book is a joke. Even if it were reliable, it only lists a few main languages. This should be obvious from the entry: it lists "Bantu and other non-Somali 15%", but the only indigenous language listed is Somali. Ethnologue isn't always terribly reliable either, but at least it specializes in languages, and according to it Swahili is spoken there. It says, "The Mwini live in Baraawe (Brava), Lower Shabeelle, and were scattered in cities and towns of southern Somalia. Most have fled to Kenya because of the civil war. The Bajun live in Kismaayo District and the neighboring coast."

No-one claims that Swahili is a mix of Arabic and Somali. Swahili is spoken in the Comoros too, but that doesn't mean it's a mix of Arabic and Malagasy. It's spoken in Mozambique, but that doesn't mean it's a mix of Arabic and Makuu. People migrate.

Sorry, but you need actual references for what you're claiming, not just OR inferences from sources that don't directly address the issue. kwami (talk) 04:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, the Ethnologue entry is from 1992 i.e. sixteen years ago, just when the Somali civil war broke out. As such, it has no bearing on the current linguistic situation in Somalia especially since the handful of Bajunis that spoke Kibajuni have long since fled from the country. On the other hand, the CIA's profile on Somalia -- that you predictably call a 'joke' simply because it doesn't identify the Bantu Swahili language as being spoken in Somalia and certainly not by Somalis -- is from this very year. I therefore strongly suggest you unlock the Swahili page and fast because you are quite blatantly violating Wikipedia's policy on administrator abuse:

"Conflict of interest/non-neutrality/content dispute — Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party (or significant editor), or where a significant conflict of interest is likely to exist. With few specific exceptions where tool use is allowed by any admin, administrators should ensure they are reasonably neutral parties when they use the tools."

Since you are the other party involved in the dispute, you cannot abuse your administrator privileges as you've just done. Either you unlock the page this instant and stop abusing your administrator priviliges, or I promise you I'll take this to AN/I. Middayexpress (talk) 04:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

As you have both gone over 3RR, can you promise to disengage and not edit this part of the article for 24hrs, so that we can unlock the article? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Swahili language

Rather than blocking either of the two editors involved in the dispute, I have unprotected the article with a note warning that any further edit-warring will be met with blocks. Copied to ANI. Black Kite 09:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Midday, it's still up to you to provide a reference that all Swahili speakers have fled the country. kwami (talk) 09:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't have to prove anything since the CIA's profile on Somalia from 2008 that I've told you about above does not include Swahili as one of the languages spoken in Somalia. Deal with it. Middayexpress (talk) 09:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself with what constitutes evidence. Your edit is inappropriate and neither I nor Taivo nor many other editors will accept your edits until you come up with some actual positive evidence. If what you're saying is true, you should be able to demonstrate it. kwami (talk) 10:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Taivo has no credibility in this matter, as he more than demonstrated by his utter lack of concern with your blatant abuse of administrator privileges whereas all of the actually fair administrators over at AN/I saw your actions for the abuse of administrative tools they were and are. You can try and portray this any which way you want, but there's no escaping the fundamentally POV nature of your actions. You're clearly no average administrator, and were it up to me, I'd strip you of your administrator privileges so that you would no longer be able to pull a fast one on any one else. Furthermore, I have already demonstrated that Swahili is not spoken in Somalia with this this CIA source from 2008. Again, I suggest you learn to cope with the facts. Middayexpress (talk) 10:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

AdminWatch

Thanks for your note, Midday. Yup, it's most important that this be recorded, just as blocking is recorded permanently on users' logs. I'm particularly concerned that there's no acknowledgement by Kwami of his breaches of policy, not apology to you and Black Kite, who's had to come in and patch it up after the fact three specific rules in the policy governing admin behaviour: 2c, 4a (with respect to 1), 4b, 5a and 5b, and 6b (at the AN/I page, where there's no direct engagement with the substance of your complaint, and only an odd insistence that you find refs for text you've removed—saying "seems fine" to Black Kite is insufficient, in my view). Has anything been learnt? Will the same behaviour recur? It is up to you entirely which policies you choose to base your complaint on (they do each need explicit justification and diffs, so I'm probably presenting the maximum array here).

I can't possibly manage the case, since I'm now an involved party. It's bad enough that I've developed the process and it's in my userspace, but we have to start some way, after which I can be more distant from the mechanics. I will now start locating suitable NPOV coordinators for the process. Please give me at least 30 minutes to fix up the process so that it's ready for you to file. PS You'll need to declare that you broke the 3RR rule yourself; that shouldn't matter—admins are bound by an admin-specific rule and are explicitly charged with setting an example. Tony (talk) 13:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, it's ready for you. Any questions, I'm awake for another couple of hours. There have been thinly vieled threats and a slightly aggressive disbelief already expressed at the bottom of the AN/I page. This should be ignored as a natural reaction at this stage. The process is something that WP has needed for some years, and it is my expectation that (aside from teething problems) this will demonstrate that an official process is entirely viable—indeed, a necessity to maintain social cohesion. Tony (talk) 14:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

PS The substance of the content dispute is irrelevant; all that matters is the policies governing admin behaviour, as listed, and the facts as you succinctly express them. Tony (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops: I'll fix after you're done to avoid edit conflicts: Name of admin, of course, doesn't need a diff. The policies you name each need a diff as evidence. Sorry to have neglected this. I'll tinker afterwards to get these meanings in the right lines. Tony (talk) 14:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You have no doubt seen the broohaha caused by daring to launch the page. They don't like the idea of independent scrutiny, and will use any amount of spin ("attack page") to justify wiping it out. Problem is, in public space (where they moved it), it will be taken over by admins, which is a conflict of interest—the police judge the police. I've moved it back to my userspace. I will recruit at least one coordinator, and then reinstate your complaint. I'll let you know when that happens. I'll also inform Kawi o this. Tony (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC) PS I am not an admin.

Unless good reasons are put forward here, I intend to reinstate your notification. Tony (talk) 03:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ITN

On 29 December, 2008, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed, which you helped update. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the In the news candidates page.

--Spencer^T♦C 22:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Somalia

Hi Middayexpress, I note your reversal of my recent edit at Somalia. I've reverted it again because the original era notation in this article was to use AD. You changed this on 12:10, 23 September 2008 to the largely unknown - except in America - CE usage. You may know that such a change is against Wikipedia policy, which states that both era systems are acceptable but should not be changed once usage within an article has been established (as was the case here). Rather than put it back to AD I've left the years un-annotated which, for years of the common era, is acceptable since they are self explanatory - there is no need for AD or CE. This should be acceptable to everyone, so I suggest you leave it as it is. Thanks. 86.10.19.89 (talk) 12:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your change -- because that's what it was; a change by you -- of the neutral Common Era (usage). I did this because your edit was a quite transparent attempt to impose on the Somalia article the Christian Anno Domini (AD) usage irrespective of the fact that Somalia is an entirely Muslim nation. Above, you write that Wikipedia allows both usages, yet you somehow felt compelled to change the Somalia article's existing neutral, non-Muslim, non-Christian CE usage with the conspicuously Christian AD usage. I wonder why that is? Actually, I don't. Middayexpress (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Bullshit! I didn't put AD in. I left the years without annotation; completely neutral in anyone's book. You changed the bloody thing in the first place, as I pointed out above. WTF has it got to do with anything that Somalia is a muslim nation? It's who's reading the article that counts. And for the record - not that it applies here anyway - but CE/BCE is offensive to many people. You are obviously someone who's always right, judging by the comments on your Talk page, but you are not getting away with this. I'm reverting it back to the completely neutral, acceptable to everyone but you, version that uses neither AD nor CE - old boy! 86.10.27.203 (talk) 09:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just saw your edit. Sorry for the mischaracterization. I thought you added AD for some reason. However, I've still re-added the neutral CE usage because people need to know about which exact period of history we are talking about: BC/BCE or AD/CE, get it? Middayexpress (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just following up on this issue after some more edit warring. Okay, I'm only an occasional editor and just happened to come by this one, but all I can say is that you and the IP are going to get blocked if you're not careful. In the final analysis the IP arguments stand up better than yours, IMHO (I'm not adding any comments to the IP because he keeps changing his address. I guess he'll read this). WizOfOz (talk) 11:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. However, you couldn't be more mistaken. The IP's arguments don't hold up at all. Quite the opposite, actually. All his charges have been proven false:

• He claimed that I was violating Wikipedia's rules by removing the CE usage when WP:ERA actually states that "either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used".
• You responded that he was right since, in your opinion, "no substantive reason" had been provided for the original change from AD to CE by me, being as the Somalia article is "a mainly geographic, and not religious, article." I quickly disproved this as well by pointing out that the Somalia article is actually about Somalia as a whole and not just its geography. I then linked to the history, politics, economy, demographics, health, languages, as well as the geography and religion sections of the article as proof of this, and produced a link to the actual Geography of Somalia page.
• According to The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition, 2000, the verb to compromise refers to "a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions". In this spirit, the IP claimed that he was just trying to reach a "compromise" by continuously removing the CE usage (i.e. repeating his same intial edit), hardly a concession. His claim that he was simply "compromising" is also false on its face because prior to his initial edit, there was no objection raised whatsoever regarding the presence of the existing CE usage, so there was nothing to "compromise" over.
• The IP also claimed that the CE usage is controversial and "not well recognized". I disproved this as well by pointing out that the secular CE usage actually came about specifically because of the controversy surrounding the Christian AD usage vis-a-vis non-Christian groups (i.e. the rest of the world). I then produced two links (1, 2) showing that not only is the CE usage increasingly becoming the standard, it is expected to eventually completely replace the AD usage.
• The IP finally claimed that the CE usage is "not needed" since readers will "just know" which period of history we are referring to without their presence. I disproved this by pointing out the obvious fact that the Somali sultanates are completely unknown to most people, and as such, most people have no idea which period of history they actually existed in. Instead of leaving it up to readers to guess which period of history they actually existed in, the CE usage helps them along while his removal of it does the exact opposite of that.

So again, thanks for your two cents, but it's actually the IP's "arguments" (if one can call them that) which don't stand up. He has also been very evasive in his responses, whereas I have fully addressed all of the concerns raised as can quite clearly be seen above. It's night and day. Take care, Middayexpress (talk) 02:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I've signed up for an account, so I'm no longer an IP user. So, you seem to be missing this statement from WP:ERA - It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other. Please note particularly the first sentence. There is, or was, no substantive reason to change, but you did. The article is geographic. It covers the physical and human geography of Somalia. Most of the article is concerned with the human geography of the country; it is not an article about religion, though of course the subject does get a mention. Your change from AD to CE definitely went against policy. I am trying to compromise by not insisting that we revert to AD, but you just won't have it. My suggestion of no era notation is entirely reasonable and it is clear to anyone reading the article just what period is being described. The Somali Sultanates may well be unknown to most people, but the historical period is obvious from the text, it needs no further embelishment. WizOfOz's suggestion would be OK apart from I now understand that date linking is deprecated. I won't change back to AD, but I will change it yet again to the completely neutral version. My concession is that I'm not insisting on using AD, what is your concession? You say prior to my removing CE there were no objections - yes there were; mine. Reginald Molehusband (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you've created an account. Kudos, but that's all that's new in your latest argument above because you still persist in quoting only certain portions of WP:ERA and out of context. Here yet again is what the policy actually stipulates in full:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. Style guides generally recommend writing AD before a year (AD 1066) and after a century (2nd century AD); however, writing AD after the year (1066 AD) is also common in practice. The other abbreviations always appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other.

And I've already explained the reasons for my initial edit:

"I did change it because Somalia is an entirely Muslim country, so why should the Somalia article have to follow the specifically Christian Anno Domini (AD) usage when it could just as easily follow the neutral, non-Muslim, non-Christian Common Era (CE) usage?"

You, by contrast, have never provided any satisfactory or even consistent explanation for your edit, as can quite clearly be seen in my analysis above.

You again write above that the Somalia article is a "geographical" article, so I again tell you that it is actually about Somalia as a whole and not just its geography. This is why I am able to effortlessly link to the history, politics, economy, demographics, health, languages, as well as the actual geography and religion sections of the article itself as proof of this, whereas all you can do is link to a completely unrelated human geography page to support your argument. An actual Geography of Somalia page also exists for the purpose you describe. Further, you write that "the historical period is obvious from the text", yet your own comments on the Somalia talk page threatening to re-add the AD usage proves that even you despite your previous arguments understand that some sort of identifying symbol is necessary. They also demonstrate a hitherto unarticulated preference for the AD usage, which only serves to undermine your insistence that all you are looking for with your removal of the CE tags is a "neutral" solution to the problem and a "compromise". Sure you are. If this had truly been the case, at no point would it have occurred to you to suggest replacing my re-insertion of the CE tags with the AD tags since they would've both been equally unneutral to you. The truth is, you've always secretly hoped to insert the AD tag, just like I've described on the Somalia talk page. You just went about it in a much more canny two-step process, which you correctly figured would be less likely to draw attention to itself: First, remove the CE tags; then later insert the AD tags in their place. And all of this via anonymous IPs to boot. Also, kindly stop responding on this talk page. The discussion if any should take place on the Somalia talk page so that there is a public log of this discussion and on the page of concern. Middayexpress (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion requested. Please see [7]. Reginald Molehusband (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Canvassing

Hi. In response to an AN3 request, I have reviewed your edits and decided to protect the Arabic language in lieu of issuing a block. Please know that further edit warring or violating the three-revert rule may result in you being blocked. I have reverted your canvassing messages like [8]. Spamming talk pages to ask for help in an edit war and making personal attacks are not appropriate. Please do not repeat this behavior. --B (talk) 14:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Categories associated with medcab case

Prehaps creating a sub category would a good compramise, "medieval swahili city states" its certainly a category that should exist. Seddσn ^talk 02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

Hi. Just to let you know that I reverted this edit that you made to Somalis in the United Kingdom. The OCED figure is from the UK Census, and represents the whole of the UK. The BBC figure is from the same source, but is only for Britain - i.e. the UK excluding Northern Ireland. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom

I do not see why you are so persistant on only having the 2001 census figure in the population box. Many, many other ethnic group articles across wikipedia use the most recent figures (whether estimates or not) available to ensure that the number is as accurate as possible. There are plenty of sources (including the BBC!) which state around 250,000 Somalis in the UK, although this is mentioned elsewhere in the article, people may just glance at the population box and take the community tp be much smaller than it actually is. Fair enought that you want the 2001 Census figure in (which only shows people born IN Somalia), but I believe that for the most uptodate thing that we and many other Wikipedia memebers will agree on is to have both the census figure and 2006 estimates on it. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 21:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, I understand where you are coming from, but again I got the 250,000 figure from the BBC (which in itself is a reliable source), which states the figure as compiled by experts. I do not know where you have got the 250,000 figure from, and state that it simply from a writer. But if anything, the BBC figure REALLY should be included. Stevvvv4444 (talk) 17:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Somaliland, Somalia, piracy and Category Horn of Africa

Hi, for what it's worth, I included Somaliland on the page Category:Horn of Africa because I wanted to add more detail to the category due to the current Piracy in Somalia crisis. A principal port of Somalia, Berbera, is in Somaliland. And, the states of Somalia are somewhat nonhomogenous, in terms of geopolitical affiliation. By putting Somaliland in Category Horn of Africa, the category becomes more useful for those to are reading about the ongoing corporate piracy. Somaliland itself is involved in the crisis, which could be considered a Crisis of the Horn of Africa. Please consider. --Mr Accountable (talk) 06:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was aware of the problems you mentioned, didn't think of it until I read your comment, I do understand, I'll definitely let it be for now. --Mr Accountable (talk)

Middle East

Speaking Arabic does not make something Middle Eastern. Somalia is in sub-saharan African and any cultural similaries with the Middle East has no bearing on Geography. Only the Sinai part of Egypt is in the Middle East. North African cuisine is North African cuisine, not Middle Eastern cuisine. Arab cuisine stretches from Mauritania to Oman. This Area is does not constitute the Middle East, it constitutes the Arab World. It don't give a damn about the Bush administration's definition of things nor Pan-Arab pseudo-geography. If you look at a map you can clearly see the Middle East demarcated from Europe, Asia and Africa by the Black Sea, Caucasus Mountains, Caspian Sea, Iranian Plateau, Persian Gulf, Gulf of Oman, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, Red Sea, Sinai Peninsula, Mediterranean Sea and Aegean Sea. It is almost an island and has more claim to being a seperate continent than Europe or the Indian subcontinent. The Middle East is from the Greek islands in the Aegean to central Iran and from Georgia to the Sinai to Yemen. This is the Middle East 90.193.39.114 (talk) 04:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)