User talk:Bricology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vacheron Constantin[edit]

Hello Bricology. I'd plonk a "welcome" template message here but I guess you already know your way around.

On your comment here: Yes, I agree. Please feel free to de-promotionalize the article, and any others you see. (I've commented more there.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP warning[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions, including your edits to Sarah Palin . However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. The information you provided regarding images of Bristol Palin drinking are not source to a reliable source. You will need to provide a reliable source before such information can be included. Thanks! --Bobblehead (rants) 18:40, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

November 2008[edit]

Information.svg Regarding your comments on Talk:Cute Overload: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Anybody is allowed to edit Wikipedia and offer their opinions. An anon's opinions are no more or less meaningful or helpful than your own. All users are equal here, anons and IDs alike. You are welcome to disagree with any user so long as you do so respectfully. Attacking an anon user simply because they're an anon user is against the spirit of Wikipedia. You must treat them no differently than any other user with an ID and you must disagree with them respectfully. If you continue to attack others, you risk having your account and IP address blocked. 132 18:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please point out to me exactly where on no personal attacks it prohibits saying what I said ("Who the heck is 'User:74..." or "For being so bloody pedantic and officious about this..."). Of course it doesn't, because using such language attacks no one (unless your sensibilities would somehow be harmed by being called "pedantic" or "officious"). The only difference between "Who is..." and "Who the heck is..." is one of vulgarity, which I see no mention of in no personal attacks. Are anons equal to registered users? Apparently not. Wikipedia:Signatures explicitly states "Signing your posts on talk pages, both in the article and non-article namespaces, is a good practice and facilitates discussion...It is also a good idea to notify users, especially new users, that they should sign their comments." Precisely so. And the notion that the contributions of an anon are equal to those of a registered user is particularly ironic appearing in an organ like WP, whose very credibility rests upon verifiable sources. Which anons are not. Bricology (talk) 07:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

February 2009[edit]

Information.svg Regarding your comments on Talk:Paul Watson: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. All users are equal here. You are welcome to disagree with any user so long as you do so respectfully and with civility. Attacking a user simply because you disagree with them is against the spirit of Wikipedia. You must disagree with them respectfully. If you continue to attack others, you risk having your account and IP address blocked. Your point can be made without ridicule of others. It is, after all, a TALK page and discussion is appropriate. If you don't like the discussion, you may remain silent. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? First, who the heck are you to be chiding me on my comments? Are you a WP administrator? Apparently not, so give the authoritarian tone a rest. Second, I defy you to show how and where I have violated Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. You can't because I haven't. My referring to the other fellow's posts as "adamant" and "repetitious" hardly qualify as ad hominem, nor does my pointing out that he should sign in to post. As WP's policy states, "Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks." I've engaged in one post on this topic in WP:Talk, and there were no attacks; certainly no "egregious personal attacks". You dislike my salty posting style? Tough. Your user bio says "I'm all about content. I'm not here for the politics." Well then you should take your own advice and stay out of what was nothing more than an emphatically stated difference of opinion, backed by skepticism as well as information. Bricology (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Hrabalek[edit]

Could you please tone down the rhetoric at this AfD? You've already proven your point. RE: And as for "bad language" and "tone of voice" -- yet more news to you: WP does not care one bit about such things please look over our policy on civility, as it is indeed a very important part of the Wikipedia community. If you continue on like this you may even be blocked by an administrator. Thanks, ThemFromSpace 03:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you look back through my posts, I don't believe that you'd be able to point out a single violation of our policy on civility. Yes, I take a hard line with people who use WP as their personal PR organ, and I do not gladly suffer fools, which results in more of a "bad cop" than a "good cop" stance. But did I ever engage in personal attacks? -harassment? -threats? No way. (Nor, it should be said, did I ever try to silence the user of the contrary opinion, while he repeatedly called for my censuring and even banishment.) As for "profanity" -- well, I've said nothing more profane than the phrase that's in your profile -- characterizing you as "not giving a fuck". Indeed, the button on your profile that contains that phrase links directly to Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, which sums it up thus: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Now that is a rule I can get behind. Bricology (talk) 07:05, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


you are one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, oh brave anon, for your pithy characterization of me. I can only assume that, should we ever meet in person, you will be wearing a bag over your head, as a disguise. Bricology (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you seriously just say "pithy?" Coupled with your history on here, I bet you never used that word before you heard "Bill O" use it. You know exactly what I mean. Oh and your comment on Washington's talk page about infant baptism? Pure RUBBISH. You are NO ONE to speak on behalf of the majority of Protestant faiths in the US. Infant baptism is pretty standard. Maybe not in the pentacostal, end times, save and witness all your friends or they will burn in hell grass roots random "church" you more than likely belong to. But to the majority of Lutherans (ELCA, WELS and even those psycho LCMS), Episcipalions, Methodists, Church of Christ, Presbyterians, etc. etc. infant bapitism is completely recognized. Maybe your hicksville church of God Is Coming Tomorrow To Kill The Gays and Obama thinks differently, but then again they hardly count. Jersey John (talk) 17:22, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The fools just can't restrain themselves! First, I've been using the term "pithy" ever since I heard Woody Allen use it about 30 years ago in one of his films. Second, if by "Bill O" you mean Bill O'Reilly -- as a matter of fact, I haven't owned a television for many years so my only exposure to Mr. O'Reilly has been watching his guest appearances on Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert's shows, which I occasionally view, on-line. From what I can tell, the only thing I seem to share with Mr. O'Reilly are a gender and species. I belong to a "hicksville church of God is Coming Tomorrow to Kill the Gays and Obama"? You are a veritable fount of stupid. First, I've been an atheist for nearly 30 years. Second, although I'm a plain ol' hetero, at least half of my friends are gay or bi. Third, I voted for Obama and would do so again. Is there anything else you'd like to be wrong about? Apparently so: you were determined to dispute my assertion that "a significant percentage of Protestant faiths within the US do not recognize infant baptism as a valid form of the practice". You posted "A 'signifigant [sic] percentage?' By whose standard? What percentage exactly? ELCA Lutherans, for example, the most recognizable of mainstream...and easiest example of Protestantism in America, DO baptize infants as a matter of course. Your argument is spurious and it fails mainly because you both use weasel wor [1]he farts alot ding [sic] ('a signifigant [sic] percentage...')" As I demonstrated at the page in question, at least 50% of the world's Protestants reject infant baptism; I've even cited specific numbers there, for your education. And as for the use of "weasel words" -- play-doctor, heal thyself! How about your use of "ELCA Lutherans, for example, the most recognizable of mainstream...and easiest example of Protestantism"?! Face it, chum: your arms are too short to box with me. Bricology (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bricology, it seems you got hit by the other guy who uses this account. Sorry about that. I'd like to say I went back and read about the entire issue but I don't have to, I'm pretty sure you said something normal and the other one on jros83 at the time either decided to troll or just flew off the handle. Dumb of me to share this account, sometimes his sense of humor is misplaced. Jersey John (talk) 01:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

OK; ain't no thang. Bricology (talk) 02:20, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


... for your slam of User:ADM and his ridiculous Freemasonry comment on the discussion page of Scientology in France. You gave me a good laugh this morning! --Eliyahu S Talk 09:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! If one can't mock Freemasonry conspiracy theorists and Xenu-fearin' Scientologists, of what use are Internets?Bricology (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


Just added a follow-up to your comments in the Institute for Historical Review discussion page. (talk) 14:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciated the very even-handed and cogent comments you contributed to that discussion page; you stated the matter far better than I could have. Bricology (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Tie One[edit]

Apologies in advance if I've contacted the wrong editor, but I was wondering if you could shed some light on the recent Tie One deletion. You complained that Tie was "A non-notable graffiti tagger, and an equally non-notable crime victim," claims that are almost laughable if you know anything about San Francisco graffiti. Tie One was one of the most prolific San Francisco graffiti artists of the mid-late 1990s, and his shocking "non-notable" murder was unconscionably glossed over and forgotten.

Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midsummersault (talkcontribs) 06:59, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

No, "Midsummersault", you have indeed contacted the correct editor; it was I who proposed the "Tie One" article for deletion. You characterize my claim that "Tie One" was non-notable as "almost laughable". Well, you're welcome to your opinion, but as a 25 year resident of San Francisco and a member of the contemporary art community here for that entire time, I think I have grounds to disagree. First, "Tie One" was not a "graffiti artist", he was a tagger. Graffiti artists may be able to demonstrate notability by the aesthetic qualities of their work, their exhibition record in galleries, shows, books, etc., (such as Barry McGee has done), but taggers have no such accepted criteria for notability. The "prolific" leaving of tags does not confer notability. And one mention in a homemade film with extremely limited distribution goes no further to demonstrate his notability, as the lack of WP entries about most of the other 90 taggers mentioned in that film illustrates. What was more "shocking" about "Tie One's" murder than any of the other 80 murders in San Francisco that year, or the hundreds of other murders that have taken place since then in SF? Do you expect to have a Wiki about each of those murders? A few Postmodern theories aside, leaving tags does not qualify as a significant act to most people; indeed, not only do most people consider it a serious nuisance that decreases their quality of life, but it is a criminal act. I understand you wanting to memorialize your friend, but WP is not the appropriate place to try to create notability for him. Sorry. 23:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul Bracq[edit]

Can you provide references for the material you added to this article; is it verifiable information — vs. say, anecdotal? 842U (talk) 13:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)



I did not write the sentences to which you refer, but they are sourced and we have to assume good faith for the editor that added and sourced them. The sources most likely support what that editor wrote. You are changing the material before a citation without actually reading the source. That's simply not done, as it is more likely to make the article diverge from what the sources say than make it more accurately reflect what the sources say. Do not blindly change sourced material. So-called "weasel words" are only such if they are unsourced. Yworo (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, feel free to get the article protected: this is a simple content dispute involving sourced material. Article protection is unlikely in such a case. Yworo (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

List of American gentlemen's clubs[edit]

Your attention is called to a requested change in name of the above article. Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

April 2012[edit]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yopie (talk) 21:44, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted or removed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is there to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing. Yopie (talk) 19:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You're just laughable, Yopie.
First, I have never "added...personal information about other contributors", much less "persistently" added it. If I have done so, I defy you to copy and paste it here. You can't and won't, because I never have.
Second, I have never engaged in "personal attacks" against you or anyone else, despite your claims. If I have, just copy and paste them here and I'll apologize profusely. I know that you can't find any such evidence. Pathetic ploy.
Third, I asked whether or not you were a member of an organization. WP:OUTING says nothing about that information, so it's not considered "personal information".
Fourth, despite your bluster and hubris, you have zero authority on WP.
And fifth, despite your pretentious "welcoming" me to WP, I have been editing here since 2006, as long as you have been, so you can drop the patronizing, pedantic tone. Bricology (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Edits with VE[edit]

I've noticed that a couple of your edits with the new visual editor have added a ./ to the start of links[1] and [2]. This might be due to using an old version of firefox for which this is a know bug. Can you be careful to check your links.--Salix (talk): 15:03, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies. The new editing interface is non-intuitive to me. I'll try to get up to speed with it. Bricology (talk) 19:16, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Blasphemy Day for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Blasphemy Day is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blasphemy Day until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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. Wkharrisjr (talk) 13:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


It is contrary to WP collegiality to remove other editors' edits without creating a discussion about the *possibility* of doing so in the "Talk" section. Consequently, I am going to revert the changes you made to my addition to the Al-Shabaab (militant group) article. DO NOT change it again without following WP's conventions for proposing changes to editing.Bricology (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your edit was not removed. It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline [3]. This was clearly indicated in the edit summary too. Also, if an edit pertaining to living persons is poorly sourced or otherwise non-neutrally presented, an editor is actually encouraged to removed it and immediately per the WP:BLP policy ("editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page[...] contentious material about living persons (or in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion"). Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 06:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline..." In the first place, you don't know what the fuck you're talking about, moving my edit to "timeline". If you actually did know anything about the subject, you'd know that the connection between Al-Shabaab was anything but a 2013 issue. SOFREP reported on it in June of 2012[1]. Vanity Fair reported on it in August of 2011[2]. Many other news sources likewise reported the connection before 2013. "Also, if an edit pertaining to living persons is poorly sourced or otherwise non-neutrally presented, an editor is actually encouraged to removed it and immediately per the WP:BLP policy". Have you ever heard of The Independent? The Daily Mail? The Spectator? The Express? They are as well-sourced as any sources you are going to find. I provided no less than five primary sources, all of them accepted internationally as reliable sources. So you can drop the patronizing attitude and stop messing with other editors' properly done edits. Revert it again and I'll not only re-revert, I'll apply for protection.Bricology (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Please settle down and also have a look at Kwami's comment below. You are placing undue weight on the ivory story by locating it outside of the activities timeline where it belongs. If the ivory issue began before 2013, then simply put it in its appropriate historical chronology on the timeline to show its evolution. Middayexpress (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Again, Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both. The reality is that this isn't a timeline issue. I already cited two media stories, from 2011 and 2012, which makes putting the same information into the "timeline" section nonsensical. The "Twitter" section encompasses events that transpired between 2011 and 2013. Are you going to move it to the "timeline" section as well? How 'bout the "Drought" section, which was ONLY for 2012? Ditto, the "Merge with Al-Qaeda" section. The fact is that every section in the article could be shoehorned into the "timeline", but for many of them, it's absurd to do so. Bricology (talk) 08:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Twitter material is part of the larger Propaganda section on Al-Shabaab's use of propaganda techniques. The Merger with Al-Qaeda section also represents a major shift in the group's operational structure, so it warrants a separate section. The poaching issue is significant, but it is only one of the various ways that Al-Shabaab raises funds. Perhaps then we should group the cited funding material under one section and place poaching under there as a sub-section, like Twitter under Propaganda. Middayexpress (talk) 08:57, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "The Twitter material is part of the larger Propaganda section on Al-Shabaab's use of propaganda techniques. The Merger with Al-Qaeda section also represents a major shift in the group's operational structure, so it warrants a separate section. The poaching issue is significant, but it is only one of the various ways that Al-Shabaab raises funds. I don't dispute the relative importance of those two issues. However, that in no way ties the millions the group gets from elephant poaching to the timeline format. It is a problem that has been reported in the media for at least 2.5 years, and has been an ongoing crisis in Africa for longer than that. There is no significant dispute in the media that Al-Shabaab is the largest single cause of the decline in the elephant population in East Africa, nor that they are responsible for the murders of dozens of rangers/wardens. Reducing this matter to a node on a timeline trivializes it. It's a far more significant issue than say, whether or not the group uses Twitter. And more importantly, it's not an issue that is going to be resolved anytime soon; it's going to develop over the upcoming years. That's another reason to devote a section to it, rather than hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline. Bricology (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Understood. But do you agree that the poaching issue here ultimately falls under funding? That is, after all, why Al-Shabaab is doing it i.e. to raise funds for its operations. Middayexpress (talk) 09:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, Bricology, even without BLP concerns, if you make an edit, it's up to you to justify it, not up to others to refute it. — kwami (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
kwami wrote "even without BLP concerns, if you make an edit, it's up to you to justify it, not up to others to refute it." You don't know what you're talking about. 1. The subject of Al-Shabaab's connection with the illegal ivory trade was entirely absent from their article. Given the importance of the connection in the media (not to mention in reality, with them being complicit in the death of tens of thousands of elephants and 60 humans), it needed to be clearly stated. 2. Everything I posted was properly sourced from reliable sources. 3. The proper procedure for editing another's contributions is through the "talk" page, not through making arbitrary, unilateral edits. Bricology (talk) 08:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Actually, the edit was not removed. It was instead redacted for neutrality and moved to the page's appropriate activities timeline [4], which the linked BLP policy certainly supports. Middayexpress (talk) 08:38, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Wrong. "Truth" is not an argument. Read WP:TRUTH and WP:BOLD. — kwami (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Middayexpress wrote "It was instead redacted for neutrality..." "Neutrality"? Please explain how my quoting information from five respected national or international news sources in any way impinges upon WP:NPOV. What part of my edit do you claim lacks neutrality? Weasel words like "redacted for neutrality" is really just Wikipedia:Assume bad faith.Bricology (talk) 08:56, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Redaction for neutrality aren't weasel words. They are a core pillar of WP:NPOV. Middayexpress (talk) 09:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

History of the convention of Lt Gen being higher rank than Maj Gen?[edit]

Major general originated from an old rank called sergeant major general. In the Middle Ages, the order of general officer ranks from highest to lowest was captain general, then lieutenant general, then sergeant major general. In modern day ranks, captain general had "captain" dropped was replaced by general and sergeant major general had "sergeant" dropped and was replaced by the modern-day major general. Hoped that helps clear up some confusion for yeah. Neovu79 (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2014 (UTC)



Hi, I have read your interesting comments about "Middayexpress" (user:Middayexpress) in I want to add this information, in case you want to investigate the "Al-Shabaab-ISIS" issue & presence on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway.


She is a Somali woman living in the UK, probably in London, who is accused to be with pathological behavior while controlling in all articles on Somalia. She has caused to abandon Wikipedia at least one user (, who wrote that "I'm not the only one being attacked (by Middayexpress) without mercy" and "Middayexpress, you are hopelessly insane " and finally "I give up on Wikipedia. Middayexpress has accused me with so many lies that it has become unbearably depressing. I'm not the only one being attacked without mercy. One of these days, I hope she will be banned and then I might consider returning here."

Another wiki user (user: Buckshot06) wrote that "Middayexpress is in long-standing, continual violation of WP:NPOV, continually rolls back edits that do not reflect his views (IDONTLIKEIT/Disruptive editing, plus WP:UNDUE over-positive views of the Somali situation), and continually attempts to WP:OWN a wide range of Somalia articles." And this statement was supported by User:Bobrayner, who wrote that "I share Buckshot06's concerns. However, I feel the problem may be more widespread, as I have seen Middayexpress doing the same kind of pov-pushing on other articles related to Somalia and the surrounding region".

Buckshot06 wrote (on 17 February 2014): "Middayexpress, I remain increasingly concerned about your distortions of sources in both these articles. Beyond the issue of the TFG's security forces in Mogadishu in December 2006-January 2007, these include putting words in the mouth of a senior Ethiopian official, who did not say that Ethiopia had 8,000 troops in Somalia in November 2013, distorting a meeting between Italian and Somali officials in 2012 into a claim that Somali had started rebuilding its air force in 2000-2010, and inventing aircraft numbers and entire aircraft from the Library of Congress Country Study. Why do you continually readd the SM-1019s that are not listed in the Country Study?".....and user Nick-D (talk) added:" I've noticed that your edits to these articles seem to put an unduly positive "spin" on things. For instance, in your most recent edit to the Somali Civil War article [1] you removed material sourced to a January 2013 academic journal article by Laura Hammond in which she argued that "[M]uch of rural Somalia remains in the hands of al-Shabaab" and replaced it with more positive material sourced to a November 2012 news story which argues that 85% of the country was under government control at the time. You did not provide a rationale for this change (especially removing material outright rather than noting differing viewpoints) and I'm wondering why you made this change?"

User:Gobonobo added the negative comments that "Middayexpress can be a difficult editor to work with. Middayexpress tends to exert ownership over Somalia-related articles, employing an editing style that is combative and adversarial, often refactoring other's contributions and/or edit-warring to preserve their preferred version of an article. Sometimes Middayexpress exhibits tendentious behavior, removing sourced material that is critical of Somalia or Somali people". Additionally User:StoneProphet pinpointed that Middayexpress did "rampant cherry-picking of sources and content".

Middaexpress had fights from his first wiki-moments even with admins (like , who accused Middayexpress of "violating basic Wikipedia policy") and with many other users.

Middayexpress has even insulted users, like User:Sherurcij, who was called "racist" ( ).

Middayexpress was "restricted" from posting by admin EdJohnston for some months in June 2010, after an edit-warring with user StoneProphet (

User:Baboon43 accused Middayexpress of meatpuppetry in a sockpuppet investigation ( ). He wrote: "Middayexpress is a meatpuppet master for Runehelmet as seen on Runehelmets talk page once middayexpress began into a dispute with me he went over to call runehelmet into the discussion 27 and rune also does the same vice versa 28..These two individuals would rather have a page dominated by somali-centric material and seem to turn a blind eye on other ethnic groups as seen here 29..Gyrofrog does not enter discussion on a wide scale like Runehelmet does so that is not comparable..If an editor pushes pov and seems to take your side in a discussion always and you go invite him then that is not acceptable..also your example about you and runehelmet disagreeing on article doesnt matter because that article is strictly somali oriented(squabbling in your own pot)..runehelmet would rather tag team if possible based on his behavior & he prefers to tag team strictly with Middayexpress....User Runehelmet also seems like a meatpuppet for User_talk:Middayexpress as clearly seen on runehelmets talk page [6]..midday passes on articles for runehelmet to add on his watchlist clearing way for both users to appear on WP:OBSART and seems other users have brought up their behavior in previous discussion 7..middayexpress invites runehelmet to discussions which is also clearly seen on the talk page..they back each other to push consensus seen here [8] & [9]..also the only time Runehelmet seems to accept consensus in a dispute is if middayexpress enters the discussion as seen here [10] & [11]" Baboon43 (talk) 09:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

User Bricology found that Middaexpress was "hiding it in a long, dense and relatively undifferentiated timeline" the issue of poaching as a source of funds for the Somalian terrorist group Al-Shabaab. ( He even wrote: "Middayexpress, you either presume that you have the power to unilaterally change other editors' work or you misunderstand the relevant issue, or both".

This tentative to "help" the image of Al-Shabaab in Wikipedia (similar to the one denounced by user Nick-D ) raises doubts, and creates the possibility that Middayexpress has a supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support. Indeed she has an astonishing knowledge of Al-Shabaab activity in the last years: this knowledge can only possessed by an insider (or a closely-related insider) of this terrorist organization!

Furthermore, Middayexpress has shown a "fanatical hate" (similar to the one of members of Al-Shabaab) against Christianity in Somalia, as is clearly evidenced from her cancellation of serious bibliography and data in the voice "Roman Catholicism in Somalia" ( she has made disappear that "The Bishop of Mogadishu, Franco Filippini, declared in 1940 that there were about 40,000 Somali Catholics due to the work of missionaries in the rural regions of Juba and Shebelle, but WWII damaged in an irreversibly way most of the catholic missions in Italian Somalia.[3] ". She angrily (as a possible al-Shabaab member or sympathizer) denied her POV-caused disappearances (

Middayexpress even attacked with continuous "malignity" user Oldsettler accusing him of sockpuppetry until she obtained the help of "wikimafia" user Vituzzu (read about this Sicilian-calabrese: The Stewarts are firmly in control): she wanted and obtained to "decapitate without pity in Wikipedia" Oldsettler with the same kind of malignity & hate shown in Syria by ISIS terrorists. Oldsettler wrote "The malignity of this Middayexpress is unbelievable. Why against me? I have never done anything with him/her or against him/her, but -after obtaining to erase my dad's photo- now attacks me continuously repeating the same accusations again and again and again with his/her typical "byzantine phrases" full of the same things. I have read his/her 60 archives and I have found that he/she is a Somalian living in the UK (probably in the London area full of supporters of ISIS (read [46]) and that he/she has had "fightings" with many wikipedians. He/she has collected many blocks and menaces of blocks for his/her continuous edit-warrings and seems to promote muslim POVs in a way that remembers the religious fanatism: most important to me, he/she seems to "hate" colonialism and western colonialists, so probably he/she identifies me with the Italians who colonized Somalia....and this can explain his/her attacks against me."

Furthermore Vituzzu is known in the Italian wiki as one of the main bosses of the “Italian wikimafia”. Some websites denounce him, like “Wikiperle” (read in Italian : htp:// and “Perle Complottiste” (read: ) and so do many Italian wikiusers (read in Italian: ; ; ). Vituzzu -he is from Calabria, the home of Ndrangheta ( has even been "blocked" many times in the Italian Wikipedia, even if he is an admin, and "strangely" survived without ever being banned (… ): but this could only be possible because of his powerful "mafia" relationships!).

This help from wikimafia Vituzzu could or seems to be related to the growing relationship between muslim terrorism organizations and the mafia against & inside the Christian Western industrial societies ( may be it is even related -as a clear possible proof- to the Middayexpress supposed involvement in Muslim terrorism support.

Indeed in London, between some members of the huge Somalian community, there it is a growing "hidden" support for Al-Shabaab; and Middaexpress seems to live there ( ).

If interested in further in formation, please go to — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^
  2. ^
  3. ^ Tripodi, Paolo. The Colonial Legacy in Somalia. p. 66