User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 7

Speedy deletion nomination of Somali Empires
A tag has been placed on Somali Empires requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Guy0307 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please follow WP:Dispute resolution at Somalia Affair
Hello Middayexpress. The case you filed at WP:AN3 is now closed. Though one editor was blocked, he is now unblocked with the agreement to follow WP:Dispute resolution. Please note that an edit war does not reflect well on any of the parties, and that more than one person could easily have been blocked. Do not continue to revert this article to your preferred version without first getting a Talk page consensus. If you can't get anyone besides the three of you to participate on talk, open a WP:Request for comment. I can provide assistance with the mechanics. Continued reverting of this article by anyone may lead to additional sanctions.

Let me know if I can answer any questions on how dispute resolultion works. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. And thanks again for your assistance in this matter. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There was something about you removing Sherurcij's post from a project talk page, which you called 'self-serving.' Please don't do that; it can lead to sanctions. I notice that both parties have reverted the Somalia Affair article again, and I do not see evidence of consensus, so I have imposed full protection. Let me know as soon as you believe consensus has been reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks; I'll be sure to do that. I have addressed this issue further on your talk page. Middayexpress (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Isaaq
Hello, the inclusion of the Lange text was in response to a comment/complaint on the Isaaq talk page, see Talk:Isaaq for more info (if you're curious). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks. Middayexpress (talk) 18:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Leelkase contributions
Hi, Middayexpress, thank you for contributing to the Leelkase tribe section. I really appreciate your additions. I have just added a summarized and shortened list of the main Leelkase subclans. And also i removed reference 1, because it referred to a time of conflict and war between two clans, which are cousons, and have moved on and are no longer at war. I removed that reference, but kept one other reference which was for the exact same reason. Its not a good idea to always mention conflicts when all that is being referred to is a spelling of the name of Leelkase, all somalis have fought before, and move on, and it's not good idea to mention bad times constantly.

Thanks again, and i hope to see you often :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Taajir (talk • contribs) 23:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. I agree that that source is not helpful, as it dates from 15 years ago. That's only three short years after the outbreak of the civil war, so relations between groups would necessarily have been a lot more strained back then. It's therefore hardly indicative of the present situation. Middayexpress (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Somali Road
I have nominated Somali Road, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Somali Road. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Grim23 ★ 20:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV additions to Ogaden War?
I don't understand your reversions of my edits, which are based on the article written by Gebru Tareke, which is cited in the footnotes. (I can email you a copy of the pdf file if you don't have access to the journal.) My intent was to emphasize the ferocity both sides fought during the months the city of Harar was at risk -- & which Gebru clearly documents. Admittedly he favors the Ethiopian side, but if you know of any sources which better explain the conflict from the Somali side, I'd appreciate knowing about them. -- llywrch (talk) 18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Llywrch. As you'll note, I did not revert all of your changes; just the parts that struck me as non-neutral. Specifically, where you changed the phrases "the Somalis were unable to press their advantage because of the high level of attrition among its tank battalions, constant Ethiopian air attacks on their supply lines, and the onset of the rainy season, which made the dirt roads unusable" to "the Somalis were unable to press their advantage because of the high attrition on its tank battalions, a tenacious Ethiopian fighting spirit, constant air attacks on their supply lines, and the onset of the rainy season which made the dirt roads unusable", and "the SNA-WSLF forces attempted to capture Harar" to "the SNA-WSLF forces did their utmost to capture Harar", but without sourcing this to anything. You indicate now that these changes are indeed sourced to a paper by one Gebru Tareke (presumably this one). However, there are no inline citations indicating this or on which page(s) of that paper this information is found, while there appear to be some inline citations from this same paper for other passages in the wiki article. You also admit that Tareke favors the Ethiopian side; I believe we should avoid using such biased sources, and concentrate instead on neutral ones. I would, nevertheless, be interested in reading the paper, if possible. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think Gebre Tareke is so biassed in his account as to be ignored. If you look at pages pp. 651-656 of that article (you have the correct one), there is no way to describe the fighting other than fierce & tenacious -- on both sides. Even after looking for & compensating for bias (which might be better described as "showing partiality"), it's hard not to conclude that this is what happened. And the degree of his bias cn be measured by how he describes Megnistu's intervention in the battle for Jijiga on p. 648, where when the fighting grew fierce, "he found his way to Adew, from where he was flown back to Addis Ababa on the 7th"; had he been blindly loyal to the Ethiopian side, I doubt he would so strongly hint at Mengistu's cowardice. (And the only reason I haven't added it to this article has been simply a lack of time to use to understand how to insert it without making too bad of a mess of things.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there has been a misunderstanding. I noticed what looked to be the insertion of non-neutral changes to two specific sentences on the Ogaden article, sentences I have described above. You then contacted me and indicated that those sentences were indeed sourced to that paper by Tareke. You also admitted that Tareke favors the Ethiopian side (which indicates bias on his side), and offered to let me have a look at that paper. I thus naturally suggested two things: 1) that perhaps it's best if we concentrate on neutral sources rather than ones that favor any one side, and 2) that it would be great if you'd let me have a look at that paper, as I don't have access to it. Perhaps Tareke isn't really as biased as you had originally indicated; I have no idea. All I'm really interested in at the moment is resolving this whole 'NPOV' issue. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 07:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in resolving this "NPOV" issue also; my intent there was simply to say both sides fought hard -- which is was I was puzlled over your use of the term. Maybe "biassed" was too strong of a term for Gebre Tareke's POV; I should have said "favored". But he does tend to side with the Ethiopians because (1) he was born in Ethiopia & is, I believe, an ethnic Tigrayan; & (2) he based his account on extensive access to Ethiopian military archives, as well as interviews with members of the Ethiopian military. As a result, (1) he is going to look at the matter as an Ethiopian (as I, who am an American, will unavoidably write about any US-related conflict thru American eyes); & (2) the actions of the Somali military comes across in far less detail, almost as a dark cloud which sweeps across the Ogaden, laps at the heights around Harar, then recedes before Ethiopian & allied units. (This lack of detail is why I asked if you knew of any Somali sources.) As for the article, I just remembered that it is available online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/7258548/Tareke-Ethiopia-Somalia-War-of-1977 -- although if you want a pdf copy to prevent this link from going away, I certainly will email it to you. (I wished I had remembered that URL sooner, so this conversation could have moved much more quickly. I apologize for my disorganized memory.) Best, llywrch (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. I'll have a look at it later on today and get back to you. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Somali people
Hey Midday nice job with the infoboxes. Shall we limit each of the lists on the Somali people article to maximum 25 individuals? --Scoobycentric (talk) 02:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable, we could categorize them on the basis of their occupation/position, see List of English people --Scoobycentric (talk) 04:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, the other list was too difficult to follow, this one is easier on the eye.--Scoobycentric (talk) 13:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of fact that BBC reported woman had been stoned in Somalia
Why did you delete the above fact I put into the article on Somalia.--ruskin (talk)17:51 30 November 2009  (UTC)
 * For the same reason regular editors of the United States or United Kingdom articles or those of any other country from the developed world would've deleted that unsourced comment: murders -- and often-times unbelievably bizarre ones -- happen all the time in those countries and at a much higher rate than in Somalia. But curiously, no one feels the need to detail each and every one of these gruesome events on those countries' respective articles. That is what is known as a double standard. And if ever someone did feel the need to do so, they too would be reverted very quickly because that material is ultimately ephemeral, unencylopedic & not nearly enough to define the country (i.e. the actual topic of the article) or to reduce its long, storied history down to, as I believe already pointed out to you. Now if it had been the murder of the President, that's another story entirely (as can be seen, for example, on the U.S. article with regard to John F. Kennedy and on the Somalia article with regard to Abdirashid Ali Shermarke). Middayexpress (talk) 18:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please stop removing speedy deletion notices from pages that you have created yourself. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Bdb484 (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not an administrator and you don't have the power to block me, though I'm sure that is what you are aiming for. Adding a bogus deletion template to an article and never even bothering to explain let alone justify said template -- despite being asked to -- as you have done only makes you look bad, not me. By the way, one can't be "blocked" from removing bogus, bad faith messages from one's own userspace; see Userspace vandalism. Middayexpress (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Cushitic religion and Sudanic religion
Hi, I have commented on this topic on [Talk:African traditional religion], maybe you can add your oppinion there so we may converge on a common formulation in the article.Nannus (talk) 23:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)