User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Masawirkaas

Hal waa yaab, hal na waa yaabka yaabki, hal na waa amakaag. I do not do ragrago but isn’t that pretty much Schadenfreude? (Iga raalli ahow)--SilasW (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Middayexpress. You have new messages at Cordless Larry's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

African migration to UK template

Hi. I'm concerned that recent edits to Template:AfricansinUK‎, including yours, are taking it down the route of mixing ethnicities and countries of birth, which is why this type of template has been deleted in the past. The template should simply list countries of birth and not attempt to categorise them into census ethnicity categories since this constitutes original research. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:58, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, this edit suggests that you're aware of this problem and are removing ethnic group categories. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahmad Gragn, again

Hi Middayexpress -- I finally had the chance to get ahold of a copy of G.W.B. Huntingford's The historical geography of Ethiopia, & checked the passage you referred to. However, the passage you referred me to reads differently than what you said it did. Richard Pankhurst commented, on Huntingford's assertion that Imam Ahmad was a Somali:

There is, it should be emphasized, in fact no contemporary evidene as to Ahmad Grañ's ethnic origins which are described, significantly, by I.M. Lewis in his Modern History of Somaliland, London, 1965, p. 26 as 'appropriately obscure.'"

Did your copy read differently? Or were you quoting from memory at the time? Where do we go from here about the section in the article? -- llywrch (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

No, my copy did not read differently, and yes, I was already aware of that quote. However, note that it is not a statement on what G.W.B. Huntingford and his coauthor Richard Pankhurst personally believe with regard to Imam Ahmad's ethnicity. Rather, it is simply a statement on what they believe regarding the extent of the contemporary evidence on the Imam's ethnicity, which is why they footnoted it. Here again is their own statement on his ethnicity, from the chapter entitled "The ethnic composition of Gran's armies" on page 135 of the 1989 edition of The historical geography of Ethiopia from the first century AD to 1704‎ (the same page where that passage you quoted for me is found, albeit not in footnotes):

"Ahmed Gran was, it has been said, a Somali, and his headquarters were on the edge of the Somali country."

Middayexpress (talk) 02:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

somali population in canada

I have put the unofficial number of Somalis in Canada below the official one and you keep changing it. Do you need more proof? Why do allow to keep the Somali Briton unofficial Somali population unchanged yet delete the unofficial Somali population in Canada? If you have read the article, the 200,000 figure has come from the government. However, I have more proof nonetheless.

The Canadian Minisiter of Citizen and Immigration said "I know that many of you are Canadians who came to this country, many of you probably as refugees, from Somalia. Canada is proud to have received over 200,000 newcomers, mainly but not exclusively refugees, from Somalia".

-- source: http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/department/media/speeches/2009/2009-02-22.asp (transcript)

SomaliCanadians, a group that is funded by and is a project of Heritage Canada, a federal government department, states that 200,000 Somalis reside in Canada.

"Today, millions of Somalis live scattered around the world. While the great majority are refugees living in neighboring countries in East Africa and in the Middle East, there are Somali communities throughout Europe and North America. The largest population is in Canada, where approximate figures of 200,000 Somalis have settled in over the last 20 years"

-- source: http://www.somalicanadians.ca/history/index.html

Atleast put up the unofficial numbers as well. These figures are coming from a Government Minister and a government department (two government departments actually; Heritage Canada and Immigration Canada). Census numbers are only those who participate in Census. If the Immigration minister says there are 200,000 Somalis in Canada, then put that up as the unofficial number. And if you still do not accept that as valid enough, then it would be only fair to delete the Somali Briton unofficial number because that BBC article reports "experts suggest at least 95,000 and as many as 250,000". That is not deemed as a better source than Canadian government ministers that report their own Somali community population. The British number isnt coming from government officials unlike Canada. It is only "experts". Experts that are not named. Some Somali sheikh could have been that expert. Who knows.

I don't see how I "keep changing" the unofficial figure you added when I only reverted your edit once (unless, of course, that is you again Stevvvv4444 using anonymous IPs to perform your edits). At any rate, the first source you've presented above is unsatisfactory because, while it is indeed from the Minister, it's not from an official publication (which thereby demonstrates a reliable editorial & fact-checking process), but from a speech. The second source, however, strikes me as less problematic. It helps that it's from a Somali-Canadian organization that's affiliated with Canadian Heritage. The figure, though obviously still unofficial, is certainly more reliable than that off-hand, unreferenced assertion in that article you first added. I don't really have a problem with adding the figure now, provided its referenced to this second source. As for the Somali Briton article, I didn't actually add that unofficial figure; an anonymous IP did. Like you, that IP was also rather passionate about the whole thing. Middayexpress (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Asli Adan

Hello Middayexpress. Can you add your sources, please? A quick Google Search is not very helpful. Thank you. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer, have a good day. --Vejvančický (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Midday, Thanks for the barnstar, appreciate it!--Scoobycentric (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Project

I am interested in getting a Somalia project started and you were mentioned as someone who might be interested in a similar end. --Nogburt (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. Apparently there is a Somalia project. I guess it just needs a bit more help.--Nogburt (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know much of anything about Somalia, but I can put whatever I know in good English. One of my frustrations with some of these articles is that I can sense that there is a lot of content there but I often can't make out enough of it to be able to edit and refine it into more concise English. I've been doing a lot of flagging but I hope to do a bit more. II have been thinking about just getting into touch with some of the poor-English-writing / high-Somalia-knowledge-possessing folks who contribute to these articles. Hopefully putting the two sorts of editors together would combine the strengths of both and the result would be fact (and citation) grounded articles in good English. --Nogburt (talk) 04:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Somalia Affair

I see you have some problems with the Somalia Affair article. There might be issues there, but you have not made those clear. You can't simply remove well referenced content without providing some evidence that it is wrong or misleading. Also, please do not accuse respected long time users of being racists. I do agree that a different title for that clip might be appropriate, but it is a direct quote from it. - SimonP (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

In fairness, I do hate Oompa-Loompas ;) But I'm going to take "respected long time user" and frame it on my wall now... Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:13, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the lecture, okay? Those images were ripped directly from a CBC documentary on the Somalia Affair, as the supposedly "well-respected" uploader himself indicated. It was his own decision to title that image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" -- just like it was his own decision to caption one "Cpl. McKay speaks of the "niggers" around him in Somalia" and another "Pte. David Brocklebank describes his operation as "snatch niggers"." Awfully fond of the n-word for a so-called "respected long time user", isn't he? Perhaps this is difficult for you to understand, but I assure you, it won't be for the folks over at the administrator's noticeboard. Do not again add copyright violations to the article or tell me to respect people that don't know the meaning of it. Middayexpress (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

They were taken from the CBC, but they were certainly not created by the CBC. CBC thus has no claim to copyright over them. They are using them under the same fair dealing rules that allow us to use them in Wikipedia. In terms of the usage of the n-word, please read the article. The use of racist language by members of the Canadian Forces was one of the major issues in the Somalia Affair. I'm quite certain that using the term is to highlight just how shocking the behaviour of some of the troops over there was. I see nothing in the article, or anything else Sherurcij has done, to indicate any support for racist behaviour. Indeed if there is any straying from NPOV it is in quite the opposite direction. - SimonP (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't insult my intelligence. Arguing that CBC doesn't own the copyright even though it states as much at the end of every show (just like every other television station does) is utterly absurd. The CBC logo is even included in one of the images, not the logo of Somali television. The editor's other "valuable contributions" also extend to adding an image of simulated oral copulation, gleefully detailing that the poor victim was "hiding in a portable toilet" and that he had been "anally raped with a broom handle" -- need I continue? This is an utter joke. But in a way, I'm glad it happened because it's good to know what Wiki editors are really like when they think no one is paying attention. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, please read the articles. These sorts of barbarities are what the incident is all about, and why it was a major scandal in Canada. Should we simply not mention that these things occurred because they are offensive? As to the CBC issue, CBC does not own copyright here as they did not film the scenes. A public domain image is still in the public domain if it placed on the CBC website. - SimonP (talk) 17:18, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, that's utter rubbish. The images were a part of a CBC documentary. I should know because I've seen it. They are not from the Somali government or from Somali television or from any other Somali source. Taken alone, your apologizing for that other user's distasteful choice of image captioning may have washed over. But definitely not when his equally if not more offensive insistence on including images of racist, dehumanizing torture or his allegedly "valuable" contributions detailed above are also taken into consideration. The fact remains that he didn't have to include the word "niggers" in that Commons image. He, again, chose to. And that, in and of itself, is very telling. Even if you keep attempting to deny this, that's not a problem at all, for just about every other fair-minded Wikipedian won't. Middayexpress (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble with how I should describe "racist, dehumanizing torture" without illustrating "racist, dehumanizing torture"? Or should we simply pretend it didn't happen? The fact I show Brocklebank referring to Somalis as "niggers" shows, if anything, a lack of deference to the Canadian Forces. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not merely "illustrate" the racist, dehumanizing torture. You positively reveled in it, using the n-word repeatedly in places that never warranted it (as you are doing now). In fact, you even went so far as to voluntarily title a copyright-violating image you posted of said torture with that very word. This, of course, has all been detailed above, with links that put the lie to each and every one of your bogus, transparent denials. Middayexpress (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this would be the moment to ask you to take a deep breath, and remember that SimonP, myself, and all the soldiers in that article are Canadian, not American. In our newspapers, the word "nigger" is commonly printed if in a verbatim quote; "The accused is said to have insulted the driver, calling him a "damned nigger", before taking his wallet". I know in the United States it is considered an almost-sacred word that cannot be uttered, on par with Yahweh for Orthodox Jews - but Wikipedia is not limited to American mindsets; the word "nigger" can be printed in certain circumstances; see for example, the article nigger; should we delete it? Of course not, it is dealing with instances of the use of the word. We can't say "James Brown was a famous nigger...", but we can say "Agatha Christie's novel was originally titled Ten Little Niggers". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 04:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

So this is what it has come to? Misrepresenting what is "acceptable" in Canada, of all places. Save yourself the trouble. I'm very familiar with the country. And it's a jarring slap in the face of that particular multi-cultural society to insist that the word "nigger" is commonly used there and acceptable, "SimonP" or not. Racism (yes, that would include your favorite word "nigger", whose repeated use you've already proudly admitted to standing behind) is verboten in Canada's Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I'll have you know. And comparing one old Agatha Christie novel that dates from a period when it indeed was acceptable and common in the Western world to use that vulgar term with its contemporary usage in the here and now of 2009 is both ridiculous and a red herring. Middayexpress (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

To claim that reporting that members of the Canadian Airborne called Somalis "niggers" before torturing one to death hardly counts as racism on my part. Perhaps your anger should be directed at Matchee or Brown? Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid the decision to title that Wikipedia image "Somalia breaking arms and legs of niggers" and to add another image of simulated oral copulation, gleefully detailing that the poor victim was "hiding in a portable toilet" and that Shidane Arone had been "anally raped with a broom handle", among other telling actions, are very much your own as a Wikipedia editor. There'll be no shirking off this responsibility on the soldiers, sorry to say. Your argument is akin to a Neo-Nazi re-publishing racist passages from Mein Kampf and then complaining that he didn't write the book, but was only, like, quoting from it and stuff. Merely "reporting" obscenities, you know? Absurd. And also against WP:SOAP. Middayexpress (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

• Notice how "niggers" seems to appear in quotation marks? It is not my words, it is the words of the Canadian Airborne Regiment members who I am quoting in the article. As SimonP suggests, one would assume I am highlighting the racism that accompanied the regiment's deployment. And I have never indicated the images were shot by the CBC, they were shot by members of the CAR and copyright did not attach itself to the images as they were created and first disseminated in Somalia itself. PD-Somalia does not refer to works of the Somali Government (wait, there's a government now?), but to all works with few exceptions. (A documentary shot by the CBC, would, if produced for publication in Canada and not first screened on a Somali station, still be copyrighted.) Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps those aren't your words, but nevertheless you chose to highlight them and repeatedly. You also did indicate that the images were from CBC & other Canadian sources -- not Somali ones. You did this in the 'Source' section of each and every one of the copyright-violating images you added. One of them even has the CBC logo still on it! Middayexpress (talk) 16:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The watermark should be removed, but no I did not indicate the creating source was from the CBC, only the immediate source as online verification that the images are legitimate. And yes, I chose to highlight them and repeatedly, and I stand by that. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 17:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes! I know you stand by highlighting the n-word and repeatedly in those image captions. Thank you for admitting as much. ;-) Middayexpress (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The images and videos were purchased by the CBC from inside sources before they were 'published' anywhere on the world, this doesn't make them elligable for the PD-Somalia template and hence they are copyright violations as they are the property of CBC, The BBC sustains dozens of inside sources in Iraq and Afghanistan(who aren't necessarily BBC employees but simply freelance) which enables her to transmit material to various news outlets around the world for hefty sums of money, despite the fact that the latter country(afghanistan has no Copyright laws). I do understand where Middayexpress is coming from and why he would feel suspicious about you considering your poor choice words in the titles. --Scoobycentric (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just the point I was trying to make. It's absurd to try and pass off those offensive, obviously copyrighted screenshots as copyright-free images as the uploader has done. To voluntarily give them racist names and captions on top of that is just uncalled for, and suggests more sinister motives at work. Middayexpress (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

None were purchased by the CBC, the photos of Matchee/Arone were distributed in Somalia, but a publication ban prevented their use in Canada until November 1994; the racist tape came out later, after the Quebec subsidiary of CTV bribed a man (not the videographer) approximately $500 to sell one of fifty VHS cassettes that existed showing the actions shot by soldiers and "self-published", and the hazing tape (the only one with copyright, since it was made in Canada, not Somalia) was only a few days later. CBC's only involvement with Somalia was McAullife (who was CBC Radio, not television), Information request as detailed in the article. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Proof of this (that means actual links)? Didn't think so. Middayexpress (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Circulation amongst a 'few friends' in Canada or army Baracks doesn't equal Self-publishing. The first entities to break the news with this material and put it into real circulation were 'Canadian media outlets'. If i as a freelance reporter catched 'rare footage' in Afghanistan, i as a British citizen would still have my copyrights protected. It doesn't matter if i send this same footage to a few relatives and friends, fact is; nobody can just take my material and do whatever they wish with it, wether if i was a soldier/photographer/relief worker, hence why all those images you find on the web concerning individuals and their time in Afghanistan feature a copyright symbol --Scoobycentric (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Unified Task Force

I have reverted your vandalism to Unified Task Force, please do not remove sourced paragraphs, or public-domain images related to the subject, to advance a personal viewpoint or distaste for the subject. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 16:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove sourced paragraphs. Do not again lie; and I likewise have reverted your edit since it's obvious from which POV you are editing. Middayexpress (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Middayexpress is complaining, alleging that somebody is telling lies about her? That's rich. She lies about me constantly and shamelessly. You differ with her about anything and she will attack you personally, gleefully, viciously, relentlessly - and with no regard for actual facts. It's her way. Chuck @ UPDmedia.com (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Still canvassing for support I see, Chuckupd. No need to bring your frustration at being completely unable to ever prove your point into a conversation you know nothing about. If your employer Edna Adan Ismail had any idea you were voicing support for someone so bent on racially humiliating her people like that user above, you'd be out of your stooge job in no time. Unfortunately for you, however, even administrators (the fair, uninvolved ones, that is) are all too aware of what that user above is attempting to do and likewise take exception to it like any normal, fair-minded person would. The latter designation, of course, would exclude the likes of you. By the way, linking people to a conversation where you have yet again been exposed doesn't exactly do you any good. ;-D Middayexpress (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You have been reported for edit warring regarding this article. —A Werewolf (talk) 06:06, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10