This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

British African-Caribbean people confuses people. The word "African" must be removed. For example, have a look here. In the ethnicity section "Black African" and "Black Caribbean" appear to be the same. -- 115ash ^→(☏) 14:07, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing stopping you from opening up a move request for the article, 115ash. You can't tag it on to an existing request when that's already been the subject of a week's worth of discussion, that's all. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Although I should also say that I would oppose a move to British Caribbean people, on the grounds that not all Caribbean people are African-Caribbean. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

What could we do? "British African-Caribbean people" is not acceptable.-- 115ash ^→(☏) 10:15, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, 115ash, that's the name that comes closest to WP:COMMONNAME. Plenty of reliable sources use it, certainly. However, if you don't like the article title then you should feel free to suggest a move. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"Afro-Carabbean" sounds finer. -- 115ash ^→(☏) 13:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

My sense is that "Afro-Caribbean" is a bit of a dated term, and some sources indeed note that it is increasingly being replaced by "African-Caribbean". You should request the move if that's what you want to suggest though, 115ash. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I've added a terminology section to the article to try to reflect debates about this. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd need to contact a user who has the permission to make changes on the infoboxes, but I've forgotten this right. Who are them? Do you know? -- 115ash ^→(☏) 14:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Infoboxes are just templates, so you can edit them yourself, as far as I know, 115ash (subject to the usual rules about concensus). Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Haha! I was not talking about that. As I said before about this matter here, which needs to be solved. Anyway, I will try to solve this. -- 115ash ^→(☏) 14:26, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Ah, you meant the content of the infobox rather than its design. I see. I think I've fixed it for you, 115ash. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but what about London Boroughs? Such as this?-- 115ash ^→(☏) 14:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid that they will probably have to be edited individually. I didn't realise that the issue extended beyond the City of London article. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about this. This even confused me, for instance, there were 1,904,684 Black British in UK (2011), but I thought that there were just less 700,000, given that I read Black Carabbean's one and never noticed about the Black British one. So who can fix them? -- 115ash ^→(☏) 14:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure that there's an editing tool that can make that task easy. I'll look into it when I get a few moments. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This would be very helpful. Just for the motive of inquisitiveness, am I talking with a male or female? Are you of African or Caribbean ancestry? -- 115ash ^→(☏) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've had a look through the available tools and have found one that I've used before that will do it. I'll try to do it tonight. I'm male. My interest in these topics doesn't come from my own background but rather a scholarly interest in ethnicity statistics. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:12, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for everything, good luck!-- 115ash ^→(☏) 15:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

It turned out to be very simple, 115ash. The borough articles all use Template:Infobox London Borough, so it was just a case of tweaking that template. It happens that City of London doesn't use that infobox, which led me to believe that all borough articles would have to be edited individually, but that wasn't the case. Thanks for bringing the issue to my attention. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

seeing we had such a frutiful exchange earlier I would like to ask if you would consider assisting me with a blatant POV-pusher that has even gone to the extent of employing a bot to do her dirty work. And of course, it's related to Bosnia and the Balkans, what else. Sigh. :( The user is Yerevani Axjik, and here's a small, but in no way isolated, taste of her work. Needless to say, she is painfully pro-Serb (affiliations which she does not even deny on her user page) and the effect, of course, is a reduced reliability on behalf of Wikipedia. 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 15:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, 46.239.102.226. The best thing to do in the first instance is probably to raise this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina. I'm not really sure what the consensus is on the naming articles on places in Bosnia, but people there will have a better idea. I will try to contribute to the discussion as I see fit. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Larry! I will write up a case and gather "evidence" in the next few days. I'll keep you posted.. 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 15:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited British African-Caribbean people, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page London Transport. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I was away for a while there. Glad that Callanecc has given you some protection.  — SMALL JIM  11:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all, Smalljim. It just looked like you were online and actively editing, so I thought I'd try you as a first option. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Larry,

so if I get it right Markowitz is suggesting that the authorities, or "state" as she calls it, might have falsified the census results to arbitrarily re-categorize a portion of Muslims, Yugoslavs and Others as Bosniaks in spite of their self-declaration as "Other" in the census? That is quite a grave incrimination (rigging a census) don't you agree? What does Markowitz base it on? How and why is not clear to her? To me it appears that she is merely speculating without any hard evidence whatsoever. As such, it might be a qualified editorial by an academic, but hardly worthy the factuality of an encyclopedia. If we shall insist on keeping the source, then let's at least not mince its implications: Academic Fran Markowitz speculates that the census results might have been downright falsified to increase the number of Bosniaks. Regards. 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 10:35, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi 46.239.102.226. Looking at the source, I don't think Markowitz is suggesting that the state falsified the results (in fact, I'm pretty certain she's not). She discusses the formalisation of the Bosniak category in the Dayton agreement, and then argues: "Solidifying loosely defined Muslims into a Bosniac national group responded to people's fears and desires, and since the end of the war this Bosniac ethnopolitical identity has become fixed as fact. The state category and citizens' sensibilities have been working together to shape selves that correspond to the constitutional mandate of a Bosniac people". So she's not arguing that the census is falsified, but highlighting how the state has been involved in the growing identification with the Bosniak identity. Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:50, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

When I get time, I will see if I can read the Markowitz article in more detail and write a summary to replace that quote, which is potentially confusing. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:16, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thanks for clarifying that. In that case, however, the current phrasing is highly misleading: "the state acted by fiat to turn Muslims (and perhaps Jugoslaveni [Yugoslavs] and Ostali [others]) into Bosniaks, or if its citizens through their self-declarations made that switch in identity". We have established that the citizens, indeed, opted to declare themselves as Bosniaks in the census ("checking that box") and that the results have not been manipulated with in any way. Thus, 79.6% of respondents truly self-declared as Bosniaks. What Markowitz thus concludes is that state and citizens have "been working together" to consolidate the desire of a Bosniak national group, which is a perfectly normal and understandable process (in fact, this is how states and nations pretty much function everywhere), and it does not render the census results any less valid or inaccurate. Suggesting that the state acted "by fiat and turned/manipulated people into something" is entirely misleading, and to be honest, unacceptable. Seeing how objective Markowitz is in her assertions cited by you, I doubt that the current phrasing is directly lifted from her work, but rather the result of a wild misrepresentation of the latter. As you conclude yourself, Markowitz is not all contesting the validity of the census but discussing the national development of Bosniaks in post-war Bosnia. Now my question to you is, do you REALLY think that is relevant to highlight in the demographics sections (a section that should largely deal with hard facts and figures, rather than dwelling on the issue of Bosniak national development)? Not to mention that the text currently makes out that development to be something manipulated/constructed out of the parliament for which reason the census results must be met with skepticism. I'm sure you see the problems. My suggestion is after all, to remove the source altogether (it is beside the point) or, secondly, rephrase it to actually represent Markowitz assertion (but then we end up with a theme that has no suitable place in a demographics section). What is not an option, however, is keeping it the way it is. 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 11:41, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I will check back later. One possible way to go about it, if we decide on rephrasing rather than removing, is to explain that following the war the Bosniak category has been formalised, replacing the former Yugoslav category "Muslim". And that after the war most citizens have taken to traditional ethnicities ("Muslim" was never a traditional ethnicity, or hardly an ethnicity at all, but more of an ethnic policy imposed by the Yugoslav government) leaving "Muslims" and "Yugoslavs". 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 11:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi again! I've made some changes to text which I feel sorts it out nicely. Added a slight background to the Bosniak category and explicated the meaning of what Markowitz tries to get through. Cheers, 46.239.102.226 ( talk) 14:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, 46.239.102.226. When I get time, I'll still read the article in more detail to make sure we've covered her argument properly, but I think you've done a good job judging by my quick scan. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

46.239.102.226, I've made some further changes to try to reflect Markowitz's analysis a bit more comprehensively. Let me know what you think (you might not be able to post here as I've had the page semi-protected due to some IP vandalism, but you could post at Talk:Sarajevo instead, which is probably a more appropriate place anyway. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry, I'm having trouble in regards to editing this article. I deleted a sentence that wasn't backed by sources yet explained why it should be deleted, nevertheless, there was a consensus conflict in regards to the article and tried to prove my point in the article's talk page and provided sources that explain why the sentence should be removed but no one seems to have even read the sources [1]. I would appreciate your help greatly. ( N0n3up ( talk) 19:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

Can I ask why you have contacted me in particular, N0n3up? I don't really have expertise on that topic. I can look into it, but it would be good to know why I've been selected! Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I chose you randomly to be honest, and I didn't really know where else to turn. ( N0n3up ( talk) 19:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

Irish temper is an expression often used to signify someone with high temper, and he called me an old fart. He's the one who insulted me, not him, I just made an expression. ( N0n3up ( talk) 20:40, 3 May 2015 (UTC))

Perhaps you should reflect on whether that's an appropriate expression to be using in interactions with other editors. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Peterborough page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error ( help). ( Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 08:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Goodness me, it only took a month :)  —  Amakuru ( talk) 17:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I'm glad that we finally found a title that achieved consensus and is better than "Piracy in Somalia". I also learnt how to close move discussions as a result of the backlog! Cordless Larry ( talk)

Yes, it's certainly in need of a lot of attention right now!  —  Amakuru ( talk) 11:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Apparently they donate a portion of their sales to the WMF. Interesting. — Soap — 06:31, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello! I have semiprotected this page as you requested. I also have a suggestion. I note that you keep telling the IP, in edit summaries, to take it to the talk page. That is the right thing to do, but it may not be enough. They may not know how to do that, or they may not know about edit summaries. It often helps if YOU start a thread on the talk page, which they can reply to. After all, you are reverting them repeatedly; you should probably go to the talk page and explain why, rather than simply telling them to do so. If they are a static IP you can also leave a note on their user talk page with a link to the article talk page. When you start the talk page discussion yourself, it makes it clear to observers that you are the one who understands Wikipedia practices, and it shows that you are bending over backwards to work with the disputing party. Just a suggestion. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, MelanieN. That's a good point about the talk page discussion. I would usually raise it on the user's talk page, but since this appeared to be a dynamic IP, I didn't on this occasion. I could have started the discussion on the article talk page, as you say, and I will be sure to do this in future. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:42, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry, you appear to be interested in Somali issues. I've just posted the following on Talk:Kismayo: 'Readdition of Jubaland flag with edit summary 'formatting: This kind of . Middayexpress, for Kismayu, with the edit summary 'formatting' but actually consisting of adding the Jubaland flag, to bolster that entity's profile, is not the way we edit Wikipedia. I must kindly ask you not to game the encyclopedia/wikilawyer in this fashion. Cease misrepresenting Somali issues, please. I've asked you many times - I've run an RfC - there are only so many other dispute resolution forums to go to. (Just FYI, Cordless). Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Buckshot06. I have had similar concerns about this editor passing off as content edits as "copy editing" in the past (a recent example here). Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry,

I was wondering how I could post that information; as all of the publications are verifiable through world-cat and other sources.

How does one expand the information that has been posted by someone else? All Bill was trying to do was clarify something someone else posted. He's 80+ and doesn't know how to use all these different media; therefore he asked me to do it...and clearly, I don't understand the rules of wikipedia either. :-)

Best, Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa Guinther ( talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Lisa Guinther. To expand an article, you just need to add the text to what is already there, rather than copying and pasting over it. I suggested on your user talk page that you post the material on the article's talk page, from where other editors can help you have it added to the article. The list of publications isn't that much of an issue - it's easily verified, as you say - but we need sources for the biographical material. Cordless Larry ( talk) 07:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

The Michelle Hale Williams source that you had mentioned in your additions proved to be a good reference for the biographical material, so I have added a summary of his early life and education using that. I have also added some of his publications, based on WorldCat. I will try to expand the article further when I have time. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Cordless Larry,

Thank you, I think I understand now.

I will work on this over the weekend.

Best,

Lisa Guinther ( talk) 14:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Lisa Guinther, I think I've now managed to add most of your suggested material to the article now, and found sources for it. Let me know if you need help developing the article further. I hope that William is happy with it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much Larry!

This is wonderful.

Warmly,

Lisa Guinther ( talk) 15:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the positive feedback. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:34, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

How did your article get in "Did you know..."? AcidSnow ( talk) 18:55, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi AcidSnow. It got there because I nominated it and it was accepted. See Wikipedia:Did you know. Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! AcidSnow ( talk) 20:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

It would be good to get a Somalia-related article featured there, if that's what you're thinking, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yah that's my plan. I will like to see more individuals edit on Somali articles. 16:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Me too, AcidSnow, although I think it's a bit hopeful that a DYK mention will achieve that. I have a feeling that the number of people regularly editing Wikipedia is on a bit of a serious slide, and I always struggle to get people to offer opinions on talk pages and the like. It also seems that vandalism isn't being reverted as quickly as it used to be - though perhaps things were always like this and I'm just remembering the old days through rose-tinted glasses. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean, it seems that more people are making accounts just to do vandalism. AcidSnow ( talk) 17:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there's any more vandalism, but it doesn't seem to get so systematically reverted as I remember. I recently discovered that the ethnicity statistics in the Peterborough article (supposedly a featured article) had been vandalised more than a year ago, and no one had reverted them! Anyway, let me know if you want any help with or advice on a Somalia article DYK, AcidSnow. I've had a few articles featured over the years. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh I am not talking about all across Wikipedia rather just Somali related articles. A good example would be Somaliland article. I plan to get more info on the Somali Sultanates before I go on make a DYK for them. There's no need to see a small article lol. AcidSnow ( talk) 17:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, possibly it's more of a problem with Somalia-related articles. DYK requires that an article be new or the text to have expanded at least fivefold in the previous seven days, so it's a good idea to pick a underdeveloped article that you can easily expand. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask how this is going, AcidSnow? My offer still stands, so shout if you need some help or advice. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I have currently hit a stump in my expansions of articles. AcidSnow ( talk) 21:34, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Is it something that input from other editors could help you resolve? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Possibly, currently am trying to figure out the line of succession for the Imam of Mogadishu. I know as of now that there was differently an Imam named Mahmud. Also knowing when the Ajuran collapsed would also be useful. AcidSnow ( talk)

Sounds tricky and I'm not sure I can help much with that, other than looking in the usual places that I assume you've already checked. Presumably you've asked for help from the relevant WikiProjects? Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Nonetheless, thank you for your help. I have moved on to Italian sources as of now and I believe I have found the right list of people. AcidSnow ( talk) 21:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Addressed to Middayexpress: would you kindly please explain this edit? Why did you remove the valid, referenced material about a mayor in the UK, that was useful for establishing the dates he was in office? Your edit summary was "neutralize", and removing information that completes an explanation about an issue is in violation of WP:NPOV, specifically WP:YESPOV, where it indicates "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information." I do not know how to explain this to you more clearly. Cease and desist violating WP:NPOV, please, because after an RfC, the only option left to me is appealing to Arbcom. I have, because I've been trying to be polite, not directly indicated that I am starting to consider Arbcom, but your repeated violations of NPOV really leave me no choice but to speak plainly. Happy to explain myself more clearly if anything is not already clear. I am copying User:Cordless Larry, who raised the Somalis in the United Kingdom issue with me, and due to your diligent attention to Somali-related articles, WP:Somalia. Regards Buckshot06 (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Buckshot06. I did try to find out what Middayexpress thought wasn't neutral about that source on the talk page, but didn't really get an answer. Cordless Larry ( talk) 12:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

In addition to User:Chuckupd, and myself temporarily, User:HOA Monitor also displays some signs of being driven away by constant POV pushing due to some individuals. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:59, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

HOA Monitor ( talk) 05:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)Thanks for notifying me. That was indeed the case - persistent POV pushing by certain individuals.

HOA Monitor, welcome back. Hope your time spent downrange will aid us building the very best picture of the area possible... Buckshot06 (talk) 10:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

All good, Buckshot06. Good to be back. Looking forward to working with you and other contributors on developing useful, accurate and objective material. HOA Monitor ( talk) 14:54, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your decision for not accusing me of anything (be it direct or indirect) unlike other individuals in that dissucsion. AcidSnow ( talk) 11:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, AcidSnow. I have always found you much easier to work with than MiddayExpress, and therefore find it easier to assume good faith. However, I do understand that other editors may be concerned, given that you have exchanged e-mail addresses with Midday and discussed keeping in touch. I think you just need to be very careful to not be seen to be coached by Midday in any way. That's not meant as criticism or as a warning that you shouldn't continue to edit the articles that you want to contribute to, just as friendly advice for avoiding being dragged into trouble. Cordless Larry ( talk) 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have attempted to make it clear once again that Midday never coached me at the AN/I dissusion. AcidSnow ( talk) 12:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, I imagine what people will want to be reassured about is that you won't allow yourself to be coached in future. Anyway, that's the end of my advice as I don't want to be accused of coaching you myself! Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Haha, I see. Though I may need your guidance in the future. AcidSnow ( talk) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I was mostly joking, AcidSnow. Please do feel free to ask for guidance in future, if you think I can help. Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I sure will! Thank you! AcidSnow ( talk) 18:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AcidSnow, I'm sorry if I made pejorative remarks that seemed to imply you were a problem, at that discussion or at any other. As far as I'm concerned, you're not, or you haven't demonstrated so far. Looking at the reverts you've made in the last 24 hours I've realised that despite having good grounds for them, I acted without searching out the references ( International Crisis Group reports among others). I should have done that. Anyway the articles will change quite a bit over the next while, because Midday, while making a large number of very valuable edits, did rather take things to a bit of an extreme position in some cases. I hope we can talk these things through, as I make the changes. Kind regards Buckshot06 (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I have mentioned previously that Acidsnow and the other users are possibly friends at ANI. They all do not care for reliable sources. They edit articles by backing their own original research as clearly seen here [2]. The ban should include acidsnow and it needs to be broadened to east african related articles. I already have the support of Hadraa. Zekenyan ( talk) 21:35, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Zekenyan, thanks for your message, but the place to raise this is at WP:AN/I, especially if you have evidence of meatpuppetry, as you suggest. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Before I pack it in for the day, you might be amused - if you've not seen it already - by this bit from Fox News. Santa is white and a verifiable fact, children, and Jesus was a white man too. NebY ( talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Doh, NebY, there goes my plan for a list of ethnic minority prophets! Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your assistance these past few weeks Cordless Larry. AcidSnow ( talk) 15:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

That's OK. I'm not sure that I've done much, but your words are appreciated, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry ( talk) 16:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

As you can see from the An/I report and other places, you have made clear that I am nothing like Midday and nor is there anything to prove that I was. One the other hand, we have individuals like Hadraa and Zekenyan. Anyways, many of the things that Midday is doing or appears to be doing have backlashed against me. But I will like to make it that I have no idea where Midday is going with this. I know much less than you guys do about this issue. Especially when it came to this post. More importantly, I have never spoken to Midday off Wikipedia, let alone after his departure. So I truly have no idea what is going on. AcidSnow ( talk) 16:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

OK, that's reassuring to hear. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

If you need anything then let me now. I am not sure how long I will remain on Wikipedia. Prior to Middays departure I had complapted about leaving this site. Also, I would like to know weither it's inappropriate to inform these new users the rules of Wikipedia or not? If I am allowed to then after a few (1-2) then I will depart. AcidSnow ( talk) 17:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that anyone can welcome new editors. There are some templates for doing so at Wikipedia:Welcoming committee. How will you identify them though? Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:33, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure actually. In fact, most of the people that come to Somali articles have little desire to improve therm. AcidSnow ( talk) 17:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will try my best to improve those that I'm able to. I'm sorry to hear that you're considering quitting. Cordless Larry ( talk) 17:47, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

It's alright. Wikipedia hasn't been as fun as it use to. However, it is nice to know that at least someone cares that I am possibly quitting. AcidSnow ( talk) 17:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

While I think about it, AcidSnow, can you take a look at the discussion at User talk:ذو سواد ملكي مكروبي بنطي#Somalis? I was trying to establish what the correct Somali-language term for Somali people was, but my lack of Somali language ability hampered me! Cordless Larry ( talk) 19:59, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I understand, this issue seems to rise from how English Wikipedia is the dominate Wiki. As you can see from Somalia Standard Time, I am still somewhat active so if you need anything don't hesitate to ask. AcidSnow ( talk) 20:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, AcidSnow. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:13, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Anytime. AcidSnow ( talk) 20:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Somalia Standard Time, is that the correct name for it, AcidSnow? Google only returns eight results, and none for "Soomaaliya Heerka Waqtiga". Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:11, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Mogadishu Time is used much more often. However, I choose Somalia Standered Time since it seems to be the official name and it is in line with Japan Standard Time and various other countries as well. AcidSnow ( talk) 22:49, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

What's the source for the official name, AcidSnow? Most sources I've found say that Somalia uses East Africa Time. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:51, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

My apologize. I didn't mean to say "official" but rather GreenwichMeanTime, which this whole timezone thing is based off of. They state the same for Japan Standard time. AcidSnow ( talk) 01:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. I'm not sure if that is a reliable source. I'll look into it more later. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:49, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Cordless Larry!

I do not think we can eliminate anything more for now en the article Sudanese or South Sudanese American. At least until we know more sources that talk about Southern Sudanese Americans specifically. My contributions in those articles were mainly that goal: making remained valid information that spoke only of this group (so, there information that only is in a of those items, and not in the other), but I found that although they had data that spoke only of them, were others who spoke of whole Sudanese and South Sudanese Americans. In the item of South Sudanese American, I just delete the information that spoke exclusively of Sudanese Americans, not referring to the South Sudanese American.

Obviously, information about the whole of Sudanese and South Sudanese Americans whose sources do not distinguish between the two, it is difficult to include in just one of these groups, unless we find other information sources focused on only one of these groups and that contradicts information used for all Sudanese and South Sudanese American in whole. For example, if we read in these sources the South Sudanese live ONLY in certain parts of the US, which exclude places mentioned in the article as characteristic of Sudanese American/South Sudanese Americans in his whole. It is possible that in the future have more sources (such as web pages) that speak only of some of these groups and do we understand better your life and can separate information of one of those groups on the other. For now, most web pages were published before July 2011, the date on which the two territories split politically.

Anyway, in the article is easily distinguishable the information focused on just "South Sudanese Americans" of those focused in both groups (Sudanese and South Sudanese Americans). If the article says "the Sudanese did that", the information is about the Sudanese/South Sudanese in whole. If the article says the "the South Sudanese did that" is about some thinks made by the South Sudaneses. -- Isinbill ( talk) 18:27, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive reply, Isinbill. It's a complicated issue, that's for sure. I'm not sure that it is so easily distinguishable as you say. Look at reference 3, for instance. That source appears to be about Sudanese people in general, but in the article it is used as a source for statements such as "This migration continued in the 90s, when some South Sudanese were established in other places such as Maine (settling them eventually in cities such as Portland and Lewiston)". Cordless Larry ( talk) 18:37, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The case is that in these places, the most of "Sudanese Americans" are Christians (ie, from South Sudan; the people of North Sudan are Muslims), according point this article. In addition, the item also point some tribes from South Sudan living there. -- Isinbill ( talk) 10:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

They've been given all the rope they need; the hangman is just asleep at the switch. Not worth arguing with them, they clearly understand the issue but just don't care. Keri ( talk) 14:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Keri. I won't reply again on their talk page because they clearly understand WP:RS but just don't care, as you say. Past behavior suggests that they will resort to IP editing once blocked. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I've requested temporary semi-protection, but I'm considering requesting permanent Pending Changes. Thoughts? Keri ( talk) 17:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pending changes sounds like a sensible move, Keri. Cordless Larry ( talk) 21:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

User Zekenian wrote that The current ban (on Middayexpress) is not effective. I propose the current topic ban be amended to "East African related articles" and include AcidSnow. and I agree with him. Furthermore I agree with what you wrote on Middayexpress's external canvassing. But IMHO we have to add even User:26oo and User:Vituzzu, in order to make the ban REALLY effective. Please go to [3] and click on Manmer2015 ....sincerely, B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.30.123 ( talk) 19:03, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, 64.134.30.123, but I have no power to impose or extend bans (and I couldn't do so in this case even if I did, as I was too involved in the dispute). However, for what it's worth, I feel that Middayexpress's external canvassing and declaration that they are no longer bound by Wikipedia's policies probably warrants a complete editing block. They appear to have quit Wikipedia for good and haven't posted again in the SomaliNet thread, though, so it's a moot point for now. If you have evidence that other users are breaking rules or are acting as puppets for Middayexpress then you should present the evidence at WP:AN/I. Incidentally, I don't find the claims on that blog about Al-Shabaab particularly convincing! Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. I agree that the problem "warrants a complete editing block". I am checking evidences about user:Vituzzu, who seems to be very involved in all this Muslim fanatism (today some Italians and a Canadian have been arrested in "Operation Martese", read [4]) inside Wikipedia....and I am thinking of following your advice and if possible present it on WP:AN/I. Sincerely, B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.30.123 ( talk) 14:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I am currently being stocked by an individual on Wikipedia. This individual has opted not to discuss my edits with me but rather enjoys simply reverting them instead. They don't poses an account either and are simoly an IP. However, with every revert they make their IP changes while still staying with the range of 2001:590. Is there anything I can do about this? Anyways, ciao. AcidSnow ( talk) 01:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

You could report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Even if they haven't broken 3RR, if they're deliberately following you to edit war, then action might be taken. Cordless Larry ( talk) 05:47, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It was resolved. It was just a bunch of people harassing me. AcidSnow ( talk) 19:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, this editor (who you reverted, and I had prev. reverted) on Bosnian war Baba Mica, appears to have a long-term issue with the dates of all wars in FYR, I attempted to explain on my talk, where I discovered others had previously tried but to little avail. Just letting you know in case it repeats. Similar logic is applied to 'Croatian war'. Pincrete ( talk) 13:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, Pincrete. They keep adding sources about instances of violence from before the 6 April start date, but that's not the same thing as a source that says that the war started earlier, of course. They also seem to regard Urban Dictionary as a reliable source. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:27, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

They have just repeated the edit, I could not check all their refs cited, but some spoke of April 1 being referendum date, not war start (ps I thought I had reverted them). Pincrete ( talk) 13:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted that last edit and have reminded them about WP:BRD. Cordless Larry ( talk) 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi

Thank you for your response, its appreciated!

I am wondering why it is that this article has been extensively re-written in the last (I would say 8 weeks or less) and is now locked (again I dont know what that means exactly apart from the fact it has been edited recently by someone and now cant be)

Yes you are correct of course, it doesnt say that England isnt a country -my mistake, apologies! I am wondering though why London is also (now) named as the Capital of the UK (it wasnt the last time I checked here, -pretty sure)

By definition and I have checked the Oxford English dictionary also, if what I read is to be believed Edinburgh is merely the capital of Scotland by virtue of habitual reference and perhaps the fact that the Scottish government is based there. In terms of Principal City Glasgow would better qualify in some respects for the title of 'Capital' if not 'Principal' or 'Premiere' city.

I have always been under the impression that the UK has no capital city (I studied geography for A Level) and never has had. London is of course England's Capital.

These are genuine questions particularly when I see that the article has been re-written and locked. I have only once previously had to check anything that I read on Wikipedia before.

Thanks for you response once again,

Ragerds

Rob

PS Are you an employess of Wikipedia? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobGordon35 ( talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi RobGordon35. From a brief check of its history, the United Kingdom article doesn't appear to have been rewritten recently. This is what it looked like on 23 April, for instance. According to the protection log, the article has been semi-protected since May 2011. That prevents users without accounts from editing it. You have an account, but it's not yet been autoconfirmed, hence why you can't edit it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:16, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: No, I don't work for the Wikimedia Foundation. You should probably always check everything you read on Wikipedia as there are a lot of errors on here! Cordless Larry ( talk) 20:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

OK.-- Baba Mica ( talk) 13:40, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Cordless Larry. 3 years ago I opened this topic. Then it was very stormy discussion on this issue. My arguments'm convinced most members that the war began on March 1 and not on 6 April. So stand in the template for several months. But someone came back to the old pattern. Here's my discussions in 2012 on this topic. /info/en/?search=Talk:Bosnian_War/Archive_3#Start_War_1_March_1992.2C_not_1_and_5_April I would have liked to continue the discussion.-- Baba Mica ( talk) 14:11, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Baba Mica, I don't see much discussion involving other editors there. What you need to demonstrate is that reliable sources date the start of the war to March (which is something different to providing sources that state that there were instances of violence in March). Anyway, the place to do this is Talk:Bosnian War, not my talk page. You'll get broader input there. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:20, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

From 19 August 2012 to 16 September 2013 stood version 1 March. Then a user 31.176.158.44 16 September 2013 returned on April 6. Without any arguments. Here the condition of 16 September. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_War&oldid=573131061 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bosnian_War&oldid=573204367 Since then I have been in dispute with some members of Wikipedia about the date.-- Baba Mica ( talk) 14:54, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, you need to raise this on the article talk page. I'm happy to discuss the issue there, but we need input from other editors too. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you join me on this subject. The situation is contradictory in itself. Where has it that in a country battles for cities to start a month before the war? It sounds schizophrenic.-- Baba Mica ( talk) 15:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I've just said that if you start a discussion on the article talk page, I will participate. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for being more tactful than I in dealing with this matter. Pincrete ( talk) 09:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words, Pincrete. I had quite a long break from editing Balkans-related articles, which has perhaps recharged my patience levels! Cordless Larry ( talk) 10:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Am going to de-watchlist Somalis in the United Kingdom. Do however feel free to sing out should you like any second opinions or assistance. Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries, Buckshot06. Middayexpress's attempts at off-Wikipedia canvassing don't appear to have come to anything, and all is calm with that article for now. I'm slowly trying to make progress towards GA status for it. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Would you still please keep an eye on Puntland Maritime Police Force though? It's still very much on my to-do list, and I'm not clear how much interested others might want to maintain POV views within it. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've got it on my watchlist and will keep an eye out for any obvious POV editing. Cordless Larry ( talk) 22:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Cordless Larry. Birmingham Quran manuscript, an article you either created or significantly contributed to, has been nominated  to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know . You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot ( talk!) 20:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Greek government-debt crisis. Legobot ( talk) 00:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You good if I start a new article on Cottee's new book? I don't want to trample any toes. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 14:15, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Fine by me, E.M.Gregory. I'm no expert on this, and only heard of him today when I saw the red link you'd added to the Christopher Hitchens article, and thought I'd see what material was out there to create an article with. Whether there is enough source material on the book for its own article, or whether that would be better covered at Simon Cottee, I don't know. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:23, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Steve Moxon (whistleblower), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Andrew Green. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot ( talk) 00:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

As you have been involved with some of the nuances relating to British ethnicity articles over the years, I'd like to draw your attention over a more recent one surrounding a bizarre naming dispute of a sub-community of British Pakistanis. The issue was escalated at the talk page and has been taken to DRN now for reference. Your insights might be useful, if you reserve any, and would be valuable in terms of treading a fine line as some nationalist aspirations are no doubt also involved. Regards, Mar4d ( talk) 14:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, Mar4d. I've been watching the dispute escalate on the article's talk page, but hadn't contributed because I'm not expert on Pakistan, India and Kashmir. I'll keep an eye on the DRN discussion, though, in case there is anything I can usefully contribute. Cordless Larry ( talk) 14:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we've just been the target of a Wikipedia:MAGICALTHREAT, which might be a first? :) After all, if the enquirer had said that they'd taken a copy of the discussion and was sending it to their lawyer, they'd likely be blocked for Wikipedia:LEGALTHREAT by now. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 15:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you're right, Arthur goes shopping. I just hope that no magical powers are used against us. That said, Card warp is a pretty terrible article and should probably be dealt with. Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On further thought, I've nominated it for deletion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Card warp. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 15:38, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

There are probably more at List of magic tricks. Something for a rainy day, can't face all that right now. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 15:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC)