User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 25

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. 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.

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

→

Female gender mutilation

Hi, we both care about the inside of the text, i first need to appologize that i altered accidently North Africa to just Africa, i overread "predominately" during my clean up.

I would like to ask if we can use the term Female gender cutting in my changes i made, i feel more pleasent with the article if shortcuts or genital mutilation isnt always used.

greetings

Santiago84 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

That's alright; I figured it was a mistake. I also don't have a problem with your using "cutting" instead. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, have a good weekend. --Santiago84 19:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You too. Middayexpress (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Looie496 (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Middayexpress (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

This is a completely unfair, unwarranted and one-sided block. There were two other accounts involved in the present content dispute on the East Africa article, and neither of the others were blocked for editing warring -- nevermind the fact that they've been adding complete original research to the article. Specifically, they've been adding Somaliland (a secessionist region in northwestern Somalia) to the section of the article reserved for the 19 territories that are a part of the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa, although the UN does not include the territory at all in its geoscheme. This is something I have repeatedly demonstrated on the article's talk page via links to the UN's website & geoscheme itself. My edits are therefore not reverts but removing obvious bad faith edits i.e. vandalism. According to WP:VAND, doing so does not constitute "edit-warring", but is very much editing in the spirit of Wikipedia. As none of the other involved accounts have been blocked, or indeed, even so much as warned, this out-of-the-blue stop smacks of administrator abuse and needs to be looked into further. Middayexpress (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I was willing to at least hear you out up until the point where you called the other parties' edits vandalism. That's absolute rubbish and you know it. As is your cliam of admin abuse. You reverted far more aggressively than either of the other parties and now you resort to personal attacks, slurs and wiklawyering in a vain attempt to discredit what is your third block in six months for edit warring. I'm half minded to revoke your talk page access, but I'll give you another chance to make an unblock request that addresses your own conduct. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:06, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Middayexpress (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Firstly, let me just say that I am not a troll. In fact, I'm one of the main contributors on the Somali-related articles, having written a lot of the material, uploaded many of the images, etc.. Numerous admins that regularly monitor the Horn of Africa-related articles (e.g. User:Gyrofrog, User:CambridgeBayWeather, User:Llywrch) can vouch for this. Secondly, I agree that revert-warring was not the best way to handle the situation, which is why I attempted instead to bring the matter to wider attention on AN/I. Thirdly, if I use the word "vandalism", it's because that's the first term that came to mind when I thought of how best to describe literally inventing facts (i.e. original research), as has been repeatedly done in this particular case. The editors in question -- all of whom are open supporters of the Somaliland region's independence; they're hardly neutral in this matter -- have added the blatant untruth to the East Africa article that the Somaliland region of Somalia is included among the 19 territories that are a part of the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa. And although I have repeatedly demonstrated on the article's talk page and elsewhere that this is original research by actually linking directly to the UN's website & its geoscheme (where neither Somaliland, nor Puntland, nor any other region of Somalia is listed; only Somalia itself is [9]), nothing has been done about the situation. As I write this, that patent untruth still sits in the East Africa article. To add insult to injury, I'm the one that gets blocked for having the audacity to remove this OR; the other editors aren't even so much as warned about adding untruths to the article. Last I checked, Wikipedia was about creating a quality encyclopedia based on verifiable facts, not blatant untruths. Moreover, a couple of these editors also added a non-free map to the East Africa article that attempts to show a distinct Somaliland "country" juxtaposed by Somalia itself, within a larger Eastern Africa region. Besides the fact that the actual publication where this map was taken from, although indicated for the first time only moments ago [10], does not actually appear to exist [11] (and thus could easily have been self-made or come from a partisan source), another editor on the article's talk page is also presently taking umbrage at, among other things, the fact that the "map is simply not designed to show East African conflict, but is a standard political map of East Africa with the deceptive idiosyncrasy of showing an independent Somaliland" [12]. Given all of the foregoing, my concerns over what is presently being done clearly cannot be dismissed, off-hand or otherwise. My block deserves a fair re-examination, only one that actually takes all of the facts into account this time. Middayexpress (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Here are the key facts in this case: first, you already know what edit-warring is, as you have been blocked 3 previous times. Second, you have been made aware the proper methods for dealing with an edit war to prevent both them, and your being blocked. Third, you are also clearly aware of the difference between vandalism and original research, as evidenced by your statement above. Fourth, knowing all of these, you edit warred - and in order to make use of the knowledge that "reverting clear vandalism is not a violation of WP:3RR", you blatantly mislabeled WP:OR as WP:VAND, hoping you would be able to skirt a key policy. Well, you missed. Based on the concept of escalating blocks, your 1 week block is upheld. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:46, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

There are a few basic factual errors in the post above. For starters, I have only been blocked twice, not three times; and both times, the other revert-warring party was blocked too. As already pointed out, I also stopped reverting when I took the issue to AN/I. That was the purpose of my going there in the first place i.e. to resolve the issue without revert-warring. In fact, one of the other editors was the last to revert while that discussion was still going on, not me. Moreover, I have just had a read-through the vandalism and original research policies, and I noticed that WP:VAND indeed does not include adding blatant original research as one of its criteria; so this is an area where I'll admit that I was mistaken. Although WP:NOR clearly forbids original research, it doesn't excuse revert-warring, so my bad. Note that the forgoing isn't an appeal to be unblocked. I'll serve out the remainder of my time, as it were. Middayexpress (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that one of the revert-warring editors that was involved in the dispute is still revert-warring with others over the same issue [1] (i.e. whether or not the Somaliland region is included in the UN's geoscheme for Eastern Africa -- it isn't, nor is any other region in Somalia (which he tellingly did not list); only Somalia itself is [2]). What is going to be done about this? Why the double standard? Middayexpress (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. 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.

←

→