User talk:Shabeellaha

Your edits

Hello. This is getting a bit silly now. You're just copying and pasting the same text you got off of the Anarchy in Somalia page (among others) across different articles. That's not particularly helpful for readers. Kindly stop this. Also, before you revert edits, know what it is you are reverting. In case you hadn't noticed, some of us have been at this a lot longer than you have and actually know what we are doing. Regards, Middayexpress (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, you're mentioning Siad Barre in a negative light on just about every page you've had an opportunity to do so, no matter how tangentially related said page may be to him. On the Economy of Somalia page, for instance, you've felt the need to mention that the socialism he "imposed" "brutalized Somali people", while omitting the well-known fact that many of his crash programs were successful. This is known as WP:POV, and it keeps affecting both the language you couch your edits in and the content of your edits themselves. You're also reverting edits without even knowing just what it is you're reverting. That too is not particularly helpful. Middayexpress (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two sources say he brutalized. It's not a big deal, we can remove it. Also, we should add information about his successful programs, but they were not in the papers I studied. Shabeellaha (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before I forget, a lot of your edits are literally ruining the coding on each article. That too is not desirable. Middayexpress (talk) 10:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is coding? Can you help me fix this problem? Shabeellaha (talk) 10:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coding is the code one sees when one clicks the 'edit this page' link at the top of every editable Wikipedia page. When I write that there have been problems with coding, I mean that the coding has been either erroneous or incomplete/broken. It's easy to tell when this is the case because it's written in big red letters in the article proper, such as on the Telecommunications in Somalia article after your edits. I'll try and fix what I can. Middayexpress (talk) 10:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All or just about all of that information is already summarized in the article. The thing to then do is add link-throughs to the main article so that readers can get the complete picture. Those main articles already exist. There's no need to copy and paste information from them onto this page which already contains a summary of what they explain in detail. Again, simple link-throughs to the main articles will do. For instance, instead of talking about the Somali shilling, a link-through to the Somali shilling page via a link should cover it. This way, readers aren't continuously subjected to the same reading material. Middayexpress (talk) 10:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked you to stop copying and pasting info from other pages onto new ones, but yet you persist in doing so. Believe it or not, readers don't want to read the same thing over and over. It's also not a Wikipedia best practice. Again, kindly stop this. Middayexpress (talk) 07:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty obvious at this point that your goal is to show as much as possible how great things have supposedly become in Somalia since the fall of the Siad Barre regime (a man whom you obviously have something personal against). But if you really knew anything about Somali history, you'd know that the very worst period was the one that immediately followed the government's collapse and a good part of the years since. You said before that you'd love to include positive info about the Siad Barre regime, but you "just couldn't find any". Well, here's an entire well-annotated website's worth. The facts it presents stand in direct contrast to the completely one-sided nature of your edits. You might also want to read the work of I.M. Lewis, the foremost social anthropologist on the Horn of Africa. He has some very interesting things to say about Siad Barre as a man and a leader, especially in his book Blood and Bone. Remember: The goal here is not to provide an outlet for you to vent your bitter feelings toward Siad Barre or any other person, but to produce a balanced, neutral article for the reading public. If this is your goal too, then it's time you started showing it. Middayexpress (talk) 07:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]