User talk:Gyrofrog/2010Jul-Dec

This page 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.

This is the archive of comments added to User talk:Gyrofrog from July 2010 through December 2010. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Category:Eritrea-centric, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Ethiopia-centric, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The categories are automatically added via a maintenance template. As they were red links, I went ahead and created them. Of course, the categories would still function as red links. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I made the exact same edit at almost the same time (removing the word "Sadly" which is also a dangling modifier) but you beat me to it! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Great minds, etc. ;-) -- Gyrofrog 14:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I've asked for a peer review on the Somalia article in hopes of getting the ball rolling for improving it. I saw you are on the WikiProject Somalia page and thought you might be interested in participating? Thanks a lot, TastyCakes (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I am worried about TastyCakes involvment on Somalia article I don't why he has a need to change a good article ,Do you think Middayexpress deserves a award for his contribution to the Somalia article and are you ethiopian ? Wikiplayer13 (talk)

Left response at User talk:Wikiplayer13. -- Gyrofrog 14:41, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:CompleteBitchesBrewSessionsCover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added the fair use rationale. -- Gyrofrog 14:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyrofrog - I hope you don't mind, but I moved the Bibliography section in the Paul Tanner article back above the Reference section. According to WP:LAYOUT guidelines any works or publications are to appear before the references or notes section. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 14:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Ponyo. -- Gyrofrog 14:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out that laxoox and canjeroo is not the same type of bread as injera. Canjeroo is not made out of teff flour therefor it should not be considered as injera. I looked up injera in the dictonary and it says " injera Ethiopean; flat bread made from teff flour fermented for 30–72 hours with a starter from a previous batch." It clearly also states that it is not made in the same way as laxoox and that real injera is made out of teff flour. http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O39-injera.html

Therefore injera should not be confused with (Canjeroo or laxoox). I also would like to point out that (Laxoox, Canjeroo)is eaten as a breakfast meal in Somalia with tea and sugar. I also have sources to claim this. http://nutritionweek.nutritionaustralia.org/docs/high-school/breakfast-world-answers.pdf

Also if you go on the page somali cuisine you can read about canjeroo - it says " The main dish is typically a pancake-like bread (canjeero) similar to Ethiopian injera but smaller and thinner. Canjeero is eaten in different ways, it may be broken into small pieces and ghee (subag) and sugar added. For children it is mixed with tea and sesame oil (macsaaro) until mushy". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuisine_of_Somalia

Now i can confirm that (Canjeroo or laxoox) is not made in the same way as injera, it does not have the same ingredience as injera, it is not consumed like injera. Therefore it should not be called injera.

And about tradition, injera is traditionally eaten in Ethiopia and in Eritrea. I can confirm this by giving sources http://www.fact-archive.com/encyclopedia/Injera

I do understand that (canjeroo or laxoox), and eaven injera maybe consumed in other coutrys such as yemen and somalia but i can gaurentee you that they dont have a tradition in eatin this meal as Ethiopians and Eritreans do as i lived in the region for over 15 years. As graduate from 5 years in university i can tell you that if you want to claim something or edit something, you must have a source if not, you cant go around and make things up.

Still users as Kintetsubuffalo are not respecting this, and refuses to discuss this under injera. The only thing he tries to do is revert edits, how come he dont get blocked even tho he reverted the article five times?!

• CC* —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron345 (talk • contribs) 11:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Left response at Talk:Injera#Edit warring. -- Gyrofrog 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

--Soman (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Soman. -- Gyrofrog 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I'm new here, so could you tell teach me some basic editing? Munchable901 (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Left message at User talk:Munchable901. -- Gyrofrog 18:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Dear Gyrofrog,

Thank you for your warning and all the work you put into Wikipedia!

As advised I've posted my answer to your questions and observations to Tinariwen talk page.

Best regards, Marko Voknelserp (talk) 16:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Left response at Talk:Tinariwen. -- Gyrofrog 18:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just in case you missed it, there is an oppurtunity to get a free dinner this Tuesday August 11 and a chance to meet and hang out talk about Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy and WP:GLAM/SI. Sorry that this is so late in the game, I was hoping the e-mail would be a better form of contact for active members (if you want to get on the e-mail list send me an User e-mail ). Hope that you can attend, User:Sadads (talk)11:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers for cleaning up my entry on Mogadishu, I was short on time and at work... Matt Zero (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

No problem, you're welcome. -- Gyrofrog 19:37, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on the Somalia talk page. I have been intending to improve the Somalia article further, but at the moment I am worried that this user will hold this up. I do not want to engage in an edit war, and I have attempted to discuss, including multiple attempts at civility when the discussion has gotten testy. I understand I did not start out most civilly, but that is because I had already seen this user behave very inappropriately, edit war, not discuss with others, and I did not think a fair chance was warranted. This user has made attempts at civility himself, however. He only accepts my offers temporarily, and if I cede to him. In fact, I feel that this user is so in opposition to constructive behavior that I have made a case for some kind of action to deal with this user. I have not included direct citations or an evaluation of specific parts of his edit history or talk page at present, but am fully willing to do so at any point. I originally addressed the next part of this to him, but decided not to say it for sake of not doing ad hominem, for fear of him using my criticism to improve his deception and further his activities (as he has done before in removing Anarchist sources without changing the actual statements that were biased, for example), and for fear of him trying to ban me. If I am out of line, then please correct me, and I will drop it. I have been trying to make sure I am right. I have read through his talk page archives and edit histories and talk pages of articles he has worked on. Originally, I did not think it was that big of a deal or necessary to talk to an administrator, either. Continued contact, as well as my reading of these areas, has convinced me.

This is the case I made: Why do you care if [the NPOV dispute tag on the Somalia page] is up, anyway? What is so wrong to you, a supposedly neutral editor, about a tag stating a dispute about neutrality? If you just disagreed, you would be perfecting willing to discuss it with me. We could come to some kind of agreement. Sure, I came in here with a lot of criticism. If it was a little over the top, though, you would have defused it. Instead, you start edit wars, filibuster, try to bait me, lobby endless false accusations, engage in attempts of bluster and intimidation with threats of administrator action, and try to obscure the bias of yourself and this article. You are going much too far to just be in disagreement with me. You would only care if you care that the credibility of this overly positive article would appear in question. That normally would have no effect on you, though. If you just disagreed, it would be a minor annoyance. You would show your humanity, and much more readily. So far, you have not shown it at all, unless I cede to you. Everything is criticism from you, at the moment, or acceptance of cession. You also do the same thing on numerous other pages, as demonstrated from your talk page archives. You could be a troll, but you really do not seem like your primary goal is to incite me. You could care deeply about justice, but then you would agree with the other editors, or at least consider what they think. You could have special knowledge about Somalia that would inspire to you edit, but if that were so you would not only cite sources found on Google. An explanation that almost works is that you are a narcissist with a personal emotional stake in this page's perfection in your eyes. Narcissists of this extreme are very rare, though, and you really are only focused on certain topics relating to Somalia. You would have at least a little more diversity in topics if you were a narcissist. The only explanation that fits is that you are an employed shill. The enormous amount of time you spend, the extremity of your tactics and your readiness to use them every time, the thoroughness of your tactical choice, your singular focus on a certain set of topics relating to Somalia without any apparent reason, your staunchness on various specific points indicative of an involved agenda, your bias, your endless resistance in leveling with people, the fact that you already knew Wikipedia policy as a brand new user. There is clear motivation. There is a clear strategy. There is clear training or practice. It makes no sense any other way. The very nature of what you are doing has betrayed you.

To support the idea of a specific agenda, he seems to edit out certain ideas about the culture of Somalia (such as the Swahili language being present there, as mentioned below) as well as edit in very positive interpretations about Somalia, and various other ideas about the culture of Somalia. It seems to align with a specific interpretation of the culture and current state of Somalia, which would jibe with a specific politically involved group's most ideal conception.

Further, it seems that administrators have been dealing with this user from the beginning. This user has never improved tendencies to edit war (I understand that I engaged in one edit war with this user, but that is because I felt power, or other misbehavior. I think it is time that this user be blocked from editing various pages, worked with more closely, or even banned.

I can go back to the Swahili Language talk page for example, and he is already filibustering (creating numerous points that do not really address the ones of the person he is responding to, are not well thought out, and are simply voluminous and consume time), threatening administrative action (even to an administrator!), and engaging in all kinds of inappropriate behavior.

There are contexts where civility and discussion are warranted. Working with this user, who uses every tactic possible to avoid an actual discussion, and tends to drag people out of civility by bullying them, is not one of them. Administrative action is the only thing that can control him. For example, he removed my bias tag on the Somalia page until the edit war ban came, at which point he ceased. He proceeded to engage in the same kind of "discussion," however. Endless filibuster, threats, etc. (to see a further description of how he filibusters, scan the Somalia talk page under the section I created on bias for it. I can also link you directly) On a personal level, also, I do not feel I should have to come on Wikipedia and be harassed when I am just trying to fix an article.

If you want me to cite specific policies as well, I can. These violations are clear violation of the ideals that led to the creation of these policies, regardless, though.

This user's behavior should have been nipped in the bud, but I think the subtlety of this user's misbehavior has allowed him or her to get by. It is really about time someone did something. Nikurasu (talk) 22:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you requesting, exactly? An admonishment? A block? I won't deny that the user in question has been, and can be, stubborn. I also won't deny that he has been a constructive contributor. When you reached the point of accusing him of narcissism, this strikes me as more of a personal beef. If you're willing to edit that out, I believe WP:RFC would be a more appropriate venue for this. -- Gyrofrog 15:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

This is most amusing. It seems the user above has thrown all but the proverbial kitchen sink in an attempt to cast aspersions on my character and edits. I especially enjoyed his allusion to the Swahili talk page, a long-resolved discussion from what seems like years ago, where an administrator involved in the dispute locked the page in his preferred version, was chided for it by other administrators, and himself admitted to having acted wrongly. But of course, the user above wouldn't know any of this since he wasn't involved in that discussion to begin with (at least as far as I can tell) -- a clear case of wikihounding. I also see I'm no longer an "anarchist" now according to the user, but a "narcissist" with "special knowledge about Somalia", clearly a new approach to ad hominem. The fact is, the user above complained about so-called "Austrian economic" sources, and even suggested at one point that he thought "it would be fair to have an Austrian section, but certainly by the rules of NPOV the article cannot follow the Austrian interpretation as the primary one". And when those were reduced by me from a handful of sentences to exactly one sentence (not an "Austrian section"), he still griped that things weren't "negative" enough [1] -- as if a "negativity" is what Wikipedia's neutrality policy mandates. He also complained about GDP per capita not being cited. Yet when a statement from the Central Bank of Somalia was produced indicating that, while Somalia's GDP per capita is only a couple of hundred dollars per year, it is actually higher than many other neighboring countries, the Central Bank of Somalia itself -- one of the foremost authority on Somalia's economy -- all of a sudden became a "source with a conflict of interest in describing Somalia's economy" and "not an organization of economists" and "not necessarily reliable" (FYI, the former Governor of the Central Bank of Somalia is also the Alternate Governor of the Islamic Development Bank Group). And that's after he had already pooh-poohed the CIA (and later, the British Chambers of Commerce) as also being "unreliable" sources for these purposes. So to settle the issue once and for all, I queried whether these refs are reliable sources on the economy of Somalia, and of course, an administrator (a member of the ArbCom, no less) indicated that they indeed all "are considered reliable sources for these purposes". That unfortunately makes his attempts to invalidate the material from these authorities a failure, and his tagging the article indeed unwarranted. Middayexpress (talk) 20:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if it came off that way. I meant to deduce an explanation for Middayexpress' behavior. I have an education in Psychology, and he displayed classic narcissistic behaviors. I was exploring narcissism as an explanation. I would like to point out, as well though, that I never did accuse him of narcissism. In fact, I concluded that it is most likely that he is an employed propagandist. In fact, people can be and are trained in behaviors that are exactly like narcissistic behaviors without being narcissists. A proper explanation of someone's behavior can be very helpful in deciding on a course of action, as well, so I decided this evaluation was necessary. Actually, I had your concern in mind when writing what I did.

I am not absolutely clear on whether or not this is a valid venue. I will make a post on the RFC page, if that is the appropriate course of action, and you can skip the rest of this post. Is it that you cannot talk to administrators to report an issue, or that you bring in an outsider through RFC, and ultimately an administrator if they decide it is necessary? I was not sure RFC would do anything or be applicable, which is why I did not go there. Is it not also within your ability to do something? Or is it just that you do not want to deal with this case? (and administrators who do deal with these issues are on RFC) That is absolutely fine, if so.

Most of the constructive edits are minor corrections, as far as I can tell (many of them on his own work. A lot of them also change things that are not important. They seem to be there just for sake of making an edit. This user also tends to always group two edits together, which seems to me to be for sake of helping with the edit warring rule). I have not seen one instance of truly substantive contributive behavior from this user, rather than obstruction or writing in of bias (though if you have an example, I would be open to it).

As far as bias goes, I have never seen this user cede a point, not even once (if you have, point me to it). He or she also constantly makes dishonest arguments, with blatant misrepresentations of the material he or she is talking about. That can only be explained by not reading the source and already having a viewpoint in mind to use the source for, especially when he comes up with the same answer from 10 different sources, even when those sources contradict the statement he is trying to make (for example, he used a World Bank and now BCC source for the same fact, but did not take mentions of poverty from either) Basically, if an admin does nothing to move this user away from enforcing his or her personal whims, that is what stays. That also colors all of this user's contributions, which instills bias in numerous places in Wikipedia. As far as I understand, we are supposed to discuss, not edit war, and reach a consensus. Again, I do not see how this user could be seen as a valid contributor while not being able to engage in this behavior.

Just to give an example of the dishonest discussion tactics that this behavior engages in, see this reliable source query. He or she claims that I claimed a BCC source as unreliable, even though I had never seen him or her post that source, and he or she never told me. That can only lower my credibility, but it is not even true. He or she also removed previous sources that I had pointed out stated that Somalia was impoverished. That is not to mention that he has engaged in these tactics before. If you read through the Somalia discussion page, I point it out at least once.

This user may have some legitimate contributions, though. Regardless, a massively abusive user should not be excused just for those contributions, especially because that is a common tactic to justify oneself even though the overall purpose one has is not to contribute. The fact that this user is mostly abusive and does not change should be enough for some kind of action to be taken. If this user was 50/50 beneficial/detrimental, or better, then I would say allow him full privileges. This user, unrestrained, is not overall a benefit to Wikipedia though. The detrimental editing should also still be prevented where it can be without effecting the contributive editing, regardless.

I truly wish I could come out truly in favor of something Middayexpress has done. It would mean this could be resolved through discussion, and not be an intractable conflict that can only be solved by administrator action. It would even bolster my argument. There really is nothing, though, that I have found at least. The behavior of this editor is comprehensively inappropriate.

I also am unsettled by this user's behavior, but I have been keeping a cool head, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. I have also been noticing his attempts to upset me, however, and constructed judgments accordingly. There have been a couple of occasions where I have become upset for a brief period of time, but in accordance with Wikipedia policy I took a breather before continuing. However, on a few occasions this user has almost driven me away from wanting to contribute. In fact, if you take a look at the Somalia talk page, a number of contributors up and left. I would just like to bring attention back to the fact that one of the major purposes of civil discussion on Wikipedia is to not scare users away, and that this user is doing just that by not engaging in civil discussion. That is indeed a very serious concern.

Virtually no one seems to be able to always keep a cool head all the time when dealing with this user, as well, and I do not think that should detract from anyone's claims against him or her. Only those who cede to him or do not oppose him can entirely, really. Many users with no history of conflict have gotten upset. Even an administrator lost his or her cool.

The harassment this user employs is also a serious concern. Blatant and pervasive passive aggression, baiting and incitement (especially in an attempt to discredit people), and intimidation are present in many this user's posts. Do you not see this? Do his or her posts really not strike you as extraordinarily inappropriate? Does it really just seem limited to stubbornness? Are these not actionable concerns? Or, are they only actionable by administrators specifically doing so at the RFC page?

Middayexpress also tries to cloak his or her actions in policy (by the way, that is typical behavior for a narcissist, though employed propagandist is still a more likely explanation), but they do not truly follow the policy.

I did not make it clear what I wanted, because I figured that was administrator discretion, I suppose. At the very least, someone should work more closely with this user, discussing specific actions he or she is taking with him or her and moving him or her in a better direction when necessary (I do not know if Wikipedia can provide this attention from an administrator. Ultimately, it depends on whether an administrator is willing to, I suppose). I think this user also does not understand that his or her behavior is inappropriate (or does not care), and it could be helpful if an administrator set limitations with admonishment, perhaps blocks whenever the behavior is presented. Many administrators are even reinforcing his behavior inadvertently. Perhaps something should also be done to stop the edit warring behavior. For example, he or she could receive an editing block (or a block from a page), which could be removed, but reapplied immediately upon further misbehavior. Those are all very generous solutions. However, given how long this user's abuses have been going on, how many blocks, warnings, and admonishments he or she has received without change in behavior, and simply the severity and frequency of the abuses, I would say a tougher solution is reasonable. This user has demonstrated clear motive and planning, and ultimately, that and other behavior that could most plausibly be explained as trained for the purpose of advancing some political agenda. A ban or severe privilege limitation could be employed, and it would stop the abuses.Nikurasu (talk) 10:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for interrupting again Gyrofrog. I know it's annoying to be constantly alerted that one has a "new message" that doesn't actually pertain to one's own edits, but I have to respond to this nonsense. The World Bank source the user alludes to describes the state of the economy from over seven years ago, not the present. The "scarcity of capital" it mentions caused by the "absence of any formal banking" sector, for starters, is a thing of the past. The Central Bank of Somalia was of course recently re-opened by the Transitional Federal Government that was established in 2004 (also after the report), and as it itself points out [2], money transfer operators have acted as informal banking networks: "Besides the outright cash transactions, the payment system in the country is fairly advanced despite the absence of a Central Monetary Authority over the past fifteen years of civil war; thanks to the investments in telecommunications network by the private sector that have enabled operations of private remittance companies to make both local and international monetary transactions possible". Many of these money transfer operators are even "expected to seek for licenses so as to graduate into full fledged commercial banks in the near future and thereby broaden the scope of payments system in the country to include cheques which will reinforce effectiveness of use of monetary policy in the macroeconomic management." The British Chambers of Commerce source also says nothing about "poverty"; it mentions that "Despite the bleak picture painted by income and social indicators, the private sector has grown in recent years, especially in service activities". The "income... indicators" the BCC refers to are GDP per capita and the percentage of the population that live on less than a dollar a day, both of which are already discussed in the article via the Central Bank of Somalia. The BCC actually summarizes the Somali economy in much the same way as the CIA and the Central Bank of Somalia: "Despite the absence of a state structure, many sectors are operating successfully and entrepreneurs are making good in Somalia". As for the user's claim that he "never criticized" that British Chambers of Commerce source that I added to the article, even if it were true (it likely isn't since his very next edit after I had added material from that source and the Central Bank was to indicate that they represented "fringe viewpoints" [3]), it still doesn't make it or what it asserts any less reliable. It seems your linking to the personal attack policy page in the edit above has also not quite sunk in, since the user is of course right back at the ad hominem. It would appear that he is under the impression that the more he attempts to cast aspersions on my person, the more likely he is to permanently get rid of me. It seems he is unaware that personal attacks themselves result in blocks, and that there are of course no shortage of those on this talk page alone. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

In fact, if you look at his contributions, they are pretty weird. Some of them have literally no substance at all. Look at these: [4][5][6][7]. All he does is capitalize the A where people cannot even see it, and where it does not affect anything (not even how the link works). I mean, if that does not look like intentional inflating of his contributions to you, I am not sure what will. Here is one where he just changes the phrasing, even though the original phrasing was not problematic: [8]. Maybe that is understandable though. He could just fancy that phrasing more. He skipped over an actual error, though (maybe he just missed it. Still, given the lack of time spent on each page, he is still not really editing each page). Winger should not be capitalized. Even if these were necessary, they would be extremely minor, contributions, anyway. He also goes down an endless list of names (though that alone is not weird, until you take into account the type of edits he is making). They could literally just be combinations picked from a list, and they seem to be. They are grouped by ethnicity. Many of these pages could be done more in depth, as well. It seems like he is simply looking for minor edits. Maybe that is not so wrong, but the act of finding a page would be relatively high cost to most people. They would rather spend time at each page editing. I suppose he devised a way to make it lower cost though, so that could just be a particular characteristic about him. Still, what is the point of doing endless minor edits? Maybe it is a misjudgment, but a bunch of relatively inconsequential edits done in great error should not count for much in a consideration of substance of contribution. Nikurasu (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Like I wrote, major WP:WIKIHOUNDING issues. Middayexpress (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This dispute is now resolved. The article is now more neutral. I was wrong. There is no way this user is an employed propagandist. I suppose I will go about this in a much more positive way next time.Nikurasu (talk) 23:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

If you have a moment, would you mind taking a look at Deeceevoice's recent contributions to the Jazz article and talk page? After having gone 'round and 'round with him a couple of times a few days ago, I have decided to hang back, hoping someone else might step in and say something. First of all, the very long opinion piece he added to the talk page seems highly inappropriate, as it is nothing more than an essay with little to do with article improvement. Second, the Art Blakey quote is notable and comes from a reliable source. Deecee's opinion that Blakey is incorrect is beside the point. But, I would like to know what you think on the matter. Thanks. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I have weighed in on a few issues on that talk page. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you take a quick look at Ali Suleyman. It was just created and most of it seems to have been adapted from Osman Mahmoud so of course none of the references apply. I wasn't sure if it should be a redirect, PRODDED or something else. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 09:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• I deleted it based on the "A10" CSD criteria. -- Gyrofrog 15:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:05, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

why do you want to block me ?

why is that the eritrean wikipedia is so poltically biased ? against the state of eritrea

i see all other countries wiki and its about history non - poltical

(----)

im new to uses talk so bare with me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Onest11 (talk • contribs) 14:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Left response at User talk:Onest11. -- Gyrofrog 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

An off-wiki discussion is taking place concerning DC Meetup #12. Watch this page for announcements.
—NBahn (talk) 04:34, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. You are receiving this message either because you received a similar one before and didn't object, or you requested to receive a similar one in the future. If you don't wish to receive this message again, then please let me know either on my talk page or here.

You removed a true statement from the Tigist Shibabaw article. It was sourced. At the time that she was being raised, women were prohibited from singing in the Ethiopian church. It is why her learning the art from, for someone her age and during THAT SPECIFIC TIME, is significant. Of course, NOW, it's no big deal. But this was not the case in the 70s and 80s. You should revert your change. Bab-a-lot (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Bab-a-lot#Re: Women singing in the Ethiopian church.... -- Gyrofrog 17:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Gyrofrog , you're a trip. I quoted and referenced Gigi Shibabaw's official Myspace page regarding the tradition of women not being allowed to sing in the church. But for you, not even the artist, who is Ethiopian, is credible enough to be quoted about a tradition in her own culture regarding her and her sibling's own personal experiences. What an insult! Instead, you find it more reliable/credible an article written by an non-Ethiopian? Oh, and because you found this, it trumps what is quoted on the artist's own official myspace page (where I originally got the information from)? To me, the artists Myspace page is more credible than the article you found. Who would be more credible as a source regarding Ethiopian tradition other than a native Ethiopian? The fact that this man is scholar does not, by default, make him more credible as even scholars get their information wrong, or are biased in their research. Furthermore, you over wrote my edit noting that there was a dubious self-published claim. However, all you did was reword my original sentence and added the source that you found, leaving the Myspace page source. Then you indicate that sources aren't credible because they are too close in relation to the subject. Well, what other credible source should there be about an artist's life other than the artist them self, or people who grew up in the same household with them? I do not get you logic at all. And it's funny that it took you 3 or so months to find 'your source', only AFTER, and on the same day, that I clarified where I originally retrieved the information from. Bab-a-lot (talk) 13:35, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Left response at Talk:Gigi (singer)#Controversy?. -- Gyrofrog 16:36, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Gyrofrog,

I tried to include the Rendille ethnic group as a related ethnic group to Somalis on the Somali people's page. Middayexpress quickly reverted this, the reason being 'that they are too mixed with Nilotes' and thus not closely related to Somalis anymore. I have had a fairly long discussion with him/her (read more here) disproving this on the basis of Sarah Tishkoff's study on African genetic diversity featuring Rendille among other Cushitic groups [9].

For instance, this image, taken from the Tishkoff study clearly shows that Rendille genetically cluster along with Beta Israel and other Cushites more so than they do with Nilo Saharan people.

After having confronted Midday with hard facts on Rendille genetics Middayexpress still doesn't fully accept their close relationship to Somalis and continues beating around the bush.

Besides this all, the Rendille language has been classified in the same subgroup as the Somali language (both Lowland East Cushitic-Omo-Tana languages), personally this alone should have been enough to proof their shared ancestry with Somalis. Our discussion seems to go in a vicious circle, could you provide some insight into this matter? Thank you in advance.

Mazi99 (talk) 21:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Left response at Talk:Somali people#Related groups. -- Gyrofrog 22:17, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I need your help and guidance. Would you please look into these conversations between me and user Pablo X, in terms of conduct, motive, impartiality and the things has been said and done are proper and whether they are in accordance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Talk:Atilla Engin I did my best. I am a new editor and I contributed a lot to this article while I'm still learning to improve my skills to edit and to create better articles. I always explained what I did, why I did, every time I made changes.

Since you are an administrator I am seeking your help to find a solution for these back and forth conversations to stop.

And also, since you created many music articles, I would like to have a third, impartial opinion about the article itself as it is now. Atilla Engin This article (after my opinion) did improve a lot, including referencing and other things. To make it even better I need your help and guidance. Would you please review the article and share your opinion about to improve it even further. Some of the references (scanned newspaper and Jazz magazine articles) are from the Artist's own archive since Danish and Turkish papers and the Jazz magazines alike did not yet digitalize their archives beyond year 2000. Would you please help? Thank you. Fusion is the future (talk) 22:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Left response at Talk:Atilla Engin#Third opinion. -- Gyrofrog 23:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

let's go —Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.79.86 (talk) 03:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

-- Gyrofrog 03:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not vandalizing the Somalia national team ! you must understand that first and why are you threatening me ? I am not doing anything wrong User:Kevin McE is damaging the article by not have the right squad players why would change the 2010 world cup qualifier team to 2008 squad and he got the scores lines of matches wrong I'm just correcting it. User talk:wikiplayer13

Left response at User talk:Wikiplayer13. -- Gyrofrog 21:56, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

somalia never played north Korea there first game was against Kenya can you please not revert my page thank you -77.98.152.244

Left response at User talk:77.98.152.244. -- Gyrofrog 22:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Under the circumstances, I think, it's probably better to keep the block up. If someone else at the school was responsible the administrators there are in a better position to find out. Daniel Case (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Daniel Case. -- Gyrofrog 19:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, having been the primary author of that short graf, I addressed to users who might legitimately be making the claim. In this circumstance, I think the account may be autoblocked. And if they do resume the former behavior with a new account, they'll likely get blocked again for evading. Daniel Case (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyrofrog. I'm having trouble getting this Cydebot to stop redirecting the Category:Somali people-related categories to Category:Somalian people. The Somali people category now deals with ethnicity only, whereas the new Somalian people category is reserved for nationality. Would it be possible to program the bot to stop redirecting the material (such as Category:Somali clans), which only pertains to the Somali ethnic group? I can't do it myself as I don't have administrative access. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Middayexpress. -- Gyrofrog 16:50, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Shortride (talk) 04:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

You may want to fix the name in your AfD nomination! AllyD (talk) 19:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanx for that, Y Done. -- Gyrofrog 19:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyrofrog. I need your advice on something. I believe I have encountered a sock of a user I've dealt with in the past, so I'd like your opinion on how best to handle this. I realize that the reporting process has changed quite a bit over the past year or so, so I'd appreciate direction. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Middayexpress. -- Gyrofrog 22:03, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. It's the new procedure part I was unsure about, as it appears to have changed. I'll give it a read and get back to you. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 22:11, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

You are invited to Wikipedia DC Meetup #13 on Wednesday, November 17, from 7 to 9 pm, location to be determined (but near a Metro station in DC).

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can join the mailing list.

You can remove your name from future notifications of Washington DC Meetups by editing this page: Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List.
BrownBot (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

In trying to find a reference, any reference for this article (as now required by BLP policy), I came across your comments here Talk:Leelkase#Disruptive_edits from 2006 relating to the article Garaad Warsame Abdi Haashi. As I was unable to find any sources for the latter article I've proposed the article for deletion and had even considered the possibility that it is a hoax. But having just come across your comment at Leelkase, I figured I'd drop you a line. If you have any sources that would establish the notability of this individual and allow an article to be written about them, your assistance would be appreciated. If you think the article won't meet the notability guideline or can't provide sources, you can ignore this and it'll likely be deleted in about a week. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 00:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

All of those links were relevant to the topics, and not spam nor marketing. AddisTunes is a curator of African music. Please put my links back. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Never621 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Never621. -- Gyrofrog 21:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I just got a question about my removal of her from the Osman Mahmoud. I was sure that it was being done because of a previous edit war over which clan she belonged to. Now of course I can't find the edit war or any discussion. Do you have any idea where it might be. Cheers. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 14:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:CambridgeBayWeather. -- Gyrofrog 17:53, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I just came across Reer cumar ummad nabi which is up for deletion. That in turn led me to this which you had redirected to Isaaq. I also noticed that the Reer cumar uncapitalised version redirected to Isaaq but originally said that it was a sub clan of the Majeerteen. Do you know which is correct? Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 16:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

An addition to this page today is essentially non-encyclopaedic marketing content and I was minded to revert. However the previous paragraph is a bit of a minefield of unreferenced POV. It looks unbalanced with today's addition, unbalanced without it, unbalanced with all after the 2nd sentence in paragraph 3 removed. So I thought a 2nd pair of eyes may be useful - thoughts? AllyD (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello GyroFrog,

Now that three months passed by, since I started to edit, please allow me to say this to you.

Along with the editor AllyD, you are an honorable editor and administrator.

At the time, (recently,) I was framed and falsely incriminated, you and AllyD chose to stay away. You did not take advantage of the situation. You were not opportunists, unlike some others, who immediately went on a mass deleting, mass removing and tagging spree of my edits on the articles. Although you are, like everybody else, anonymous users, your conduct has been impeccable through out.

Today, I, a 'not-born-yesterday' user, have no doubt in my mind about yours and AllyD's pristine qualities with flawless character.

Because, I, myself, have always paid great attention to my-four-pillars of my life, among others, what I do, why I do, how I do and when I do, in which, all attribute to the final question: What do I gain from my actions?

Emotional satisfaction? Yes, it could be nice to have it, but not if at somebody else's expense. Because if so, I might lose my credibility along with my dignity.

There are though lots of Pillars in life, as you would agree with me, to believingly follow and abide by. Doing so will make us good-sensible human beings. Our common sense and rationale should never be over-seeded by our emotions and ego. Being pompous, obsessive and ruthless, having questionable attitude with a concealed agenda, demonstrating constant-dictatorial behavior, eager to falsely accuse, in the end, will hurt us, while there is always a great risk of ruining others' lives too. I believe, anybody who lacks of sublime qualities will soon-or-later be weeded out in life, even those, the anonymous 'who-is-whos' that enjoy having such a power in hand, just one click away, in front of the computers, will have their share.

Normally, one’s subversive, emotionally enslaved attitude, in real life, is subject to close scrutiny, when practiced against others. So to speak, it will not go unchallenged.

On the other hand, some people on the Internet, with greatly appreciated anonymous comfort, come easily out of the closet and be-real themselves. Their words and actions reflect-reveal their true colors, and they cause-inflict irreversible harm on others for weeks, if not months before they're being caught. Because of the anonymity, they have tendency to deceive and manipulate other people, for personal gain, mostly to satisfy their poor ego. They take advantage of others, they are opportunists.

So, why they do bad things, under the anonymity, otherwise they would never think of doing it in real life?

It is my hope that some editors' constant-personal attacks, false accusations to destroy, and their inflammatory-condescending and sarcastic remarks will continue to be sanctioned, by the Wikipedia community. Even being one of those, who have contributed to Wikipedia with good articles, does not constitute a free-ride to patronize-insult others, including making sarcastic remarks, while unilaterally removing the material from the articles, changing the structures as he/she wishes, without seeking consensus first. It is very disrespectful and it has nothing to do with being bold.

GyroFrog and AllyD, these are my observations and first-hand experiences, after spending three months here on Wikipedia, with somewhat of 1300 edits, including ten-simple articles I created. They all speak for themselves. I tend to do better.

I just wanted to pour my grief out. I am, otherwise, very happy to be here to improve the articles.

Finally and again, I, warm-heartedly, want to say thank you. Thank you GyroFrog, thank you AllyD. Cheers._{Fusion Is the} Future 18:05, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Left response at User talk:Fusion is the future#Re: Pouring the grief out. -- Gyrofrog 16:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Gyrofrog, thanks for your response. I was hoping to run some ideas by you, as you're a more experienced editor than I. You're already aware of my posts/concerns with the Modal jazz and Jazz articles. What do you think is a good solution? I was considering adding a "New currents" section to the 50's section of Jazz, to deal with early avant-garde and "modal," as all of this stuff barely started to appear in '59. Then, "Free jazz" can be moved to the 60's where it really belongs. As far as the "Modal jazz" article is concerned, perhaps it can be changed to "Modal improvisation," and have "Modal jazz" redirect there. There could then be small subsections for "Modal jazz" and possibly "Modal composition" within that article. Any thoughts?BassHistory (talk) 05:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree and understand about the spelling. Maybe we could work together on this Ali Matan Hashi article a little to make it a little bigger if we can? That's if you're interested. Willing to help where I can. Feedback is appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:56, 11 December 2010 (UTC)