User talk:Kzl55

Kzl55, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Kzl55! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Soni (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

"Somalia has no jurisdiction"

Is that the position of TNG? What does the UN say? We can allude to control, but I think we have to note formal jurisdiction, too. El_C 01:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I believe the position of the TNG and the current FDG (Federal Government of Somalia) is unchanged as they continue to claim Somaliland to be part of Somalia. The reality is the government of Somalia is very weak and has very little control on the ground [1], it only manages to control the capital city under the protection of AMISOM. As for the United Nations, Somaliland's situation is similar to Taiwan in that it is not recognised by the UN.

As for jurisdiction Somalia has no control over any part of Somaliland. A recent example is a $442 million deal signed by the government of Somaliland and Dubai's DP World [2] for the management of Berbera Port. The deal went through despite objections by the Federal Government of Somalia [3]. A clearer and more recent example is last week's Somaliland's parliament agreement to allow the UAE to set up a military base in the port of Berbera, again the deal between the governments of Somaliland and UAE went ahead despite objections from Somalia [4]. Somalia's lack of jurisdiction is further highlighted by the current president's seeking of Saudi intervention to stop the deal between Somaliland and the UAE [5]. Other recent examples include the United Kingdom's MoU with the government of Somaliland on issues pertaining to prisoner repatriation, in which the government of the UK deals with Somaliland as a state [6].(talk) 20:40, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello kzl55, regarding the jurisdiction of Somalia, you claim the recent UAE deal with Somaliland to be an example of Somalia's lack of jurisdiction, i would just like to correct you as this is factually incorrect. The outgoing administration of Somalia prior to the current one, actually accepted the deal with UAE. Evidence here: [7] The source states "“As the reliable sources we are getting from the ground indicate, before Somaliland, authorities within the administration of the former head of state Hassan Sheikh Mohamud signed the agreement and Somaliland put it into vote at its parliament, only to send a message that it is a Somaliland project rather than a Somalia project,” Abdisamad said." The sources clearly states that the UAE deal was given the green light by the former president of Somalia Hassan Sheikh Mahamoud meaning that Somalia clearly did have jurisdiction. If Somalia had no jurisdiction then why would Somaliland government need to reach an agreement with the former administration? I would appreciate an answer to this question. MehdiHuusain

We can not be dealing in hyperboles and secret 'sources' here. I am afraid your claim is not valid in the slightest. The link you have shared is not substantive at all, did you actually read it? Allow me to quote your source: “We know that individuals within the leadership of Somalia and Somaliland were invited to Dubai and that they were corrupted with bags full of cash to sign the agreement,” And: "Jimale would not specify the individuals allegedly involved in the deal, and VOA could not independently verify the allegations." Beyond the theatrics of 'bags full of cash' and these 'secret deals', it is frankly bizarre that this individual has these sources and knows of these 'secret deals' yet feels reluctant to reveal any names and out these officials. It is also worth mentioning that there was never an official endorsement of these statements from the new Somalia president. Furthermore, and I continue to quote your source, Somaliland's response was very simple: "Somaliland's representative to the UAE, Bashe Awil Omer, denied the bribery accusation. “It is baseless and we categorically deny it,” he told VOA. “If they have an evidence for such allegation, they should show to the public." So far no evidence of these allegations was shared with the public. These remain baseless claims I am afraid. As seen by the two above deals with DP World and UAE government, as well as the MoU with the UK, it is clear that other states are dealing with Somaliland directly and that Somalia has no jurisdiction over Somaliland.

The article you linked to contains other factual inaccuracies, for instance it says: "Somaliland's Wadani and OCID opposition parties have described the agreement as illegal and unconstitutional.", this is just incorrect. The leader of Ucid party speaks very positively about the deal [8] and the motion was actually passed with the support of 144 out of 151 MPs [9]. Other than the leader of Wadani and a couple of MPs, it was a near unanimous vote.

By the way, the DP World deal was signed yesterday [10] despite Somalia's opposition. That is the clearest sign to date that Somalia indeed has no jurisdiction over Somaliland. I hope you accept this and move on. Many thanks Kzl55 (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I think it is fair to make a note on Somaliland's page that it is a de-facto government and not recognised, but all of it's cities and towns of Somaliland should be coming under Somaliland and not Somalia. Kzl55 (talk) 10:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It can be two things. See the infobox for Stepanakert or Gagra District. El_C 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I have seen that infobox but it still would not make the distinction between Somaliland and Somalia clear. The government of Somaliland has a longer history, controls more land, and is more democratic than the one in Somalia. I think a similar treatment to cities and provinces of Taiwan for example Hualien County would be more appropriate. Somalia (as seen in the Berbera DP World and military base examples above) has no jurisdiction over Somaliland. There is also the demographic reality that the majority of the more-than-three-million Somalilanders were born after the country declared its resumed independence and have never thought of themselves as citizens of unitary Somalia. The blue flag of Somalia is as alien to them as that of any neighbouring country. Kzl55 (talk) 11:12, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

You might wanna start an RfC on this, so that you have clear consensus, one way or the other, or, the third option I mentioned: both. Myself, I have no opinion, either way. El_C 23:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Somalia is the de jure authority, not referring to it neglects this aspect of it. I still think that you need to codify consensus, or you'll be dealing with drive-by edits indefinitely. El_C 21:14, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I totally see you point about having to deal with drive-by edits, and appreciate you trying to reach a common ground. But appeasing disruptive editing is not the way to go. We've just attempted to neutralise some pages yet the same editor blocked indefinitely some 7 times now (if not more) continues to drive-by edit.

The articles in question (Ifat, Adal) have very little to do with de facto and de jure actually. It is a matter of historical record, and for that use, Somaliland is a lot more appropriate than Somalia. There is ample precedent in the pages of Dál_Riata, Picts, Kingdom_of_Cat and Fortriu to use Scotland as an example. In these pages the Scotland is appropriately used and not 'northern Britain'. Scotland - unlike Somaliland- does not even have de facto status! I've just picked Scotland as one example, there are many more. Kzl55 (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

As an admin, I have concerns: you have now reverted the IP four times today thereby violating the three revert rule—I hope you don't think either of you are exempt. Do you intend to just edit war over that indefinitely? See, this is why you need to codify consensus. If I block the IP, in fairness, I would have to block you, too. None of you are talking to each other. Please try to discuss your edits with the IP on the article talk page. Failure to do so is not acceptable. Show me you attempted this. El_C 22:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

For example, instead of just dropping vandalism templates on the IP's talk page, say: 'Hi IP, I reverted because of this-and-this, please see the article/s talk page/s.' El_C 22:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point, but my edits are based on the 3RR exemptions, specifically no.3 (reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users.) The section has a known banned editor with multiple sleeper accounts displaying the exact same pattern of edits [11]. Does this satisfy the exemption? I am happy to self-revert if not.

Also you did not reply to my point regarding de facto/de jure status and the examples I have cited.

I have attempted to reason with the banned member many times, but they have proven many times that they will continue to disrupt and edit whilst pretending to engage in the talkpage under a different membership. This very Adal/Ifat page proves this.Kzl55 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

You know, there could be more than one Somali nationalist with an internet connection. How do you prove they are the same user. You should set up an SPI where you can be afforded a Checkuser. *** Scotland isn't disputed though, so it's rather innocent to omit the UK. We assume the English-speaking reader knows it's part of the UK (for now). I'm more looking at Tskhinvali or Stepanakert as more representative of disputed areas. El_C 00:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

There could be more than one Somali nationalist with an internet connection, ture, but to have not one but three editors Special:Contributions/Mohamud210, Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:84, Special:Contributions/50.152.206.55 with no history emerge and start editing the pages for Ifat/Adal on 10/11 March is bizarre, especially when you know 10 March is significant in relation to this specific blocked editor as it was the day an SPI was submitted and they were subsequently blocked Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zakariayps/Archive. Now once you add in the exact same pattern of a couple of preparatory edits on random pages before editing the pages of interest (Adal, Ifat, Erigavo) by these editors Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:80F:0:0:0:BA, Special:Contributions/4.53.137.66, Special:Contributions/95.8.207.79 (first ever edit on 22 Feb, the exact same date of first SPI), Special:Contributions/78.174.147.202 (only edits ever 25 Feb), Special:Contributions/2600:387:6:805:0:0:0:93, Special:Contributions/4.53.137.66 it becomes clear that this, after all, may not be a case of Somali nationalists with an internet connection, but a Somali nationalist with an internet connection.

Please note we are not discussing disputed territory in the Ifat/Adal page. These are regions of Somliland that are not disputed. In discussing history it is much more precise to use Somaliland (like the Scotland example cited). To put it in a different way, if Somaliland was not a de facto state and was in fact united with Somalia, then, like the Scotland example, it would be fine to cite only Somaliland in the Ifat/Adal article, yet now that Somalialnd has de facto status and much more autonomy and control it is somehow 'disputed'. Do you see the discrepancy in this logic?

You did not get back to me regarding the 3RR and my understanding of the exemption, as I mentioned I am happy to do a self-revert if rule no.3 does not apply in this case. Kzl55 (talk) 01:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

That's fair enough, though the edit was about where it is geographically today. You got your exemption against these socks, and it looks like we'll have to start protecting those pages occasionally to break the cycle. You should definitely add those other suspected socks to the SPI so they're listed. El_C 02:04, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's not like Scotland, because the average English reader may not know where Somaliland is (my browser dictionary dosen't even recognize the spelling), but they are more likely to know where northern Somalia is. I don't see the harm pointing that out to the reader, but don't feel strongly about it. El_C 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the exemption. I agree that occasional protection of the pages would be helpful in this case. I will add the suspected socks to the SPI.

Regarding the comparison to Scotland. I think its apt in more ways than one, at least from a narrative stand-point. Both were separate countries that joined a union with their southern neighbours, neighbours which they fought wars of liberation against. Both share aspirations to regain their lost statehoods (2014 referendum lost in Scotland, another announced just yesterday, whereas Somaliland has a clear majority wanting to leave the union with Somalia).

I accept that Somaliland has nowhere near the name recognition of Scotland, but the name recognition should not be an issue, especially on Wikipedia when links make it very easy to learn more (e.g. Somaliland). Please also note that the description of 'northern Somalia' is not accepted by the vast majority of Somalilanders. Going back to the Scotland example, the logic of using Somaliland only if it was accepting of being part of Somalia, yet that right taken away if it chooses to have even more control as a de facto state just makes no sense. Without adding cumbersome language, would adding (the self-declared state of Somaliland) work better as a compromise between the two positions?

I appreciate you trying to find middle ground, and as a 3rd-party observer (I presume) I understand you will see no harm in the use of 'northern Somalia', it is semantics after all. But the rejection of this label (northern Somalia) and the subsequent edit warring (in this case by the sockmaster in question) stems from a long history between the two countries. Starting as early as 1961 (one year after the union of Somaliland and Somalia) when the new constitution was rejected by a majority of Somalilanders [12] and ratified by the rest of Somalia in a heavily rigged vote (I can post some links if interested). There is also the legal argument that the union of Somaliland and Somalia was never legally ratified anyway [13]. Add to that the bloody liberation war that was fought by Somalilanders against Siad Barre, and the genocide conducted by the Somali state (estimates of civilian deaths from Somaliland range between 50,000-200,000) and you can begin to understand why the issue is fraught with such contention. As the AU Commission Deputy Chairperson said the case for Somaliland is certainly unique. I believe for the purpose of an encyclopedia, presenting it as 'yet another renegade region' is not the way to go. Kzl55 (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea whats your problem is. Why are you claiming I'm a dissruptive sock puppet? First of all I created a wikipedia account on the purpose of editing Somaliland's cities back to their international status as Somalia's uncontrolled cities, futhermore it doesn't matter if the United Arab Emarites put a military base in Somaliland since they have yet to recognize it as independent nation. Even if they did it wouldn't matter as Somaliland current status wouldn't change unless they convinced United Nation, African Union, or Somalia to legitimized Somaliland independence. Finally you can't compare Somaliland to Taiwan as the self govering territory is internationally rejected recognition because its claims to be the legitimate government of China, NOT a independent Taiwanese country, since both governments agree that theres only one china and Taiwan is PART OF CHINA. Mainland China has also threatened military force if they change their change their status as a claimed Chinese government to a independent Republic of Taiwan. Unlike Somaliland however there are currently 22 U.N countries recognized it as the country of CHINA, many more sovereign states also have unofficial relations with The Republic of China (Taiwan) and consulates in their country but avoid classifying it as a country to avoid damaging their relationship with People Republic of China. Mohamud210 (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So you admit the sole purpose of your creating of this account (one of many socks you operate) is to"editing Somaliland's cities back to their international status as Somalia's uncontrolled cities". As if that was not obvious. Kzl55 (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mr Kzl55 Somaliland is not a country it is not internationally recognised therefore should not be recognised on Wikipedia as a country but as an autonomous region which it is Editorguy123098 (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland is not a country until its official and right now its Somalia so stop with the deception. I am from Las anod and I dislike the misinformation! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SolidMali92 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Gulf of Aden

Hi, regarding your recent edit of [14] don't you think it would be more appropriate to leave out Somaliland as it isn't a recognised country for the benefit of regular readers Abdinur04 (talk) 15:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Adal Sultanate, Sultanate of Ifat

I know we've been over this, but dosen't the sock have a point? Mentioning both in modern context, for the benefit of the average reader. El_C 22:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

El C, this is an absolute non issue. Again, totally appreciate you trying to reach some middle ground but the sock has no point here. The legal status of de facto/de jure does not play into this article of a historic sultanate, as we have discussed before (in the example of Scotland where not even a de facto status is held, granted I accept your point about name recognition.) These parts of Somaliland in question here are not even 'disputed' by anyone. It is undisputed Somaliland territory (incidentally Somaliland has a lot more control over its territories than Somalia, it is also the older government of the two.)

Say Somaliland was not a de facto state, and was in fact a participating state of the Federal Government of Somalia, in this case it would be fine to list Somaliland on its own (like Scotland), but now with Somaliland having achieved de facto status and aspiring to get de jure status, somehow it can not be listed in an article pertaining to a historical state that Somaliland was part of and Somalia wasn't? Are we simply just giving in to the sock now?

I accepted your earlier point of name recognition (when compared to Scotland) but in dealing with the central point of Somaliland being part of these sultanates (like Scotland was part aforementioned kingdoms), and its right to be cited as a stand alone state of Somaliland (reflecting real, on the ground realities), I do not see what the point is, other than appeasing the whims of a known ultra-nationalist sockmaster. It does not change a single thing for the average reader, I am even happy to add 'de facto state of Somaliland' if that would read better. Kzl55 (talk) 23:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Except, it exists as a modern-day example in the company of a plurality of independent states, not subdivisions of ones, but entire independent nations. If Somaliland was mentioned on its own, I would accept your point about Scotland—but it's in the company of Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea—which is where the sock might have a point about mentioning Somalia too for de jure context. It's like saying Scotland, Ireland, Iceland—instead of Scotland^{(De Facto)} (northern UK^{(De Jure)}), Ireland, Iceland. El_C 23:24, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

There is precedent in Dál Riata which does list Scotland and Ireland without mention of de jure context. Kzl55 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Well, there goes my point! El_C 23:41, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I can see where you are coming from, but Somaliland can be listed on its own and there is precedent on Wikipedia. Whereas you are coming from context and usability standpoint (also conflict resolution perhaps?), the sock is driven by sheer malice (or misguided sense of nationalism. I am not entirely sure which) against Somaliland. For example, they are using two IPs on this very page to edit their case [15], [16].

Please reconsider. Kzl55 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you explain why you reverted my edits? Adal sultanate is not listed template History of Ethiopia (if you don't include Ethiopian–Adal War and that's another article) why would you this be necessary somehow in this article Somajeeste (talk) 05:10, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Your edits were disruptive, both in terms of replacement of Somaliland for Somalia and removal of the History of Ethiopia template. Why did you remove the template if you are aware of the Abyssinian–Adal war? It is listed under Early Modern History tab in the template. Kzl55 (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

then history of ethiopia template belongs to where it mentioned on Abyssinian–Adal conflict , as this concerns Horn of africa Somalia should be added.Somajeeste (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of the template is appropriate here due to the impact of that war on both parties.Kzl55 (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

DRN case closed

This message template was placed here by Yashovardhan Dhanania, a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. You recently filed a request or were a major party in the DRN case titled "Talk:British Somaliland". The case is now closed: not enough recent discussion on talk page If you are unsatisfied with this outcome, you may refile the DRN request or open a thread on another noticeboard as appropriate. If you have any questions please feel free to contact this volunteer at his/ her talk page or at the DRN talk page. Thank you! --Yashovardhan (talk) 05:41, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Additional comments by volunteer: resume discussion on talk page or approach WP:RFC.

More of the same (Somaliland-Somalia)

Can you review the edits of IP 1 and 2 to make sure I didn't miss anything, and that it all checks out? Still thinking an RfC and after that, lengthy semiprotection. El_C 04:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep, both IPs belong to the same sock [17], [18]. Would it be possible to protect Sultanate of Ifat (neutralising like Sultanate of Adal is an option too) (neutralised), ‎Erigavo and Badhan ‎ as well? Seeing as these pages also receive a fair share of sock activity [19], [20], [21]. Many thanks for your assistance on this. Kzl55 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Copy that. El_C 12:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isaaq genocide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aerial bombardment. 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) 09:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC idea

You should launch an RfC (I recommend the talk page of WP:AFRICA as the venue) on the Somalia-Somaliland dispute—trust me, it's the best course of action. El_C 15:24, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you doing it? My suggesting is that we compromise with de facto—de jure formulation, similar to the Frozen conflict quasistates (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria), as well as Northern Cyprus, and so on. The edit war is still ongoing. We really need consensus codified. El_C 05:16, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello? El_C 09:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree that a consensus on the matter is needed. Still working on the question for the RfC. El C, I see your suggestion for a compromise de facto de jure solution, but why not go the Republic of China/People's Republic of China route? From Political status of Taiwan: "Today, the ROC is the de facto government of Taiwan; whereas the PRC is the de facto government over Mainland China". See also [22]. This could be a precedent for the Somaliland/Somalia issue. Kzl55 (talk) 09:56, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Because it's a compromise solution whose language you should probably offer as an option in the RfC. Mainly, I don't think Somaliland has the international standing as Taiwan, nor has it been self-governing for nearly the same length of time (generations). El_C 10:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the issue here is equating Somaliland's case to other cases (like Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and others) when in fact its a very unique case. Even the African Union states as much. In 2005 the AU sent a fact-finding mission to Somaliland, it concluded that Somaliland's case was "unique and self-justified in African political history" [23]. Its true that Somaliland has nowhere near the international standing as Taiwan, but that surely is not relevant when the legal similarities and de facto nature are very similar. My understanding is that Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality. Somaliland has been a de facto state for almost as long (26 years) as its been in a Union with Somalia (30 years). It answers to no higher power (like Puntland for instance answers to Somalia), it has its own passport, currency, standing army and government. It has a larger budget than Somalia (Somalia's 2016 budget was $216m, where as Somalialnd's was $295m, Somaliland's budget for this year is $362m). On the international standing front Somaliland approved a UAE military base which both the Somalia government and its president objected to, so much so that the president went to Saudi to try and persuade them to intervene [24] and failed to get any support. He has no power or influence over Somaliland both internally and on the world stage. What I am trying to say is that despite Somaliland not having the international clout of Taiwan, the realities of their de facto state are very similar. Which is why the solution to this dispute should be very close to that of Taiwan/PRC. The situation is very unique in African and world politics as stated by the AU report, and requires an open mind for a solution. This is why I think previous solutions wont work (Nagorno-Karabakh Republic and others). The divisions are very deep, there was a civil war, Somalia's government attempted genocide on people from the region. Over 70% of Somalilander's are under 30 so have no recollection of the union. Kzl55 (talk) 10:29, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I still think Somaliland is much more like those other quasistates than Taiwan, notwithstanding those examples. This is why you need an RfC to touch on that debate. Because you don't get to WP:OWN the articles and cannot edit war your preferred version there indefinitely. El_C 10:36, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Legally speaking, what makes you think Somaliand's case is closer to quasistates than Taiwan?Kzl55 (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm an historian, not a lawyer, so I'm less concerned with legalities and more with historiography. El_C 10:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Historically, the date 1991 has commonalities with those Frozen conflict quasistates—Taiwan's 1945 date is less young, however. El_C 11:00, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

History is fine too. Even in terms of history, and I am no historian so correct me if I am wrong, Somaliland case is different from quasistates. As far as I know none of the quasistates namelyNagorno-Karabakh Republic, Abkhazia and South Ossetia were independent sovereign states that chose of their own will to join their now de jure states. Somaliland on the other hand was, and voluntarily chose to join the union. This, from a history viewpoint, is a case of two independent states (Somaliland and Somalia) choosing to form a union, and now Somaliland choosing to reclaim its lost sovereignty. Kzl55 (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure the relationship between Nagorno-Karabakh Republic→Azerbaijan; Transnistria→Moldova; Abkhazia→Georgia; and South Ossetia→Georgia can be described thusly vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. El_C 11:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

How so? Were any of these states sovereign, independent states that chose to form a union with the other part of their now de jure state?

Would it not be historically more accurate to liken the Somaliland/Somalia case to that of Mali Federation or Senegambia Confederation albeit for a longer duration (31 years, 10 of which Somaliland was in rebellion Somali National Movement)? Kzl55 (talk) 11:50, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We cannot compare Taiwan to Somaliland (Taiwan today considered the worlds only de facto independent countries.) Somalia's Provisional Constitution considers Somaliland as an autonom region [25] and the CIA World Factbook [26] and controls indirectly hence the autonom status (which makes it de jure reasonable). and its worth mentioning that It was the Somali National Movement that declared the region to be independent 18 may 1991 after Ali Mahdi declared himself interimpresident unilaterlly. Simply because it was unilateral decision from (southern Somalia and was not consulted Northern (Somaliland))after fall of Barre regime, (Which makes Somaliland de facto to be in control of Some of its claimed territory,) that being said from NPOV I think El_C suggestion for a compromise de facto de jure solution is the most suitable for now, and Kzl55 for your history edits The fact remains that you keep continuously removing reliable sources such as the Hargeisa profile from the CIA World Factbook,[27] and simply because it affirms the established fact that the Somaliland region is and has always been a part of Somalia. A consensus version cannot be reached as long as Kzl55 keep pushing Somaliland secessionist POV; how any compromise can be reached when every single international organization and country recognizes Somaliland as simply a region in Somalia -- and not as the independent "country" and Kzl55 considers Somaliland as Sovereign Nation like he did on Somali language [28] which even other editor doubt and suggested that the list of countries in which it is an official language." and he is still ignore it , so Just how exactly does one compromise on reality?Somajeeste (talk) 13:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Please do not derail this discussion. Somaliland's sovereignty is not in dispute here (see Montevideo Convention), what we are discussing is the de facto status, specifically from a historical perspective, compared to other unrecognised states, and to that end, Somaliland is one half of the two constituent members of the union i.e. Somaliland and Somalia. There is a prior history of independence, and Somaliland voluntarily chose to join. This is why the AU fact-finding mission reported that Somaliland's case is unique and should be looked at differently to that of separate movements. The reality on the ground is that Somalia has no control nor influence over Somaliland (an example being Somaliland signing a bilateral agreement with the UAE for Berbera military base to Somalia's objections). Somaliland has a separate passport, currency, army, government. It has a larger budget than Somalia. Wikipedia reflects the neutral reality which is why Taiwan is made distinct from the PRC. A similar treatment should be afforded Somaliland. You have a long history of disruptive edits against Somaliland, I would not expect you to accept this.

El_C, I would still like to hear your thoughts on my reply to you above if you do not mind. Kzl55 (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with El_C, that the Republic Somaliland is not as well known as Taiwan, but it’s political history is much longer. Somaliland became officially a British Protectorate in 1887, after multiple negotiations with tribal elders that started in 1884. It's international borders were established by the British Empire by way of official protocols & agreements with Somaliland's neighbours, the Somali French & Italian colonies, as well as Ethiopia from 1888 to 1897. Somaliland was granted independence after 70 years of protectorate status on June 26, 1960, and became the 17th African state (on the same day as Madagascar) to become independent. The new independent State of Somaliland had received congratulatory messages from 35 states throughout the world (including the Security Council) on the date of it's independence. The new State of Somaliland had a Prime Minister, Cabinet, and Legislative Council. Deciding to join Italian Somalia on July 1, 1960 to create the Somali State, a union that was never ratified, had a devastating effect on Somaliland’s population, hence the decision to reclaim its independence in 1991. That in my humble opinion leaves me to conclude Somaliland should be kept as a de facto State on wiki like Taiwan, and separate from Somalia, since the above mentioned history is much more similar to the Mali Federation, Senegambia Confederation and/or Taiwan’s current political status compared to known Quasi States such as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, Transnistria, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neo 1922 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, considering that wiki is used as an encyclopedia, it would be a disservice to everyone to muzzle the facts of Somaliland's history and it's widely accepted position as a de facto (but yet to be recognized) State, to simply satisfy the few editors attempting to use wiki as platform to claim the territorial integrity of pre civil war Somali State; which clearly no longer exists

This is why we need an RfC, where each side can argue their case, instead of doing so on someone's talk page. And where a conclusion is binding. There are good arguments that liken Somaliland to Taiwan, even though it's clearly not as well known as a de facto state. The question is whether that's reflected in reliable sources that adhere to due weight. It would be interesting to learn what other tertiary sources are doing when it comes to Somaliland regions and cities... Encyclopædia Britannica writes similar to what we write: Hargeisa ... capital of the Republic of Somaliland, a self-declared independent state without international recognition.—touching on its disputed status. But it writes of Taipei merely: seat of government of Taiwan (Republic of China).—without touching on its disputed status. Wikipedia treats the two cities similarly: self-declared but internationally unrecognised Republic of Somaliland—touching on its disputed status. And: capital city and a special municipality of the Republic of China (ROC, commonly known as Taiwan)—not touching on its disputed status. Arguing that Taiwan and Somaliland are at parity is problematic, then, as is evident on both encyclopedias. Having a de facto—de jure in the infobox seems to reflect this distinction between both states. El_C 00:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

We have already agreed that Somaliland and Taiwan are not at parity from world standing viewpoint, but legal and (since you suggested it) historical aspects of their cases are very similar (vs quasistates). The fact that Somaliland was actually a de jure state in the past is very significant here. Also please note that just like Somaliland is not of equal standing to Taiwan, Somalia is not of equal standing to PRC. Somaliland has a larger budget than Somalia, larger military force, its own separate currency (98% of local banknotes in Somalia are fake [29]). Somalia has no influence on Somaliland just as illustrated by the UAE military base agreement. The Somalia president does not control all of his own capital Mogadishu and relies on 22,000 foreign African Union troops to keep his government in place. Somalia's Federal government cant even negotiate directly with its constituents Federal member states and has to have the talks brokered by a third party and meet with its own Federal states in Seychelles. What I am trying to say is that the Somaliland/Somalia situation is very unique, there is a de facto state, completely independent but without de jure recognition, and there is a very fragile de jure state that can not control its own territory let alone exert any influence or control over Somaliland. Kzl55 (talk) 09:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Economy of Somaliland

Plz can you create page Economy of Somaliland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siirski (talk • contribs) 10:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

That is a good idea. Any suggestions for topics to include/sections?Kzl55 (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	thank you to Anti-Vandalism Siirski (talk) 10:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Kzl55 (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland election articles/template

Please stop with the reverts. The articles/template have been stable for several years. If you want to change, then start a discussion and get consensus. Any further reverts will result in a report for disruptive editing. Cheers, Number 57 12:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You have reverted someone else's edit for no reason. British Somaliland was not in a union with Somalia at the time. Thus should not be included in a Somalia temp. If you would like to include all Somali elections under one temp then that would be understandable. Otherwise it is inappropriate. Please see Template:East German elections and Template:German elections. Kzl55 (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I have not reverted them for no reason. British Somaliland later united with Italian Somaliland to become Somalia and is appropriate for inclusion in the Somalia template in line with {{Tanzanian elections}} where the pre-unification elections in Tanganyika and Zanzibar are listed. The German example is not an appropriate comparison as East Germany merged into the Federal Republic of Germany rather than it being a unification of the two. As you continued reverting regardless, I will shortly be filing an edit warring report. Cheers, Number 57 12:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

A report on your behaviour has been filed here. Cheers, Number 57 12:23, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Very strange, since it was you who violated 3RR and not me.Kzl55 (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Last warning Kzl55 - if you do one more revert on any British Somaliland article today, you will be blocked for 24 hours. In particular this comment is dripping with irony, given you wrote "Reverted to revision 779692161 by Kzl55 (talk)" immediately followed by "Stop the edit war please" (as multiple reversion are exactly what edit warring is) and then "Precedent givent in talkpage" (Talk:British Somaliland parliamentary election, 1959 is empty). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Precedent was given in this very talkpage, right above your comment. They have clearly violated 3RR and you have not even warned them. Very unprofessional siding with your fellow admin. Kzl55 (talk) 13:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Life sucks sometimes, doesn't it. Just edit some other article and you'll be fine. In particular, this dispute is a pretty silly and petty feud to get stuck in (if I do say so myself) and is just a short hop, skip and a jump from edit warring over the colour of templates. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:16, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If that is the case why warn me when I have not violated 3RR and not block Number57 when they have clearly violated 3RR? Life sucks sometimes, but this is just unprofessional clearly biased. Kzl55 (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked Number 57 to self-revert, and he did - and that lets him off the hook as he understands the problems with edit warring. Meanwhile, I see at least four warnings for edit warring on this talk page. If you want to complain, I suggest a report at WP:ANI. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you actually cared to look you would have seen they are from the same disruptive editor, who was blocked two days ago for edit warring. Kzl55 (talk) 13:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

If you were being fair you should have warned them before coming to place a warning here. They were the ones to violate 3RR not me.Kzl55 (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

You asked Number 57 to self-revert, and he did - and that lets him off the hook as he understands the problems with edit warring. No he does not understand the problem with edit warring because he promised to continue in 24 hours link. He even asked other editors to circumvent his 3RR on his report. Kzl55 (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

de fecto

can you explain why you revert my edits [30][31] ?Somajeeste (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought you were against compromise with de facto—de jure formulation, and now all the sudden you are writing de facto on articles that was stable long time, [32] [33] explain this irony? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Somajeeste (talk • contribs) 11:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Somaliland is a de facto sovereign state. Do you dispute this?Kzl55 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaaq genocide

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isaaq genocide. This is a courtesy message to you as a significant contributor to the article in question; I have no comment on the merits of the deletion nomination. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	Truth! Degaaxbur (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste page moves

Please never move pages by copy and pasting like this. The article history isn't moved if you do that. Instead, use the page move feature, as explained at Wikipedia:Moving a page. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just realised the history was not moved after my edit. Upon reading Wikipedia:Moving a page, I went to view the Isaaq genocide page logs [34] and as instructed in the page when I click revert I get this message:

The page could not be moved: a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid.

Any idea how to undo the move and preserve the history? Kzl55 (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You should be moving Genocide of the Isaaq clan in Somalia, rather than Isaaq genocide. However, that might not work as Isaaq genocide is in the way. I'm about to go to bed, so I suggest asking for help at the teahouse. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests#Requests to revert undiscussed moves. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

...remembering that the article is now at Somalian genocide of the Isaaq clan, as you moved it there after I posted the link above. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just tried to move Genocide of the Isaaq clan in Somalia and it does not work. Will list it at that link, many thanks Larry, you have a good night. Kzl55 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the move page said you have to retrace the move steps so moving from C to A would not work, but rather C >>B>>A. Kzl55 (talk) 22:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Yusuf bin Ahmad al-Kawneyn

I am still new to wikipedia editing, thank you for letting me know what I need to add. Aqooni (talk) 19:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries, welcome aboard. Kzl55 (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm confused as to the source you mentioned on my page indicating they had Arab ancestry, to my knowledge the source I provided clearly indicates their native African background. Can you show me the wiki page and source you are disputing my friend. Thanks Aqooni (talk) 20:37, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Ayn, Somalia

What do you think about this edit? Also, how does phrasing the question for the RfC going. Have you given up on that? El_C 09:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I have not had a chance to revisit the RfC question, I hope to do so soon. However I do not think it would help against the current wave of disruptive editing. Editors in question seem to be using the Somaliland/Somalia debate to further the narrative of a group within Somaliland called Khatumo, you can see it in their edits, examples include [35], [36], [37], [38] (by NastradamusNas), and [39], [40] (by Cagadhiig). The fact that these attacks are happening in distinct waves alludes to collusion, potentially by perennial sock Zakariayps.

As for the edit you've highlighted, that district is very tough to call. I am guessing the editor is alluding a visit by a Somaliland minister last month that was very well received in the the district [41] (?), minister in question is the former leader of that district (his group was called SSC). I believe an official from the Puntland regional state was also there either right before the Somaliland minister's visit or right after. --Kzl55 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

So, a breakaway state inside a breakaway state, that makes things... complicated. Any other background you can provide into this? El_C 18:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Touche. It is somewhat complicated but it seems things will clear up very soon. Basically Khatumo is a group led by Ali_Khalif_Galaydh, it is comprised of some members the Dhulbahante clan ( mainly around Buuhoodle, the majority of this clan in Las Anod are with Somaliland) who seek some measure of autonomy. Khatumo is more of an advocacy group for the Dhulbahante as they do not control any part of the land, though their leader is a well respected individual. This is not the only movement of its kind. A previous incarnation of this movement by the Dhulbahante clan was a group called SSC (whose leader is now the member of the Somaliland government you see in the video above). The Somaliland government successfully negotiated with SCC and incorporated them into the government. Part of that SSC group splintered off into Khatumo, now led by Galaydh. The reason I said things will clear up very soon is that Somaliland is currently in talks with Khatumo [42], archive of talks, and the talks are going well, in fact the leader of Khatumo is currently touring Somaliland cities and declared yesterday that he is open to join Somaliland. This is helped by him and the President of Somaliland being close friends. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

I am individual who hails from the regions of Sool, Sanaag and Ayn, and every word the editor said above is incorrect! The Dhulbahante people are entirely against the existence of Somaliland. If prove is required i will provide it. Cagadhiig (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the background—I learned a lot. El_C 15:02, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@El C: just a quick update, the talks I mentioned above culminated in a preliminary agreement between the government of Somaliland and the Khatumo group [43], this is good news, it is thought that it will all be finalised next month and an announcement will be made. --Kzl55 (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the update. El_C 01:44, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Somajeeste (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

File:Bones of a man.jpg

You can't just put File:Bones of a man.jpg in the article and then claim that they are the result of genocide. That violates Wikipedia:No original research. I will start a discussion on the articles talk page. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 16:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I did not insert the file into the article, a different user did [44]. It was then promptly removed by Soupforone as 'unidentified' when the original source states it was excavated as part of a war-crimes investigation [45]. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:20, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Socks

Although I sincerely appreciate your identifying sock puppets, I see no reasonable basis for this to be done off-wiki. In the future, please reopen the SPI when you spot socks. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Noted, many thanks for all your help! --Kzl55 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Your revert

You removed mention of Khatumo State here. I opened a section on the talk page where you could hopefully explain why. 92.13.137.81 (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Berbera

I see you as a great member for Somaliland on wikipedia, but sir I have provided sources proving Berbera in 2005 was 240 thousand, could you please protect this source? Thank you. Here's the berbera source during 2005: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3SapTk5iGDkC&pg=PA89&lpg=PA89&dq=Berbera+population+source&source=bl&ots=8uTI71Ui2v&sig=72VQMARn2WLur9j4SB1vWJvMv1c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibtMDEq5rWAhWqCcAKHdWbADoQ6AEIUTAG#v=onepage&q=Berbera%20population%20source&f=fals

Hi, thank you for your contribution, the issue with Somali city population figures is that there are no reliable sources that are up to date, so we fall back on the most recent (2005) figures published by UNDP for Somali cities. Please see the several discussions on this page Talk:Bosaso#Bosaso population including two RfCs. I have been looking for reliable sources for many cities including Berbera but so far did not see any recent ones. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Burco

Hello cousin, with burco it's considered the 4rth largest city in Somalia after Mogadishu, Hargeisa and Bossaso. Somebody wiped out the sources proving Burco was half a million and yet you got galkayo and kismayo pages being half a million while borama is 300 thousand and we claim Burco is second largest city in Somaliland and yet smaller than Borama? Please sir, let's not ruin our viewers. Because the Somaliland pages are getting contridicted, so help me on this. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khysion (talk • contribs) 12:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I have requested dispute resolution - (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Somaliland#Clans_sub-section). Xargaga (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Hargeisa - The second largest city of Somalia.

If you dispute that Hargeisa is the second largest city of Somalia, please engage in the talk page dialogue opened here -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hargeisa#Second_largest_City_of_Somalia. Xargaga (talk) 23:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Somaliland - Clan System". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 6 December 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kzl55. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Somaliland - Clan System, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

February 2018

Your recent editing history at Faysal Ali Warabe shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. CabuuwaaqWanaag (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Multi-user edit war at Somalis. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Important

As a fellow lander you must also be embarressed. Please remove the British insult pictures because you are proving our enemies a point that our history began through Britain which is false. Please remove those pictures and post Dervish Isaaq warriors in history or Isaaq ruins in Adal period or early modern period. Please, I beg man! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Costtrued (talk • contribs) 14:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kzl55, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Sro23 (talk) 05:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

T-M184 Garhajis dispute

Liseranius and Kzl55 I think you two need a third party mediator who is impartial to settle your dispute in regards to the addition of 'Garhajis' on T-M184 tree. This edit war that has been going on for months must be put to an end. Open a talk and discuss the issue with other editors and resolve it. GeelJire (talk) 01:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The main point of contention is the editor's insistence on adding original research content, this is not acceptable on WP. I have asked numerous times for a reputable source confirming their additions without success. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Isaaq Genocide

Wouldn’t the original numbers be 50-100k rather then 50-60k? https://books.google.ca/books?id=tOgOwSXB164C&pg=PA23&lpg=PA23&dq=50,000&source=bl&ots=gDxdHZNEgV&sig=tQB8KBkmIN2qBGzghefetUE7ITo&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=50%2C000%20isaaq%20deaths&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ZybbAAAAMAAJ&q=By+then,+any+surviving+urban+Isaaks+-&redir_esc=y

And the high estimates: https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/02/investigating-genocide-somaliland-20142310820367509.html

I’m quite confused why you changed my edit while I have direct references. Hopefully you can discuss your reasoning and perhaps we can come to a agreement on what the casual section should look like.

NoContent33 (talk) 01:10, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

My comment regarding the unsourced addition was mainly directed at the 500,000 figure, which as far as I know is not mentioned in the sources cited, do you have a citation for it? As for the 50-100k, I am not opposed to it, its just that it is covered in the current wording of (50-60k with high estimates in the hundreds of thousands), but perhaps changing it to 50-100k is more appropriate/less cluttered. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Somali military history

Hey brother. You might have known me a fellow lander that worked with you to protect Isaaq and Somaliland pages from vandalism. Yeah, brother the sources are mentioned within the information I provided. I also redirected pages which doesn't show anything like the battle of Barawa and battle of Benadir which is historically documented. So I just wanted to let you know to please allow me to edit this way. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bayesedam (talk • contribs) 11:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Vukharttara

I went through Vukharttara's contributions, and noticed that he/she made the same edit as User:Soupforone, an editor who you made an investigation about. Are they the same person? Thylacoop5 (talk) 11:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:Vandalism

The above policy defines vandalism as (and I quote) "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason". It makes exceptions for BLP's. Since the article Somali Rebellion is not a BLP, you should provide a reason for the blaking of half the article's content. So is there a reason why you removed half the content at the article Somali Rebellion in this edit? Thylacoop5 (talk) 16:16, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page Talk:Somali_Rebellion#Copying_within_Wikipedia_and_within_the_article, please continue discussing your additions there and reach consensus before restoring. --Kzl55 (talk) 16:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The current discussion is about sub-headings. And you didn't answer the question. I'll ask again. Is there a reason why you removed half of the article's content? Thylacoop5 (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making accusations of vandalism against editors who are simply following the WP:BRD process, Thylacoop5. You have been reverted several times by more than one editor now, and so need to establish consensus on the talk page for the material you wish to add. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, he still hasn't answered the question as to why he blanked half the article's content. I have now also asked the question on the article talk page. Thylacoop5 (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Advice

When you blank an article of half its content, you have to actually give a reason as to why you did so. You can't just vicariously point to an off-topic discussion and assume you have given a reason for this wholesale indiscriminate deletion. Thylacoop5 (talk) 15:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Thylacoop5, your persistent 'advice' and accusations are overstepping the line of reason. You need to listen to what other editors are telling you and keep your arguments on the article's talk page instead of repeatedly calling out the editor on both their own talk and the article talk pages. The relevant venue for discussion is not here on the editor's talk page, and your behaviour is considered to be WP:BATTLEGROUND. Thank you for your understanding. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

or

Which aspect of the infobox is original research? Thylacoop5 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The flag, the map, the population figure, using a country infobox when SSC is a group/movement... etc. --Kzl55 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

File:Dead bodies of Hargeisa victims, June 1988.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:18, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Asc Weyteen (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

As weyteen absame kumade kablalax daarod am honored to talk to you about the current edits that you did which makes it even more better that the tribe of darood can be known, as the human learns new things every day nice to meet you it’s weyteen absame kumade kablalax Weyteen (talk) 10:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Weyteen absame kumade kablalax daarood

A subtribe of the kablalax daarood, as it furthers into Harti and absame, weyteen subtribe has a known place in the absame family’s, as they are the eldest son of their father absame who had four sons weyteen absame being the eldest and bartire ,balcad and Ogaden and their uncle abaskul. Weyteen tribe lives peacefully among their other absame family. And when it comes to historical data about the oldest known tribes in Somalia weyteen absame was in the famous book taariikdhi somalida hore, where there was a kingdom of different Somali tribes before the foreign invaders for what was once known as Somali weyn. Weyteen (talk) 10:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Invite

I invite you to this discussion. Thylacoop5 (talk) 22:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

General Sanctions

To put this is more easily understood terms, this is where we are right now. Its effective insofar as it solves the immediate issue, but its not very efficient as a long term strategy because it doesn't address the overall problem. Implementing general sanctions will turn the entire Horn of Africa region into a free fire zone, which will allow us to do this, which I guarantee is going to much more effective here :) TomStar81 (Talk) 21:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

This will most certainly be a welcomed change, and I support the initiative. Though Beethoven's 9th may need to be replaced by something a little more fitting. --Kzl55 (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Articles related to Somalia, Sufi leaders, Muslim brotherhoods history in the Horn of Africa

Kzl55: Quite of a few of the wikipedia articles relating to the above topics – such as on Ahmadiyyah, Qadiriyyah, Salihiyyah – have serious issues and much room for improvement. If you find time and interest, please consider summarizing a bit from this, a good comprehensive peer-reviewed history article by Robert Hess published by Cambridge University Press, in these articles. Additional sources include:

• Jon Abbink (2009), chapter on The Islamic Courts Union: The ebb and flow of a Somali Islamist movement, BRILL, pp. 87-112.
• I. M. Lewis (1998), Saints and Somalis: Popular Islam in a Clan-Based Society
• Bernhard Helander (1999), chapter on Somalia, Routledge, pp. 37-54

Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 15:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Great finds @Ms Sarah Welch:, I've put a short summary note using some of a the sources above as well as Muslim Brotherhoods in Nineteenth-Century Africa (Cambridge University Press) [46], focusing only on the big three orders. Will update them as I find more sources, many thanks! --Kzl55 (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Kzl55. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Somaliland-sultan.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Somaliland-sultan.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:44, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

April 2019: Your article spree

Can you stop making redirects to drafts? It's kind of annoying to have us keep on deleting them. --TheWinRatHere! 15:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thewinrat It's a result of the draftify script, I also really don't think you're in a place to be lecturing people about this. Praxidicae (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Praxidicae I did not know about this script. Sorry. --TheWinRatHere! 15:37, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Thewinrat apologies for any hassle caused, as Praxidicae correctly stated it is the result of using draftify. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Your mentioned at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Sporadic draftifying

No response yet. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Cheers Doug, will respond there. --Kzl55 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Dhulbahante - Dervish Period.

You recently reverted my edit on the material on the history of the Dhulbahante in the Dervish Period. Although I understand it is harsh to completely delete the contributions of another Wikipedia editor, I believe this particular material is extremely derogatory and inflammatory. I can try to edit out some of the material but then the context would extremely differ to the original, thus it would not make sense to Wikipedia readers.

Furthermore, the sources used in the entirety of of this section of Dhulbahante history are from books written by British colonial officers. This is particularly concerning because any information provided by these British officers during this period cannot be taken as credible and impartial since they were personally involved in the conflict.

I recommend that this material is either completely removed and be rewritten with reasonable respect to the people group concerned here or these sources are not used and other more impartial sources are provided.

Shirshore (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Your removal of sourced relevant content at such scale was unwarranted. I tried to look for derogatory content you mentioned but could not find any, what did you mean by that? If its a case of you objecting to wording/phrasing then please work on rewording and improving the article. If its disagreement based on neutrality then feel free to add other sources showing different/opposing views, I am more than happy to help with that. Wikipedia articles should be neutral and show all major viewpoints, provided adequate citations are included. And should obviously be done in a respectful manner. One way of mitigating the issue you are describing can be attribution (e.g. author "insert name" stated that...., this point was rejected by author "insert name"). --Kzl55 (talk) 18:30, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

@User:Kzl55 I understand to remove any material if sourced is not permitted, I did not do this lightly. I don't know what the WP rules are with regards to material that is evidently selective and unethical. By derogatory I mean the whole context of the material on this section seems to be written in a disrespectful manner. The words used in some of the quotes are such that they are too vivid and inflammatory as they provoke emotions and show this group concerned as victims too weak to defend themselves from the Dervishes, whilst the British are painted as the liberators. Other academic writing suggests that is far from the truth. Nevertheless, for example the quote, The most pitiful lot of all fell to certain sections of the Dolbahanta. Ousted from their ancestral grazing grounds by the Mullah's advance and bereft of all their stock, the remnants wandered like veritable Ishmaelites in the Ishaak country, deprived of Asylum and almost all access to the coast, is unnecessary and clearly disrespectful. Equally the quotes by Baron Ismay and The London Gazette are slanders. I am not asking that this viewpoint should completely disregarded in the article but that the content that is include to support this must be respectful. It simply unnecessary to include such vivid quotes when the same point can be made in a respectful manner. Anyway, I tried to edit out some of the quotes from the article, if you think it should stay just simply revert it. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 05:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shirshore: Generally speaking, Wikipedia articles should present what reliable published sources state on a given subject. As such, removal of relevant (and sourced) content is problematic. If you disagree with what certain sources indicate, a better way to go about it instead of removal is to present the other side fo the argument, i.e. what other reliable published sources say on a given subject. Its important to follow Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines. So in the case of material you deem disrespectful, rewording or rephrasing certain parts to remove offending word usage whilst keeping the gist of content is key. In this case, I do see your point regarding usage of certain words (pitiful..etc), but remember that these conditions applied to the entire population of British Somaliland Protectorate, a territory that lost one third of its entire population in this period. As such context is key here. With that being said, I wont be reverting your edit as you've managed to summarise the same points in the quotes you removed, I agree with your sentiment: "I am not asking that this viewpoint should completely disregarded in the article but that the content that is include to support this must be respectful. It simply unnecessary to include such vivid quotes when the same point can be made in a respectful manner.". If you can, please also summarise the 1912 Bohotle confrontation paragraph that was removed, there is no need to include the Ismay quote if you think that is disrespectful. I think you may have dropped the Jama Siad name from the list of clans opposing Mohamed Abdullah Hassan, as it was probably removed along with the rest of the London Gazette text. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Thanks for the clarification and for understanding my point, its much appreciated. I will summarize and restore that material which have removed as well. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

@Shirshore: You are most welcome. Another suggestion would be to simplify the lead section of the article, the article is about Dhulbahante as a clan, as such the lead should summarise the article's topic and stand as a concise overview. This can be achieved by simply moving the section beginning with "The Dhulbahante created the Federal Member State of Puntland in 1998 along with other Harti..." to the overview section below; as it deals with politics of the region instead of the actual clan. Just a thought. Regards --Kzl55 (talk) 11:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kzl55: Thanks, that's done now as well. Regards, Shirshore (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good work my friend. Zaki199105 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Hear, hear! El_C 11:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Good to see you El_C, hope you're well and 2020 is off to a great start for you! --Kzl55 (talk) 13:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Belated thanks, Kzl55. It has! By the way, I just pinged you to a Somaliland-related discussion that could benefit from your insights. All the best, El_C 06:44, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great work, really appreciated walaal MahamedHaashi (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	For excellent work of contributing and defending Somaliland articles, Great job brother. Shafici Bashe (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Re:MustafaO

I've been re-reading the material I have and I think that perhaps User:Koodbuur and User:Somajeeste may be socks of MustafaO, both got started around the same time in 2017, share the same interest in the Horn of Africa region, have similar user page (short descriptions like hello or welcome and such) and in the both cases appear to share the same naming style as the already ID'd User:Aqooni (double vowels, OO & UU in koodbuur, EE in somajeste and OO in aqooni). What do you think? Is that enough to stir your suspicions, or do we need more evidence before moving forward (if warranted)? TomStar81 (Talk) 16:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Hope you're having a good weekend! From recent activity I would say it is very unlikely that Koodbuur is a sock of MustafaO, one reason being the fact that Koodbuur was the one to initiate a recent AfD that MustafaO went to lengths of using other sock Aqooni to oppose. With that being said, we have record of Middayexpress/Soupforone using two confirmed socks to adopt opposing view points as means of evading scrutiny, so its certainly possible. I will look further into the links with Somajeeste. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Kzl55! What do you think about this one[47]? They have come to my attention after edits to Afroasiatic languages and Berber languages. Started editing a day after the last sock was blocked. –Austronesier (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

@Austronesier: Good catch. They have been reported via SPI and blocked. --Kzl55 (talk) 14:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Anarchyte (talk • work) 11:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Bardera et al.

Hello,

Any idea what Mukafax34 (talk · contribs) is up to? There is at least one (I think) useful edit in there somewhere.
I have reported them to WP:AIV. Regards, 220 of ^Borg 11:17, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi @220 of Borg: no idea, appears to be a long-term disruptive editor. Many thanks for reporting him. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Ajuran & Geledi maps

I noticed you removed the maps I posted and I just wanted to remind you all maps on Wikipedia are user-generated. The ones I posted were a reference. See for yourself.

Ajuran map: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=X1dDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA60&dq=Ajuran+imamate+map&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju-Nqhrc3sAhVHTcAKHTVnBjIQ6AEwAHoECAEQAg#v=onepage&q=Ajuran%20imamate%20map&f=false

Geledi map: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=s0Y_AQAAIAAJ&q=Geledi+city-states&dq=Geledi+city-states&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjMte_Rrc3sAhVUQ0EAHZTjATMQ6AEwAHoECAAQAg

However, because I know you don't accept Warsangali Sultanate as a Sultanate so I removed it and just left out Ajuran and Adal Sultanates unless you want me to post the original version then I suggest you refrain from edit wars. If you think I am interested with Hobyo Sultanate and Majerteen Sultanate then you're wrong. I am not interested in those pages so you have my word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingGeeljire (talk • contribs) 13:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The map in your first link is an identical one to the user-generated Wikipedia file. As per WP:CIRCULAR, content from a Wikipedia article are not considered a reliable source, this is clearly a case of circular reference, the files are thus removed, please do not restore. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I wish to restore them because it accounts to historical sources. Ajuran territory extrended from Hobyo in the north, to Qelafo in the west, to Kismayo in the south. The fact that the historian accepted this map confirms it's accuracy and if you look at Roman Empire map it was user generated but because history mentions how much their territory extended nobody removed them. I managed to remove Warsangali Sultanate from the map to stop further complications and for the Geledi Sultanate one was made by Virginia Luling. Please do not remove them. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by WanderingGeeljire (talk • contribs) 23:12, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

As explained previously, the maps you are attempting to insert are not based on any reliable source, this is why they were removed. If the original source is a Wikipedia file, as is the case here, then the maps do not satisfy Wikipedia guidelines per WP:CIRCULAR. This has nothing to do with the user-generated nature of the maps. I have removed them unless you can link to where they were previously published in verifiable reliable sources. Please also refrain from edit warring as it can lead to your account being sanctioned. --07:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean by reliable source? Because if he generates a map based on the information given from for example of a Somali studies Authority Ajuuran territoritory wouldn't that be considered reliable source?

Same with the information of territory and borders given by Virginia lulling if it also checks out

Also why doesn't the user KzI55 consider Warsangeli sultunate a Sultunate? I was wondering why that page had been deleted.Ragnimo (talk) 00:50, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

This has already been explained, please read the response above your comment. --Kzl55 (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I have read it, but i asked you to elaborate.

Because the response above me says it has nothing to do with the user generated nature of maps. And you take issue with his first source because it has a map from wiki and i was pointing out that if he generates a different map and base it on the information from another Somali studies author wouldn't that suffice as a reliable source?

And you didn't really answer my last question either. Ragnimo (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Both maps are user-generated and not based on any reliable sources. The linked source displays a user-generated file originally from Wikipedia, this is WP:CIRCULAR per Wikipedia guidelines and should not be used as a reliable source as explained above. Your link is not helpful either, the author states "Ajuraan authority could be said to have extended from Mareeg...", it is clear the author is unsure about it themselves, codifying this guess in a map is not helpful to Wikipedia readership. Image use on Wikipedia should be significant and relevant, not primarily decorative. As such quoting the text source is much more helpful in this case. --Kzl55 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Thats pure personal interpretation of the text. But lets move away from the semantics, there is no uncertaintity here if you take it with what other sources say about Ajuuran. Because Ajuuran themselves had political holdings and seasonal palaces in those territories. Therefore it is not a guess work as you tried to claim and historian Ali Mukthar even details the same and more excplicitly, clearly and directly states they extended to control those territories.

And in light of this information we can conclude that this can be used to base the map on.

Thus we should come to an agreement that if the user @WanderingGeeljire or someone else in question generates a different map for the ajuuran map different from the one used in the book it should suffice. Although the original one could just be restored but just updated to include more sources and looking at the page history. If someone else uses an already existing wikimap on a published source it doesn't invalidate the original map because that source wasn't used for it and it doesn't become Original Work.

Same applies to the maps of other Sultunates that are user generated (see::WP:OI and User-created_images. You talk about clarity but don't seem to elaborate on why you think they are not reliable sources especially for the Hobyo and Majerteen and Geledi maps. Because they are not copy of maps mirroring from a book using wiki or original work. They are user generated maps in line with the guidelines and i see nothing wrong with incliding them if the sources for them supports it. Reading the page history you requested one of them for deletion[requests/File:Hobyo sultanate]and it was Kept not sure why it was taken down if thats the case. Noting "Original Research" means nothing here and the file is heavily used and with no valid reason for deletion according that user which is no longer active. Based on that it seems to be particularly repetitive from you almost as if you are vandalizing.

Also again what is the issue with Warsangeli Sultunate? being that i am not aware of I would like to know because that page was still there when i was frequenting this site in the past and now it's suddenly gone. And i see @WanderingGeeljire mention you had an issue with it in one of the responses up above. Ragnimo (talk) 03:08, 30 October 2020 (UTC)