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)

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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)

Port of Berbera‎

Your recent editing history at Port of Berbera 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. Please engage in the talkpage and stop the edit war.Somajeeste (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)