Line 146: | Line 146: | ||
:: I've blocked the IP address and posted comments at [[WP:ANI]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=413390647&oldid=413390222]). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
:: I've blocked the IP address and posted comments at [[WP:ANI]] ([https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=413390647&oldid=413390222]). Thanks, -- Gyrofrog 23:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
== Menilek on Aksumite/Abyssinian/Ethiopian Religion & History == |
|||
Besides the fact that I am both a member of the royal family as well as at the top level in my nation's oldest church denomination, I am also a historian of both. |
|||
To answer your cited causes for the reversion: |
|||
1) Regarding Ethiopian history, the fact that a referenced source is older, means that it is less likely to have suffered latter-day Marxist revisionism and thus such older sources are usually known to be more credible, especially when written by an outside independent author, such as Sir Charles F. Rey, an English lord who made Abyssinian life and history his own life's study. His books are uninfluenced by the revisionist agenda of Marxist propaganda. He had nobody to answer to but God and the Queen of England. Therefore being so unencumbered by Ethiopian politics, he is to be seen as an unbiased source intimately familiar with his subject matter. |
|||
2) The three sources I cited were for all of the edits, not just the edit next to the ref link. This was to avoid redundant citations appearing in the references list, which itself, is not a bad goal. Would you rather see the same source listed numerous times, once for each point of info being cited from the same source? That should be unnecessary when the first reference citing that source has already directed the reader to read that source and if they did, they would see all of the points that were being cited, especially if more than one of said points of info are on the same page or in the same appendix, the latter definitely being the case here referring to the official complete list of monarchs the royal family provided to Rey to include in his book, showing which monarchs began their reign and how many years they reigned and in which order they reigned and which dynasty of which their reign was a part. Such an index of names and dates WAS the source for a number of points I made in my edits. Am I expected to cite the same page over and over, once for each and every point? If your answer is that you did not realize that this was the case, I must ask, aren't you supposed to know that before you do such a reversion, to make sure that you have not reverted the edits on a false assumption on your part? For the reason you gave for reverting, indeed did constitute just that... a false assumption that I had not cited the source for multiple points when I HAD cited the source once already because the source was a source for more than one point that had been edited. I am only required to cite the source but I do not think that I am required to cite '''which line''' on the page, when I have already cited the page. |
|||
3) You said "The remainder of your edits lacked attribution, save for the Kebra Nagast, which we can't cite as a source (at least, not in the context that you cited it: see WP:RNPOV)." Items 1 and 2 above explains that the references I gave were attribution for the edits you thought were without attribution. However in that same statement, you also claim that the Kebra Negast was NOT an acceptable source for the context of my edit for which it was cited. However, it actually is. the fact that you said this makes me wonder, have you even read the Kebra Negast? Do you know what events of which Kebra Negast is a record? Intimate knowledge of this apocryphal work is needed before claiming that it is not a source for a point or context being associated with it. For me it is more than just an interesting text sitting on the shelf. But for me Kebra Negast is a required textbook from which I teach the history of my people and my faith, of which Kebra Negast is a historical record, just as 1 & 2 Maccabees would be a required text if you were a teacher of the Greek occupation of Israel. As the current rasnebiy ye Bete Yisrael, I am the head proclaimer and guardian of doctrine for Bete Yisrael, which includes all supportive historical and apocryphal data, not just scripture. So this is not merely a curiosity for me. It is my job and my life. As such an expert on the subject, that means that I to, myself, AM a source. |
|||
4) You said "However, the source (and the Bible) use the term "Ethiopia," which more likely means Aethiopia (Classical Greek term), referring to the Kingdom of Kush rather than Ethiopia in the modern sense. Aksum itself is not mentioned." |
|||
The fact is that the Greek term "Aethiopia" is the same term as the English "Ethiopia" and is a combination of the Greek word Aethi and Opi combined as a phrase, which unarguably DOES translate as "burnt-faces" an ancient Κοινά (common) Greek pejorative for any people of such dark complexion as are people from Africa or certain parts of India. People of the "classical Greek" period were not above poking fun at such obvious differences from their own appearance. IE: 20th century Americans never cornered the historical market on being bigoted jerks, although there are people in the world who would disagree on that point, yet without just cause. One can not honestly deny that human nature is prevalent in a portion of every human society. |
|||
And to declare, as you did, that Aksum is not mentioned, when discussing "Ethiopia" is the same thing as claiming that Kurdistan is not mentioned when you discuss the area bordering Iran, Iraq and Turkey or to say that Israel is not mentioned when you discuss 1938 "Palestine". Just because a defacto government has taken over and occupies a place, does not ever negate that those who were robbed of their right to govern cease to be the legitimate government de jur. Whoever told you that Bete Yisrael,(IE: the remaining descendants of the Empire of Aksum), ever surrendered or that we ever ceded our empire, has grossly misinformed you. Nothing was surrendered. Nothing was ceded. It is merely under occupation, but as long as Tsion (the Ark) resides in that land, then that land is rightfully ours to rule, even when we do not have the power to do so, just as if the theft of your car would never mean that your stolen car ever could truly become the rightful property of those who wrongly possess it. Stolen property forever remains stolen property until returned to its rightful owner. My point is that that which you call Ethiopia IS Aksum and shall not cease to BELONG to Aksum until it has been officially ceded by a properly seated Messianic Aksumite-Judean monarch and ''that'' will never happen for every descendant of Menilek I would rather die first, as many of us already have. |
|||
Most sincerely, |
|||
T'ru Daniel Menilek, |
|||
Current rasnebiy to Bete Yisrael and to the Negusa Tsion, Ras Mengesha Seyoum; |
|||
Retired Abamenet of Bisrat Nazretawi and of Gedam Qidus Selassie ye Tsion. |
|||
If you have any further comments or questions, please use BeteYisrael*Gmail.com (put an @ in place of *) because this "talk page" format is too difficult to master and use. I probably have not done so correctly, here, now. I wonder if they make it hard to respond on purpose, refusing to install a proper standard editor with standard commands and functions, just to discourage anyone from standing up to Wikipedia, which is notorious on a global scale for bullying would-be contributors who disagree with obstructors who are appointed and sanctioned by wikipedia's elitists. People like me are intimidated into feeling like a black jew trying to access a 1950's country club golf course in a WASP neighborhood. But then, I am a black jew. So there you have it. |
|||
[Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 06:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 06:00, 13 February 2011
Request for Admin Status in the somali wikipedia.
I Kindly Request you if you could make me one of the admins on somali wikipedia.I would like to contribute to that somali language based wikipedia.this is me http://so.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Addoow. --Addoow 12:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Addoow (talk • contribs)
- Left response at User talk:Addoow. -- Gyrofrog 21:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Invitation
Dear Gyrofrog,
I am inviting you to join the Miles Davis WikiProject. I found you, Gyrofrog, on several revision history statistics of articles related with "Miles Davis", and therefore I am of the opinion, that you should be one of those members of this WikiProject I recently created. I hope you will approve my invitation.
Regards,
WikiXDC: Wikipedia 10th Birthday!
You are invited to WikiXDC, a special meetup event and celebration on Saturday, January 22 hosted by the National Archives and Records Administration in downtown Washington, D.C.
- Date: January 22, 2011 (tentatively 9:30 AM - 5 PM)
- Location: National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), downtown building, Pennsylvania Avenue & 7th St NW.
- Description: There will be a behind-the-scenes tour of the National Archives and you will learn more about what NARA does. We will also have a mini-film screening featuring FedFlix videos along with a special message from Jimmy Wales. In the afternoon, there will be lightning talks by Wikimedians (signup to speak), wiki-trivia, and cupcakes to celebrate!
- Details & RSVP: Details about the event are on our Washington, DC tenwiki page.
Please RSVP soon as possible, as there likely will be a cap on number of attendees that NARA can accommodate.
Note: You can unsubscribe from DC meetup notices by removing your name at Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Invite/List. BrownBot (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Oromia Region
Information on the article "Oromia Region" has significant errors, further reasearch must be done on the writers part. As an admin you may be able to reasearch furthermore and make this article as accurate as possible. Thank You.Asg5r (talk) 21:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:Asg5r. -- Gyrofrog 23:56, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Socks
Hi Gyrofrog. I am concerned about the level of sockpuppetry on the Somalia article. One anonymous IP, single-purpose account and recently-created account after another have been attempting to modify the exact same portion of the article, using the exact same arguments. This usually involves the sentence in the introduction that reads "While it still has room for improvement, the interim government continues to reach out to both Somali and international stakeholders to help grow the administrative capacity of the Transitional Federal Institutions and to work toward eventual national elections in 2011", which is sourced to the CIA [1]: "while its institutions remain weak, the TFG continues to reach out to Somali stakeholders and to work with international donors to help build the governance capacity of the TFIs and to work toward national elections in 2011." Is there anyway to stop this disruption or would you recommend I just write up a sockpuppet case? Is full page protection warranted or is that only a bandaid solution? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:Middayexpress. -- Gyrofrog 23:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Eritrean–Ethiopian War
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar | ||
For your vigilant work and efforts over the last few years on the Eritrean–Ethiopian War article. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC) |
- Thank you!-- Gyrofrog 15:03, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
NWHS wiki
Your definition of notable is incorrect. The idea of wikipedia is to come together with a concept of creating a database filled with knowledge and if adding a High School record that has stood for over 20 years is not cause for someone to be mention, well than I don't know what is. Your ignorance seems to be unmatched to the rest of the wiki community. Also to be an administrator and not know the terms of use is just revolting. I will continue to add to NWHS wiki page despite your ignorant removal
Sincerely M.P.B.
Gtamaster12814 (talk) 22:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:Gtamaster12814. -- Gyrofrog 23:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I do, a first hand account, also the definition of ignorant is as follows: lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact: ignorant of the history of Northwestern High School. So calling someone ignorant is not an attack, it is simply a statement that is stating you do not have the necessary information to remove my post. So you should reread that article yourself.
M.P.B. Gtamaster12814 (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:Gtamaster12814. -- Gyrofrog 23:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
First hand information is allowed, I have cited it and have a copy of the actual interview.
Gtamaster12814 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:Gtamaster12814. -- Gyrofrog 23:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
A little more ignorance, That is a valid citation acceptable in ALA and MLA format, also I have followed wiki procedure and did everything as I was asked, now if you can prove to me in anyway that said citation is actually not citation then you have nothing more to talk to me about.
Gtamaster12814 (talk) 23:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
See, you are wrong again, MLA/ALA are essay formats and the citation I used is supported and also verifiable. Now if you are going to tell me that the citation is not a citation, than you sir are quite misinformed, now if you look at the citation, it is an interview which you can not say is not verifiable.
Gtamaster12814 (talk) 23:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Concerning about the Ogaden
Hello The Ogaden comprises the bisggest portion of Somali Region. The Somali Region consists of 9 provinces, which 5 were part of Ogaden Raz Gez, a Province in the Derg Regime, the other four zones were not part of Ogaden Province during Haile Sellasie and Mengiustu haile Mariam. on the optherr hand. yes the map is the same, but am looking for the correct map of Ogaden in the near future.
On the other hand, the new census, although it is not official predicts that almost an estimated 2,300,000 people live in the Districts that Ogaden's inhabit. Note that the Somali region consists of 52 districts with varying population number.
Hope hearing from U GuledCasowe (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
- Left response at User talk:GuledCasowe. -- Gyrofrog 03:53, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia
(moved from User:Gyrofrog; please leave messages on this talk page)
Wow. So I'm told to stop my 'disruptive editing' because I've 'vandalized'. Actually, I corrected two blatant errors - and the corrections were REVERSED. Welcome to Wikipedia. It could be so great. Unfortunately, it's wildly unreliable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.68.206.149 (talk • contribs) 16:53, 23 January 2011
- Left response at User talk:67.68.206.149. -- Gyrofrog 17:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
3RR
Hi Gyrofrog. One User:Danlaycock has just reported [2] me on the 3RR noticeboard for what he claims is "revert-warring". The situation is highly disingenuous since I actually only ever reverted twice (as did he, ironically enough), and so did another involved editor (whom he tellingly did not report). I've attempted to set the record straight, but I'm not certain if I'll get a fair shake. I would therefore definitely appreciate it if you were to keep an eye on the post just to make sure nothing fishy happens. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Left message at WP:AN3. -- Gyrofrog 17:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
User:SikSok and Ayyubid dynasty article
This user[3] appears to have a problem understanding WP:RS and the removal/changing of references and referenced information. Can you help? Thank you. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Left message at User talk:Siksok. -- Gyrofrog 17:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Possible topic ban evasion User:BKLisenbee
Possible/ more than that,topic ban evasion [4] re [5] deleting good links and obsession in the Bowles , JJ area/ the same location of IP did much the same this time last year.
Catapla (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Menilek on Aksumite/Abyssinian/Ethiopian Religion & History
Besides the fact that I am both a member of the royal family as well as at the top level in my nation's oldest church denomination, I am also a historian of both.
To answer your cited causes for the reversion:
1) Regarding Ethiopian history, the fact that a referenced source is older, means that it is less likely to have suffered latter-day Marxist revisionism and thus such older sources are usually known to be more credible, especially when written by an outside independent author, such as Sir Charles F. Rey, an English lord who made Abyssinian life and history his own life's study. His books are uninfluenced by the revisionist agenda of Marxist propaganda. He had nobody to answer to but God and the Queen of England. Therefore being so unencumbered by Ethiopian politics, he is to be seen as an unbiased source intimately familiar with his subject matter.
2) The three sources I cited were for all of the edits, not just the edit next to the ref link. This was to avoid redundant citations appearing in the references list, which itself, is not a bad goal. Would you rather see the same source listed numerous times, once for each point of info being cited from the same source? That should be unnecessary when the first reference citing that source has already directed the reader to read that source and if they did, they would see all of the points that were being cited, especially if more than one of said points of info are on the same page or in the same appendix, the latter definitely being the case here referring to the official complete list of monarchs the royal family provided to Rey to include in his book, showing which monarchs began their reign and how many years they reigned and in which order they reigned and which dynasty of which their reign was a part. Such an index of names and dates WAS the source for a number of points I made in my edits. Am I expected to cite the same page over and over, once for each and every point? If your answer is that you did not realize that this was the case, I must ask, aren't you supposed to know that before you do such a reversion, to make sure that you have not reverted the edits on a false assumption on your part? For the reason you gave for reverting, indeed did constitute just that... a false assumption that I had not cited the source for multiple points when I HAD cited the source once already because the source was a source for more than one point that had been edited. I am only required to cite the source but I do not think that I am required to cite which line on the page, when I have already cited the page.
3) You said "The remainder of your edits lacked attribution, save for the Kebra Nagast, which we can't cite as a source (at least, not in the context that you cited it: see WP:RNPOV)." Items 1 and 2 above explains that the references I gave were attribution for the edits you thought were without attribution. However in that same statement, you also claim that the Kebra Negast was NOT an acceptable source for the context of my edit for which it was cited. However, it actually is. the fact that you said this makes me wonder, have you even read the Kebra Negast? Do you know what events of which Kebra Negast is a record? Intimate knowledge of this apocryphal work is needed before claiming that it is not a source for a point or context being associated with it. For me it is more than just an interesting text sitting on the shelf. But for me Kebra Negast is a required textbook from which I teach the history of my people and my faith, of which Kebra Negast is a historical record, just as 1 & 2 Maccabees would be a required text if you were a teacher of the Greek occupation of Israel. As the current rasnebiy ye Bete Yisrael, I am the head proclaimer and guardian of doctrine for Bete Yisrael, which includes all supportive historical and apocryphal data, not just scripture. So this is not merely a curiosity for me. It is my job and my life. As such an expert on the subject, that means that I to, myself, AM a source.
4) You said "However, the source (and the Bible) use the term "Ethiopia," which more likely means Aethiopia (Classical Greek term), referring to the Kingdom of Kush rather than Ethiopia in the modern sense. Aksum itself is not mentioned."
The fact is that the Greek term "Aethiopia" is the same term as the English "Ethiopia" and is a combination of the Greek word Aethi and Opi combined as a phrase, which unarguably DOES translate as "burnt-faces" an ancient Κοινά (common) Greek pejorative for any people of such dark complexion as are people from Africa or certain parts of India. People of the "classical Greek" period were not above poking fun at such obvious differences from their own appearance. IE: 20th century Americans never cornered the historical market on being bigoted jerks, although there are people in the world who would disagree on that point, yet without just cause. One can not honestly deny that human nature is prevalent in a portion of every human society.
And to declare, as you did, that Aksum is not mentioned, when discussing "Ethiopia" is the same thing as claiming that Kurdistan is not mentioned when you discuss the area bordering Iran, Iraq and Turkey or to say that Israel is not mentioned when you discuss 1938 "Palestine". Just because a defacto government has taken over and occupies a place, does not ever negate that those who were robbed of their right to govern cease to be the legitimate government de jur. Whoever told you that Bete Yisrael,(IE: the remaining descendants of the Empire of Aksum), ever surrendered or that we ever ceded our empire, has grossly misinformed you. Nothing was surrendered. Nothing was ceded. It is merely under occupation, but as long as Tsion (the Ark) resides in that land, then that land is rightfully ours to rule, even when we do not have the power to do so, just as if the theft of your car would never mean that your stolen car ever could truly become the rightful property of those who wrongly possess it. Stolen property forever remains stolen property until returned to its rightful owner. My point is that that which you call Ethiopia IS Aksum and shall not cease to BELONG to Aksum until it has been officially ceded by a properly seated Messianic Aksumite-Judean monarch and that will never happen for every descendant of Menilek I would rather die first, as many of us already have.
Most sincerely,
T'ru Daniel Menilek,
Current rasnebiy to Bete Yisrael and to the Negusa Tsion, Ras Mengesha Seyoum;
Retired Abamenet of Bisrat Nazretawi and of Gedam Qidus Selassie ye Tsion.
If you have any further comments or questions, please use BeteYisrael*Gmail.com (put an @ in place of *) because this "talk page" format is too difficult to master and use. I probably have not done so correctly, here, now. I wonder if they make it hard to respond on purpose, refusing to install a proper standard editor with standard commands and functions, just to discourage anyone from standing up to Wikipedia, which is notorious on a global scale for bullying would-be contributors who disagree with obstructors who are appointed and sanctioned by wikipedia's elitists. People like me are intimidated into feeling like a black jew trying to access a 1950's country club golf course in a WASP neighborhood. But then, I am a black jew. So there you have it.
[Menilek] ጥሩ ምኒልክ (ራስነቢይ የ ቤት ዪሥራእል / አበምኔት ቢሥርዓት ናዝረታዊ) 06:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)