Talk:Battle of Sirte (2016)

Edits by EkoGraf
EkoGraf, while reverting me in this edit you tell me I need to discuss the issue first despite me alreading having told you when I reverted you earlier that you should discuss the issue. I have no problem with discussing an issue first. But are you the boss and some special editor who's exempted from starting discusson on any of your edits and are allowed to impose your edits regardless of what objections others raise? I have seen your bossy attitude at several articles. Your attitude is unacceptable. Here are some of the problems in your edits:


 * The first problem is you not carefully reading sources. You changed "Area 1 and 3, two of the districts that were still held by ISIL" to "the last two IS-held districts, Areas 1 and 2". It seems you have not read the soirces carefully and the content carefully. The line about "incursions into Area 1 and 3" is from this Reuters news article on August 11 which ironically you have used as source for "incursions into Area 1 and 2" while the source says "Area 1 and 3". This proves that your claim in which you state "everything I wrote is exactly per the cited sources" is incorrect and you didn't properly read the sources.


 * Another problem concerning the same above subject. While the news by Libyan Express of "incursions into Area 1 and 2" is from August 13. Yet you are clubbing it together with the Reuters source about incursions into Area 1 and 2 which is from August 11.
 * It seems you don't care about fact-checking. You added into the article that Area 1 and 2 are the "last ISIL-held districts", based on the Libyan Express claim, however it is wrong. Neighborhood 3 is another district still under ISIL control and Neighborhood 2/Area 2 was "one of three" areas still under ISIL control. Read this news article from CNN carefully. It was published on August 17. You'll find what I'm saying in second and third paragraph of the news article.

It seems clear that you do not properly read the sources and do not fact-check whether what you're adding is accurate. Those are the problems with your edits, aside from your attitude. This isn't the first time you did this. I suggest you improve your editing habits and be more careful in the future. Newsboy39 (talk) 03:42, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Newsboy39 1. You started the edit war when you first cancelled my edit back on August 14. 2. If following Wikipedia's policy is a bossy attitude than so be it. However, I should tell you such language/negative attitude towards a fellow editor really isn't per Wikipedia's policy on WP:GOODFAITH or WP:CIVIL. 3. I wrote area 2 instead of area 3 because, except for that one Reuters article, everyone else (Libya Express, Al Jazeera, Libya Observer, and even ANOTHER Reuters article) mention only areas 1 and 2 (not 3). Furthermore, after the capture of Area 2, Al Jazeera explicetly states that only Area 1 was left. Specifically taking Al Jazeera's article/source into account, this was more than enough evidence to imply the Reuters article possibly made a mistake/typo (known to happen). And per Wikipedia's policy multiple sources trump one source in verifiability. However, I did not see your CNN source until you linked it here that also mentions an area 3. And now I understand that there are in fact 3 areas. 4. As for your clubbing assertion, you obviously didn't even check my last two edits where I un-clubbed the two dates per your request as a compromise attempt. 5. Your second full revert of my edits in less than 24 hours is in violation of a general 1RR sanction that covers anything ISIL-related. Per WP policy I am obligated to warn you of this. If you do not take it into account and follow the guidelines than I would have to report you which can lead to a block. 6. I would now ask that you cancel your second full revert of me to my last edit (which already un-clubbed the two dates as per your earlier request) and subsequently I will myself (since the CNN source was enough for further confirmation) change from area 2 to area 3. I will also try and find anything else that I might have missed that fits in with your grievances and correct it. EkoGraf (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

1. It was you who started the edit war not me. You [explicitily refused to start a [discussion and claim you are correct and impose your edits.

2. You know why I said you have a "Bossy attitude". The first point I mentioned is the reason.

3. You are confusing the reports of "incursions into Area 1 and 3" with incursions into "Area 1 and 2" that happened later on. this Reuters news article This Reuters article clearly states "But they have yet to gain control of several neighborhoods in central Sirte. On Thursday, fighters advancing on a hotel and guest houses near Sirte's port exchanged sporadic fire with militants, said Rida Issa, a spokesman for the Sirte operation.

The forces said they had "made incursions" into Areas 1 and 3, two of the districts still occupied by militants, and that they had "dealt with a number of snipers hidden in a corner of the Ouagadougou hall complex ... they were eliminated."

Can you link all the sources you are claiming? And how come there has been no report of capturing of Neighborhood 3? Did you ever think about it? Mere claiming won't verify what you say. If your claims turn out to be true, then I'll revert myself. Please add links to the sources you claim say District/Neighborhood/Area 1 is the last ISIL-held district.

4. Did you even realise you actually mentioned the same statement twice on two different days? Here's your version (without refs) : ''By 11 August, 70 percent of Sirte was under GNA control. At this point, the GNA started launching incursions into the last two IS-held districts, Areas 1 and 2, with bombardment commencing the following day. By 12 August, it was confirmed the GNA also took control of the Amina Hotel, the police academy building and the Al-Giza military zone. At this point, the GNA started bombarding and launching incursions into the last two IS-held districts, Neighborhoods 1 and 2.''

5. What's done is done, I'll keep in mind not to make more than 1 revert ever again. But that doesn't give you the title of being correct and doing what you want. I made the revert in good faith. And if you prove yourself correct about the last-ISIL held districts, you have my promise I will revert myself.

The only problem I have with your edit is that they do not say what you added. I have accepted many changes that you made and I modified my own edits. Please just link the multiple sources you claimed say District 1 is the last ISIL-held area. If it is true I'll revert myself. Like you I want to make sure the article is following proper standards. Thank you. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Read again what I said above. I already told you I separated the two dates that you did not want to be together. I also said Al Jazeera (here ) clearly said area 1 was the last district held by ISIL. And finally I said that, after taking into account the CNN source you linked I would change area 2 to area 3 where needed. I never claimed multiple source said area 1 was the last one, I said multiple sources (until you linked the CNN source) were contrary to the one reuters article and were mentioning only areas 1 and 2 (no 3). As for the two same sentences thing, if you checked all of my edits you would have saw I corrected that. So. I ask again that you revert your last cancellation of my edits, I will change 2 to 3 where needed, and try and find anything else that I might have missed that fits in with your grievances and correct it. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * So you do accept that you didn't fact-check and check the source. Besides I did notice already that you removed it and capitalised "neighborhood", the problem here is you not realising that incursions into Area 1 and 2 is already there that too until your second revert even though the statement is easy to notice.
 * Now why will I present that GNA incursed into "Area 1 and 2" on August 11 when the source says explicitily "Area 1 and 3" not "1 and 2"? Why will I say an event that actually happened on August 12 per source, happened on August 11?


 * The actual reason behind me asking you for the links to your claimed sources is for me to verify their dates. I want to see on what dates the incursions to 1 and 2 happened. If they did on August 11, only then there is cause for me to revert myself.


 * Now please just link the sources you are talking about. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Maybe its easy for you to notice, but I missed it. For the third time, I already told you, I wrote 1 and 2 instead of 1 and 3, because the reports from the subsequent days only talked about fighting for 1 and 2 and didn't make any mention of a 3 (Al Jazeera even saying after the capture of 2 only 1 remained), so I thought (like I already said) that it was a typo on the part of Reuters when they said area 3. That is, until you linked the CNN source that mentions both 1, 2 and 3. And will you please stop going back to the issue of the dates, that was already resolved, I already separated the two in my attempted compromise edit last night per your request. So, will you please cancel your last revert so I can make the appropriate edits regarding Area 3? EkoGraf (talk) 12:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've seen all the sources regarding incursions into Area 1 and 2 in the article and outside the article. You removed Area 3 because other sources didn't mention it despite their dates' of incursions into Neighborhood 1 and 2 being different from that of the Reuters' date of incursions into Area 1 and 3. How can you even arrive at such a conclusion that sourcesabout an event of a later date overrule events of an earlier day? That doesn't even make sense. It is completely clear you got confused and didn't notice they were different events.


 * Also the only source that says Areas 1 and 2 are the last-ISIL held areas was Libyan Express. You didn't even care to fact check what happened to Area 3 since it was missing from the source. Had you did, you would have noticed that District 3, is still under ISIL control. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I repeat myself for the fourth and last time, you had multiple sources talking about 1 and 2, without a mention of a 3, so I thought the Reuters article made a typo (wrote 3 instead of 2). I already acknowledged that I made a mistake after you provided the CNN source talking about both 1, 2 and 3. You asked me for the sources that mention only 1 and 2, and I did. You asked me to source the fact that District 1 is the last ISIL-held area and said if I did you would revert yourself. I provided you with a source, quote Soldiers advance on "District One", the city's last area held by ISIL (so its not just Libyan Express). Here's one more source clearly saying District 1 is the last one . But anyway, I did everything you asked, I acknowledged my mistakes. I asked for an opportunity to correct myself. Now its up to you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Uh all of your sources are about events a week later than the date when incursions into Area 1 and 3 happened. It still doesn't make any sense why you mistook Area 1 and 3 to be Area 1 and 2 over news reports of later dates? Newsboy39 (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I am willing to revert, but only if you promise to add back incursions into Area 1 and 3 and shift incursions into Area 1 and 2 into its correct date ie., August 12. You fix your fault, I fix mine. Is that okay with you? Newsboy39 (talk) 13:13, 19 August 2016 (UTC)Newsboy39 (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Like I said multiple times, I did not mistook Area 1 and 3 for Area 1 and 2. I thought that since the reports from the later dates talked only about Areas 1 and 2, that the older report talking about an Area 3 was a TYPO (3 instead of 2). Thought 3 didn't exist at all. This was until you linked the CNN source talking about all three. Also, I already said that I separated the two dates, and have said (multiple times) that I would correct 2 to 3 where needed. So, okay. PS Going to eat now. I will make the corrections later when I come back after you have reverted yourself. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

You do not show signs to fully accept your mistake. You say you thiught 3 was a typo of 2 and 3 didn't exist. How is that any different from what I said? Now please don't try to clain again that you did not mistook it,it will get the discussion nowhere. Your replies are not very encouraging so I'll give you a chance to correct yourself once you come back so you can prove that you are editing in "good faith". When you come back, just inform me. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:57, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't get what the problem is here, I admitted my mistake that I thought (incorrectly) it was a typo by Reuters. You wanted me to separate the dates and I did (last night). You wanted me to provide you with sources about District 1 being the last one before you revert and I did. You wanted me to admit my mistake and I did (multiple times). Maybe the problem is mistook (as you say) and incorrectly thought (as I say) have two different meanings for me. English is not my native language. But anyway, the main issue here is improving this article, and I think (I hope) that we have found a compromise solution. Now, will you cancel your revert so I can make the corrections? That way you also wouldn't be going against 1RR anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Enough is enough. Here is the problem: you do not want to completely accept your mistake. I was going to revert, yet you repeated about your "mistake" again because you don't want to admit you mistook Area 3 for Area 2.Y ou are wasting everybody's time by repeating it. This is the exact kind of attitude I've been talking about. And I'm not minicing any words, I want to be clear. You have evaded accepting full responsibility for your actions since the beginning. It seems you are not willing to improve your behavior. You're and mine edits will basically have little difference. Because of your behavior, I have decided not to revert. Sorry but your only partial admittance of guilt shows that you do not seem to value Wikipedia and good faith ahead of your self-importance, you're responsible solely for it. This conversation is over, do what you want, within the rules of course. Good bye. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I really don't get you. We found a compromise solution. And I fully (completely) accepted I made a mistake, but now you are angry because I did not use the proper word in my sentence when I accepted responsibility? I did not partially admit guilt, I fully admitted my guilt for the thing I was wrong. I'm sorry, but that you do not like that I used one word over another and are now acting simply out of spite, that's bad form and POV-pushing now. I even tried to help you here to find a way that you wouldn't be in violation of WP's policy. EkoGraf (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Calm down, both of you! This isn't even an ideological dispute but nothing more than a little dispute over some spelling and what the militias hold. You should really start to cooperate. You're both a big help for Wikipedia but waste energy and time in fighting each other...--Ermanarich (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

We did find a compromise, I wanted to give everyone a chance to show good faith. Your lack of full acceptance however makes any of it on your part doubtful. Only problem is your lack of humility and honesty to fully admit your fault. You can claim whatever you want and trade whatever accusation you want. But I do not see much hope in someone who can't even fully accept their mistake. Unless you can find it in you to accept your mistake, there's no use in talking to you. I'm not going to reply to you again. As I said earlier, good bye. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain to me how I should behave when: I already fully accepted my mistakes, said I would correct them if he cancelled his revert, which would also help him since he is in violation of 1RR, and we found a compromise, but despite all this he has now pulled out of the discussion and will continue with his own POV just because he doesn't like the word I used in my sentence when I accepted I made a mistake and because I didn't show humility to him? EkoGraf (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Humility to me? When did I say show "humility to me", I simply said you have no humility. That is the exact behavior of yours I'm talking about. You try to evade full responsibility eveey time, you don't want to admit you mistook Area 1 for Area 2. Now you are trading accusations and seem to be trying to provoke others. You claim I'm pushing POV, despite you admitting you were wrong. As for my 1RR revert, it really doesn't matter anymore as it happened once and I have nothing to prove to someone who himself can't admit his own fault. I've had enough of your claims and accusations and this is a waste of time.


 * and anyone else, if you choose to respond, please know that the real reason I don't self-revert is because of EkoGraf's attitude and lack of honesty on his part. Unless he pledges to improve his behavior and keep it in line with how an editor's behavior should be, there's no further use in talking to him. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to give you a chance and self-reverted. At the least it will show others that I did not do any edits in bad faith. Now can please edit as you promised and correct your mistake? Newsboy39 (talk) 17:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi. You both made the same mistake, chuckle. Don't just make a change and tell the other person to talk before they change it. (1)Newsboy39(2)EkoGraf As soon as you know someone disputes the edit you're about to make, immediately open the talk page discussion and use your edit summary to link to it. This has a few advantages. The sooner this is done the less chance there is for things to get heated. Being the first person to open the talk page discussion helps establish yourself as the editor seeking reasonable collaboration. Using the edit summary to link to the talk page usually means your preferred version stays on the page while you talk it out.

At this point is looks like you've mostly sorted out the content issue. Try to let go of the other stuff and try to focus on moving the article forward. Demanding better apologies or admissions isn't helpful when you've sorted out the article issue. Alsee (talk) 17:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for informing Alsee, I didn't know about that. I'll remember it from now on. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * An editor who is not a party to this dispute requested a third opinion on it, which has sort of been provided in the time it took me to type mine. I would echo a lot of what Alsee has said. You both have shown that you can sort out the content issues; but please comment on the content, not the contributor. Calling somebody "bossy" is not helping anybody. Also, reverting an edit and then demanding a discussion is poor form indeed: if you have issues with somebody's edit, you should start by discussing it. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

I corrected the part where it should have been Neighborhood 3 instead of 2 per the cited source, and I used your CNN link to add a sentence on the capture of Neighborhood 2 and that 1 and 3 remained. Leave me a message here if there's something else that I missed that you think needs correcting. PS Are you fine with them being called Neighborhoods, or do you want Areas or Districts? Since the sources are also calling them that as well. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Its okay User:EkoGraf except that you're mentioning the same date twice.The following day, bombardment commenced of Neighborhoods 1 and 2. On 12 August, it was confirmed the GNA also took control of the Amina Hotel, the police academy building and the Al-Giza military zone. Both are talking about the day after August 11.


 * Besides I never had a problem with what the neighborhoods are called as. You can seek a consensus if needed, I'm fine with whatever choice they go with it. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Corrected the twice thing, see if you fine with it and let me know. EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's fine now. Thank you for the cooperation EkoGraf. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Wrong edits by EkoGraf
Hello User:EkoGraf. Your edits have created some of the same problems as earlier. In your latest edit you changed the date of sucide attacks to 21 August, even though the source I used was from 18 August (I mistyped the date as 19 while referencing the source, but I didn't do so in the article's body) and you seemed to have read it. It seems while reading the source, you did not read what date it was from. You are the showing the same problem as earlier of not readingbsources carefully.

Not only that, in your edit you added the attack which killed 10 GNa fighters and injured 20 again, even though I already added it. Not only that even though both ABC News and Libyan Express mention an attack with same number of casualties ie, 10 killed and 20 injured and that too on the same day ie., 18 August. Yet you added the attack twice. This probably might stem from your mistaken belief that the Libyan Express source was from 21 August and thus was mentioning a different attack according to you.

I had to make corrections in yiur edit myself. These mistakes are happening very often and make the article inaccurate. Newsboy39 (talk) 05:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * User:Newsboy39 I thought it was August 21st, because at the top of the page it said Sunday 21 August 2016. I did not know it was just the standard date indicator for any given day (at the moment its showing Monday 22 August 2016). Glad you made the correction, but I would really like if you would refrain from making such bad faith comments towards me (WP: CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH). I told you why I earlier merged August 11th and 12th (because I mistakenly thought they were talking about the same districts), but now I thought the article was talking about events from yesterday, not four days ago. So please, I ask politely not to go back to old topics. There are no often mistakes being made. I am at the moment keeping around a dozen or more articles up-to-date (not just this one) and cann't be correct about everything all the time. Anyway, again, thank you for the correction. Much appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 13:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Some websites display the current date on top of their websites, that is what you misunderstood to be the date of the article. The date on which the article was written is always below the headline of that article.

My comment was never meant as bad faith, I have to point out your repeated misunderstanding of sources as this isn't the first or second time. Regardless, I suggest you carefully examine and resd sources from now on. I appreciate you tryi g to keep multiple articles up-to-date, but please make sure that your information is as it is in the sources. That is just friendly advice, nothing else. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Intervention of USMC ?
Have you indicated the strikes of the USMC in this battle ? I have read that USAF: L&#39;amateur d&#39;aéroplanes (talk) 05:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * https://news.usni.org/2016/08/03/marine-harriers-strike-libyan-targets-uss-wasp
 * http://www.military.com/daily-news/2016/08/23/marine-supercobra-helicopters-join-isis-fight-over-libya.html

Map of the battle
I am really surprised that nobody bothered to draw a map for it even though BMCLY has been regularly publishing maps of the situation at various points. Now this might be a media office of the opposing side, but their maps are very close to the actual situation if not completely accurate according to a report by military TImes or Antiwar or Longwar Journal (Can't remember clearly but definitely it was one of the these sources). MonsterHunter32 (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think I can do a battle map for the Sirte District, up until the full siege of Sirte city, by basing it off of the Libyan conflict's map template. However, a detailed map of the battle sequence inside the city itself is currently beyond my capabilities. I will also have to wait until this summer before I will have time to generate a map for this battle. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Either way, I believe that this article seriously needs a battle map portraying at least some sequence of the offensive on the city. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)