User talk:Editor abcdef/Archive 1

= Editor abcdef, you are invited to the Teahouse! ==

Seljuq Brigade
Hello,

first of all, thanks for the great contributions and especially the flag of the Seljuk Brigade.

The thing I want to talk with you about are actually the allies and enemies of the brigade. Of course, the Brigade's enemies and allies are the same as they are for the Army of Revolutionaries. But also, the Army of Revolutionaries is part of the SDF, but their relation to other groups is still shown. The fact that the Seljuk Brigade is Turkmen even makes it more important in my eyes to underline that there is an alliance with the YPG. Furthermore, the group seems to act relatively independent from the Army of Revolutionaries and the group's leader is a quite important character.

I think it's more clear if we show that they are part of the SDF/allied with the YPG.

Another thing is that I'm not sure if being a Turkmen militia automatically makes one be a Syrian Turkmen Brigade. Especially if you look at the page there, the Seljuk Brigade definitely doesn't fit in the faction presented there, since they are definitely neither allies of Ahrar al-Sham nor of the Al-Nusra Front.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, the Seljuk Brigade is recognized as a component of the Syrian National Coalition by the SNC. The political wing of the brigade, the Syrian Democratic Turkmen Movement, is also part of both the Syrian National Council and the National Coalition. Joining the SDF and aligning with the YPG doesn't necessary disown a group with its parent group, so it's safe to assume that this group is still part of the Syrian Turkmen Brigades. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds if you're right. I'd let them depicted as a Syrian Turkmen Brigade as long as we don't get other news. But then I'd actually also either add the YPG as their allies or them as a part of the SDF. It has to be clear that they're allied with them.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Division joining Youth of Sunna Forces?
The press release mentions a "Hamza Brigade", which seems to be a pretty common name for brigades. I don't think it's necessarily the same group as the Hamza Division. I think we should wait to see if the Hamza Division's social media accounts confirm before we assume it's the "Hamza Brigade" in question. (P.S. - thanks for all your useful edits on the Syrian civil war!) Bulbajer (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions notice
Katietalk 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Turkish military intervention in the Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crusader. 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) 12:06, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

File:Logo of the Falcons of Mount Zawiya Brigade.png
Hi abcdef. i've noticed that you've uploaded an "updated" version for the file File:Logo of the Falcons of Mount Zawiya Brigade.png. When uploaded a version which is different is design, etc, from previous versions, it's generally considered best to simply upload the file as a new file to Wikipedia using a different filename and not as an updated version of the older one because it makes it easier to compare images, especially non-free images, and possibly determine which version is more appropriate for use in the article via the article's talk page. It also makes a difference because sometimes the source and copyright information is not the same for each image. Generally, only slightly altered versions (e.g., cropped or re-sized versions, etc.) should probably be uploaded as an "updated version". Any major change such as change in design, coloring, sponsor name, file format, etc. should probably be uploaded as a new file under a different name. Would you mind reuploading the image once again as a separate file?

Moreover, Wikipedia will need to know where you found the version you uploaded. You did not provide a source for the image so it's copyright status cannot be properly verified. The one provided for the the previous version is a deadlink so it cannot be verified. Do you remember the url of the website you got the image from? If you do then please replace the url in the non-free use rationale of the new file you upload. If you're not sure how to do that, post the url here and I will do it. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 14:48, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 3
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Democratic Council, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Forum. 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) 11:13, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Northern al-Bab offensive (2016)
Need your advice. It would seem that the Turks and rebels have abandoned their original Northern al-Bab offensive (2016) and have instead launched a new offensive starting around September 27-28, which is no longer going in the direction of al-Bab, but instead they are trying to isolate and overrun that ISIL pocket around Dabiq, which is not even in the al-Bab district (so even the title is no longer correct). So, what do you think about us closing the Northern al-Bab offensive (2016) article with Limited rebel gains (since sources have been critical about the rebel/Turkish achivements on that front), and open a new article in regard to the offensive towards Dabiq? Also, if you can, propose a new for the new article. EkoGraf (talk) 14:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * As you said, it's a good idea to split the article into the "Northern al-Bab offensive", from 16 to 28 September, and the "2016 Dabiq offensive", which started from 29 September and is the current offensive. One of the problems is that Turkey and the rebels consider both offensives to be part of the same ongoing offensive which is the 3rd phase of the intervention, for example the 1st phase is the capture of Jarabulus and advancing south toward the Sajur River, and the 2nd phase is linking Jarabulus with al-Rai. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * An overall summary of the third phase (both offensives) could be incorporated in a section of the main article on the Turkish intervention. EkoGraf (talk) 15:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Its done. I created a new article for the Dabiq offensive and closed the northern al-Bab article with a link to the new offensive article in the aftermath section. EkoGraf (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of al-Fu'ah and Kafriya, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madaya. 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) 11:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Military intervention against ISIL
I think this article needs major restructuring, particularly in its scope, as well as a rename. At this point, it only includes summaries of dozens of different interventions, but doesn't talk about the general world-wide ISIL conflict. It does not talk about just one intervention, but multiple (sometimes uncoordinated) interventions with different backgrounds and motives. So I think first the title needs to be changed to ISIL conflict (2014-present) or something like that. Then, the date needs to be changed to when the new phase of the Iraq war started (for which we have its own article) with ISIL's large-scale takeovers (January 2014), as well as ISIL's large-scale takeovers in Syria that also took place at the same time against (at the time) fellow rebels (January 2014). To continue, five separate sections would be needed, name proposals being: Syria front, Iraq front, Libya front, Other fronts, International ISIL attacks. Each of those sections would of course have their own subsections on the conduct of the conflict on each particular front, including the multiple different interventions. The main reason for my proposal is there is no central article on the world-wide conflict raging between ISIL and their opponents. And we really need one. Or, if you are not in favor of restructuring this article, we create one for the general conflict. If you think a summarization article for all of the interventions is needed. But again, I am of the opinion a central article on the overall conflict is needed. What do you think of this proposal? EkoGraf (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Syrian civil war infobox
Just letting you know IceFrappe reverted me a second time, after reverting you as well, reinserting the overly redundant combatant list to the infobox. At the moment I cann't revert him due to the revert policy. EkoGraf (talk) 14:31, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Shahba region/canton
Hi, there is some NPOV pushing going on from politically motivated users to remove or destroy the Shahba region article. Could you help keeping this valuable article clean from such users wanting to destroy it? Kind regards --Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

New Aleppo offensive
Made a new article for the new military operation Aleppo offensive (October 2016). Closed the previous one since it would seem it never really restarted since October 16th, the Russians once again extended the ceasefire on October 25th. EkoGraf (talk) 11:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian assistance to the Russian military intervention in individual states.
And what is here? Where this humanitarian intervention? Then you need to delete the "humanitarian intervention in Iraq." American-led intervention in Iraq (2014–present). --Baba Mica (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 16 December
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Aleppo offensive (November–December 2016) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=755225108 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F755225108%7CAleppo offensive (November–December 2016)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Updating new versions of images
Hi Editor abcdef. I've already mentioned this above at User talk:Editor abcdef, but it seems you've done the same thing with File:Jabhat al-Akrad logo.png. If the new version you are uploading is quite different from the previous versions and is not a simple fix such as resizing or cropping, then it's best to upload it as a new file altogether. If you have any questions about how to best go about doing this, please ask for assistance at WP:MCQ. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd like to echo those comments. Other articles in other projects may have a link to a particular image, and the presumption is that the images fundamentally always the same. Minor changes such as cropping, resizing, or color correction aren't fundamentally changing the image so using the same name for those modest changes is quite appropriate but when the image changes is much as it does in this situation, it is best to have a new name.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Duplication or articles,
Please, care to check this?? 1. Siege of Wadi Barada - Created by you. 2. Wadi Barada offensive - created by User Babamica. What is the solution, a merge??? Mr.User200 (talk) 16:52, 30 December 2016 (UTC)