User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2018 1

Separate article for short clashes in Syrian civil war
I want to propose an article for short clashes that last at most a few days and don't warrant enough notability on their own. I want to get some personal opinions. 2017 Homs-Deir Ezzor offensive, 2017 Baghdad–Damascus highway offensive and small SAA advances in western countryside of Aleppo are some recent examples and haven't advanced in many days. If they don't advance for long then I suggest deleting them and putting under a single article but they have little in relation. I suggest an article covering all short clashes. Though whether it should be year-based or should include all, that is what I'm wondering. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:03, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, EkoGraf! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing helpme at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Marek. 69  talk  14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article

Question.
Question. Umm, maybe.. so 'Commanders and leaders' is right..? Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

300 killed as if fact in the info box
Please don't replace this edit again. - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_uprising_%28Tripoli%29&diff=417156166&oldid=417150388 if you want to add it as claims and according to harry and according to john in the body of the article then I can accept it and add reputals, for discussion but please do not replace it as if a fact again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution
Please stop adding content as if fact - as in 3000 troops and 300 dead - these are unconfirmed claims only and they need attributing to the sources - they are not facts at all, please stop presenting them as such. Actually therer are no confirmed claims at all. Please attribute correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As you seem to not going to stop revertting, I have templated the article - it is not NPOV - as I said, there are no confirmed facts and they need attributing correctly and until they are the article is not neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of this and battle of that
Please take your time - As an uninvolved person, as I see it the naming under battle is a complete exaggeration - totally a false representation - I can see you are involved but please consider a neutral reporting of the issue - I will be back tomorrow and there will again be no battle for here or there, please take the long term position , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made my issues clear and you have moved to you favoured position but I still clearly dispute so I have added dispute templates and will discuss more tomorrow, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

info box unconfirmed claims
Its best if you don't ever add unconfirmed claims to any infobox. Add your claims and attribute to article body, especially when they are completely unconfirmed. Please stop edit warring. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli)
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _ Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

claims and attribution
Add death claims to the body of the article and attribute as close as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure, but you seem to have copied my warning to you to my talkpage, so I deleted it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

cautious reporting
I am uninvolved in this - I care less about it, but lets take care on what we report, 100 dead, 1000 dead, claims, please err on the side of caution, and step back if you are involved on one side or the other, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

one last time
I'll tell you this one last time, I think most of the things both sides are claiming is rubish and propaganda, I think the number of 3,000 dead or 6,000 dead is fantasy. I myself belive that no more than 1,000 people have died, and 200 of those were probably loyalists. However, it's not up to us to insert our points of view where we think that things the BBC or CNN say are rubish or propaganda (which they most probably are). Our job as Wikipedia editors is to present both sides views and claims and stay neutral. There are no facts in wars, only claims, which can never definitely be confirmed, especialy in this conflict where we will never have independent observers on the ground, at least not until the war is over.EkoGraf (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * One last time - stuff off. Just attribute and use strong citations - and add to the body of the article - please do not present your claims as if fact.
 * I will be here tomorrow and the day after, I am a neutral wikipedia editor. The battle of Tripoli is the fact, bigoted fantasy, false claim . As per wikipedia users - the battle of Tripoli is a wikipedia editors fantasy...bla di bla di bla.  Off2riorob (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Off2riorob, please learn how to indent your comments. You are not following proper Wikiquette by not doing so.  I've indented them here so you may learn from it.


 * Second, since I'm here, I remind you that your opinion has nothing to do with it. If a reference clearly states that something is fact and it's a legitimate reference, you must accept it regardless of your opinion on the fact.  Good day.  CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're Wasting Your Time
Off2riorob is a user with a lengthy block record, meaning that this will just be another shiny medal for him. He has a history of being extremely contentious with what he believes is correct, regardless of what others say.

I hope in the 3RR situation that you yourself did not reinsert information three times in identical fashion, that others were also involved in the reinsertion of that information. As long as is the case, you should be safe; otherwise, they might nab you also. I hope given this user's glorious history that it takes precedence.

As for why I happened upon this, I was curiously checking into whether the user had any interest in communicating with me regarding his opinions on the Pending Changes discussion, which I obviously disagreed with him on by removing a flawed poll that he felt it necessary to add to a page that would take two days to read to even reach the poll. His poll was a total catastrophe before, and this user is demonstrating that he is more than willing to ignore whatever he feels like ignoring. Hence, as I noted, you are wasting your time. Just let 3RR work itself out. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This post copied from CycloneGU's talk page to maintain conversation in one location.
 * I know I'm wasting my time, I saw his block record. I did undo his edits, but each time I didn't revert to the last version before him, instead I tried to make changes that could be considered compromise solutions. However, he pushes his POV without any regard to how it can hurt the neutrality of the article. I don't know what to do or who to turn to.EkoGraf (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For starters, there is the noticeboard for 3RR violations. I am also going to make a quick check of things and confirm whether the information he is attempting to remove is actually legitimate, if I can make a determination either way.  Having a second editor confirm also helps keep you out of trouble for 3RR and edit warring.  Also, please remark here; per the notice attached to my pages, I am watching your page for any replies. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I can't find the information on a force of 3,000 in the second reference as you refer it. I did find the source for the 7,000, saying 6-7 thousand. Still checking other refs.

Source #3 now claims over 20 people - 4 in one, 19 in another I think I saw in that.


 * The problems are the three articles on the Tripoli clashes, the Battle of Brega and the Battle of Ras Lanuf. Tripoli - In the Tripoli article, I myself stated that I am for it to be renamed because it wasn't a military battle, however he attacked me that I am not for renaming it and is constantly deleating the number of killed. I tried to insert in the infobox the claim by the IFHR that by February 24, 275 were reportedly killed, and the opposition claim that on February 26, 25 people were killed. For the sake of compromise I noted that both figures were claims. He deleted those sourced figures along with the references. Brega - He constantly claims that it was just a minor skirmish and not a battle, even though every major media outlet is describing it and calling it a battle. I asked him for a source where it says it's a skirmish he plays crazy like he didn't hear me. And says that media claims don't count. He also constantly deletes the number of dead from the infobox because he says the BBC only claims 14 died in the battle/skirmish so it doesn't count if it's not fact. Again deletes both figures and sources. Ras Lanuf - Same story as Brega. I tried to compromise with him and for the sake of stopping the edit war I renamed the article to Ras Lanuf clashes. But that term is simply too much POV, since these kind of things are and are being called battles. I realy don't know what to do, I am at a loss for words.EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It doesn't matter if the sources confirm 3,000 or 7,000, he doesn't want to include them in the infobox because, according to him, if it's a claim it has no place in the infobox. o.O And this is the source for 3,000 . It doesn't matter to him if it's sourced, because they are according to him all just claims and if they are not facts then they don't count as sources for the infobox. And I tried and asked him what are facts according to him, he said independent observers, when I asked him what are the BBC and health groups if not independent observers, he just ignored me. EkoGraf (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The problems are the three articles on the Tripoli clashes, the Battle of Brega and the Battle of Ras Lanuf.
 * Tripoli - In the Tripoli article, I myself stated that I am for it to be renamed because it wasn't a military battle, however he attacked me that I am not for renaming it and is constantly deleating the number of killed. I tried to insert in the infobox the claim by the IFHR that by February 24, 275 were reportedly killed, and the opposition claim that on February 26, 25 people were killed. For the sake of compromise I noted that both figures were claims. He deleted those sourced figures along with the references.
 * Brega - He constantly claims that it was just a minor skirmish and not a battle, even though every major media outlet is describing it and calling it a battle. I asked him for a source where it says it's a skirmish he plays crazy like he didn't hear me. And says that media claims don't count. He also constantly deletes the number of dead from the infobox because he says the BBC only claims 14 died in the battle/skirmish so it doesn't count if it's not fact. Again deletes both figures and sources.
 * Ras Lanuf - Same story as Brega. I tried to compromise with him and for the sake of stopping the edit war I renamed the article to Ras Lanuf clashes. But that term is simply too much POV, since these kind of things are and are being called battles.
 * I realy don't know what to do, I am at a loss for words.EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at Ras Lanuf right now. It might help to mention the rebel's name from ref 7 (Marai), I don't know what ref 6 is referencing but ref 5 doesn't give the two day information, only "earlier in the week". That needs to be better referenced. Ref 8 matches two others; I'll help you fix references later once everything checks out. Neither refs 9 or 10 mention the 20 executed soldiers.

So in summary, some editing is needed and I will not question Off2riorob on questioning the accuracy, as I found a few inaccuracies among the ones that do check out. I'll hel;p sort out citations later if you can fix it up. I am concerned about the triple-ref source, however; since it's constantly updated, information will vanish over time and have to re researched and referenced elsewhere. Keep an eye on that. =)

I do not know about the rule with claims. I know infoboxes are generally for facts. I'd stick claims into the prose; it deserves to be mentioned if referenced in the sources, but perhaps not in the infobox. But again, I don't know the rule for claims in the infobox. CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cyclone, that's just it, there are no rules for the claims thing. When we don't have independent figures we at least mention in the infobox claims by both sides and note they are claims. This has been done everywhere, in the Iraq, Afghan, Vietnam and other war articles. And here is the 20 soldiers executed source, and I should note, that 20 soldiers executed claim was not originaly inserted by me. And I just saw that Off2 has tolled me to stuff of which is breaking the rule on civility, and I have said nothing to inslut him. He has broken at least 4 wikipedia rules by now. According to Off2 the BBC's figures and the health group figures are not facts but just claims. Than I don't know what figures are to him.EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I deleted his post. He added it in a very unusual way that made no sense, and I almost thought you were getting upset at me until I realized it was a trademark post relocating but in a very bad way.  I've left a note on his talk page regarding it.


 * Regarding the content of your last post, I could find someone in the Wikiproject (if we can locate a proper one) and get an additional opinion from someone better adept at this style of article. For now, work on removing information that is not in the sources and of course add anything else relevant; we can fix the neautrality of the article, if necessary, as we go.  CycloneGU (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he copypasted something I told him to my page. He was starting to constantly say blah blah blah instead of talking to me like a normal being and I couldn't take it anymore, but was still trying to be civil. Didn't say anything that was directed at you. Listen, the problem here is, I am adding sourced information, but he doesn't regard those sources factishes enough, even though it's the BBC, CNN, Guardian or whatever.EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you now Cyclone, would this be ok to add to the infobox in the Tripoli clashes article? 275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim), 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim) I noted the figures to be claims for the sake of neutrality.EkoGraf (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize, can you give me 15 minutes? Not going away, just need 15 minutes. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.EkoGraf (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * All right, I'm back. Let me see where the article is and I'll comment further.  Please keep posts to this page and add one extra colon to each new post so we have some kind of resemblence of sequence here, all right?  For instance, read what I've typed and see the ":" - start your next post with two of them "::" and so on until an outdent is necessary. =)  That's how to typically do it on most talk pages, but a one on one conversation can have exceptions.  CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just left a notice at the administrator noticeboard that he violated the 3 revert rule, and also noted if he tries to defend himself that I also violated it, that my reverts were not total reverts but edits in an attempt to find a compromise solution.EkoGraf (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. I did notice that and that bodes well for you as I don't quite call yours a violation, but an attempt to compromise (I'll add to the notice you posted), but as another piece of advice (I'm full of these today LMAO), please be careful with your edit histories.  One looked merely like an invitation to arguing on your part ("Indicating it's a rebel CLAIM, happy now?") might be slightly further than you should go.  I can see however you were getting aggravated and am overlooking it, but just be careful not to put something there without thinking; you can't EVER change the edit history.


 * Let's go back to what you want to add now while I find that notice. Which source gives what specific information you wish to add to the article right now?  CycloneGU (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim), 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim) You can also check my last edit at the article here .EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Noting I've only looked at Ra's Lanuf so far, I read this in the source:
 * "The figure is more than double the official Libyan government toll of 300 dead, and includes 275 dead in Tripoli and 230 dead in the protest epicentre in the eastern city of Benghazi, the IFHR's Souhayr Belhassen said.'"
 * "The Benghazi toll includes '130 soldiers who were executed by their officers in Benghazi for refusing to fire on crowds' of protesters, she said."
 * Thus, for that one, adding 275 dead in Tripoli's article and 230 dead in Benghazi's article are good additions (just include the source). It's important to note these are claims, not official numbers.  The 130 soldiers is also notable, though that far differs from the 20 from before.  for #6 as I see it now, refer to it as up to 25 people in the prose, it's not an exact figure.
 * As for the edit, it's a start. Tripoli looks like people want it redirected to another article while others say keep; if a redirect happens, make sure to update there.  Once the decision is final it's not worth fighting to keep its own article.  CycloneGU (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself am not able to add the 275 and 25 figure in the box because it would be an additional violation of the 3 revert rule and also he would just revert me stating that humanitarian group is not reliable and is only claiming and not stating facts.EkoGraf (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry I never got back to you. Give it a little time and give Rob a chance to go away, then go ahead and do the editing that is necessary.  If he's still watching the page and keeps trying to revert, then we might have a more serious problem.  Besides, you have the existing 3RR complaint, but it appears not to have even been given any attention at my last check (everyone deserves a day off), but given that almost 24 hours have passed since the incident, I don't think anything is going to happen.  Just give it a little time, then try making the edits again.  After 24 hours, 3RR no longer applies and you can try again.


 * I would suggest reviewing the notes I made above and making sure improper material is removed, however. As promised, I will help with the linkage once the article is cleaned up a bit.  CycloneGU (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the situation has calmed down, if you would check the discussion pages for the Ras Lanuf and Brega battles you will see a number of editors have expressed their opinion that what he did was not all right. At Brega the situation has totaly calmed down and at Ras Lanuf there is still a discussion going on about the renaming because one more editor voiced support with Off however others have voiced support for the name of the article to be Battle of Ras Lanuf. :)EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome, glad the situation has calmed down. I haven't been checking any of the article talk pages today, so I wasn't up-to-date on the proceedings.  I didn't want to make any edits since I didn't know anything about the subject, too, but instead leaving that work to someone who knows something about what they're researching...and my posts here were just advice on what to change, so I hope that also was constructive to the discussion. =)  The 3RR warning still sits untouched, not expecting anything out of it but who knows?  CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the BBC

 * - content cut and copied for educational and discussion purposes only not for publication. - It is a mistake to see this campaign as an outright civil war. In skirmishes like those around Bin Jawad and Ras Lanuf, as few as 100 men are fighting on each side. Most are lightly armed, and even the aircraft which are used on the government side are remarkably ineffectual in their bombing - for whatever reason. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12663513 - Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the purpose of your last message to me about the civil war thing since I wasn't talking to you about that at all, but I will use this chance and say that I support the change in name of the conflict to Libyan civil war like I have already did at the articles discussion page and this assertion of yours that as few as 100 men are fighting on each side is totaly unsupported since there are numereous sources where we have confirmation from reporters on the ground who say that for instance at ras lanuf there were 500-1,000 rebels against 3,000 loyalists. And on the western front Zawiyah has been reduced to ruble because of the fighting, wouldn't call that a skirmish. Two loyalist brigades are fighting against 2,000 rebels there, wouldn't call that 100 men eather. In addition, as of today CNN and a few other news media have started calling it a civil war.EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will just make an edit here and there, as I am uninvolved apart from my usual concerns with policy and content - this issue is repeated as usual with such newsy articles and wikipedia needs to find a solution to the issue, but basically, the articles are all awful, often written by opinionated single purpose new accounts from one side or the other, with poorly formatted citations some of which are not wikipedia reliable and claims presented as if fact, all the usual editing standard are unable to be reviewed and any attempt to improve the articxle is reverted or removed and replaced with the next newsy claims. I think clearly when this is over, articles like the one you insist on calling a battle will correctly be merged to a couple of lines at a more correct location, all these minor spats don't warrant an individual article. Burt time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah
I think you called the battle too early, see the source at Talk:Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah. — Nightstallion 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Map
I was wondering if you have any knowledge on who fixes or updates the map on the Libyan uprising page? Zenithfel (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Never-mind, I found out how to find out who is editing the map, you use wikimedia commons. Zenithfel (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

attribution
Please try no to add weak claims, there are all sorts of false unconfirmed claims and you continue to present them as if facts, wikipedia is a neutral publisher please follow WP:NPOV and attribute who is is that is claiming the claim and who it is that is reporting who has claimed it. There is little to nothing verified regarding all these dead and so on. I see you commenting that in your opinion thousands have died but please don't add such unverified claims as if facts, they are not facts at all. The rebels claimed the troops refused to shot - well how come the troop sare all shooting now, the rebels claimed to have found 20 mutinous murdered troops, please attribute and take it easy - we are not a rolling news report, the editing on this section of articles is very opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have been following Wikipedia's NPOV rule, and all of my edits are sourced. Me and several other editors told you, your opinion that those are week sources, although I cann't see BBC and CNN week, is just your personal opinion and it doesn't count. We report based on references and strong references have been provided. I warned you before that removal of sourced information can been seen as vandalism so please stop, thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM - is something else entirely. Like I said attribute and take it easy, we are not a propaganda rolling news report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed the wording so it is reportedly and according to the rebels. Ok?EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked, I only look occasionally as the articles are so poor, but if you have attributed then yes better, thanks. IMO it would be a lot better if you stopped focusing on all these unverified claims, focus on the major verified or at least close to verified details. Such as, On Friday Gadaffi troops entered the town, there were unconfirmed reports from both sides of small numbers of injured and dead...which is plenty of detail, all will lster be verified and presented in an encyclopedic way, presently its a farce of unverified propaganda from both sides that you are adding to wikipedia - we don't need it - all the papers are full of different claims, wikipedia doesn't need to report them all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan uprising page
Can we get someone to establish a protection template on the page? Like the type where non-users are not allowed to edit. There is repeated vandalism Zenithfel (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising


The article Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * This page violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; WP:NOT, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:No original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Battle of Benghazi
Made the page, needs a lot of info to be added.Zenithfel (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
They messed up the infobox on the Libyan uprising page again, i don't know how to fix it because i can't undo it due to other people editing after the editor who did it.Zenithfel (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Who caused poss. casualties?
I have removed the claimed casualties from Operation Odyssey Dawn, and believe it is only fair I provide an explanation: For casualties to be added to any of the specific country operation pages, we need to know that they really happened as part of that exact operation. Tomahawk attacks were by both US and British, and additionally British planes have bombed an undisclosed location (BBC). Consequently we have no way of knowing if these deaths, if they actually happened, were part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Based on the information available in the provided source, they could just as well be the result of the British Operation Ellamy. Or for that matter a combination of the two. Regardless, I'll see if I can locate a source that provides some more specific information on this, and if I find it I'll add the info to the specific operation page(s) with the new ref. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are entirely right that no casualties was not satisfactory when one side claims there were casualties. However, I do believe it is better to be accurate, so I have re-inserted the exact numbers that you added initially (no matter if it is "1 death", "some deaths" or "50 deaths" the source still does not say exactly what operation was involved), but provided a note that explains the uncertainty. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, I believe this change to "unknown" may be the best option for now. Though I probably would have said it more diplomatically than this user, claims by the Libyan Government easily fall under WP:RS. RN1970 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Exactly. No one knows where these casualties are from or how they were injured. Could be due to rebels, as they are known to have aircraft as well and be using them. Having the support of international air supremacy may have given them a bit of courage to attack. Who knows. Given how much state media has been shown to be manipulated recently, it;s far from a reliable source. Unknown is far more reliable.-- Terrillja talk  04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is here.-- Terrillja talk  04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I see good points on both sides, but have to say I believe change to "unknown" is the best option for now. The Libyan Government and the associated national tv have a clear history of providing misinformation (it was only yesterday they announced ceasefire... only to move ~150 km and attack Benghazi). Please also see WP:GEVAL and WP:Balance. But I'm off to bed, so I'll leave it here for now. RN1970 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read TP. Fixing your comments is tiresome.-- Terrillja talk  05:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) ^this guy. again. read it. learn it. do it. fixing your inability to format is pissing me off.-- Terrillja talk  07:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Operation Odyssey Dawn. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Terrillja  talk  06:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Language
I apologize for offending you. I'll refrain from using profanity. Let's not get distracted by it though, shall we?  Swarm  X 07:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

not 2S1 Gvozdika!
The destroyed self-propelled howitzers south of Benghazi are not Soviet 2S1 Gvozdikas but Italian Palmarias! You can recognize a Palmaria by bit of the gun which holds it in place - it has two steel protusions to the left and right that keep in place. Here is a good description of the Palmaria noclador (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * you're welcome :-) noclador (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * and there was also a 9K33 Osa surface-to-air missile system ripped apart: noclador (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya
On a different note, look out for news regarding Zawiya, through random statements and references to the city in recent days, it seems that the goverment largely withdrew from the city a few days ago, which would put it under rebel control or atleast unclear situation. I guess do the same for Zuara. The TNC also claims it has "representatives" from cities all over Libya including Zuara, which may indicate renewed resistance.Zenithfel (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That the government forces withdrew does NOT indicate rebel held territory. Not in Libya. In peacetime Libya there are local, more-less tribal, militia supposed to control of the public order. So the army withdrawing could actually indicate the opposite.Ihosama (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Like I said on Zenithfel's talk page, the withdrawal of tanks from Zawiyah could just indicate that the city has been firmly secured by the government, the tanks moved on to fight another battle elsewhere and the loyalists left a smaller contingent of troops to guard the city, local militias like you said. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Google
Here is a useful tip I just wanted to share with you in case you didn't know. You can quickly find relavent information by typing a word into google and then clicking "latest" at the left of the screen once you searched for it. Thus you can find the latest postings of info relevent to your word. You can also do it for 24 hours 1 day, 1 week month year ect

example or

Zenithfel (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties
In the casualties box on the Ajdabiya page it says up to 154 rebels killed, and uses the video given by Al jazeera as a source. However the vidoe states that those 100 killed were civilians. The info box is quite a mess and i can't change it without breaking it, but if you can change the info box to state over 100 civilians dead as referenced from video, it would be much appreciated. Zenithfel (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ajdabiya
One of the reasons why there may be so much confusion regarding Ajdabiya, is because when you look at the city it self up close using google maps, it is really hard to define what makes western eastern or central Ajdabiya. On top of that there are several "east gates" and a couple of western gates. Check yourself using google maps satellite image up close on Ajdabiya. Zenithfel (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Marsa Brega
Marsa Brega definitely recaptured.

http://www.france24.com/en/node/5156407

France24 correspondent philip crowther at Brega himself and says and shows rebels have captured it.

He later tweets that he himself later went past brega and found that they have established a checkpoint 15km west of Brega too. Though this is not a proper source for wikipedia.

http://twitter.com/#!/PhilipinParis

The use of Twitter
I noticed that another user has placed Twitter as one of the sources. While the account is genuine and definitely belongs to Nic Robertson, I would caution against using Twitter as a source, as after a while the information on the source becomes lost due to new tweets. For example in a few weeks no one will be able to find that info in the source. Sopher99 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega
As it turns out, i have discovered that neither the Rebels or Gaddafi's troops are in Brega at all. While the rebels are in the outskirts, Gaddafi;s troops are in the unvieristy, where they are using heavy artillery to keep the rebels away. The univeristy actually happens to be half a mile away from brega.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=966752&filename=20101218113707-4d0d0d63008916.38970247.kmz

If that link doesn't work for you

http://wikimapia.org/2062806/Bright-Star-University-of-Technology

If it is possible, i wish to make a note of this on the third battle of Brea page, but unfortunately i fear it counts and independent research. If you can find a way to add this info it would be appreciated.

Zenithfel (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war‎
Good evening. Sorry at casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war‎ I made a mistake, I do not know why I put Mahmoud Gibril when I meant Ali Hassan al-Jaber. More strangely, there are two Mahmoud Gibril. Sorry for the confusion. Regards --Youssef (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

talk page etiquette
Hi - What part of this discussion id finished here don't you understand - I have closed or requested you stop posting on my talkpage so please follow that request. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah right, the rebels are lying and making up propaganda by saying 700 of their men were missing so to damage themselves. Nice way to lead a propaganda war. Whatever, we already noted it is unconfirmed. Also, they did not say 700 were killed, they said 700 were missing. By all accounts they were captured, which has been since then confirmed with independent investigations that have concluded several thousand members of the opposition have been rounded up and put in prisons in Tripoli and Sirte. EkoGraf (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Second battle of Ajdabiya
I'm glad that we found a good solution. The next time, please dont accuse someone who changes your edits of vandalism. Regards 62.178.177.37 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Algerian man was likely a migrant worker, according to the source. Stop writing false information in the article, or you will be reported. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tanks
When Nato says 11 tanks around Ajdabiya, they mean from Brega to Ajdabiya, a span of 50 miles. the 6 armored vehicles were just in the 1 or 2 mile proximately. Nato strikes tanks heading from sirte to Ajdabiya, but those can't be confirmed because correspondents simply can't travel there. So just because a correspondent sees only 6 vehicles doesn't mean there aren't more destroyed vehicle 10 or 20 miles further in Pro-Gaddafi territory.Zenithfel (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Misrata casualties
I know its frustrating trying to differentiate between propaganda and facts, but i personally think there is no intentional propaganda going on here. Each report we get is just from one doctor out of dozens. Each doctor is obviously keeping a mental record, and because they are human, there are bound to be mistakes. You should also remember that the number dead are only the ones brought to the hospital. In all likelihood there are alot more dead due to artillery shellnig in area that the rebels have a difficult time getting to. It would appear that most do get brought to the hospital, as it seems the rebels are making a conscious effort to reach every place hit. You should also remember that not all doctors were there from day one, or were keeping records from day one. People also die from their injuries, and I don't see the doctors saying "today 2 people died from their injuries" ect, so that could make the difference. Zenithfel (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Al kufra
Al kufra is next to Al jawf, which is on the Jalu road Zenithfel (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref
You also forgot to change the death count at the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page, but you did change the refs. Pass a Method talk  18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Saudi soldier is part of the Gulf Cooperation Council meaning he is considered also a policeman. The soldier is being called a policeman because he was sent as GCC police enforcement. You're getting specific terminology mixed up. I'd appreciate if you self-revert unless you can find a source saying theres 4 policemen killed plus 1 soldier. Pass a Method talk  18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you please specify which source says that "all four were run down by cars" ? ThanksPass a Method talk  19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

nafusa mountains
About 100 dead Civilians or rebels in Nafusa mountains past 24 hours. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-18 Zenithfel (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The video
Here is an exclusive video of Misratan rebels fighting a gun battle of the school. In the video you notice that they killed 6 or 7 Gaddafi men thus far because you can clearly see the corpses in green armor lying around. On a daily basis the rebels do not report how many they kill, just how many cvilians and rebels died. Should we count the loyalist corpses in the video and add them tot he death toll? http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-19-0 Zenithfel (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The video is at the 1:35 PM section

The vidoe is a blurry one, let me get the uncensored one. Zenithfel (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tank video
Here is some evidence that at-least 10-15 of the 35 tanks Nato claims to have targeted were actually targeted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvaCEmP2TWc&feature=player_embedded#at=98 Zenithfel (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

brega situation
The NTC has ordered rebels not to attack Brega for the past few days, claiming that NATO told them they would take out artillery so that rebels can enter. I lost track of which source said it, but see if you can find something on that. I know for sure that NATo took out the telecommunication systems from Sirte through Brega yesterday, and that there have been no shelling or attack by Gaddafi's forces from the brega road, and within 40 miles on brega road there are no Gaddafi forces. (perhaps there are a few on Jalu road still) Musa Ibraham also agrees that NATO is going to intentionally start a rebel offensive, though he is crazy to begin with. Basically i do not believe this is a stalemate, but an intentional calm. I have read source saying this, so thery are out there. Zenithfel (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

re:Map of Misrata
I was thinking of doing that. The only problem is that I can't find resources for a good map like this one. If you know of a detailed map of the city with street names then I would gladly use the info. Otherwise it would be a waste of space to create one that only contains Tripoli Street. the Airport and the seaport.-- R a f y  talk 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will see into it. Hopefully I will finish sometime after Easter.-- R a f y  talk 00:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks
Simply stating that i don't get Wikipedia's rules is not helpful. Please refrain from personal attacks, which i beleive is Wikipedia policy :) Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus? Whatever happened to 'Wikipedia is not a democracy'? Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You use the word 'majority', again; Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's worth pointing out that this vote was before this battle, and as such only applies to battles and conflicts before it. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The majority of an outdated vote; let Wikipedia's newly founded democracy vote on this new battle. They may very well decide to mergae it, but don't assume. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The battle of Wazzin happened after this vote; ergo the vote was not about this battle. Maybe outdated is the wrong word, but my point stands Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your 'see you after the merge' comment is just jejune; you're acting like you have some personal stake in this merge. Please either debate or leave the issue alone. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jejune means childish. Wikipedia doesn't need to be boiled down as much as you may like. Cheers for what? You're really not making sense here Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm British. Cheers is British for 'thank you'. You keep saying 'bye bye' in increasingly jejune ways yet you keep replying to me. Politeness seems to be too much to ask so can i just request consistancy? Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yifrin? Yafran? Yefren?
I started a move request Talk:Yifrin which you might want to weigh in on. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

regarding the maps
As of today rebels have now reached the airport in Misrata, and on fighting for it. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011428101929477818.html

Also rebels lost control over the border post http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-28 Zenithfel (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty clear which side they are on
When you said that could you motivate your input ? It's not that clear for me. Zil (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria
I noticed in the page's history you update the casualty numbers. I tried updating but only messed it up. About 50 civilians/antigovernment dead today. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/201142993412242172.html Zenithfel (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You re-added the lower death estimate although the source for this claim dates back to 2 months ago, so is out of date. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Per WP:CITE policy <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  07:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please read the No original research policy which is one of the three core content policies. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If you disagree with certain sources because of "propaganda purposes" (as you put it), you need to go to WP:RSN. Otherwise, your claims are null <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All references disagree with you
Almost all news reports of the last 2 weeks give a 10 000 - 30 000 count : Libya death toll: References from last 2 weeks

Why should i take your word over recent prints by dozens of notable/established newspapers, tabloids and magazines? <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  10:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts?
I'd like you to weigh in on this AfD, if it's not too much trouble: Articles for deletion/Tajoura airstrike. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Brega–Ajdabiya road
From today's AJE Live Blog:
 * 9:36pm
 * In a live interview with Al Jazeera, a Libyan rebel commander claims rebels have killed 57 pro-Gaddafi soldiers and destroyed 13 military vehicles during a major battle in Ajdabiya, a city in west Libya.


 * Hamed al-hafi said fighting happened on the periphery of a small outpost half way between Ajdabiya and the strategic oil port of Brega, where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces control.


 * Over the past 20 days, we had reorganised our forces. The real clash happened two hours ago, on the outskirts [of] al-Arbaeen[, the outpost].


 * Al-Hafi said two rebels were killed in the fight, during which Moatassem, one of Gaddafi's sons, was leading the government forces in Brega. His claims could not be independently verified.''

What do you make of this? A new battle? Or continuations of the old one? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to both of your latest messages on my talkpage. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya Alhurra
I really don't think the Libya Alhurra tumblr is any more reliable than al-Manara, Wefaq Libya, libyafeb17 or any other rebel website. You added it to the Battle of Misrata article here, and I am wondering what your reasoning was behind it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I removed it today here. I see you have now removed it again, which is good. All is in order. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: end date
I think that the battle for the city proper is over at this point. The shelling is dying down at this point, from what I gather. We should check what the sources are saying, though.

"Pyrrhic" carries a strong negative connotation, so I would say no to that. Plus, we don't know if more loyalists were killed, since we only ever got sporadic estimates, never an official death count. "Decisive" would be much more appropriate here; this is a huge victory for the rebels. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I put in a note to Rafy at the Commons talkpage.


 * Yes, rebels lost a lot of man and saw most of their city destroyed. However, if they can consolidate their massive gains from the past days, then this would really be decisive. Gaddafi and his forces is getting weaker by the day. They still have some fight left in them, too be sure, but I think we are starting to see the beginning of the end of things here. Misrata was a battle with huge symbolic significance for the rebels. It is like their Stalingrad: more casualties than the enemy (maybe), but a very important victory on a symbolic and strategic level. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but I think this time it may be for real. Gaddafi's "well-trained" army is becoming ragged and demoralised, by most accounts, while the rebels are in high spirits and becoming more professional by the day. His money is slowly but surely being siphoned off to the rebels, who are gaining ground diplomatically as well as militarily. Tripoli is not quiet in the air or in the streets; acts of civil disobedience are growing bolder and bolder. Mu'ammar himself is getting increasingly dodgy; his latest "appearance" was just his voice. Sure, it's possible that his forces will make gains, but it's only a matter of time until everything starts falling down around his head. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given the matter some more thought, and I believe firmly that the battle should be labelled as a decisive victory, as it was the biggest battle of the war with tremendous significance for all involved. There don't seem to by any counterattacks on the city, and though the rebels have (wisely) not decided to overstretch themselves in advancing further, they appear to maintain a firm grip on the city and have consolidated most of their gains. Sure, the rebels lost many fighters and the city was ravaged, but we don't know for sure if it was greater for fewer losses than G-unit suffered; what's more, this victory has shown the world that the rebels can fight effectively enough on the ground to win a major battle. What do you think? Lothar von Richthofen (talk)
 * Oh, of course. NATO was the factor that tipped the scales heavily in the rebels' favour. But so would the loyalist air force have been for G-unit had NATO not stepped in. Also, the fighting on the ground was also a very important factor as well. Regardless, NATO is listed along with the rebels on one side of the infobox, so it is fair to include them as one with the rebels in deciding decisiveness. But the only situation where this victory is not "decisive" that I can think of is if the rebels lose most of Misrata again. I really don't see that happening, since the loyalists seem to be wearing out in materiel, morale, and manpower by the day. We can wait, but I predict that when this is all said and done, the biggest battle of the war will be labelled as decisive. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't discount the loyalist air force entirely. I recall many reports early on that said that the rebels were absolutely terrified of the Gaddafist planes, even though they didn't always hit things. Taking them out of the skies certainly improved the confidence of the rebels. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nafusa
I don't mind a name change. Start a request if you wish.

The thing with Yafran is that I only see references to a "siege". This would be a very odd word to use to describe loyalists occupying the city. Indeed, Gharyan, which we know to be under occupation, is not described as being under siege. There are bulletins like this which make me think that the city could still be held by rebels:
 * "The revolutionaries [in Yafran and al-Gal'a] are patiently waiting for the help of the revolutionaries of the Nafusa Mountains to break the siege on them and provide them with the weapons and food which they are in dire need of." (Sunday 15 May, 12:00 h)

I think that original report of the city's loss was premature; what really happened was probably that G-unit surrounded the city, cutting the rebel fighting force in two and severing communications. But since the reliable sources are scant for this, it is best for Yafran to remain as "situation unclear". Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * AJE Live Blog has this update which seems to indicate that Yafran is under heavy siege and in a very dire situation, but still in rebel hands, as it talks about G-unit shelling the city, not being shelled in the city. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I said that Gharyan was occupied by loyalists, did I not? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, ok. No worries. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Casualties
Alright, sounds good. I've been more focused on the military aspect of the war, but I'll see if I can find some sources to help with that

But in the meantime, User:Reenem has been adding daily updates to the main article, often using Libyafeb17 as a source. I've put in a message at his talkpage for him to stop, but I'm not sure if he got the message. These updates need to be reliably sourced and moved to the Timeline; if sources can't be found, they should be deleted.

Also, the Human rights violations in the 2011 Libyan civil war article is an absolute disaster. It needs to be restructured and expanded with some of the recent news from the ICC regarding loyalist crimes. As it stands, the article is grossly slanted towards some isolated incidents committed by rebels. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilains
Good idea. Make sure to make it clear on the casualties page that the table covers armed combatants only. I should also point out that you appear to have made a mistake on the table, where you put 358 as the Misrata rebel death toll. 358 is the loyalist one, not rebel death toll. Zenithfel (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

bad map
It was some glitch in commons... refer to the talk page we might have to re-upload that image with a different name if it persists.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 10:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: info
Oh wow, that sounds bad. At least we have a definitive verdict on the current situation. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrata
It's the 1-week anniversary of the rebel recapture of Misrata, and loyalists have not yet launched a strong counterattack. What say you — decisive or no? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No not decisive, not until Zliten or Sirte falls if they do Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yefren
Within a week thousands are probably going die in Yefren, as that is when they estimate their food will run out. Gaddafi's forces surround the area, and no supplies come in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391197/Time-running-starving-Libyan-town-Yefren-Gaddafi-offers-ceasefire.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/21/libya.small.towns/index.html?eref=edition_africa

I just thought i would give you the heads up, so that if thousands do die, you can add them to the casualties table without hesitation. Suddenness is often paired with doubt and restraint when editing wikipedia. Shouldn't be that sudden if I already warned/prepared you of the idea.Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Most major news sources still report Yefren as under siege so I think it should be kept blue until a clear evidence is found.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rafy on Yafran; there are simply too many conflicting reports about it. Rebels have claimed its loss before, only to be contradicted by reports of intense fighting. This report may be referring to the loss of the city centre, who knows? The situation is not clear, thus the full blue circle is best. Rayayan is certainly in Gaddafist hands, though. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Zinjibar
I'm seeing a lot of reports of heavy fighting between Yemeni government troops and Islamists in Zinjibar. Should a Battle of Zinjibar page be created? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just about to reply when I got your message. I'm not sure what the best title for the battles outside of Misrata would be; I was thinking maybe 2011 Libyan rebel advance from Misrata, but that seems a bit cumbersome. As for Yemen, we should wait a bit to see if the fighting spreads. Right now it seems to be centered in Sana'a and Zinjibar, and these are not 100% affiliated with the protests. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Sana'a clashes are most definetly affiliated with the protests. They were a response by the tribes to Saleh not wanting to give up power and attacking protestors. As far as Zanjibar goes...well...that one isn't 100 percent connected, but it is connected somewhat because of the reports that Saleh gave up the city so he could prove a point to the protestors. So in essence Zinjibar is a result of Saleh's attempt at staying in power from a certain point of view. And I do belive this will go the way of a civil war if Saleh doesn't step aside, and, if it will be like what we saw in the last week, than it will be most definetly more bloodier than Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I had meant to say "protesters", not "protests". Both battles are reactions of certain groups to the uprising, but they do not constitute a general movement towards an armed revolt that is consistent across the majority of the dissenters, as happened in Libya. See for example some of the pictures here. Also, there are no clearly delineated zones of control here, just conflict hotspots in a few cities. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about Saleh; if he doesn't step aside, we may see things become more violent. But we should hold off on renaming until the situation becomes clear. Many battles had occurred in Libya before reliable sources started calling it a "civil war" and consensus to move was achieved. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Taiz?
If this happens to be true, we might find ourselves with another battle-page to create. That is, of course, unless this happens first... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've created an article for Sadiq al-Ahmar. I'd appreciate any expansion that you could help with. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemen
Assuming, only assuming, that Saleh does not return, dies, or gives up power, should the page be renamed 2011 Yemeni revolution? I do not believe the acts of violence would degrade that title, given the dozens of bloody revolutions in the past but still called revolutions. It should be noted that the protesters themselves were never took arms into the street, just the tribesmen. It should also be noted that the page gets changed to revolution when the head of state resigns/captured/killed, even if his government is still in place, as that is what was done with Egypt and Tunisia, as well as eastern Europe. What is your take on this? Zenithfel (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misrata
Update misrata casualties, Lots of opposition fighters deaths today mostly due to rocket attacks. Opposition in Misrata getting more impatient so they are trying to push closer to Zliten, and so Gaddafi's forces responding more intensely due to the threat.

http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/06/june-10th-updates/

Zenithfel (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah Part II?
What do you make of the resurgent uprising in Az Zawiyah? A second battle? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though I had been under the impression that the rebels were only ever in the western part of the city, not the east or centre. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Combining all of these battles, many of which are occurring hundreds of kilometres away from each other, would be a bit cumbersome anyway. In the meantime, I've created an article for the 2011 Sabha clashes. You should have a look at it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Still don't think it's a great idea. If you can find reliable sources that say all of these battles are connected, then it would be fine. Otherwise, your interpretation of "coincidence" is pure WP:OR. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Weak agree for Zawiyah. Disagree for Zlitan, as it is still ongoing (see Zenithfel's link on my talk). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your update to the Timeline of the Libyan Civil War 2011

 * I'm just reminding you that Wikipedia takes pride in being as neutral as possible. It is important to write from a neutral point of view. In your June 12th update to the Libyan civil war timeline, your information was very biased towards the loyalist cause and excluded the claims by the rebels they were still fighting in the west and you also excluded the fact that foreign reporters were not allowed to tour the entire city, being barred from the west where the rebels say they are active. The timeline has been edited accordingly. Though the contribution is appreciated, for the sake of all, please try to be as neutral as possible when editing the encyclopedia. Thank you. Daniel Musto (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be awesome to keep the conversation on one page but it doesn't really matter. I told you I felt that your information was biased and that I felt you may be writing it from a biased perspective. I did not outright accuse you of spreading propaganda. However, I have been reading articles about Zawiya since it began and never once have I come across an article that said they believed that the city was back completely in Gaddafi's hands. Perhaps the best response would have been to step back, analyze your work, realize how favorable it was to one side, and then more politely tell me that my words were harsh. I didn't set out to offend you, I merely do not sugarcoat things. I also told you your contribution was appreciated and ended with a thank you. Assume good faith, as I did in you. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, what is wrong with the term revolutionaries? They are fighting for a revolution. The root of the word is 'revolt.' They could be revolutionaries if they were uprising for the sake of neon-colored cars. It is still a revolution. Also, I've seen Reuters use this term. Revolutionaries is not a positive or negative term, as I could name many revolutions which were/are regarded as detrimental. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

=Link=== Can you give me the link which The Syrian observatory confirms the soldiers deaths. I know several hundred soldiers died. Defectors said "hundreds" were killed by the Syrian army itself, particularly in Rastan. The syrian government does not release the bodies or even show the bodies to any officials, which make it difficult to believe that human rights can confirm, as in contrary, HRGs can see bodies of protesters in general as well as reports. Sopher99 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yefren
If you don't have a number yet for how many loyalist soldiers were captured in Yefren, this video may help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVIZDIKxFSA&feature=related, i counted 15 captives, at least in that one room. Zenithfel (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bdama
I'm seeing a lot of news coming out recently from Bdama in Syria (for example here). Does the government action here warrant another "siege" article? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see here. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli
Just by being against gaddafi doesn't make you a rebel, (even though that is what Gaddafi claims in his speeches). Reporters report 90% of tripoli is against or gave up on gaddafi. Does that mean that 90% of Tripoli residents aren't civilians? Most of the population of Benghazi is against Gaddafi, and at Benghazi's protesting height there were 300,000 protesters, doesn't mean there are 300,000 rebels. Protesters are civilians unless they take up arms or knives. Zenithfel (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also given that this is the first time NATO struck a regular house (though not the first time civilians died in NATO strikes) i would say it is weapons failures, especially after 3000 strike sorties. On the first day there was mechanical failure, and a jet crashed landed in Benghazi, the first day. Given that NATO is hoping for a Tripoli uprising, I highly doubt it would want to eliminate the civilians they hope to help overthrow gaddafi. Though with NATo striking a rebels again in Brega, this would make it the 3rd time NATO messed up a brega assault, so i guess anything is possible.Zenithfel (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses...
After parsing through what you left on my talk page, I have a few things to respond to:


 * Bdama – I'd agree with your assessment. The news reports that came out seem to have overexaggerated the scale of what was going on.


 * "Stalemate" – People have been saying "stalemate" for months now, and then one side or the other makes advances. The conflict moves at a stop-and-go pace.


 * Misrata – I suspect that the low number of fighters is a big reason why the strategy seems to be to holding the line from Dafniya to Tawargha.


 * NATO and the West – Yeah, I've kind of lost patience with them at this point. I suppose it's better than Muammar "Zenga Zenga!" Gaddafi retaking the country, but it's pretty clear that their current "bomb the crap out of Tripoli and hope that Gaddafi gets scared while simultaneously hindering rebel advances by denying funds/weaponry and bombing convoys" strategy isn't turning out so well.

I think it is still possible that the conflict can still end in a rebel victory, but for that to happen, the rebels and especially NATO and the EU need to refocus their efforts. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"crushed" uprising
I think you are conflating the earlier crushed uprising in zlitan with recent fighting, your BBC article merely confirmed the former.174.91.109.171 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Libyan generals
Hey, I'm new to wikipedia (though i been editing without user on and offer 2 years) but I am already engaged in article creation. I am working on creating a wikipedia page for each of the 9-12 Libyan generals left, and seeing that you worked on the Libyan civil war for a quite some time, was wondering if you can help find some references in your spare time.

Generals already wikied: Abdullah Senussi, Akbar Younis Jaber, Massoud Abdelhafid, and Mahdi al Arabi ( i created his page).

Generals without wiki page:

Khouidli Hamidi

Al Rafi al Sharif

Awad Hamza

Bashir Huwwadi

Mustafa al Karoubi

Thanks I7laseral (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) -

Sudan invades Libya
Sudan has invaded Libya today, they have taken control of Al kufra/Al jawf. I am not sure which side they are on, but rebels, if they were even in al kufra, didn't resist. I am clueless about why they did it, but they did. They didn't take any oil at all, they just invaded al kufra. Weird. I am not sure if Sudan is for or against Gaddafi. Sudan has not criticized nato or called for a "political solution" yet. During the arab summit they voted "neutral" to the no fly zone, the only country to do so, instead of voting against it like Syria Algeria and Yemen did. Gaddafi supplies arms and finance to Darfur rebels, I know that, and Darfur rebels have in fact attacked Libyan rebels one or two months ago, besides the Sudanese mercenaries. How should we change it on the map, if we change it at all?

Here is the source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html

I should mention not one other source reported it other than the guy that wrote the telegraph article. NTC has not yet responded to the claims, nor has even been asked about that situation. NATO did not yet alert anyone publicly, so i'm not sure how that guy learnt it.

The article in one of the lower paragraphs, seems to imply that the sudanese army is providing security so rebels can restart the pipeline that Gaddafi's forces dismantled. Every time they turn it on Gaddafi forces cross the desert to bring it back down again.

Zenithfel (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah here we go: "The last attack on the Mislah and Sarir oilfields took place on June 12, just days before the deployment of Sudanese forces to Kufra." So around June 15 they went into Al kufra, and the rebels haven't said anything about it... I guess that means they are acting as a security force for the rebels, which is why loyalist have not attacked it recently. Zenithfel (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the deputy chair of the Kufra council (the local NTC council responsible for representing Kufra and making its local decisions) has published this interview on June 27: http://twitpic.com/5k4jor It needs to be translated, but i see two Africans, implying that the interview was conducted with the Sudanese army, could provide us the answer on whose side they are on. Zenithfel (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the guy who tweeted it, the article just talks about how they need more supplies and food though. Zenithfel (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudan says it is not in Libya, not that we can trust Omar bashir's regime any more than Gaddafi's. http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-repudiates-reports-on,39419 It is also worth noting that Sudan supports the NTC because Gaddafi supported the Darfur rebel movement. Zenithfel (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Big WTF moment
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14035281

It seems both the rebels and Gaddafi are SHARING the same lie. There is no "thousands" of troops in Brega". There is just a few sporadic military pieces of equipment in some hangers and hidden in some houses, and then a few artillery pieces to keep rebels "away". Looks like both Gaddafi troops and rebels are making up the situation in Brega. It has become clear to me that rebel "disorganization" is not disorganization but a literal refusal to move forward. The NTC has not given orders for the "5000" troops to move into brega, and instead occasionally a group of a few dozen people attack it but quickly withdraw. With NATO striking rebel vehicles every time a larger proportion tries to attack brega, i think is has become obvious that the NTC and NATO both agree it is not in their best interest to take Tripoli, let alone sirte. Otherwise they could have done so long ago, with coordination alongside nato, or just simply braving the artillery like the Misratan's did two months ago. NATO uses its heli's to destroy what vehicles gaddafi has, only to allow more to come from Sirte the next day, to then destroy them again. Is the report applicable to the wiki page on the battle? Zenithfel (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Press tv
Just curious, do you think it's a reliable source?.76.64.45.184 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current situation map
Is anyone involved in the Libyan articles capable of turning that in to a moving gallery, a timeline image so to speak, showing the images one after the other with a short delay, so that people can see how the situation has unfolded form the start? Chaosdruid (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya NLA
The article lists Haftar as CiC and Younis as CoS but the articles on both men seem to contradict that.Maybe these "official" tittles are just forced/premature?. 206.210.107.27 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sana'a
Things seem to be warming back up a bit in Sana'a:. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Qatrun to Rebels
It would seem like the southern desert is warming up with the fall of Al Qatrun to rebels: 1 2 3. Perhaps this should be combined with the Sabha clashes article? Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * News does not travel too well through the desert, as I have said many times. Kufra was never all over the news either, and Brega IV seems to be taking up a lot of the attention of the international media at the moment. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the full text of the WSJ article, which says "Due to poor communications networks, lack of Internet and its remote desert location, southern Libya has received scant attention during the Libyan uprising. Reaching residents in southern Libya remains tremendously difficult." Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

O britanskom avijatičaru
Ako je tako očita izmišljotina samo stavi na stranici za razgovor detaljno obrazloženje i obriše. Inače ne bi trebalo referencirani materijal tako olako da se isključuje iz članaka. On je dao nekakvo obrazloženje ali sudeći prema tvojim i rečima izvora koji si naveo to je čista izmišljotina i treba to razjasniti na stranici za razgovor a sadržaj članka dopuniti.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Takođe u ovom članku na RTS-u se spominje da je u borbama oko Zlitena poginulo u prethodnih 24 časa 16 a ranjeno preko 100 pobunjeničkih boraca što bi trebalo uključiti u članak.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TB
I hope you pull back your false-claims!!! <font color="#663300">  ~ AdvertAdam  talk  04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded
Responded to your comment, Click here to return fire. Goldblooded (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Brega
I am going by what Reuters says. I understand where you are coming from, but sourced material trumps unsourced opinions here. If a reliable source says that the battle has been ongoing, then that is what is put into the article. If you can demonstrate a reliable source that says otherwise, by all means change it. But until then... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been times in the war when nothing was reported on on the Nafusa front. Did we arbitrarily end the campaign and put the result as "Inconclusive" when that happened? Of course not. Whether or not there is ongoing fighting in the town itself does not mean much; the rebels made an initial thrust and were repelled, but they weren't sent squealing back to Ajdabiya. Far from it, they continued to slowly continue moving on the town. The statement "The battle for Brega has been grinding on for weeks" has a fairly clear meaning. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the battle is a stalemate, just like the Brega-Ajdabiya one was. The initial thrust was repelled, but so was the loyalist thrust into Ajdabiya a while back, and rebels have not completely backed down. There is still military action occurring there, though it isn't a big newsworthy bloodbath. Anyway, other sources (e.g. AFP) are reporting fighting in the area of Brega, so something is ongoing. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I guess I'm just a bit reluctant to have so many pages for Brega battles; it seems a bit ridiculous. The inability of the rebels to produce conclusive results in that area is getting obnoxious. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kharkov was a bit different than Brega is, IMO. There was not as much ambiguous semi-fighting and general stagnation going on then, if I remember correctly. But anyway, I think your solution is the ideal one. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clashes in Zawiyah
(also, the reason I included the bit about the rebels in the city rising up was because, at least judging by the way the AP put it, it seemed to me like this was possibly planned- that there were rebels in the city waiting for this time)

RS
I would have thought that you of all people would know better than to source a statement in this manner... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Zawiyah deserves a mention in the box because it is a direct consequence of a Nafusa-based offensive; it is unquestionably tied to the campaign, if not "part of it".
 * Libyafeb17 is libyafeb17: an unreliable source. You can't cherry-pick parts of it just because you believe that the rebels wouldn't lie about their own difficulties. Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

That site is used for rebel propaganda to boost their morale, they use it to post only gains and victories. It is highly unlikely they would put up that kind of statement that could backfire on them, logic dictates it must be true in some part and deserves at least a mention. As for Zawiyah, when I included that raid from two months ago into the campaign you yourself said it isn't part of the campaign so we removed it. It's 80 kilometers from the mountains. It deserves some mention in the article yes I agree, but not in the box since its not part of that campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Not how things work, sorry. It isn't even a professional source, just a sort of blog. It's like citing some Tumblr post or tweet: unreliable. Just because a news bit on there reflects poorly on them does not magically make it worthy of inclusion. Besides, most updates there are (supposedly) sourced to news outlets, so if you want to include it, hunt it down in reliable sources. Otherwise, keep unreliable sources off the page, lest it start to look like that Battle of Wazzin abomination.
 * The Zawiyah raid was a comparatively minor event. 2nd Zawiyah is part of a massive offensive launched from the mountains. It's just plain dumb to omit it while simultaneously including Gharyan and Aziziya, which are targets of the exact same offensive. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying to include it in its entirety in the article, just to have a linked note in the infobox and a few lines of text. It's not unreasonable at all. Omitting 2nd Zawiyah from the page outright would be nonsensical – it is being attacked as part of the same offensive as is gharyan/aziziya. Heaven forbid we show relationships between events.
 * The article for Libyafeb17.com was speedily deleted back in May. It's not an official or professional blog, just some rebel sypathisers with computer access. By your line of thought, we should include tweets as well. What the commanders say (primary source) is valid to include when it is reported in a reliable secondary source (i.e. mainstream media). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * You still don't get it. See WP:TRUTH and WP:NEWSORG. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gharyan
What is your opinion on the existence of this article? Personally, I think it should be partially merged to the Nafusa article (like Wazzin). Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Here Moussa Ibrahim says that government troops will retake Gharyan "in a few hours". I think this is zenga zenga for "we lost Gharyan". It seems like an implicit recognition of the rebel recapture of Gharyan. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Губици у Либији
Јуче сам убацио податке у вези са губицима у бици за Брегу, ти подаци су прво објављени на РТС-овом сајту a претпостављам да су их (као обично) преузели са Ројтерса. Добро си поступио што си уклнио податке без референци, никако нећу убудуће да правим такве пропусте.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * У овом чланку је објављено да је у среду у Завији погинуло 18 побуњеника, што вероватно потиче из неког западног извора (вероватно Ројтерс, ваљало би проверити). Такође претходних дана сам приметио да постоје знатне осцилације у извештајима о губицима у такозваној Обалској офанзиви, првобитно је стајало преко шездесет мртвих до 15. августа а потом се број спустио до 40 (јуче). претпостављам да то потиче од различитих објављених извора а ситуацију је готово немогуће конзистентно пратити из дана у дана. Свака ти част на напорима да испратиш ова дешавања и освежаваш све бројеве. Поздрав,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Primetio sam da u članku 2011 Libyan rebel coastal offensive stoji da je ranjeno 109 ustanika a u članku Second Battle of Az Zawiyah stoji 126 ranjenih što se ne slaže.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Može da se ukloni, a takođe može i da se stavi taj broj koji je naveo komandant kao minimum a suma iz svih izvora objavljivanih prethodnih dana kao drugi broj uz napomenu da je tu možda reč i o ranjenim civilima. Ne znam da li si pratio glavni članak 2011 Libyan civil war tu je zaista jedno rasulo kada su podaci u pitanju. Najproblematičniji je onaj broj od 1,618–3,144 nestalih pobunjeničkih boraca, ni u jednom kasnijem izvoru nisam pronašao obrazloženje da li se ovaj broj izmenio, to jest šta se sa dotičnim osobama desilo (ranjeni, dezertirali, poginuli, zarobljeni, vratili se u borbu). Nažalost, nezavisnih posmatrača je vrlo malo pa se dosta manipuliše i sa brojevima i sa dešavanjima na obema zaraćenim stranama.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What to make of this?
According to the UN (via a Guardian article) Syrian officials themselves confirms 1900 protester deaths by mid July.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/syria-un-assad-officials-icc-prosecution?CMP=twt_gu That information is near the middle of the page. Zenithfel (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yemen
Yemen government status contested? National council formed. Should we make Yemen page  like the Libya page, with both governments listed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html

Zenithfel (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Zliten uprising merge?
Was that done? If it was, it wasn't by me, unless you're just referring to the way it was organized in the campaignbox. My understanding was that the discussion and tag concerned whether the article itself should be merged into the Battle of the Misrata frontline, which I also disagreed with; if the organization of the campaignbox was also a matter of dispute, I didn't notice that and I apologize if I jumped the gun on that in any way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya confirmation
For instance, “Government forces appeared to have fled those strategic positions and others in the eastern half of the city they still held on Friday. An Associated Press reporter visited those positions all of which are now under rebel control. In the distance, the rumble of shelling could be heard to the east.” Unless you have some reason to doubt the reporter? Seleucus (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Brega
Ne znam odakle je ali na RTS-u je objavljena vest o povlačenju pobunjeničkih snaga iz Brege zbog artiljerijske vatre:. Ne znam odakle je vest ali vredelo bi proveriti. Pozdrav, --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli & endgame...
Haha, I lose internet for two days and what happens? Rebels take most of Tripoli almost overnight, capture at least two Gaddafi sons, and seemingly bring the war to an explosive end. I feel like I am going to lose a major source of Wikiployment now that this looks to be over. It was nice working with you. You have made probably the biggest contribution of any of us in chronicling this conflict, and I applaud you. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Pretty much why I rewarded him/her with the barnstar. Its still not over, most generals still under gaddafi have not been caught, and khamis brigade is still out there and apparently even coming to Tripoli. The rebels will be gaining and losing territory in Tripoli itself until the Benghazi army somehow arrives.Zenithfel (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Yeah pretty weird too. The saif al islam not being captured actually does not surprise me, thats fog of war. What is really shocking is the ICC claiming that they "confirmed it". I guess what they mean by that is that they were assured by a rebel person they trusted. Also Mahmoud Shammam Olbeidi (new cheif of staff, x-commander of Tobruk) says that "he will reveal the saif al islam story tommorow in Tripoli", whats is that supposed to mean? Saif al islam is pretty supicious to me anyway. Everytime he makes an appearance to journalists it is a pretty believable and gut wrenching (if your a rebel supporter) story.

1st time we ever saw him he claimed Libyans wanted to divide libya and succeed and create emirates, also that 200 billion worth of projects will be canceled. He claimed drugs were responsible, and that 100,000 will die before he gives up. This was scary for us because at that time the protesters were not attacking other cities, and so we did not know if a real rebellion could succeed. We were also scared that people would buy his crap.

Much later in June he clamed that "france was going to force the NTC" into a ceasefire. Total BS but kinda worried us.

Then in August He claims he formed a "secret alliiance" with islamists to kill all the liberals and make libya and islamist state. That wasn't worrisome, that was embarrassment for him.

Now he and the NTC all pulling off this charade. Whatever. Zenithfel (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the war will continue for a bit, but the regime seems to be on its last legs. I was shocked when reading about how fast rebels took over Tripoli; I had expected more of a siege situation. Gaddafi still has some fight left in him, and the rebels are not a perfect fighting force, but I think we are entering the final chapters of the war. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I also think that Tarhuna should be green. Please revert and put your sources in the talk page, I wouldn't imagine anyone arguing against that.-- <font color="#4B088A">R <font color="#5F04B4">a <font color="#8000FF">f <font color="#BE81F7">y  talk 13:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Syria
I see your reasoning, but i have two points to make. the first is that the sources i used such as Xiuana states 2200 civilians.

The second is that UN has announced that they miscalculated the deaths, and that the true death toll is 2600

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-rt-us-syrial5e7kb0nc-20110911,0,5276141.story

2600 - 400 soldiers = 2200 civilians. Makes Sense. Either their earlier reporting was not including the soldiers, or was not including the Hama massacre/prison deaths. Keep in mind that these are only reported deaths. The unreported accounts make the true death toll far higher. Sopher99 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Response
The 700 insurgents are NOT part of the 2600 number. The government clearly says that only 700 soldiers and 700 insurgents died. That makes 1400 people dead. The UN only mentioned civilians and soilders, not insurgents. So 700 is a separate number. You also have to mention it is government claimed. You dont have to do the same for the civilians and soldiers, because the UN confirmed both were killed.

If you noticed I had already put the insurgent fatality, just relocated it, to make it more clearer, and to point out that the Government claim is NOT part of the UN/SOFH claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Syrian_uprising&diff=450821093&oldid=450820283

By the way, you have already violated the 3 revert rule, if you count yesterday's edits, not that i feel like reporting you.

I am going to ask the others users to revert it back to where the fatalities list INCLUDES the insurgents, just NOT AS PART of the the civilian casualties. Saying (700 of which claimed ot be insurgents) implies that the Syrian goverment is adressing the 2600 number directly, which they are not. The Syrian government fully rejects the UN reports as a conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First of, I wasn't in violation of the 3RR rule because there is a limit to it. You can't revert 3 times within 24 hours. Second, even if I reverted 3 times I am not in violation of the rule because I was the one who initialy made the edit. Per the terms of the rule the one who is in violation is the one who reverted the edits of the initial editor. Third, the government obviously doesn't admitt any civilian casualties and regards those classified as civilians by the opposition and the UN as insurgents. That is clear as day. Don't know what's so confusing about that. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sidra
I have no objections. Go right ahead. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wondering
Just wondering, what motivates you to keep extremely specific figures on the amount of deaths that happen in the arab spring? You could save yourself a hell of a lot of time using references instead of this painstaking research. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Im saying that the death toll figures are too peculiar. The arab spring article curently has numbers like 2,981 and 1,638 which i find pretty retarded. Newspapers usually give rounded numbers whereas your figure methods are unprecedented. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="orange" face="papyrus">talk  00:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording
Might I ask about this. Wording more complicated than necessary or something else? I don't see anything wrong with the grammar and it means exactly what the citation says (goal of NATO is to protect civilians; according to some the bombings are counterproductive in achieving that goal). A second and minor issue: I'm sure that edit summary was meant in a humorous way and I took absolutely no offence of it, but I have seen comparable edit summaries perceived as incivility. Especially when "better wording", "clarity" or alike was entirely sufficient. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. It is appreciated. On an entirely unrelated matter, you might want to 3rr warn this fellow using the template
 * Battle of Sirte (2011) ~
 * on his talk page (I haven't, because I'm not involved in the matter). Of course that is entirely up to you, but in general WP:AN3 are more favourable to requests if the person has been warned on his talk page and still continues. RN1970 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bani Walid
The article finishes on September 30th. What is your source for saying that today the second phase started? I should put the battle as finished on 30 September and wait until a new offensive into Bani Walid is launched to put the second phase. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * However, I should wait some days. Maybe there is another week without news from there. Also, I`ve reverted your edition in Battle of Ghat: I think consensus must be reached before doing that. If you want, propose it in the discussion. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You´re right. I thought it was based in realible sources, but, as you say, they aren´t. About Bani Walid, I support you, but I am still not sure if a great scale offensive will start this days. The two towns mentioned (I think they´re and  are far away from Bani Walid and I have fount no independent confirmation saying (this) airport has been taken by Rebels. But, let´s see. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sirte execution claims
I see you have moved from "anti-Gaddafi forces claim" to "it happened" with regards to two accusations of executions by pro-Gaddafi forces. You based that on medical team's report in which they were confirmed as civilians (not sure how can he confirm that, but OK). However there is NO WAY FOR A DOCTOR TO FIND OUT WHO EXECUTED THEM! Unless he was there... (Though, then it is a claim too.)

Basically, I would see it OK to claim they were executed (which can be proven). I would even be OK they were civilians (harder, but OK). But we shall under no circumstances be the judges here on who did it. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have modified the text (as little as possible) to clearly state that currently it is only an allegation by one of the warring parties. When there is a proper forensic investigation with weapons identified etc. Then I am all for removing the "alleged" part.94.113.101.38 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Khamis Confirmed dead
Arrai TV (Gaddafi's last television station, which he has been using to release messages) has confirmed Khamis Gaddafi's death. He had died on August 29 in Tarhuna.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/16/us-libya-khamis-idUSTRE79F30Y20111016

Zenithfel (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * +1 for Papa Mu'ammar. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sana'a
I think that calling it a "second phase" when it happened 3 months later is a very big stretch. Personally, I think it should be made into a separate article; there is too much time separating the events to have it reasonably called the same battle. The fact that it is happening in the same city is irrelevant: for example, Brega I, II, III, and IV are all treated separately even though they all happened in and around Brega. My thoughts.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Inter-factional
The name sounds a bit wordy and cumbersome, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.

With regards to BW, interior minister Fawzi is saying that there were no "loyalists", just riots over housing or something. I'm not sure if I believe him, but it's worth waiting a bit for conclusive information.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it's kind of a lame excuse.... but with Mu'ammar dead and his family and officials imprisoned or in exile, loyalists are not really going to do much. They'll be a pain in the ass for a little while, but I really don't think they won't succeed in bringing about any widespread counterrevolution. They have less popular support than the NTC and no real leaders. The biggest threat to the NTC is the rebel gangs that control most of the cities who can't seem to grasp the notion that a central government actually gets things done. W/e, revolutions never immediately bring the change desired. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)


 * People also generally didn't try any funny business under Hitler. Strong dictators tend to have that effect on a society. I don't think Libya will be like this forever. Maybe a few years will go by before a truly stable government comes into place, but that is not at all uncommon with bloody revolutions (cf. France, America). We'll see. In the meantime, we'll keep chronicling its progress (or lack thereof).... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bani Walid
Tribal elders in BW are now expressly denying any loyalist involvement in the events in their town: ''But elders on Tuesday disputed that account. "In the Libyan revolution, we have all become brothers. We will not be an obstacle to progress," said another elder, Miftah Jubarra. "Regarding allegations of pro-Gaddafi elements in Bani Walid, this is not true. This is the media. You will go around the city and find no green flags or pictures of Gaddafi."''

Looks like I may have been right in waiting a bit for a verdict.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RT
Russia Today is a state-controlled media source from a country with worse freedom of press than Zimbabwe that has the worrisome tendency to cater to NWO theorists and the like. The fact that it's so popular in the US means nothing; allow me to be the first to say that I live in a country of idiots who consume sensationalist news like they consume fast food. It's not the worst source you could use (e.g., that trash heap known as "Mathaba"), but it is not strongly reliable, either.... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See my proposal to resolve our disagreement
Please see here.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Syrian Talk page
I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
From the looks of it User:ChronicalUsual has been pretty feisty recently, he even got himself banned for a week, one for breaking the 3rv rule, and second for calling an admin an idiot. I want to also point out that he has been banned before. If you might recall our old friends User:Geromasis and User:FreemanSA. I am almost 100% that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got band, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. After a quick look at the revision history of the 2011 Syrian uprising, it looks like ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his band User:FavorLaw. I don't know how to report sockaccounts, but I am sure you do. Zenithfel (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geromasis, noticed Geromasis's page was deleted, so heres this instead. Zenithfel (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of references
I actually did explain why I removed the wordpress one. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. I'll try to find a reliable source and replace it. Jeancey (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment
Just a light comment I would like to make - the LCC promoted a death of of 7200 on Feb 5, and as you noted, one of over 9000 at this current. This is in fact believable if you taken into account that over 1000 civilian have died in Homs and its Bab Amr area within the last 3 weeks. The fact that even to this date the Syrian army has been repulsed during its ground sieges on Babr amr, when there is only supposedly 200-300 fsa on the ground in Bab Amr also indicates high unreported casualties on the Syrian army's side.

Whenever there are battles, the situation appears to be more deadlier than the ones in Libya. In libya a huge proportion of the local population fled, in Syria not so much. In syria, civilians have been encouraged to intentionally go outside to face the security forces, in Libya that did not occur. Then again there was no internet or phones active in the battle front sections of Libya, or any elaborate activist network like the LCC so the true death toll there is probably much higher.

It is very conceivable that the death toll has accelerated to 100-120 a day now. For the past 11 months the Syrian army has rarely ever used artillery shelling. Now they are using it in mass. Artillery shelling is the deadliest conventional weapon that they have.

In conclusion I believe the civilian death toll to be at least 9000 (definitely much more because the activists don't know everything that happens), along with over 3k syrian army casualties (hit an run attacks in urban area can do alot of damage, and elements of the Syrian army are committing sabotage on themselves frequently, due to sympathy for the anti-goverment section) and 900 FSA deaths reported. Shabeeha, secret police, and informer deaths are almost never reported by either side too. In conclusion in all likliness true death toll is 12-13k, not including prison massacres or captive executions we don't know about. Sopher99 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another comment
it is worth noting than almost the entirety of Avaaz's contacts are civilian soldiers. I am not sure how or why, but in someway Avaaz was able to establish large-scale connections with the Insurgency. Because the insurgents civilian don't identify themselves as rebel, and rather identify themselves as just civilians with guns, Avaaz too identify's the civilian insurgents as just ordinary citizens. Avaaz elaborate reports of deaths and humanitarian disaster strives from their personal contact with civilians whose life goal right now is to investigate and record these things. The insurgent civilians have more mobility than the regular ones as well. Civilians carrying weapons are immediately executed, as are defectors. I am just explaining the disparity between Avaaz and the UN, where the UN collects individual reports from generally neutral, stay at home citizens, Avaaz collects reports from citizen insurgents, which Avaaz identifies as just regular people, but who defend themselves. Sopher99 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think using the Syrian government as a comparison is too wise. The SOHR is a small group with connections established by the British government to political institutions (even state-controlled) within Syria. The SOHR is a dozen people who get info from a few dozen people heading community organizations within Syria. The LCC and Revolution commission (Shuhada) are the same group, and are made up of several thousands associates on the ground in Syria who lede demonstrators. The LCC and such uses a nexus of cellphone users who report the death toll in each neighborhood and town in Syria, excluding Tartous, much of Latakia, several dozen villages in the Deir Ezzor provinces, and the towns directly north of Damascus. Avaaz gets its info from insurgents and what the insurgents report. The UN gets its info from a (very) few LCC activists, SNC members, Human Rights Watch, maybe Avaaz, and comitees established to oversee and reports events in Syria, and above all the Human Rights Council (Navi Pallay). Sopher99 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 44-47 soldiers executed
These soldiers, allgedly killed for trying to defect were still part of the Syrian army. Remember, not every soldier killed in the fighting is a loyalist to the Syrian Baath party. They are waiting for an ample time to either flee the country or defect to the opposition. Technically, since they hadn't offically "defected" yet they were still part of the Syrian army, many soldiers, ESPCICALLY Sunni conscripts, aren't loyal to the to army, still trying to find a time to escape when they won't get executed, like the 44-47 soldiers were here. If you REALLY insist on putting them on the FSA casualtly list instead of Syrian army AND feverently insisting on putting the highest number possible instead of taking it from both groups claims, then you need to take Wikipedia 101 again. Take a look at combatant 1, please. Armed groups are FSA and SLA. They were not yet part of either group. And for all you know, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN "trying to rebel", they might have been trying to go home. Goltak (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian page
The bytes on the Syrian page are starting to rack up fast. It may be reasonable to create a separate page called timeline of Combatant deaths 2012 onward, and use the info on that page as a single reference, rather than adding a series of references every day for new combatants killed. Sopher99 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 insurgency in northern Mali
Discuss the issues on the talk page...as many editors are doing. ANd refrain from attacks in edit summaries which cause wars not onsensus discussionsLihaas (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Barnstar
I awarded you a new barnstar. Congrats for your dilligent work, Jacob102699 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New Bombing
New bombing in Hama. Looks like a new page to create. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sort template
If you don't know what the sort template does, then why are you screwing around with it on other people's pages, eh? Varlaam (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Will you be fixing that page, or shall I? Varlaam (talk)
 * I got tired of waiting for you to fix your thoughtless mistake on a page which has been under daily development for 2 months. Varlaam (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

reply
Sorry, no. You have been here plenty long enough to carry your own water. I am a bit suspicious of your motives, frankly. If you want it deleted, find out how and nominate it yourself. See WP:AfD. Good day! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I have regretted getting involved with the first article you mentioned and I made the mistake of answering something first thing in the AM.  It was wrong of me not to assume good faith and I apologize.  It is my intention of staying as far away from anything concerning the Middle East as I can.  Good luck with your first AfD.  Remember that opinions don't matter there only policy.  Make sure you reference policy whenever you weigh in at AfD. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede
The new report finds that the Syrian government deliberately kills children. I think its safe to put "by government forces". When the source says in the 12 months of violence they mean during the 12 months of violence. Also why bother putting "the government contests" if they already contest everything and the UN confirmed all this? I7laseral (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

lie
"And we do not engage in edit wars (reverting dozens of times other peoples edits)", - i dont think thats right ekograf 'dozens of times'- please don't paint me in a deliberately exaggerated light by lying. nasty. Sayerslle (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New toll
This article today at the "angry crowds" subsection says that UN monitors now put the death toll at 14,100 (not too surprising considering their last death toll of "at least 10,000" dates to mid-April).

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201261313238664240.html I7laseral (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present)
Hey EkoGraf, I read your comment over at Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present) about the use of the and. I've looked over each template documentation and decided that you were right. I think it is safe to assume that this will become a war in the future and the use of is justified. Thanks for improving the article. --   Luke      (Talk)   23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again
Good to see you still around, so the point is that have a look at your previous subject Libyan civil war sometimes and the edit history because it's once again slandered by the childish edit warriors. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian foreign fighters
Eko, don´t know if you read what I wrote on the discussion but these are the quotes from the very source either you or someone else who wanted to emphatize presence of foreign fighters in Syria.

''Although the trickle of foreign fighters into Syria seems to have picked up in recent months, they still comprise a very small portion of those battling the Assad regime. Any verified evidence of such fighters no doubt plays into Assad's rhetoric, but he has grossly exaggerated a small phenomenon -- all estimates indicate that well over 90 percent of the fighters are Syrian and non-jihadist. foreign fighters in Syria have yet to have a known force-multiplying effect on the level seen in Iraq''

The source itself says that number and strenght of foreign fighters in Syria is minimal and not on level of Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the same source which you use when you quote the numbers. If the source itself attacks notability of giving them bigger importance than there really is (WP:DUE) than, to be completely honest, saying that they simply are notable seems to me like OR.

Regarding Fatah al-Islam

Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin."

I don´t see how that needs any discussion. Besides, we are talking about 30, yet they are in same infobox as 200,000 strong Syrian army, tens of thousands FSA, Shabiha which number are unknown to us but they have presence in most government-controlled Syria etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHR number
SOHR is the only group I know of that has admitted to deliberately doing this. I don't think that note should be in the infobox because we don't include SOHR's count for rebel fatalities and we don't have any reliable evidence to say that other opposition groups do the same. (Aside from Nir Rosen, who is allegedly a contact with the Syrian Government). We have his allegations that opposition groups, such as SOHR, are falsely presenting rebel deaths as civilians in the article already. For the sake of neutrality, change the the wording or remove it beacause it literally implies all opposition does this. "Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians." Goltak (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I didn't know that other opposition groups were allgedly doing this. Ok then. Anyway, do you think that the recent events in Khan Sheikoun warrant an article?Goltak (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and belligerents
Since you have decided to bring Soviet war in Afghanistan as an example as which sides to include in the belligerents section, i would like to point you attention to the rediculous fact that the data belligerents in the article is mostly based on popular holliwood movie Charlie Wilson's War (it is also boldy sited as a source). Not withstanding that, some editor of the article is defending it against any changes, clearly violating WP:OWN (also WP:RS, as the sources say "India refused to support Afghanistan", and he says it did). Even though you are mostly concentrated on Syrian uprising articles, i would still ask your help on making proper order at the Soviet war in Afghanistan article (since you have mentioned it yourself). Later let's discuss Syrian uprising belligerents and supporters. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria unrest
And do you find the sources of the Iranian and Hizbollah involvement are reliable??? I am going to remove them as well, considering the sources unreliable.--Preacher lad (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks
EkoGraf, I would like to express my gratitude for your recent edits on the Tremseh massacre to develop a neutral article. Thanks indeed, Egeymi (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources, comments
I apologise for my abrupt manner.

I checked the history of the article very carefully before i commented, to fid out at what point the words "in line with" were introduced, and by whom, which was why I commented on your posting, rather than make a general comment. Quoting the bbc directly on saying that the figures were "in line" with other figures given is fine. But given that the statements as they were quote were not "in line" with each other, then saying that they were was an "interpretation".

If one is writing about a book, a rock group or a computer game, and expressions which are interpretive  or not strictly accurate creep in, then it doesn't really matter all much. But writing up news stories for an encyclopedia really does tax the Wiki editor to do it just right. I do realise that it is not easy.

One of the problems that must beset you fairly frequently is that people do come along and add sentences, or an extension to a sentence that interrupt the flow and can disrupt the sense of either consecutive sentences or a whole section.... They do it even to the sort of art articles which I generally write, and the problem is obviously much more acute with news articles. Amandajm (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

an article for Tremseh killings
Hi EkoGraf. I have lost my desire to edit this article, although I follow it. Today I have found an article from The Daily Star. It may be helpful in your attempts. Maybe you can easily find it, but please regard it as a good faith. Best, Egeymi (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-16/180726-tremseh-from-village-to-syria-killing-zone.ashx#axzz20oJ7FEtq

Damascus
Do I didn't, at least not intentionally. I'm trying to place everything in an order that makes sense. Sorry if I reverted any of your contribs. Goltak (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get why. I reverted one of your edits once that seemed to have deleted some of the article. Goltak (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration
To copy-paste on the end of here...


 * Richard Haass has argued that one way to encourage top-level defections is to "threaten war-crimes indictments by a certain date, say, August 15, for any senior official who remains a part of the government and is associated with its campaign against the Syrian people. Naming these individuals would concentrate minds in Damascus."

... and to copy-paste this into this section somewhere:


 * Richard Haass has said that "the crisis in Syria warrants outside intervention, but mostly with tools other than arms", arguing that arming the opposition only militarises the conflict and prepares a post-Assad Syria for a violent expression of differences.

Up to you, just you seem active on these articles. Skirtsy <sup style="position:relative">My talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">Edits 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you think this is worth copy-pasting onto the end of this section, feel free to do so:
 * According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, 13 journalists were killed in work-related incidents during the first eighteen months of the uprising. During the same period, Reporters Without Borders said a total of 33 journalists were killed. Many, such as Marie Colvin, were killed by government forces, but at least one, French journalist Gilles Jacquier, was killed be rebel fire.
 * Skirtsy <sup style="position:relative">My talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">Edits 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Damascus bombing move proposal
Hi, could you voice your opinion on this matter Talk:18_July_2012_Damascus_suicide_bombing. I don´t want to get into another edit war with that "editor" and consensus about it should be easily made. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo {2012}
can you help me writing this article .(Alhanuty (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Syrian Kurdistan
Hi, Eko. I want to start working on article Syrian Kurdistan campaign (or something similiar). Given how little attention this area gets in the majority of media (beside one article in CNN which was full of "ze evil Kurds are gonna kill Turks" mongering), I will be probably using rudaw.net as primary source. We already have name of those joint PYD-KNC milias (Popular Protection Units), we know that three cities have fallen and there is ongoing battle in Qamishli so I invite you to help with its creation. Who knows, maybe it will bring some attention as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, beginning is done. 2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign Since I do not have large experience with creating articles, rather just editing them any help is welcome. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Midan street fighting.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Midan street fighting.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the media description page and edit it to add, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus shows civil war
The vote has ended leaving 6 opposes to 45 supports.

Subsequently an admin must change the title to such. Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding table markup
Hi. I removed some non-standard markup from the death statistics tables in the Syrian Civil War article. You've put it back again, with the comment that it "looks better to distinguish this way". I'm sorry, but I disagree. This sort of layout is non-standard for a good reason. There's no need to "distinguish" anything in this context. Words and numbers are perfectly clear enough to hold their own, without being made bold or put in CAPITAL LETTERS, or even -- as was the case here -- BRIGHT RED CAPITAL LETTERS. "68 deaths" is easier to read than "68 deaths" -- so why use the latter? "Total" means just the same as TOTAL -- again, why use the latter, when the first suffices?

Other tables of deaths in other articles (and, indeed, the several other tables of deaths in this article that didn't have this markup in) manage quite well without typographical flourishes: the serious subject of human death needs typographical restraint, not the visual equivalent of shouting. -- Chronulator (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia conventions are to use the least possible markup, unless there is a specific convention that it's acceptable in a specific content. Consider this: if " TOTAL " is better than "Total", wouldn't " TOTAL " be even better? Perhaps putting the deaths in Comic Sans would make them even more "distinguish"? Maybe we should put "dead" in a Fraktur font to make it look more sad? Or would that just be silly? Yes. Yes it would be silly. Or at least very jarring, and I this is how it looks to many other people. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Meanwhile, I support converting all controversial words/sections into Windings font. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria
As many as a quarter of 300 rebel groups

Some rebel groups, such as the farouk brigade, has 10,000-15,000 personnel.

Please do not try to contrive a number out of Mike Roger's statement. Sopher99 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They simply counted 300 groups. Doesn't mean they make up 1/4. Its original research. Please wait until an official or inclusively investigated number comes in. Its not urgent is it? You can wait. Sopher99 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo
I don't think you get it - the Muhafaza, Khalidyah and the Sabhan districts ARE the "city center". They are where the rich people live, where the military court is, where the justice palace is, where the baath hq is, where the airforce intelligence is, and where the city hall is. Northwest aleppo IS the city center. South Eastern Aleppo (where rebels destroyed police stations today) is known as OLD ALEPPO. Sopher99 (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Then can we please remove these lame percentages altogether? Rebels don't use checkpoints, they are an insurgency. They don't control things and are constantly on the move. Very vague. Most streets in rebel held districts don't have rebels on them because they are busy fighting on front lines. Using percentages is a very poor choice. Sopher99 (talk)

Whenever Syrian army forces retreat from an area, it becomes "rebel held". There are only 4k rebels for a city of 4 million. Think about that for a second. Sopher99 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

USA in infobox
I hope you realize their support is non lethal only. Not military support. Medical supplies and radios. Sopher99 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed by name?
What do you mean by confirmed by name?

I saw that you added the 50 killed in Salaheddine written in the Reuters report but why don't you add the 16 killed in Daraa that were in the same report?--DanielUmel (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds
I'm going to quote the source directly - Sopher99 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Berri
There is no proof that the al-Berri tribe is Shabiha. This is a stupid thing to say, how a whole sunni tribe could be member of an Alawite militia? This is non sense. Pro governement gunmen are not all Shabiha. This is an big mistake. Also they deny to be Shabiha so we have to go with that. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The "whole sunni tribe" is not a shabiha organization Zaino is just the leader of the aleppo shabiha. Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al-Berri members say that they are not Shabiha. It is not because they are loyalist that they are Shabiha. Shabiha are new Alawite paramilitary groups, not an old sunni tribe. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Most shabiha are alawite, but Sunnis shabiha exist. They are not a "new" group either. They existed for 30 years. The article in which you were referring to tells of how a specific berri family were name-called as shabiha, despite not being. Sopher99 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So the al Berri tribe is not Shabiha, point proved. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Most shabiha in Aleppo hail from the Barris, but the tribe is not a shabiha tribe, as shabiha "tribes" don't exist. Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So at the very least, the al Berri tribe must have a Syrian Flag next to them and not a * putting them as a subgroup of Shabiha --DanielUmel (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said they shouldn't have a Syrian flag next to them. Sopher99 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * But they are considered part of the Shabiha by most reliable sources thus their fighters are a sub-category of the overall Shabiha. EkoGraf (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see these "most reliable source". And by common logic, a tribe can not be Shabiha. This is non sense. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the multiple sources in the article. All are pointing to the al-Berri tribe being a pro-Assad tribe whose tribesmen are Shabiha militiamen. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you a concrete exemple? Like I said, I have a source with al-Berri members denying being Shabiha. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823087 Heres one thats stands out to me. Sopher99 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would deny too if I was about to be executed. Anyway, read the sources in the article in the section on the Shabiha executions. Here are just a few examples Fierce clashes took place today between gunmen loyal to the regime, including the Al-Berri tribe and others, Zeino al-Barri, a politician from a Sunni clan loyal to Syria's President, is killed publicly in Aleppo.. But I don't have time to list you all the sources, look them up they are in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Being loyal to Assad does not make them Shabiha. I am sorry but this is the reality. And don't say that I am edit warring as you both made much more reverts than me on this page today. Much more. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Read the sources, not the titles, including mine. Anyway discussion over. Go add a flag to the barri clan if you wish. Sopher99 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The other sources are explicit in calling them Shabiha, what is there not to understand in that? Like Sopher says, read the whole article not just the titles. They are stated to be part of the Shabiha. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Sopher, your source looks like a random blog


 * 2) Some members are maybe Shabiha, even if I doubt that, but there are no proof that all the gunmen of the tribe are Shabiha, this is unsourced and original search. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's original research when you say Some members are maybe Shabiha, even if I doubt that, As for proof, for the 3rd time, read the sources. Quoting again for you ''But the term "Shabiha" has broadened since the uprising started 17 months ago in Syria. Now it covers all the "unlicensed" enforcers doing the dirty work of the regime.'' EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So Shabiha are Shabiha even if they are not Shabiha members because they are pro governement? This is going too far. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any person hired by the Syrian government to fight for them without given license (military, police, ect), is a shabiha, (a word translating to Ghoul). There is an upper ring of shabiha that works as a mafia organization. Sopher99 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Even if you or me think that is going too far that is how the mainstream media regard them and per Wikipedia regulations we go with that. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the Damascus page and you count and sum all the rebels casualties, you find the 476 number and that it is why it is more sourced. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds
http://www.rudaw.net/english/science/columnists/5063.html

Explains that the PYD/PKK want neither the FSA or the regime in their territory. They don't want to fight either, but have to if either one comes into their territory. They don't want conflict with the gov, so they can;t have the FSA in their territory, but they don't want to be under gov control either. Sopher99 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"There were also claims that the PYD slowed down the FSA’s offensive into Aleppo by refusing them entry. For its part, the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade prefers to stay out of internal Kurdish disputes and focus on Assad’s security forces." It even names the group, the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade (Salahaddin is a famous Kurdish warrior - does not refer to the district, which is named after the Kurdish Warrior) Sopher99 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rudaw.net is the most reliable source when it comes to Kurdish activities. Even the PYD leader gives many interviews with Rudaw. You cannot rule out that the NY times made a mistake, particularly because the NY times was the only source for that incident at the time, and there story was very vague. Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian
Oops I was looking at the August 9th's blog. I didn't know the Guardian starts a new blog for every day. Sopher99 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
Hey. Any chance you and a few others can get together with me to get the mention of US support back in. Sopher99 is quite obviously American, and seems to want to portray the US as the good guy in this. I'd like to put in about my country's support too. Hairgelmare (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Eko! Hairgelmare (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Recapture of Salaheddine
I agree that we shouldn't include the LA's news in the infobox abut rebels recapturing the neigbourhood until all sources, including government's forces confrime that they pulled back or that rebels succeeded to advance. We also waited confrimation of rebels and other reliable sources to confrime the Army's recapture, and we should do the same in this case. -- Wustenfuchs  18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I agree too. No one is reporting the current situation in Aleppo other than Thursaday's events, so lets leave the infobox the way it is. Sopher99 (talk)


 * (Re:Salaheddine) Tottaly agree with you on that one. Anyways... we don't get enough news these days. After army recaptured Salaheddine, nobody gave any significant news about the battle, only the diplomatic relations. Clinton visits Erdogan, Army clashes with Jordanian troops/rebels... etc. -- Wustenfuchs  18:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Salaheddine
TIme for a separate Battle of Salaheddine page? We sure have enough info for one, it will help make the article easier to navigate. Sopher99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

siege of homs
i was adding right information EkoGraf,there was an incursion and minor fighting in al shamash district in homs,so i thought of putting as a third offensive for the regimes army ,secondly I ONLY ADD RIGHT AND SOURCED ONES ONLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps
This map gives a completely different detail. I think this confirms to us that maps from news sites many a times do not concur with eachother.

Can I have your permission to change it to South and Eastern, rather than just northeastern?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/07/syria-rebels-verge-seizing-aleppo I7laseral (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Fall"
I can't help but feel that the "Fall" part of the section title is inadvertently POV pushing. War and conflict articles label the battles simply as battles, regardless of whether one side crushed the other or not. Even as early as this year. Battle of Tripoli, not fall of tripoli. Battle of Brega, not fall of Brega. Battle of Idlib, not fall of Idlib. Battle of Zabadani not fall of Zabadani ect.

Saying Fall of Salahaedne gives the impression that one belligerent completely wiped out the other. But this is not the case, as the FSA are still in Salaheddine as a insurgent force. I would like it to be changed to battle of salaheddine.

Furthermore its kind of ludicrous to say "fall of Salaheddine" when rebels only held salahedine for a period of 10 days. Its not a fortress, or a long term rebel bastion. ts just a district. Sopher99 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Really appreciate it thanks =) Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army
I don't really see a problem in your edits in this article. If you sourced the informations properly they shouldn't be removed. On contrary, I think that removing of those informations is pushing a point of view into the article. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 02:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebel advance
I made a revert on the BoA article because User:Alhanuty erased the 19 August info. Nevertheless, I left a message on his talk page to return the information with detailed informations (oppoistion claim, verification); but you already did it yourself. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia workshops (online and face-to-face - expenses paid for)
Dear EkoGraf, We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to. First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions. Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below. We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details. Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

OIIOxford (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 11:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this message was meant for you, ekograf, but was also sent to Tachfin as someone who edits Arab world articles, so I'm sorry for the confusion. Would you be interested in attending our workshops to share your experiences? Many thanks. OIIOxford (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great! If you want more details about both workshops you can email the team at wikiproject@ooi.ox.ac.uk and they will let you know how to join in! :) OIIOxford (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Vandal
Indeed. I've blocked two of their IPs already. I have also semi-protected your user page for a couple days. That will prevent anons from reintroducing the flag. Cheers, Resolute 23:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo
Oops I tried to undo the ip - ended up undoing the other guy. Sorry. Sopher99 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

SANA
I agree with you, it's good proposal. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, we could drop out parts like "many of them were killed" and add only at the end that during the day larger number of rebels was killed. Also, we should mention all of the clashes in one santence, for example: "the Army clashed with rebels in Salaheddine, Saif-al Dawla, Children Hospital in the Old City..." after which we should add that large number of rebels was reportedly killed and if there was any arrests or arms capture we should add that at the end. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it good so far? This is how I think we could summarize the SANA paragraphs... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think so to... good work. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Civil War
What the hell happened there? The rebels' supporters were removed... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

About copyvios
Removing major copyright violations outright is an appropriate course of action. They are not taken lightly around here at all. There have been cases in which even top content contributors and bureaucrats have been indefinitely blocked for repeated violation. Obviously it is good to reword things, but given the severe legal implications, blanking is entirely acceptable. You should read up on WP:Copyrights: "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed." [emphasis mine] Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Aleppo (2012). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

KIA rebel commander (SOHR)
That part was added by l7laseral I think. The SOHR report mentioned them as "one rebel commander" and "rebel im his group". SANA reported that rebel commander was killed and gave his full name and the rebel from his group was named by SANA as a gunman of his group.... But I really haven't read the SOHR's report. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, I know that, but if you compare the reports - rebel comander (unnamed)=rebel commander named; rebel from his group=gunman from his group... I just thought it's to similiar to be otherwise. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

connection to zionism
you are a zionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Damascus
Sorry Eko... I had a lot of work in my faculty... I couldn't read your message. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 14:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Damascus reverts
Considering the Arabic name user... pardon me again... I haven't noticed your message on my talk page. However, I did help, I hope...

Cheers.

--<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm 90% sure he would be the only one who would continue to claim that the battle is still ongoing... --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm able to help only today and monday... tommorow I'm busy with the election the whole day. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * General Municipal election, Bosnia and Herzegovina. :) --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Tu smo dakle... haha, pa hvala. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 17:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing remarks on splitting procedure for "Battle of Al-Qusayr"
Dear user, you have participated in the splitting procedure for the article "Battle of Al-Qusayr". Please check the talk page of this article for closing remarks at Talk:Battle_of_Al-Qusayr. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP users on the Syrian civil war talk page. Help?
There are 2 IP users who are clearly angry over having PKK in the infobox. Help? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested
I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone is stealing my work!
Check this out: A pro-Assad Iranian news website is using my Highway map. They shifted the image and didn't attribute the work to me! LOL. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not official
The death of Khamis Gaddafi today is not official at all. The news about his capture and deaths have been going on for more than 6 hours and the promised photography did not come. Now officials are saying that no valuables former Gaddafi loyalists have been arrested.

The Guardian may have been fooled by the rumor. By exemple, Mussa Ibrahim just released an audio proving he was not captured. I would be a lot more cautious before changing Wikipedia. --Sibbinbubbles (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qusayr, still under siege?
What do think of this: ? It says the town is captured by the rebels and it's still under siege, with people fleeing last week. Should we change the status on the Battle of Al-Qusayr article?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some insight into this discussion?
The debate at the Talk:Syrian civil war section is getting heated. Can you shine some light on this issue?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Award
P. S. - You made 800 edits only at the Battle of Aleppo... :) --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 01:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fatah al-Islam
Hi, I´ve sat down and finally read most parts of this IOW study. You know that I´ve been bugging about the Fatah al-Islam for a long time, but this time on page 33 and further (Jabhat al-Nusra chapter) you can find out that Fatah al-Islam fighters are fighting under Jabhat Nusra banner. Does this suffice for its removal? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Scratch that, it isn´t there anymore. Should´ve checked it out, will try to be not that lazy next time. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Come and join the discussion about updating the map. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya factional fighting article
Hi, I´ve been thinking about this for a while and would like to discuss this with you. As you surely know, article is anything but WP:NOTNEWS so I´d like to talk over these few points

1, Is it really necessary and shouldn´t it be merged with Aftermath of the Libyan civil war article? Outside of wikipedia I never saw one article which would refer to events in Libya in past year as separate event from the Aftermath in general. Also see point 2

2, We have too many informations and article is now archive of any news regarding Libya in past year. We should identify relevant major events such as fighting in Kufra and Bani Walid and separate it from various shoot-outs which lasted for few hours without any real effect on future events. What should we keep and what should we remove per NOTNEWS? Also if we manage to shorten article to sufficient length won´t it be better to merge per point 1?

Thanks for your opinion. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo
In Aleppo on Monday were released from armed groups the areas adjacent to the roundabout Liramun the north of the city. http://www.itar-tass.com/c45/563859.html Any other sources for that? And by the way is this outside map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:EllsworthSK
EllsworthSK (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Please comment on this. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovar killed in Syria
Are there any articles related to the Syrian-Turkish border clashes. An Albanian from Kosovo was killed yesterday. . I think you'll find this interesting, nevertheless, if you haven't read it earlier.

Cheers. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 23:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012
Please comment about this user: WP:ANI.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

He's just ****** the battle of aleppo map. He should get kicked outta here Amedjay (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Title change?
Can you comment on this? Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo discussion
What about my argument there at the talk page, any thoughts? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 11:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts about removing the same line in the Syrian civil war article? --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Column for Kurds
I've come up with possible compromise here: Talk:Syrian civil war. Unfortunately, some are still demanding a third column. What do you think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re
Duly noted. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 15:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Syria - Presentation
Hi,

I am a contributor to French wikipedia, I see your work for several months, If you do not mind, I'd like to help with the following in regard to the civil war, the atmosphere on the French wikipedia was bad ...

Maurcich (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Watch this. The rebels have apparently surrounded the academy in Aleppo, but I can't quite decipher their exact locations. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Homs
According to Lebanese sources, the district of al-Jurat Chayyah be resumed by the army. A check. Maurcich (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I find this article to update the article http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/homs-is-calm-for-now-but-the-fear-remains-8405423.html Maurcich (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo
The Prime Minister is visiting Aleppo http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3434.html?m=0 and http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3435.html?m=0 And finally http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3435.html?m=0 Maurcich (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Abdelqadir al-Saleh
I'm the one who put him as WIA. And he was wounded for sure. A pro rebel Youtube channel showed him wounded in a hospital bed. I checked the pictures of him interviews and the one in the bed and it was the same person. However, there are not "neutral" sources to confirm it, or the other rebel commanders fate.--Andres arg (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties
Sure, use the 10k SOHR report to replace the other estimates of rebel casualties. Sopher99 (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army article
Can you comment on this? Talk:Free Syrian Army. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Title change
Can you comment on this also? Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present). -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maarrat al-Nu'man
Hi, a video posted today announced that Maarrat al-Nu'man and around the base of Wadi Deif ontété "cleaned" the presence of rebels, what do t-us? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=363_1356271251 Maurcich (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, you have a way to have sources on this battle because it is true that a simple video is not enough Maurcich (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Congo
Can you comment on this? Talk:2012 East D.R. Congo conflict -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties
if you have problem with the edit i done in Casualties of the Syrian civil war in the Foreign civilians killed part you can talk with me about that

in the 'talk' page,i already explain the reason ther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.169.176 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Douma
Hi, I read the article "Battle of Duma" and I think that the result of the battle is not good. It is written that:

"FSA regains control of the district by late October."

This is correct, but the article is about the battle that took place from 21-30 January 2012, but the FSA takes control of the city in October. The result of the battle should not appear because it does not relate what took place in January. What do you think ? Maurcich (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll be there to support you Maurcich (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of Palestinins
I really don't know the problem with this IP, I told him once, but he only repeated his argument. I'm really out of comment. Until he shows any source he has nothing to comment. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 21:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, all the best in this new year. Cheers. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Casualties of the Syrian civil war "dispute"
I left a message in the IP address' talk page, recommending that they go to WP:DR/N if they feel the discussion so far hasn't been fair, etc. I have the page in my watchlist, just in case I start seeing contentious edits; ultimately they can be reported to WP:AN and a soft block of a few hours usually serves to defuse the situation if an admin thinks it's warranted. Requesting page protection would also be useful if the issue continues, but we'll see. Cheers! § FreeRangeFrog croak 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

washington post
the source you brought say literally A government official said regime forces had taken much of Daraya, an area on the edge of a major military air base just south of the capital,so not confirmed,and assad officals don't allow independent jounalist to enter the country and is even no proof of them retaking most of darraya,and for the sohr,it say literally Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged “the army has entered most of Daraya’s neighborhoods.” He added the number of casualties on both sides was high after weeks of fighting. they say it entered, not recaptured most of the city,so sayin recaptured is so pov,lets stick with entered. Abdo45 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ras al-Ayn
I'd be inclined to just re-open it. Not much strategically has changed since then, and I got intense déjà vu just reading the news reports—they read exactly like something that would've come out back when the battle opened. Maybe break it into phases, though. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it. I think it's also likely that the stalemate in the city is deliberate. I recall that al-Oqaidi stated in an interview that the rebels realised they weren't going to get anywhere in the city, so they've made a strategic shift to taking control of Rif Aleppo to suffocate govt troops in the city (e.g. Base 46, Sheikh Suleiman, infantry school, Base 80/airport, Kweiris). I'll try and find the link to it. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Found it: . Quote: "Oqaidi, who leads between 25,000-30,000 troops across Aleppo province, said the rebel strategy had shifted from fighting Assad's forces in the cities to surrounding his bases in the countryside - aiming to encourage defections and weaken the sites so they can be stormed." Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo
Ok, Eko. I'll help you with the article whenever needed. Though it seems to be fine now... you made last edits. --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Lol, do you mind checking my talk page? Anonymus will not forget us. We're in deep shit now :D --<font face="Old English Text MT"><font size="3" color="Black">Wüstenfuchs 19:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011–present Libyan factional fighting for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011–present Libyan factional fighting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2011–present Libyan factional fighting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Aqraba(Rif Dimashq)
According video media Syrian city of Aqraba was taken up by the army and the people are spirited revenr in the city, do you have the above information ? Maurcich (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes it is true. I found these two videos showing the army in the city and but it is only the version of the army and I did not find anything else in the French press for the moment Maurcich (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

karnaz
Kernaz is in Hama province, not damascus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.220.36.13 (talk) 06:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Konna
I have nominated Battle of Konna which have were asignificant contributer to for DYK. However there has been a few issues surronding paraphrasing which have to be resolved before the articlecan be approved. Just keeping you informed Finnegas (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:49, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

blocked
Hi, I do not really understand why, but I just saw that my account was blocked, I do not know how to contact an administrator to explain to me why I block but I'll try to continue to help you. Maurcich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.246.105.242 (talk) 11:17, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Ifoghas
I don't agree with you. This is the same Chadian operation in the exact same area (Adras des Ifoghas). Thus, this page should be expanded to include all the operations that took place there for the two last weeks, and with the death of the two major Islamist leaders during the last days. The French are only supporting the Chadian operation and are not currently on the frontline. Those two rebels leaders were killed by Chadian troops in the exactly same area, and thus should be part of that article. Densaga (talk) 02:30, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Israel in the infobox
Edit war has erupted at the Syrian civil war article again. Help? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A few editors added Israel to the infobox without any consensus whatsoever. This is completely against Wikipedia policies. Can you please remove it? I think I might have already used my revert for the day. (The page is now subject to sanctions).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:20, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's happening again.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:44, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Daraa
Alhaunty wants to made Daraa Campaign article. Isn't this a fork of the "Daraa Governorate clashes (2011–present)" article, which he copy and paste moved to Daraa Governorate clashes (2011-2013). The division seems arbitrary and unnecessary. I don't see why we can't just put it all in one article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)]

the reason is because the fighting and battles are so significant,the fighting in 2011 and 2012 was a hit and run fighting,an insurgency,now in 2013 it is a fighting of two armies ,in 2013 the FSA isn't using hit and run tactics,it has launched a campaign to capture the governor ate,and captured important bases in 2013,in 2011-2012 it wasn't taking control of military bases or roads or land,in 2013 ,the FSA captured military bases,strategic cities, and capture roads Alhanuty (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wadi Daif and Hamadiyah bases
The Syrian army to break the siege of the two bases, do you think an item is needed? Because these fights are detached from the battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man Rogal Dorm (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I replied to your question at my talk.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Homs countryside
According to the OSDH and newspaper articles, the Syrian army has launched an offensive in the region of Homs and tries to surround al-Qousseir. According to the OSDH there would already many victims rebellious side, it does deserve an article ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 06:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. Since the beginning of the army offensive two strategic towns or villages have been taken over by the army, Abel and Radouaniyé near al-Qousseir .Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The fights seem to stretch around al-Qousseir but the announcement of the SORH is not very clear Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should create some "international response" because the offensive had a big impact in Lebanon between Hezbollah statements and calls for Jihad Sunni sheiks. What do you think ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:49, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war
User:Parsa1993 messed up the infobox. If you could revert his edits that would be great. I would do it myself but I am not allowed to edit the page until tomorrow. Sopher99 (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Al ateiba
The syrian governement forces have taken the town of Al Ateiba, in Eastern Ghouta, Rif Dimashq. Does it fall into your Damascus offensive page, which is about the rebels attack on jobar district?Atteiba is quite far of Damascus and was the key town of Eastern Ghouta for rebel weapons supplies. Should the article be renamed Rif Dimashq battle? --Childeric IIeme (talk) 16:00, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Homs - Al Khalediyeh
Pro governments media announced an advancing of the army in the area, they also announced that the army took control of Khaled Ibn Al Walid Mosque but I did not find articles in the French press and not for when confirmation of more independent source Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Banias countryside
Fighting took place in a village near Banias today, the army besieged the village all day and evening, according SORH the village is under the control of the Syrian army , according to the newspaper, the siege is important to secure an axis Tartous-Homs-Damascus , the first reports of SORH report heavy losses among civilians and probably the rebels
 * Yes, This new article talks about fighting on the outskirts of the city before the army entered the city Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:46, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I made an article about the massacre that took place in Bayda ,in tartus countryside, help is appreciated .Alhanuty (talk) 23:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC) <div style="margin: auto 2em; border: 1px dashed #AAAAAA; padding: 4px; background-color: white; padding-left: 1em;">References

Massacre list
Still to be put in is Jabal Zawiya massacre of FSA army soldiers in Oct 2011, Souran massacre (in Hama), Khan Sheikhoun massacre, Mhelia massacre (in Rif Damascus), Huseiyah massacre (in Homs), the Tremseh massacre, the Aleppo University warplane bombing massacre, and the Bustan al Quseir River massacre. Sopher99 (talk) 03:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Replied
Hi. I replied on my talk page. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:31, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Syria
Ekograf please self-revert your edit on the civil war page.

The Reuters article is from May 7. "Tue May 7, 2013 11:46pm EDT" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-syria-crisis-town-idUSBRE94703H20130508  Sopher99 (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

This alabiya source is from May 8. http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2013/05/08/Syrian-opposition-insists-on-Assad-s-departure-before-any-deal.html

Not to mention sohr confirmed on its facebook 3 hours ago that rebels are back in the town. Sopher99 (talk) 17:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Debka
Debka is not a reliable source. Please self-revert. Additionally debka is only echoing the original reports that the town fell. Sopher99 (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_56#Debka.com Sopher99 (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for your understanding. Sopher99 (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

???
Can you tell me where in this entire article does it say rebels retreated from the airbase? http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/syrian-warplanes-bomb-rebel-positions-in-battles-for-military-bases-in-the-north/2013/05/09/0d16d3d8-b884-11e2-b568-6917f6ac6d9d_story.html Sopher99 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Ghouta situation
In the rif dimashk offensive page, it is noted that currently the rebels are counter attacking Otaybah, but I think this is wrong.

Recently the Syrian Army has taken Abbadeh and Qaysa and today they took Jarba.

Here is the map of this part of the eastern Ghouta. http://wikimapia.org/#lang=fr&lat=33.512918&lon=36.534004&z=13&m=b&search=jarba

You can clearly see that these three towns are to the west of Ottaybah, and that the Syrian Army is actually pushing further from Ottaybah in direction of the west, meaning the rebels cannot be counter attacking the town since the Army has advanced further and taken more ground from the rebels. --Game Over Fire Emblem (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Battle in Halfaya ?
After giving an ultimatum to the rebels, the army has broken the truce there were around town by bombarding, What do you think ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, but it may be the beginning of an offensive against the city, maybe there will be more information tomorrow Rogal Dorm (talk) 19:26, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * According to syrian media, the syrien army is in the town, and several town in Hama countryside, but there was no independent confirmationRogal Dorm (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Two articles
Given the importance of the battle and the objectives of the offensive, I think it is a good idea Rogal Dorm (talk) 14:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary Ekograf, SOHR does not state on its facebook anywhere else that the Syrian army entered Qusayr beforehand. Sopher99 (talk) 17:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I request you atleast self-revert your SOHR edition, because I found no other statement by SOHR saying that the Syrian army entered Qusayr. Sopher99 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Qusayr
I understand your good intentions Eko, but I found a source from a Hezbollah member himself who said that Syrian rebels intentionally allowed them to reach up to 2/3 the city, as a "trap", to which they withdrew. If you remember anything from the Libyan war, it reminds me of Brega and ras lanuf, where rebels would report they captured Brega ever day sincerely believing they did based off quick enterings. http://www.lbcgroup.tv/news/92047/hezbollah-fighter-reveals-details-of-al-qusayr-bat Sopher99 (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hama offensive
Why did you change the background info and the general talk about it,and why did you change it to an syrian army offensive,it is originally a rebel offensive Alhanuty (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Hama offensive
Why did you change the background info and the general talk about it,and why did you change it to an syrian army offensive,it is originally a rebel offensive Alhanuty (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

SOHR and "Facebook"
Wow, so your justification on using Facebook as a source (totally contradicting Wikipedia guideline) is that Western media use it as a source. Im sure that if for example Russia Today or Press TV use a random Facebook page as a source you wouldnt act the same, am I wrong? Because for you that aint reliable media, but the BBC or Al Arabiya are credible, wow, that so, so hypocritical. I remind you that Facebook is only allowed as a source if used to ilustrate content related to the owner of the Facebook page (in this case the one man-made SOHR, wow, using a one-person organization source seems so, so reliable...), wich in this situation is clearly not the case. Facebook could not be a source, whats next, using Twitter as a source?. Oh, and apart from the citation needed Im gonna add the (SOHR claim), as its logic.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you not contradict yourself? First you repeat again & again that half a dozen editors agreed to break the rules to use Facebook as a source, and not as the 	exceptions that are contemplated in the guideline. But then you say that Press TV or Russia Today are excluded because some users lobby (I cannot call it otherwise) decided it. Im confused, I believed that Wikipedia was not a democracy, but it seems that it is depending on the number of like-minded users you have in your lobby. Im not going to accept that clear break on NPOV.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 12:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow, incredible, now you talk about following rules, when you are breaking them by using Facebook as a source!!! How is that, rules are enforced only when you want? Only when some users want? Seriously, you dont see the contradiction? Ok, Im off, I dont gain anything discussing with you, but Im not gonna accept that biased edits, you can ask for me to be blocked, it would be surprising being blocked FOR ENFORCING WIKIPEDIA RULES, but who knows, everything is possible in WP nowadays...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * P.D.: I've just seen that you finally had changed the SOHR Facebook source for a SOHR web source. It wasnt so difficult, isnt it? Although a bit vague, I accept it as a compromise solution. Im gonna add the (SOHR claim) I hope you dont have problems with that.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I dont want to engage into another discussion, but by saying that last thing you wrote in my page (opposition claim instead of SOHR claim) you are recognizing the collusion (for saying it with soft words) between SOHR and the so-called "opposition", or with other words, the lack of neutrality of the SOHR.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Sincerely, thats your view, I dont see it like that. For me, SOHR is using the tactic of only sometimes denouncing the crimes and massacres of the so-called "opposition", and only of the fractions of the so-called "rebels" wich they dont agree with (Al-Nusra and others, its not a secret that the "opposition" is so fragmented, even sometimes fighting and killing themselves). And most of all, how a non-neutral one-side activist group (not a professional media outlet) can be reliable? Thats a non-sense, man. And dont fool yourself, the use of that claims (because they are that, claims not facts, as they cannot be verified for several reasons) by Western media is not for their "high credibility", but for Western world political interests. For making an example, Hizbullah had said that they dont like some aspects of the Syrian political system, and had asked for political democratic reforms in the country, but that dont make them neutral in the conflict, of course. I think were not going to convince each one, but sometimes is good to have an exchange of views.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization
As a general rule of thumb, army is only capitalized when the formal name is used like Syrian Arab Army or United States Army - otherwise its Syrian army or American army. Sopher99 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo
It seems that the Syrian army has launched an offensive in the north of Aleppo "The offensive also continues in the northern province of Hama (center), where the army has seized 13 villages, and also north of Aleppo (north) to loosen the encirclement of two Shiite villages according to the OSDH." Rogal Dorm (talk) 14:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, a new article cites another goal for the offensive, in the last paragraph Rogal Dorm (talk) 16:06, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, Alhanuty right. Here is a new article published this morning — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogal Dorm (talk • contribs) 07:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Daba'a
I do not think the article on al-Quseir offensive should be closed because it is still under control of rebel villages in the north of Al-Quseir. The rebels retreated to Daba'a and Boueida al-Sharqiyah, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogal Dorm (talk • contribs) 09:38, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A new article Rogal Dorm (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with you. What do you think about the province of Aleppo ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition, there would be an Kurdish offensive against rebels in the north of Aleppo, according to SORH they took three villages at the moment.Rogal Dorm (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
 * A new article about this offensive Rogal Dorm (talk) 13:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

eastern ghouta
pushed back into the eastern and southern suburbs mean that government forces recapture jober,qaboun and barzah and al yamouk,so this term is conflicting,and i never saw any report that the opposition lost any of the neighborhoods,and it is only reported by bbc,no other news,report,and finally i am not imposing my point of view. Alhanuty (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Qaysa
The rebels said they have taken over the city but SOHR not confirm the information, and given the current fighting it appears that the city is under the control of the army, then let ourselves "Rebels recapture qaysa in a counter-attack "in the article ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Talkalakh ?
According to SORH, the Syrian Army who encircled the city entered in the city and took control of two areas, the fighting is still ongoing, it does deserve an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogal Dorm (talk • contribs) 15:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

SOHR as a source?
As far as I remember, we agreed to use unreliable sources ONLY for death tolls. The last time when I personally raised the issue and asked about using it for other purposes, you did not say a word. Could you please point to the discussion where it was agreed to use SOHR as a source? --Emesik (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

1RR reminder
You should know that with these reverts, you violated the 1RR restriction on Syrian civil war. Since it's a few days old now, I won't bring the incident to a noticeboard, but take care not to do this again, or you can likely expect an edit-warring block. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "civil war"
Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I noticed that in the past, Pass a Method has been reverting a lot of your entries. Does he still cause you problems.--Johnleeds1 (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Darayya
Hi.

I do not understand this information. I do not understand if Darayya is under the control of the army or only a part of the cityRogal Dorm (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Latakia
The sources don't say "Israel attacked in Latakia"; they say "unnamed US sources claim that Israel attacked in Latakia". That is not WP:V in my opinion. A reliable source saying that "somebody said he did it" is not a WP:V claim; it is too ambiguous, especially considering that other attack source was raised by Hezbollah and neither Syria or Israel approved that any attack took place. Indeed this is ridiculous and based on rumors only; not mentioning it could be also WP:UNDUE in comparison with other events in Syria.Greyshark09 (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Don't get me wrong, but i don't remember having any agreement with you on anything. You are however right that al-Manar is not reliable - that is true. Other reports are very confused - the spectrum is from "mysterious explosion" to "Israeli airstrike" and "Israeli submarine attack". Only one source says explicitly that Israel "attacked", the rest say "according to" or "there are reports" that Israel attacked. You have to consider not just verifiability (which is lacking and contradicting), but also the consequences of putting a claim to look like fact.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think what you interpreted as "agreement" was my will to respect the status quo of editors' community. Let's leave it as is now (this is already an agreement), unless/until additional information is revealed in WP:RS.Greyshark09 (talk) 15:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq offensive (July 2013–present)
EkoGraf, please stop reverting Alhanuty on the article Rif Dimashq offensive (July 2013–present). You keep saying he should read his talkpage; if you read his talkpage, you'll note he's replied and suggested you both go to the article talkpage. I strongly suggest you do so, since you're currently edit-warring. It's often a bad idea to try and have a conversation via edit summaries. Ironholds (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ech, ignore me - for some reason my browser was claiming this was in the last couple of days. Cacheing issue? Who knows. Ironholds (talk) 18:01, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Now another sources is confirming it,so leave it as it is Alhanuty (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Facebook sources
Hello there Ekograf. You said editors agreed to use SOHR posts as source. If you can provide a link to that discussion I will be most obliged since we need proof. Additionally if they did then my humblest apologies. Also while there is no problem with using FB sources if editors have agreed but please don't mention in the comments how many people were killed on which day. You only need to mention total no of people killed till now or injured and not on a day-by-day basis. There is no need for that and it will create unneccessary clutter in the article. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * At my talk page I can understand which one or two person you are talking about. Are you talking about that unregistered user who is ranting about that Wikipedia is no more neutral and is accusing some editors probably even you and as well as SOHR of promoting rebel propaganda? KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I feel sorry saying this but you're kind of sounding just like him. Especially I don't know why you're blaming me because I only removed Facebook post sources since using it is sometimes considered copyright violation. However when you informed that users did agree to include Facebook posts of SOHR I apologized immediately. This might feel a little offensive and I don't want to speculate but given the nature of your last comment on my talk page it seems to me that the unregistered user might be right that you are somewhat not neutral. If that offends you then I'm really sorry but it is somewhat seeming that way. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we both misunderstood each other here. While i misunderstood your statement you are misunderstood my comments on the talk page. I never objected to use SOHR as a source. I only objected using Facebook posts of any kind as a source however since you've clarified that users don't object using SOHR Facebook posts as a source there's no problem with it. I actually supported SOHR being used a source sonce it is just a human rights organization and is neutral. Carry on the good work on the articles my friend and don't let any disruptive editor bother you. Happy editing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Member Abdre437 produced here is a change (Inkhil and surrounding area held by rebels 2013-08-30)https://www.facebook.com/ArabChroniclebyCedricLabrousse/posts/576475922389299 but this is not a valid source, and is in serious doubt ask you to look into the situation and also Ariha city was changed without good reason37.55.52.126 (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

You can correct the effects of vandalism André437 participant who makes changes without specifying the correct source is yavlyaetsya frank vandalism so why when a fix in favor of the government is required by the most trusted resources, and when in favor of the opposition and that any will. You're neutral in their changes so that oboraschayus to you to put things in order hereYou can correct the effects of vandalism André437 participant who makes changes without specifying the correct source is yavlyaetsya frank vandalism so why when a fix in favor of the government is required by the most trusted resources, and when in favor of the opposition and that any will. You're neutral in their changes so that oboraschayus to you to put things in order herehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war and her https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map95.134.193.224 (talk) 09:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

The same situation is with the city Inkhil  Province Darra is the source of which is carried out on the basis of a change in its control by the rebels but that's not even SOHR https://www.facebook.com/ArabChroniclebyCedricLabrousse/posts/57647592238929995.134.193.224 (talk) 12:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

ISIS
here's how to relate to such information http://www.military-world.net/Syria/5186.htmlDestroyer1812 (talk) 10:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Latakia Map
Hey EkoGraf! Thanks for the info on Jisr al-Shugur; I'd actually noticed and fixed the problem earlier just before your message (great minds think alike!) but tbh I just shaded it instead of clearly delineating the front surrounding the town (I'll get on that now). Do you know how much of the town and surrounding area the government controls? Thanks! MrPenguin20 (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks! Updated now MrPenguin20 (talk) 11:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited August 2013 Ghouta chemical attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph (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) 11:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive editor at 2013 Latakia offensive
Hello again User:EkoGraf. Hope you're doing alright. I am here to.talk about the disruptive and insultive unregistered user at 2013 Latakia offensive. As you already know the user is insulting everyone and is accusing everyone of promoting "rebel propaganda". He called a User:TransVannian (now blocked but he wasn't blocked at that time) a "rebel dog" and "insane" even though he didn't edit the article at. Despite of such foul language I still gave him a chance and asked (actually requested) him to apologize. However he instead started insulting me and is threating to get everyone he thinks is "pro-opposition" to be blocked. Also I see he is behaving in the same way towards you. If he is threatning you too then don't worry. You and me both know he will never do that. Even if he does his complaint will be fismissed straight away by any admin on sight and he will himself get blocked. I have asked him again to apologise and come to his senses. I advise you to wait for his reponse. If he is still insultive I request you to report him imnediately at ANI since you have more experience with him than.me. I will be a witness for your complaint. I never want to get anyone blocked or even like to complaint about anyone but it looks like if this unregistered user is atleast not given a strict warning by an administrator he will continue his disruptive behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Please archive your talk page
Hey can you please archive your talk page. It is simply too long. Archiving it will make it much easier for you and others to access your talk page and recent comments on your talk especially users with slow internet connection (me included heh heh). Thanks. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

March 2013 Rif Dimashq offensive map
Hey EkoGraf. I've of the ongoing Rif Damashq offensive. I'd greatly appreciate it if you could give it a look and help me refine it. Many thanks! MrPenguin20 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It needs some adjustments,mouadamiya and Darayya is contested,and Assad made an advance in the marj area like mark deir salman as Assad controlled,and the area near bilaliyah contestedAlhanuty (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Bratunac
Wordpresses are blogs and are unreliable. As for the 3,000 figure you are keen on inserting, see the Research and Documentation Center in Sarajevo's conclusive research on the matter. RDC carried out the most comprehensive study on the number of casualties killed in the war. They are cited as an authority on the matter and are a non-partisan organization. -- ◅ PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 13:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No where does it say "Serbs are lying forgerers". It says that the allegation is an "evident falsification of facts", that's simply sensationalist on your part. Here's an official English version of text if you aren't familiar with the language. I urge you to read it. The blogs and the "Anti-Serbism Monitoring" source are not a personal issue, but an issue of Wikipedia policy. The 3,000 figure which the two sentence Al-Jazeera report fails to elaborate on has been noted by your own B92 reference as being pushed by some "Serb sources", but this figure has been thoroughly debunked by the RDC. I don't know how familiar you are with the war or RDC, but they are the authors of the Bosnian Book of the Dead which contains the most documented figures of casualties and again are cited as an authority on the matter. -- ◅  PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Sohr Update
http://www.khaleejtimes.com/kt-article-display-1.asp?section=middleeast&xfile=data/middleeast/2013/September/middleeast_September6.xml Sopher99 (talk) 15:06, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Ariha
Regime forces, supported by the National Defence Forces, regained control over the city of Ariha after 10 days of violent bombardment on the city. https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/415632675211743 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.55.210.57 (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq offensive (March 2013–present)
I agree to the Syrian army a victory. Not partial. Because the army has successfully cut rebel supply lines. The army also took many cities in Ghouta who is considered like a rebel stronghold. The army also entered in other rebel strongholds: Barzeh, Jobar, Zamalka, Daraya Rogal Dorm (talk) 15:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Think
What do u think of this compromise? <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  20:06, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I think rebel jihdists or rebel mujihideen is where we should settle, and leave a pov sectarian notation war out of this. Sopher99 (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me really. Jihadist, mujihideen or sunni jihadists as you both proposed, all the same. Its just that I thought the previous name was not a good one that properly describes them. EkoGraf (talk) 23:54, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Azaz
We need to create an article on the Battle of Azaz? There is an interesting discussion here: Rogal Dorm (talk) 09:43, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Qalamoun
It seems that fighting in Maaloula and in Rouhaiba and are part of a rebel offensive to cut the highway Damascus-Homs. What do you think ?Rogal Dorm (talk) 12:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

1 Revert rule
You broke the 1 revert rule, which is in fact being enforced on the page. (AOnline was banned for it) Please revert either your edition to Lothar's or mine.

Preferably mine because I did in fact provided a map of rebel territories, and provided a second source to show where those towns are located relative to rebel territories. The same can be done for government held areas, but I am in no rush to do that for government held areas because there are 351 red dots compared 185 lime dots, despite sources saying rebels control 60% of territory and 40% of the population. Therefore 40-60% of the dots should be lime (and yes I know population varies widely for each town), and I intend to make that happen by adding more villages. Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion asked on problems in ‘Syrian civil war’
Esteemed Wikipedia colleague: a discussion has been started at Talk:Syrian civil war, concerning problems in section 2 of Syrian civil war. I invite you to give us your opinions on suggestions brought forward in that discussion, for as far as those suggestions don’t leave you indifferent. Corriebertus (talk) 15:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Ghouta chemical attack. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 13:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC) (DRN volunteer)

Sayyida Zainab
Good day! I appeal to you to put an end to vandalism participant who Sopher99 proizmvodit changes than not backed up and treats the news as he wants. He changed the status of Sayyida Zainab in the contested without urgent reasons! And here's the news in this source translated as he wanted.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/04/us-syria-crisis-iran-idUSBRE9A30H620131104 37.53.148.151 (talk) 18:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tal Hasel
Taken by the saa

https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/449716118470065 Mattov Asfet (talk) 19:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

map
The source says " large parts " not whole. Sopher99 (talk) 00:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Idlib Governorate clashes (June 2012–present)
Someone updated it stating that the clashes are over, and that it is a stalemate. What do you think? Revert or change title name to Idlib Governorate clashes (June 2012–April 2013)?--Andres arg (talk) 02:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Qalamoun
Looks like a major offensive has been launched in Qalamoun. Do you think we should make a new article for this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

100,000 Syrian Rebels
Full Extremist-To-Moderate Spectrum Of The 100,000 Syrian Rebels [GRAPHIC] Business Insider Roma-borisov (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Where did the 200,000 opposition fighters? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_civil_war Roma-borisov (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Brigade 80 base
Hi,

Even though the English sources seem to be divided about the naming, the fact remains that the military bases in Syria are not assigned numbers. The number 80 in this case refers to the brigade stationed there. Which is why I suggest changing it to "Brigade 80" especially since a large enough number of English sources uses that name.

It's also called that on wikimapia (though I understand this is not an argument.) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.198504&lon=37.232838&z=14&m=b&show=/23217544/Army-Base-%28Brigade-80%29&search=army%20base%20brigade%2080 ZFR77 (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Babbila, Deir Salman and Abbadeh
Babbila under the full control of the army! Eastday Xinhua China Deir Salman and Abbadeh under the full control of the army! Alhanuty changed these cities using the link but there is no word on the capture of these towns!

Rebels are trying to retake the town of Oteiba in order to break a heavy blockade on the opposition-held suburbs in the east that ring the capital. For months Assad's forces have choked off the areas from both food, supplies and weapons.

The fighting caused dozens of deaths on both sides, a fighter in the area said.

The source only refers to the battles near the town of Oteiba and no more Alhanuty, and violates one of the rules of interpretation of the news.

Reuters37.55.38.237 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Re: Yalda
For what it's worth, SANA reported "several operations" (=ongoing clashes) in Yalda on the 19th, while PressTV reported clashes on the 21st. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)


 * SANA reported that loyalists just recaptured Otaybah. So much for that "dubious" source... Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Eastern ghouta
Ecograk what is your opinion on this article, http://eaworldview.com/2013/11/syria-forecast-battles-east-ghouta-near-damascus/#ghoutaAlhanuty (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol,man marj is the southern area of the eastern ghouta near the Damascus international airport,there is only one city called marj al sultan,and putting a red ring around the airport will make readers believe that the airport itself is besieged ,the report is saying that the area is generally under siege like the entire eastern ghouta is under a general siege by gov/hez forces.Alhanuty (talk) 03:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm Planet Herald. Your recent edit to the page Battle of Qalamoun appears to have added incorrect information, so I have removed it for now. If you believe the information was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The reverted edit can be found [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583663431 here]. <font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">Herald<font style="color:Green"> talk with me 13:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
<font style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0em 0em 0.8em,#FF4500 -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#90EE90 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#696969">Herald<font style="color:Green"> talk with me 15:27, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

RE:Sources for Rif Dimashq offensive
As far as I know, Facebook cannot be used as a source (its not me who made WP rules), wether its an official page or not, that is not the matter. The number of people doesnt matter also, are you suggesting that if sufficient people break a WP rule then that rule can be ignored? Because thats what you seem to mean to me. If we are going to break WP rules in this case, why not breaking them in others?. Also, as far as I know, the only consensus reached about "SOHR" is to use it only for the issue of victims in infoboxes, not in informations about combats, etc... I have not any problem if you use a journalistic source citing "SOHR" reports, why? Because its a journalistic secondary source, not an activist primary source, as "SOHR" is. I still cant understand how journalistic sources like Press TV or RT (whose credibility could be questioned, I agree, but as al-Jazeera or al-Arabiya could be questioned, and still, all they are journalists, not activists) are labelled as "unreliable", but a pro-"rebel" activist (not journalist) group is labelled as "credible". By permitting that, we are setting a very dangerous precedent, and I will fight against that (with WP rules in mind), for the (declining) credibility of Wikipedia. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I hope you understand this is not a personal issue, but I maintain my posture. "SOHR" by itself aint a reliable source, unless its info its published by a secondary journalistic source. Also, as far as I know, there are two organizations claiming to be "SOHR", so wich one is the allegedly "credible one"?. And, I repeat, how can an activist group (de facto, as all activist groups, a POV-pushing group) be "credible" and journalistic sources not? By the way, thanks for giving up using Facebook as a source, because as I said before, its not allowed by WP rules to be used as a source, and hopefully, we can convince other users to stop that WP rules breach. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHESIS
Please make yourself familiar with the above guideline. <font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method <font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk  16:42, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Infobox
Please don't watr and threaten instead use the talk page to generate consensus before seeking unilateral change.Lihaas (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Okey fine keep your version in the interim. Just continue discussion and don't forget just because one version is there in the interim(Lihaas (talk) 23:17, 25 December 2013 (UTC)).

Template:Syrian civil war detailed map
Hello, I saw you have been active on the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map article and wanted to ask you to help me, as the user Soher99 edits using the pro-opposition sources. her and her and herHanibal911 (talk) 18:33, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Refs
Please can you try to use reference templates on the Volgograd article? I'm spending a lot of time trying to fix it up as it's on the main page and you keep introducing badly formatted refs. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for improving your edits. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Battles of Ramadi and Fallujah
Yes I thought about creating such an article but can you help me in making this article. Or create an article Battle in Anbar province or Al Qaeda Offensive in Anbar province Hanibal911 (talk) 12:04, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I changed the article Anbar conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

A heads-up on Iraq
Hello,

I see you have been diligently updating many conflict-related articles. I just created 2014 ISIL uprising in Iraq since it is a major event and definitely needs in-depth coverage. Hope you will join in the editing process.

Yours sincerely,--Reader1987 (talk) 15:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, the guy above already proposed that to you - I was right ;) --Reader1987 (talk) 15:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rastan (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) 09:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Shabiha and Jaysh al-Sha'bi
NDF is not connected to the pro-regime shabiha militia The Australian or Jaysh al-Sha'bi RefworldCyclopaedia Hanibal911 (talk) 09:25, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights has documented 130,433 casualties since the beginning of the Syrian uprising in 18/3/2011 with the first protestor shot and killed in Der'a, up till 30/12/2013

The dead include:

32,013 regular soldiers. 2,794 unidentified casualties (documented with pictures and footages). 19,729 combatants from the Popular Committees, National Defence Forces, Shabiha, and pro regime informers. 262 fighters from the Lebanese Hezbollah. 286 non-Syrian pro-regime Shi'ite militiamen.SOHR' Data on 1 January 2014 and as you can see Shabiha listed separately from NDF. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If SOHR not publish losses Shabiha or Jaysh al-Sha'bi it not proof of merger Shabiha and NDF or Jaysh al-Sha'bi and NDF. For such serious changes need confirmation from more reliable sources than pro opposition SOHR. SOHR not publish losses Islamic Front and Asala wa al-Tanmiya or Ahfad al-Rasul Brigade but we dont mark them as part  other rebel groups. Let's wait little bit. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hezbollah
10,000 - 15,000 Hezbollah fighters who are fighting in Syria on side Syrian Army.Reuters Al Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

January 2014
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=589946977 your edit] to Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
 * director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP. He said similar overnight attacks took place in in  Aleppo Governorate, while one occured in Mayadin in the eastern Deir ez-Zor Governorate.

Free Syrian Army
According to this article Reuters Free Syrian Army ceased to exist. But instead  Free Syrian Army, appeared  two new rebel groups created from  former fighters FSA.MC Clatchy DC Hanibal911 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The Syrian Revolutionaries Front (SRF) is believed to receive funding from large Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia, given that Riyadh was said to be Maarouf's main financier. It has poor relations with the Islamic Front but has expressed support for the Western and Gulf-backed Supreme Military Command (SMC), the foundering successor to the leadership of the failed Free Syrian Army (FSA).World Bulletin Hanibal911 (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Anbar death toll
This article says that only around 60 people were killed in Anbar since the clashes began. This is way lower than the figures we have in the Anbar clashes (2013–14) article. Did we miscalculate or something?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Libya Casualty Data
Dear EkoGraf, I saw your excellent work on Libyan casualties during the uprising and conflict.

I was wondering if there was a way to use your data for some academic work we plan.

Can we discuss this a bit further?

Nowakma.sas (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Badr Organization
How you think is it worth to add Badr Organization group to list groups  who fighting on  side of  Syrian army. Iraqi Shi'ite Badr Organization, which supports Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.Trust Hanibal911 (talk) 09:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Libya Casualty data
That is great news that you could help us. It is a compilation of iolent deaths for 2004-2012/13 around the world, and corresponding regional/sub-regional analysis. Special focus is on the use of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW) in conflict and non conflict zones. Can I Email you for more? Skype you? Call you?

Thanks in advance and regards

UPDATE: any news on this, dear EkoGraf? Thanks again....

Nowakma.sas (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Nowakma.sas (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Moudamiya
Cant revert but I will make the case in the talk page and the revert (in a couple of hours 24 hours still are not passed from my last revert).Daki122 (talk) 18:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Aziza
The Islamic Front exploded the building in which the pro-regime figures were stationed in Al-Aziza, in the outskirts of Aleppo

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyrialatestnews/531988-20-regime-fighters-killed-in-aleppo Sopher99 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

" In rural Aleppo, Islamist rebels and fighters from the rebel Free Syrian Army were heavily engaged in clashes for the village of Aziza. "

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Jan-24/245120-zawahri-urges-end-to-deadly-clashes-between-rebels-and-jihadists.ashx#axzz2rEUjd2s1

Please self revert. Sopher99 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Re:Supportkurds
So, what you are telling me is that partisan activist blogs (that's what supportkurds.org is) are reliable sources if they are used on issues not related with the side they support. Ok, I will start to use pro-Syrian government blogs to source Rebel-ISIS clashes, for example... And if they quote SOHR, why dont you use SOHR instead?--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue about Facebook is very clear, it cannot be used as a source in the majority of cases, and the SOHR case is not one of the exceptions. If we started breaking WP rules with this, we will end allowing Twitter as a source, or worse things. I suppose that WP is still an encyclopedia, I hope. I dont have problems with an Arabic-written page if an English-written one doesnt exist, I prefer that than breaking WP rules with crappy Facebook. For example, other users had added news reports in Kurdish and no one had protested it, so... And the issue about supportkurds.org is that is an activist and non-journalistic site, so not reliable. There are plenty of pro-Kurdish news agencies (Rudaw, Firat, Hawar, etc...) wich I could personally judge as reliable or not, but at least they are journalistic sources, not activists ones, so they should be reliable (although other users had portrayed journalistic sources as Press TV, SANA or Al-Manar TV as unreliable, clearly for pushing their own POV, creating a flagrant double standard).--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but if I understand it well, what you are saying is that if it quotes a reliable source, it doesnt matter that the source given is an activist one or a blog. Am I wrong? I just want to know it because sometimes I havent added sources to WP for being blogs or forums, although they were quoting reliable sources (for example, news agencies reports).Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo area
Syrian troops began offensive in Aleppo.The Daily StarNOWAl Arabia Hanibal911 (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Template map
That is the problem EkoGrak,media sources are rare,we can't find one,but as I know,we are using the Arab chronical as source for the infighting btw ISIL and other rebel forces.Alhanuty (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Hama offensive ?
It seems that the rebels launched a new offensive in the province of Hama, taking Morek and Maan today, what do you think ? Rogal Dorm (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

YPG maybe allies the army?
Some Kurdish battle groups may be allies of the Syrian government in the fight against the rebels. This article speaks about it. Could you see this article and express your opinion on this issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Syria map
Arabic text

محافظة حماه - المرصد السوري لحقوق الإنسان:: قصفت القوات النظامية مناطق في بلدة اللطامنة، ما ادى لإصابة رجل بجراح على الأقل، كما استهدف مقاتلو الكتائب المقاتلة بالرشاشات الثقيلة، وبعدد من القذائف تمركزات القوات النظامية في حاجز السمان في الريف الشمالي لحماه، بالتزامن مع اشتباكات بين مقاتلي الكتائب المقاتلة والقوات النظامية بالقرب من الحاجز، وقصف من القوات النظامية على منطقة الاشتباك، وانباء عن خسائر بشرية في صفوف الطرفين، أيضاً تتعرض قرية حمادة عمر بالريف الشرقي لقصف من القوات النظامية، دون معلومات عن إصابات، فيما تستمر الاشتباكات بين مقاتلي كتائب إسلامية مقاتلة والقوات النظامية مدعمة بقوات الدفاع الوطني، على اطراف قرية معان، وانباء عن استعادة القوات النظامية والقوات الموالية لها السيطرة على اجزاء من القرية التي كان يقطنها مواطنون من الطائفة العلوية.

Google translated

Hama - Syrian Observatory for Human Rights :: forces bombed irregular areas in the town Aellatamna, which led to the injury of a man injured at least , have also been targeted fighters battalions fighter with heavy machine guns , and a number of shells Tmrkzac regular forces in barrier quail in the countryside north of Hama , in conjunction with clashes between fighters of the Phalange fighters and regular troops near the barrier , and the bombing of the regular forces on the area of engagement , and news of casualties in the ranks of both parties ,' also exposed the village of Hamada Omar countryside east of the bombing of the regular forces , without information on injuries , while continuing clashes between fighters of the Islamic Legion fighter and regular troops supported by the National defense Forces , on the outskirts of the village of glitter, and news about the restoration of regular troops and forces loyal to its control  over parts of the village, which was inhabited by citizens of the Alawite sect.

might want to just make it contested Sopher99 (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war infobox
I agree the infobox is long, but not overly long since it does not include extra unnecessary details. Also, as long as it is informative and makes it easier for the reader to digest, nothing here says the infobox should be short. It is also better-looking like that. Please self-revert. Cheers. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 02:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, please revert as there is no good explanation for this removal informative content. I'm sure we both want the article to look neat and organized for readers and the template being long does not damage anything in the article. Not all names in the infobox are linked to pages. Thank you. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

al-Raqqa
I think that we should note prisudstvuet Syrian military in Raqqa.Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

compromise solution
Editor Amensnober91 not correct edit the map. Source only said about villages Deman,  Husseinia and Brazilian but Amensnober91 pointed Al-Barzaniyah  the under rebel control.Al Jazeera Although the source not indicates on this village. We need something doing in this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that the editor Amensnober91 can not reason adequately and violates the rules of Wikipedia. It also ignores the fact that his changing is not always confirmed in the sources which he points. And Amensnober91 many times broke rule 1RR. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:36, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions
Your recent editing history at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war on Syrian Civil War topics. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the one-revert rule of the Syrian Civil War sanctions, which state that an editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page of Syrian Civil War topic 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 one-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the one-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GreyShark (dibra) 17:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice
--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Ras al-Maara in Qalamoun
You maybe mistakenly noted the village of Ras al-Maaraas as contested but likely your source indicates on the village of Ras al-Ain in which is reported by some sources Syrian army  made some progress.your source and here the other sources Agency France PressThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Syria map
You broke the 1 revert rule. Be more careful next time. Sopher99 (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest Self-reverting. Sopher99 (talk) 21:32, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Palmyra
I ask you to help me convince the editor Amensnober91 that he was wrong when noted city of Palmyra the green circle around the red-circle arguing that SOHR reports about the clashes around the city, but his source says that violent clashes between fighters of the Front victory and several battalions Islamist fighter on the one hand and the regular forces of the other hand on the outskirts of the city of Palmyra.source  And secondly  we do not use data obtained directly  from  site SOHR to display achievements the rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Homs province
It's like it's not fair! If we say that we can not use data from Al Mayadeen and Press TV of Fars News and many other sources to display success the Syrian army because it is pro government sources but why then some editors can to edit in favor of the rebels using data from pro opposition activist in twitter.her Hanibal911 (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Kesab
You can fix not accuracy because rebels seized the city Kesab but fighting continues on the edges Kesab.Al ArabDaily News Egypt Hanibal911 (talk) 22:14, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo province
I would like ask you for help. Because I cant understand about which city said this source.Syria Newsdesk Hanibal911 (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq
After studying a pro government source and the pro opposition source, I came to the conclusion that the map need to change the not accuracy. Because according to the data from both sources is clear that the city Madaya under control of the army but the city Bloudan contested and also I think is more correct if we noted the city  Zabadani as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

EK728
Hey EkoGraf its EK728 when you get a chance please contact me on my talk page bro. They keep deleting my comments so i can't leave you anything clean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EK728 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

POV pushing
You keep accusing me of POV pushing and I think its worrisome that you prefer statements from a pro-opposition activist above SOHR. I just saw his picture and yes he's dead, but at the time of my edit SOHR stated that there were conflicting reports about the death of the heavily injured senior commander. That's the reason I wrote 'allegedly'. You responded to that with accusations. Please refrain from accusing me of POV pushing the next time. I would appreciate that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KajMetz (talk • contribs) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Naima
It is possible that the army took the city Naima or at least in this city go clashes army against the rebels.The Arab Chronicle Hanibal911 (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Nan
The village Kafr Nan must be marked as contested because a newer version of the map from the pro government source  argues that this village contested.source Hanibal911 (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

How is it possible to add a new map to e.g. the Battle of Aleppo? I know how to revert but not how to add a brand new version. Thank you if you can reply. Paolowalter (talk) 21:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo
In this article says about the situation in in northen part of Aleppo but i not good know Arabic and do not quite understand meaning of this article. So you can view this article and help me understand what is at stake in this article. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil
Pro government source who used the editor Sopher for editing the city of Inkhil did not said that the city is under the control of the opposition and the second source which he used is pro opposition source and cant be used to display the rebels advances. So I Think that us again should be noted the city Inkhil as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can fix this bug it because if I'll do it I break the rules of 1RR and Sopher already warned me about it.her Because I already tried to fix this but another editor revert my editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Tal Malah
Based on this article on the Arabic-language in the site SOHR editor Amensnober91 noted the village of Tal Malah under rebel control but in later version of this article in English SOHR said that the rebels were just trying to capture the village of Tal Malah but does not say that they captured her. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Latakia Offensive
You seem to be furthering one point of view disregarding others. The armed rebels as mentioned in the article in various occasions are headed by Al-Nusrah, a terrorist group. If you choose to keep calling them rebels you are presenting misleading information based on a minority point of view and bias sources (like al-jazeera). Kindly refrain from editing back the "armed groups", "fighters" and "terrorists" to "rebels" if you want to keep neutrality of article. Lordram85 (talk) 09:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sayqal Air Base and Dumayr Air Base
Known vandal Alhanuty not correctly interpret the data from this article and noted two air bases as surrounded by rebels. Although the source said that rebels only fired rockets this air bases. Could you fix this bug on the map Hanibal911 (talk) 18:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of 2014 Kramatorsk clashes


The article 2014 Kramatorsk clashes has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Material forked from other articles without discussion. Covered in Donetsk People's Republic and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:06, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit
ThaddeusB (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Kramatorsk clashes for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Kramatorsk clashes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2014 Kramatorsk clashes until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 19:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Campaign box nonsense
Thanks for showing me that discussion. Having edited military history articles for a number of years now, i find it amazing that someone would ever object to the use of a campaign box. I've posted some thoughts on the issue on the relevant talk page.XavierGreen (talk) 04:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to note…
Could you please use proper citation templates when adding to articles? An article isn't consider proper or good without properly filled out references, and it doesn't take long if one uses the gadget ProveIt. RGloucester — ☎ 03:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much. RGloucester  — ☎ 03:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.196 (talk) 13:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the message posted on the user talk page regarding the 2014 Latakia offensive. I suggest you take time out to read WP:SYN to see how you are misusing the sources. The issue of present day alleged Turkish involvement—that actually relates to the article in question—and connections to past "genocides" is highly problematic. None of the sources provided state that Turkish involvement is the reason the Armenian genocide is being evoked. Not the Armenian presidential statement. Not the Armenian residents statements. Not Kim Kardashin's tweet. Not even the Armenian National Committee of America letter to Obama mentioned in the Washington Post article, which is the only source provided (other than a few anecdotal remarks by Kessab residents) that is actually concerned with present day Turkish involvement in the offensive. You need to understand that Turkish contemporary involvement in Latakia vis-à-vis the Armenian genocide is an extremely specific and controversial accusation which isn't stated in the sources. Yes, Turkish involvement is alleged. Yes, the Armenian genocide is evoked. But the two are never specifically linked to present day events in the sources. Basically it is fine to mention these two things in separate sentences, but putting them together is WP:SYN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk) 01:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * All you have done is dumbed down the article and still obscured who exactly has made these statements. And do not resort to personal attacks like you did on the IP talk page. Conflation of Turkey, present day events in Latakia, and the Armenian genocide has no place on wikipedia. Anyone's hurt feelings has nothing to do with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.240 (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Latakia offensive
The "stated goals" were just progagnda. The purpose of the offensive according to all reputable sources was to draw SAA forces away from other areas. Which rebels succeed in doing. Capturing territory was never a real goal, and the regime didn't even recaptured all the territory it lost; fighting is at a stalemate. Also I wouldn't do anymore blanket reverts for today unless you want to get your account blocked. There is a one revert rule in effect on the article. 94.197.120.49 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, you said that "a claim is a claim". Therefore, should the wording be changed to reflect that SOHR didn't release how they got their estimate. In addition, I fail to see how "gave the death toll as 50" is less neutral than "claimed the death toll was 50". Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 16:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Right Sector
There seems to be some confusion. I don't see which source is making the claim that 'right sector' saved anyone, but just so you know, Donbas Battalion is made up largely from right sector recruits, which could be why sources are confused as to who saved whom (they are one in the same). Right Sector itself has no units in the east. --Львівське (говорити) 00:30, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I reinserted it, it's likely it was Right Sector East that did it, if we want to be specific, it was my understanding that they were recruited into DB, not operating separately though. --Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Checkpoint Attack
I started the article about the checkpoint attack. This is the page: Volnovakha Checkpoint Attack--Arbutus the tree (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Volnovakha checkpoint attack for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Volnovakha checkpoint attack is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Volnovakha checkpoint attack until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lunch for Two (talk) 14:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

16 Dead Russians
You were right about the 16 dead Ukrainians and the date, I am sincerely sorry for messing with your data. Abattoir666 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

SoS
Re. For one thing, there already is a source there so a second source is not needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk Border Base
Do you mind if you could help me witht this draft i am creating about the Luhansk Base Seige? Here's the draft: Draft:Ukrainian Border Base Siege--Arbutus the tree (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Al-Hasakah
Kurdish forces withdraw from locations in Syria’s Hasakah.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

2014 Northern Iraq offensive
Hello, I suggested a new structure in the talk page of the article. Please tell us your idea. Thanks.-- Seyyed(t-c) 06:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Archicivilians map
Maybe the editor HCPUNXKID forgot that we can not use anti-government sources to display the progress of all rebels. But since the source of archicivilians it is the anti-government source its data may be biased, even if it concerns the army clashes against ISIS. So I think we need revert this editing relatively of Hama province and Homs province. Because the rebel source is not a reliable source to display success Syrian rebels and other opponents of the government including ISIS militants.source here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

during late 2013,there were reports ans sources indicating the opposition recaptured the eastern hama villages to break the siege of homs at that time,also sohr reported airstrikes on the area,and also there were reports that isis took the region in 2014,also a neutral source reported that sabura was taken by ISIS,so that does confirm and make sense that the area is ISIS control,also i don't think the opposition would be biased towards isis,the emnity btw thwm is big,no way they will be biased towards ISIS.Alhanuty (talk) 00:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

For your information - uncivil edit summaries about you and Iryna Harpy by the user 83.202.113.90
The user 83.202.113.90 has written the following edit summaries in the 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine article in response to you and Iryna Harpy: I suppose he (or she) should be reprimanded for it.Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Undid revision 614010666 by EkoGraf (talk)I'am right, you are wrong, you are know for your propaganda : End of the discussion ! + 3 crew of a mi-8 on the 22 june.
 * Undid revision 614071797 by Iryna Harpy (talk)You should look for beer......or for glasses.........
 * i don't understand why EkoGraf and his gang haven't be block a long time ago....

Sheikh Zayyat
Syrian troops have regained control of the village Sheikh Zayyat.souecesourcesource You do not know where this village? Or maybe this village is south of Aleppo near the Shaykh Saeed area. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You do not know where located the village about which referred in the source. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:03, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Zgharo
I think that we should mark this village under the control of the army because it is confirmed by many sources.Speed NewsTehran TimesAl AlamShafaqna News Even pro opposition source SOHR confirmed army success in this village.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 18:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * So you can fix this. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor governorate
Maybe we should all cities under rebel control mark to black color because many reliable sources confirm that the rebels abandoned their positions in the province except the provincial capital.NOW NewsNaharnetNDTVABC NewsYahoo Newseven pro opposition source confirmed this data.Zaman Alwsl Hanibal911 (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is a map from a reliable source Reuters and on this map can be seen that towns in the province of Deir Ez Zor which we marked  under rebel control on the map located the territory which is under the control of the Islamic State.Reuters Map Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But mostly informations of this source was taken from the pro-opposition sources. But I think that Reuters is more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

al-Sheikh Hadid
I think that the village al-Sheikh Hadid must be marked under army control. Because Syrian troops stormed this village.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Operation Canopus Star
I suggest you to use in this article this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Problems and errors in our presentation of events April–May2011 in Daraa, Homs, Baniyas
EkoGraf, in my posting, one minute ago, on ‘Talk:Syrian Civil War’, I’ve dared to ask you two questions. Perhaps you’d be so good, dependable and cooperative to answer those questions? (Also I’ve answered your complaint on Talk:Siege of Daraa of 19June2014.) --Corriebertus (talk) 13:22, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Al-Malihah
Perhaps we need note most of the city Al-Malihah under army control on the basis of data obtained from some sources.Yahoo NewsChina OrgThe New Indian ExpressSina EnglishTasnim NewsSify NewsNVO NewsGlobal PostBusiness Standard Hanibal911 (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with you in a situation with the city Al-Malihah. We need to contact the editor this map Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

for northern iraqi conflict
thanks for your section in my talk page, i had a a problem in a minor edit for casualties if we put the rest of the Isil casualties away from article, we shall put the other sides in conflict away as well as casualties in july for example : editor provided a link from washington post which was referring to kurdish forces casualties overall in the entire conflict since four weeks ago until now, so i removed that reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobanas (talk • contribs) 14:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Mork
"I'm not seeing todays fighting any different from the dozens of raids and clashes that have been going on for the last two months since the military managed to establish a foothold in the city." And i'm not seeing todays fighting any different from the dozens of raids and clashes that have been going since the SAA captured Soran. This is about the battle for the town, which is still going on right? We are not talking about an offensive like in Daraa. This is an actual battle for a town. Raids, clashes etc. are all part of that. Repelling attacks is also part of this battle. The SAA launched several of these large scale attacks over a period of months and were all repelled. Today's large scale attack is no different.

"There have been no reports the Army has launched a large-scale organised assault/offensive against Morek since early May, as well as no reports the rebels have launched a large-scale counter-attack." There are several gaps of 'local clashes' in the timeline of this battle, for example: 14 April - 1 May. Like I said, this is the face of this battle and it's a stalemate because all Army attacks have been repelled since 1 May. SOHR reported Army reinforcements prior yesterday's attack. 25 air strikes on one day and the amount of killed rebels and soldiers (+ disabled vehicles) are not the result of small scale (local organised) clashes. The rebels are not in the position to launch any counter-attack because they are literally defending the doorway to Idlib province, where the rebels are besieging several bases and Idlib city +surrounding. Dailystar reports that the rebels might loose Mork soon btw. If true, that would mean that the battle is still going on right? 

T3 Pumping Station in Homs
Good afternoon, I need your help! Editor Nulla Taciti using dont work link it noted under IS control of the T3 Pumping Station. And when I corrected this bug here stating that his link not work and channel Al Jazeera only reported that the IS militants captured the Shaer gas field, east of the ancient site of Palmyra. But he now said that if Islamic State seized Shaer gas field so the T3 pumping station we also need noted under the control of IS.here our discussion I was be grateful for your help. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Rumeilan oil fields
Rumeilan oil fields in Hasakah province still submit to the control of the Kurdish forces of YPG and pro-regime forces in the area. But i cant find it is oil field on the map maybe you can help me find him and i marked this oil field to the map.source Hanibal911 (talk) 18:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So maybe you the know where located this oil field. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

developments in hasakah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map#Hasakah_city_and_the_villages_and_towns_between_Shadadi_and_Hasakah_city

there is a discussion about the villages between shadadi and hasakah city and ,you are welcomed to give your opinion on it and this article http://online.wsj.com/articles/islamic-state-militants-confront-syria-forces-in-rare-confrontation-1406239224 .Alhanuty (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Blocked from editing
To enforce an community, and for violating WP:1RR (per WP:GS/SCW) with these edits on the page Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map, you have been blocked from editing for one day. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by the consensus of the community. You must either discuss this block with the blocking administrator and receive their approval, or receive consensus at a community noticeboard before reversing this block.

2014 Israel–Gaza conflict casualties
Yeah, I agree. The original was more presentable. Was just attempting to work around the edit warring over claimed dead IDF soldiers by Hamas. --Sloane (talk) 17:22, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Shaktarsk
A draft is being created about the clashes in the Sharktarsk raion.--Arbutus the tree (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC) Draft:Battle in Shakhtarsk Raion

Ras al-Ayn
Thanks that you correct my mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Khan Touman
In accordance with the data from the pro opposition source the city of Khan Touman must be marked how contested. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1481-syria-direct-news-update-8-6-2014 Hanibal911 (talk) 08:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

al-Hseinat
SOHR said that the regular forces raided the houses in villages of al-Arba'en and al-Hseinat, reports of detaining many civilians. This data confirm that army control these villages. But on the map I only found village al-Arba'en But later I found on the map the village Hissa or Haysa and I thought that this vilage al-Hseinat and add this village on map and noted these village under army control but editor Tradedia revert my editing. It said that “al-Hseinat” is not the same as “Hissa”(Haysa). And I need your advice what to do in this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Hama
Editor Alhanuty noted the villages Arzeh and al-Sheyha under rebel control on based opposition source ISW which said that rebels captured these villages in 31 July but in same day other pro opposition source noted these villages under army control. You can help me convince Alhanuty that I was right when I marked  these villages  under control of  rmy and that ISW it is source which loyal to Syrian rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! Because pro opposition source confirms that the city Mhardeh under control of the army. source And also SOHR claim that clashes near city Mhardeh.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also here new report from SOHR said that A soldier from the regime forces was killed in clashes with the rebel and Islamic battalions near the city of Mharde which is inhabited by Christians.SOHR This report came out an hour ago, and thus he put an end in to our issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can participate in this discussion.Mhardeh, Hama Hanibal911 (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

villages in Hasakah
I need your help! The actions of editor Roboskiye it is vandalism. He changed the status of the 5 villages in the Hasakah province with the contested between Kurds and Isalmic State to under conrol by YPG simply because it is he so decided.here Here is his argument in favor of this decision: No evidence of fighting for a long time. But how I know this not sufficient base for such editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:26, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding this edit: You are wrong. Removing unsourced material is not original research, which is actually a totally different issue. According to Wikipedia editing policy: Unsourced information may be challenged and removed. So you are tooooo biased, especially in favor of the vanishing aLawite aRab regime. Roboskiye (talk) 16:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Ras al-Maarra
I on talk page provide the data which confirm that rebels not located near the village Ras Al Marra but editor Boredwhytekid added a green icon near to the village. You can help me fix this bug. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you help me in this debate with the editor Alhanuty!Hama province villages and cities turned into government-held en-masse Because I noted some the village under the control of the army on the basis of an pro opposition source which clearly showed that these villages under control army but Alhanuty trying to prove that the source can not be used because he in him doubts. And in contrast to my source provides this delusional map Hanibal911 (talk) 19:19, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar
Mondolkiri1 (talk) 07:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Another barnstar
Mondolkiri1 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 19
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Convert. 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) 09:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Combatants or civilians
Regarding your edit. There is indeed a third category, called "unknown" or "yet to be determined". Kingsindian (talk) 11:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I was simply referring to your edit summary. I do not know too much about the IDF classification. But I have seen other classifications by B'Tselem, for example, where they do have a category of "unknown". Kingsindian (talk) 16:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * You might well be right, as I said, I do not know about the details. By the way, you might consider archiving your talk page. Kingsindian (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

List of aerial losses in Ukraine
I am not sure if "active war zone" is exactly what they used to identify what to include or not. Just look at the Afghanistan article:

December 12: A US B-1 Lancer bomber returning from a mission over Afghanistan crashes 30 miles north of Diego Garcia. All 4 crew members eject safely.

Is 30 miles from Diego Garcia an active combat zone? mmm no eh? I think they rather used the participation of the aircraft to a combat sortie wherever it crashed beyond the geographical location. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mt hg (talk • contribs) 14:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Nahya Aqirbat in the eastern countryside of Hama
https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/572261299548879

via SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/572261299548879 and an anti-ISIS map https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/479657968388956162,Uqayribat Nahiyah is under the control of ISIS,and Nahiyah is a regional or local type of administrative division that usually consists of a number of villages and/or sometimes smaller towns. and here is a wikipedia map of what Uqayribat Nahiyah is https://ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%86%D8%A7%D8%AD%D9%8A%D8%A9_%D8%B9%D9%82%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA#mediaviewer/%D9%85%D9%84%D9%81:Uqayribat_nahiyah.svg

Editors Hannibal and HCPUNXKID and I agree on this edit,but Editor LogFTW reverted the edit,can you please revert his edit.Alhanuty (talk) 04:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS-controlled Eastern Hama
Here two reliable source showed that IS not control areas in East part Hama province.New York TimesAl Jazeera So we need those villages which yesterday have been marked under the control of IS again marked under control army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Tabqa Air Base

 * We probably need removed the black circle around Tabqa Air Base bcause here source said that Tabqa Air Base is under control SAA. Not only base but also surrounding area. IS attacks failed.source Hanibal911 (talk) 19:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In the case of Tabqa Airbase is there some not clarity as because SOHR today reported that IS was controlled by almost fully the Military Airport of al Tabaqa but not said that he fully under control by IS.here and yesterday SOHR also reported that the Islamic State took control almost completely over the Military Airport of al Tabaqa amid clashes with the regime forces in several points inside the airbase.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Halfaya
SOHR https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560 has reported Airstrikes have been launched on Halfaya,where the the source states "the warplanes carried out some raids on areas in the town of Khattab and the village of Kherbet Al Hjame in the northern countryside as well as areas in the town of Halfaya".and i don't think the government is crazy to bombard their owwn-held towns it just doesn't make sense.what is your opinion on it.Alhanuty (talk) 04:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also Aljazeera http://www.aljazeera.net/reportslibrary/pages/da4f17a0-32ba-46bd-b906-6a7649be4226 made a report in the town,further making the status of the town conflicting.Alhanuty (talk) 04:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

SOHR report reported https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573276612780681 Al Nusra Front brought military enhancement from the province of Aleppo to Halfaya Area and near the city of Mharde preparing to what so called “the battle of liberating Mharde”, where al Nusra Front declared the city as “ military zone”Alhanuty (talk) 05:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can participate in this discussion.Mahardeh, Hama Hanibal911 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Syrian troops recaptured city Halfaya.sourcesource Hanibal911 (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite...
I'm curious: what's the reason for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Israel%E2%80%93Gaza_conflict&diff=623367715&oldid=623366657 making this footnote-number slightly smaller than all the others]? -sche (talk) 02:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Hama province
Here another pro opposition source said that the Syrian army recaptured the Rahbat Khatab military base in northwest Hama province from FSA-affiliated rebels and Jabhat a-Nusra. The regime captured a string of villages surrounding Rahbat Khatab earlier this week in preparation for storming the rebel launching point for attacks against the airport. Abu Mohamad, a member of the Military Council for Hama, confirmed the loss of Rahbat Khatab on social media. Regime forces backed by fighters from the National Defense took control over Khatab. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 13:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also pro opposition source confirmed that rebels still not taken the new city Al Quneitra they are now only aiming for city Al Quneitra. So we need marked him for red dot and put green circle around. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Requested move of 2014 American rescue mission in Syria
I'm suggesting "2014 American rescue mission in Syria → 2014 American operations in Syria – This article is doomed to be a short, start class article. Now that Obama is committed to "degrading and destroying ISIL" there will be surely more American operations in Syria this year. Let's reopen this article to further development and widen the scope." The request is on the talk page. ~Technophant (talk) 04:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Campaignboxes
You reverted my edit a week ago, arguing that I am "separating" things, which is clearly not the case. Let's keep the debate whether the insurgency ended or not aside: this is clearly a new (and notable) escalation and deserved a separate article as well as a new campaignbox. You also re-added the disturbingly long and confusing Syrian civil war box to the Aleppo articles and it sometimes infiltrates the references section. The new Battle of Aleppo template was created to replace the main box. See for example the World War I campaignbox (how short and summarized it is) and its sub-templates where each front, campaign or even battle (e.g. Battle of Passchendaele, Battle of the Somme, etc) has its own box. I wanted to split the SCW one but I didn't and I instead replaced it with the Aleppo one, but you re-added it without explaining. I am also considering similar templates for Idlib, Rif Dimashq, etc and I need your opinion on this. But please self-revert your recent edits because it is redundant to have the same battles and offensives mentioned twice. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since you have no intention to respond to your talk page queries I went ahead and performed the edits myself. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 20:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

SOHR
Now it became absolutely clear that SOHR it is biased pro opposition source and we can use him to show rebel advances. Read this article:SOHR Even other pro opposition sources acknowledge it. Pro opposition source Syria Direct clear said that SOHR it is the pro-opposition monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1552-syria-direct-news-update-9-10-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
Hello! Could you express your opinion about the organization of the Template:Campaignbox 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which provoked a little controversy these days (particularly in relation to the positioning of the "Russian military intervention")? If you wish to express an opinion, there is a discussion in the Talk Page of this template. Thank you! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Collaboration Opportunity
Hi there, EkoGraf! I've been around here awhile and have noticed your extensive efforts to keep Wikipedia updated on developments in Syria, Iraq, and Ukraine. Thanks for all the hard work! Would you be interested in contributing your expertise to a collaboration outside of Wikipedia, in relation to my website at www.polgeonow.com? It would be closely connected to the work you're already doing here on Wikipedia, so it shouldn't be too much of a drain on your time. In return for the contribution to my site, I can offer you some small payment, as well as attribution and a free premium subscription. If you're interested, send me an email.

(If you feel this doesn't belong on your talk page, feel free to delete.)

Cheers, GeoEvan (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell Malh
Here source reported that the city Tall Malah still under control Syrian army and also the army is strengthening its position in this city. Maybe we need noted this city under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

OR in Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014)?
Can you take a look at the edits made by Ericl at Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014) and the talk page discussion? He keeps on saying that there is no insurgency in Iraq because ISIS has reached status based on a dictionary definition, and thus there is a "full scale war" in Iraq. I think this is OR, but I want someone else to take a look at it for confirmation. Also, the lede might need improvement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)


 * How is reading reports in newspaper and TV, radio and internet OR? ISIS(L) is an large army with tens of thousands of troops and controls large swaths and territory in both Iraq and Syria. This can be found in pretty much ever single major media source that covers area. People like FutureTrillionaire have been trying to denegrate this conflict by not calling this what it is. Since February, over TWENTY THOUSAND people have been killed in Iraq. There are two belligerents recognized recognized by every, ISIS and the Iraqi government. Both the Iraqi government and media recognize ISIS(L) as such. There have been major battles during 2014, something that had not happened since before the Americans left. If you look at the articles on the Iraq war, you will notice that the US wasn't fighting "anyone" yet, it was considered a war up until the very day the last soldier crossed into Kuwait. The recent unpleasantness between Israel and Hamas in Gaza was considered a war by just about everybody, this despite the death toll being less than one tenth what it is in Iraq over the past few months. Call it "War in the Levnant, call it "Spillover from the Syrian Civil War" but don't call it an insurgency.!Ericl (talk) 20:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's some more info.Ericl (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

al-Zalaqiat
It seems to me a very strange situation with this village. Because on 17 September SOHR reported that Jabhat al-Nusra fighters have regain control on Tal al-Meleh and al-Zalaqiat, after it was taken by regime forces for hours.here But pro opposition soource 0n 19 September said that rebels take over the village Al-Zilaqiat.here but after SOHR said that the rebels have regained control of this village there were no more messages that the troops again repulsed this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe clashes still continued in this village or around her. Here the pro opposition source which said about this. What do you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need put red ring in the south of the village al-Zalaqiat. Because SOHR reported that clashes in al Zallaqeyyat area.source Hanibal911 (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq offensive
That's the message from the pro-opposition source about Tal al-Kurdy and Al-Suwan around Duma where army is advancing and may be you have more information on this subject.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Iraq
A user has moved "Timeline of the Iraqi insurgency (2014)" to "2014 Iraq conflict". I'm concerned that this new title implies a separate conflict from the Iraqi insurgency. What do you think about this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sir, you are well aware that that article started at the "Iraq conflict" title (or was it "Iraq crisis"...I forget, but my point's the same). You moved it to the the "timeline" title without discussion. If you'd like to convert it to a timeline, by all means, start an RM. However, the article was created expressly with the purpose of being the main article for the current goings on in Iraq. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to move it, Eko, you ought start an RM. It started where it started, and there was no consensus to move it. I don't like the "Iraq conflict" title either, but making it a "timeline" is much worse. Please start an RM so that this can be hashed out, and gain consensus before acting. RGloucester  — ☎ 21:35, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who moved when facts are there are no, I repeat, no sources that call what is happening at the moment in Iraq a separate conflict from the long-lasting insurgency. The article was created based on the unsourced personal POV of one editor that one could say violated WP: Synthesis which gives enough justification to both Future and me, since you asked for justification (revertion of unsourced edits). Also, that editor is still advocating that the insurgency ended and after that this conflict started, HOWEVER, he is advocating without providing sources that the insurgency ended and a new conflict starting. EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa province
Pro opposition source clear said that Raqqa province is the only Syrian Province which is completely controlled by the Islamic State.Ara News Do you think whether to believe this information? Hanibal911 (talk) 11:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo under siege?
Yesterday before the Syrian army capture the village of Handarat SOHR said that "If the army can take and hold Handarat, then Aleppo will be under siege,"Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Your note
Thank you for your kind words. Unfortunately, it appears not everyone has an easy time with the reformatted infobox, so it looks like the stalemate will go on. Perfect is the enemy of the good, as I like to say. -Kudzu1 (talk) 08:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War Talk Page
I would politely like to remind you of WP:PA, specifically "Comment on content, not on the contributor", and "Repeated or egregious personal attacks". Regarding the latter; I generally work on a three strikes policy, and you have repeatly accused me three times in a row of views/biases that I in fact do not hold. This needs to stop. Thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump
Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Harrah
Alhanuty noted city Harrah under rebel control on the basis of questionable data. Because in the source which he provide there is no independent confirmation that the city is captured. In the source only indicated that the Nusra Front, said it captured the Al-Harra area along with other rebel groups. According to Syrian opposition officials, the al-Qaeda-linked group's takeover of the area essentially opens up the most important routes connecting the western and northern outskirts of Daraa and the southern outskirts of Quneitra.Ynet News But this is only statement from rebels group and official opposition source but for now no independent evidence from the reliable sources, even partially opposition source SOHR not confirmed this. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ISIS vs ISIL
I spotted you basically reverted one of my edits to make the whole Konbane article ISIL saying it was more common. That is changing, as the UN and all states involved are using ISIL or Daseh exclusively., never ISIS now. CNN has not got the memo however. Legacypac (talk) 12:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

hi
I am providing everyone who commented in the open page move RfC - as well as the previous closed RfC - a notice of an ANI [] This has to do with a possible editor stability issue. DocumentError (talk) 21:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced edits
Hey EkoGraf - when you get a chance, would you take a look at the recent edits on Module:Iraqi Insurgency detailed map? A user 83.117.189.21 has made a few unsourced edits, which I reverted and asked for sources - but said user put them right back up. Would appreciate your taking a look. Cheers. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Casualties and losses in the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport
Hello, EkoGraf! Could you please help about the number of casualties and losses in the Second Battle of Donetsk Airport article? There seems to be POV and disruptive editing there, with addition of sources that don't say anything about the number of casualties and losses (and a case of a distortion of the number of losses). Thanks! Mondolkiri1 (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Kabajeb and Kanaker
can you revert Pototo,he is putting Kabajeb as Government-held without credible evidence,and also he reverted the ring on Kanaker due to government shelling on the surrounding,what is you opinion on putting a ring around Kanaker. your opinion is welcomed.Alhanuty (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Battle for Kobane
Maybe need make a separate article Battle for Kobanê because now no sense publish a new data in the article Siege of Kobanê. Since now the city is not just besieged by militants ISIS clashes already go inside city itself. Some maps show the situation in the city.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 10:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably we need to remove the Syrian rebels as one of the parties to the conflict because a pro opposition source of  issued a statement that rebels denies sending fighters from the Free Syrian Army to fight in Kobane.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The military leadership in Kobani denies coordinating with the Free Syrian Army.SOHR So that for now both sides confirmed that the 1300 fighters FSA not entered to the city Kobane. And the Kurds and FSA do not cooperate in protect this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Rasm Al Abd
Can you help me because I cant for now revert edits made ​​by editor Alhanuty because I break 1RR rule so I need your help. He noted the village Rasm al Abd the under control of ISIS on the basis of the pro government map but this village on the map is marked under the control of the army but he ignored it on the basis of their own personal reasons. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

al-Karim
You can mark a village Al Karim under the control of the army. Because SOHR clear said that Clashes taking place between regime forces and Islamic battalions near the villages of al-Karim and Qaber Fedda west of Hama and regime forces took control on al-Karim village.SOHE But editor DuckZz mark this village as contested on based the pro government map Although the map showed that the clashes near the village and also SOHR confirmed that the army seized the village. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Nusra offensive
Maybe this article Al-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict should be renamed to Al-Nusra offensive against Syria Revolutionaries Front In accordance with the new data.The Daily StarThe Denver PostAssociated PressWSB TV AtlantaWyoming NewsThe Boston Globe Hanibal911 (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another interesting article about the situation with the Front Al Nusra.The Wall Street Journal Hanibal911 (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably the area where go clashes between Front Al Nusra against other insurgent groups is expanding. Can you tell me your opinion about these articles: hereherehere And yet, probably need to rename this article Al-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict to Al-Nusra offensive against other Syrian rebel groups Hanibal911 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * U.S asked for help to allies of Syrian government to defeat Al Nusra and Islamic State.Alrai mediahere. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Your edit in ISIS
Would you convert your citation from a bare URL, please? Here are some simple instructions. ~ P123ct1 (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The list of citations below seem to belong to an earlier message. ~ P123ct1 (talk)

Sheikh Miskin
We have the very controversial situation about the city Sheikh Miskin. Because some source said that rebels captured this city here but SOHR only said that Islamic fighters and Jabhat al-Nusra have taken over the eastern neighborhood of Shekh Meskin after violent clashes against regime forces. But not said that city under control by rebels here but pro opposition source said that clashes take place between Syrian army and Islamist battalions in Sheikh Miskin town of Daraa countryside here What do you think about this issue? Hanibal911 (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Put A red circle around Shiekh Maskeen.i know the situation is very very very controversal,never seen a situation like that.Alhanuty (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 November
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) 00:37, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Siege of Kobanî page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=633592495 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%2F633592495%7CSiege of Kobanî%5D%5D Ask for help])

Disambiguation link notification for November 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * 2014 Libyan Civil War
 * added a link pointing to Derna


 * Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant
 * added a link pointing to Derna

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

al-Sha'er
A black concentric circle to the north of al-Sha'er is appropriate, so, why delete the black circle around al-Sha'er completely in this edit, instead of just correcting the coordinates to show IS presence to the north? Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move Discussion at Talk:American-led intervention in Syria
There is currently an requested move underway here and I am trying to get as many users to provide input as possible. I appreciate your contributions! - SantiLak  (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks
Sorry about the unnecessary extra reversion at the siege article--I was working from a list of editor contributions, and failed to realize that there was a substantial time gap between the previous edits and the newer ones. (I only noticed it now because I was going through my own contributions list and suddenly saw a big negative number attached to one of my edits.) Thank you for fixing my mistake. Dekimasu よ! 01:33, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Army offensive in Hasakah
Pro government source reported that Syrian troops captured villages of Ma’assoum, Qaraat, Al-Hanish, Al-‘Aweena, Ma’arouf, Al-Taba, and Nisaraat.Al Masdar And pro opposition source also said that Syrian Army took control of villages of Masoom, Hanash, Uwaina, Hajj Hasan, Tappa, Marouf, and Nasrat (south of Hasakah city) and installed several checkpoints in the area.ARA News Can you help me find these villages. Also SOHR reported that army captured some villages in Hasakah province.here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:53, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Inter-civil war violence in Libya
You have been involved in this article; I invite you to join in for consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Handarat
Reliable source(Edward Dark journalist who writes articles for reliable sources Al Monitoe and Middle East Eye) reported that Handarat Camp is fully under regime control. The siege of east Aleppo city is now complete.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

clashes between al-Nusra against ISIS in Daraa
How we can to use data from this source? According to this source, some rebel groups swore allegiance to ISIS.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 14:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict Reporter
You are agree that source Conflict Reporter this is biased pro opposition source not neutral source. Here confirmation of my words: And if you agrees with me you can express your opinion about this source in this discussion.here Hanibal911 (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * The #Assad #terror regime also killed men,women and children in #Idlib today.Conflict Reporter
 * The worst terrorist #Assad keeps on destroying the Syrian capital #DamascusConflict Reporter

Syrian Civil War
What is wrong with these people. Israel should not be in the info box. Iraqi Kurdistan should be listed with the coalition. Legacypac (talk) 04:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo
First and foremost, I wish to stress that I do not intend to debate with you the validity of WP:RS. That isn't necessary and is far beyond the scope of the article.

What I will suggest is you don't get hung up on insignificant details of articles. I included the Long War article to reference the importance of the M5 in regards to Aleppo. This is further elaborated upon in the Stratfor article as a current event vis-à-vis the regime offensive. Obviously the opposition sealing control of a main supply line is relevant to the ongoing battle and reliable sources explicitly state this. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Not sure which version of the Stratfor article you are reading, but both that article and the second one you brought up use that sentence verbatim in the versions I have access to (the original referenced may well have been edited since it went behind the paywall). Either way the sources make clear that Assad regime efforts to reopen the M5 supply line have been set back, not sure why you deem this to not be a significant development when several experts and journalists do. Nulla Taciti (talk) 20:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year EkoGraf!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! EkoGraf, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

I Need your help!
I need your help in this discussion.Rebels vs IS, Damascus Hanibal911 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi! You can express your opinion in this discussion Truce Areas (Homs incl.) Hanibal911 (talk) 05:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

you are Feick ??
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=December_2014_Rif_Dimashq_airstrikes&action=history

https://medium.com/war-is-boring/four-israeli-f-15s-dodged-syrian-missile-fire-to-attack-urgent-targets-a28cff11323d https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/541687269942652928 https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/622123611229314 it is not a source of information, it is flood trolling + = FeickCalo yronili (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Citing news sources
Please could you put the date of news reports in the citations. The dates of reports are important. Please could you amend your recent edits-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk airport
The situation at the moment is unclear and fluid. I think the best way to deal with this would be to note different claims by both sides and observation by news reporters.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2nd Donetsk Airport
I've been taking a hands-off approach to this article, letting you guys handle it. Given the dubious nature of the information about what's going on, I thought it'd be better to wait until after it had "concluded" in some way before working on it. If you'd like me to go through it and work on the prose, I'd be happy to. I don't want to step on anyone's toes, though. RGloucester — ☎ 20:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you trying to get me blocked?
I asked you not to make any changes without discussing them first. Now I've got to revert you again and get myself blocked again. Honestly, what's the point? Why are you degrading the prose for no apparent reason? RGloucester — ☎ 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you'd do this. You are forcing me to revert and get myself blocked, and why? You've destroyed the prose, removed sourced content, and failed WP:BOLDTITLE. Honestly, can you please TAKE IT TO THE TALK PAGE for once and follow the "d" in discussion? You have no concern for consensus, and I'm the one that has to pay for it. RGloucester  — ☎ 00:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope you don't want me to report you for 3RR
You've just made a bunch more reverts of my edits, and are way over 3RR now. Do you want me to report you, or what? I thought we had a compromise? RGloucester — ☎ 05:28, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * You ought revert those changes to "rebel" now, or I will get on with it. I'm not playing these games. RGloucester  — ☎ 05:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

You can take part in this discussion
Hi! You can express your opinion in this discussion Truce Areas (Homs incl.) Hanibal911 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Donetsk airport
Can you take a look at the numbers for the Donetsk airport battle? They seem to be a bit off. RGloucester — ☎ 19:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Sheikh Maskeen and the 82th Brigade
firstly,check the location of the 82th Brigade,and you will understand why,it is impossible for the city to be contested anymore,and multiple sources weeks ago,confirmed that the regime control is very narrow and limited,and with the fall of the base,no way the city is anymore contested,and also the radar was taken today.Alhanuty (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If you want to put "partial" then whatever (it is spilting hairs and I didn't even notice it). The main issue is removing details that happened a) immediately after the fighting and b) as a direct result of the fighting. Why are you going out of your way to remove it and make it harder for readers to follow? It is inexplicable except for one reason, and we both know what it is. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * 10 days was definitely a error though, my bad. Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Mapmakers
Do you know any good mapmakers who might consider getting up and running again? It has been dormant since November, but with combat picking up, it seems to make sense to revive it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

ITIC report
Hi, I see that you are updating the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict‎ casualties numbers, including those by ITIC report part seven. Part eight is already out, I intended to update it for a while. &#8220;WarKosign&#8221; 09:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Rebel"
You might like this bit from the editor of the Kyiv Post. It explains, amongst other things, why "rebel" is a crap term, and fails WP:LABEL. RGloucester — ☎ 23:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Elijah J. Magnier
You can give your opinion here about this source Elijah J. Magnier that was previously recognized by all as reliable and neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

ITIC and IDF

 * My problem was with how the numbers were initially presented. You made it seem as if the 55-45 ration was of the entire 2140, when it fact it was only of the 1598 identified names. Plus I don't think word of an unnamed security source reported by a biased think tank should be seen as the official word of the IDF. Personally I don't think the ITIC should be included at all given there bias and given that there number of total dead is based on the Gaza Health ministry's numbers.


 * That said, I'm fine with the recent edits you made. You changed IDF to Israel security and got rid of the misleading percentage numbers in the infobox. I personally feel the word of the Washington post should trump an Israel think tank affiliated with the military, but it's not something I feel like getting into a long edit war about. I'm satisfied with article as it is.annoynmous 13:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Source for Lviv
This source say he was wounded gravely, but not killed. I can see no confirmation that he was killed. RGloucester — ☎ 20:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is another source. It is clear he did not die. RGloucester  — ☎ 20:56, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The Syrian Rebellion Observatory (Cédric Labrousse)
Here is a new project of the Cédric Labrousse formerly known of anti-government activist.The Syrian Rebellion Observatoryhere Hanibal911 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR
I am very sorry that I did not see your beginning tag for the post. That aside, I went back to the original discussion of SOHR. ChrissCh94, Hanibal, Paolowalter, Daki, Kihtnu, and myself [6 editors] remained in opposition to the absolute use of SOHR, while DuckZz, Boredwhytekid, André437, Alhanuty and yourself supported SOHR [5 editors]. Since a simple majority was achieved, it was agreed to use a reportedly tag with SOHR or any other tag of indication of its bias. If it is corroborated, then the tag is removed. Nevertheless, thank you for rewording and sorry about the conflict. ThanksXJ-0461 v2 (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Fails verification
The article says nothing about a police station. Read it. RGloucester — ☎ 23:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

New article about offensive in Aleppo
Maybe we need make a new article about the Syrian troops offensive in Aleppo. Since this is the major army offensive in Aleppo that would totally besiege city. Pro government sources reported that army captured the villages of Rityan Hardantain and BashkuyAl Mayadeen Pro oppositio sources also reported that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan Hardantain and Bashkuy ArchiciviliansAbdel RahmanhereAbdel Rahman and a reliable sources also reported that Syrian army backed by allied militia has captured several villages north of Aleppo from insurgents and blocked a main supply route leading into the northern city.ReutersBusiness InsiderThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 09:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Nasej
You need to read this discussions here in which we confirmed that the city under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mu`arrasat al Khan
Pro opposition source reported that clahses in the Mu`arrasat.here and here another pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cedric Labroucce) also showed tha clashes in the Mu`arrasat.here So we need marked Mu`arrasat al Khan as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this pro opposition source also showed that Duwayr al-Zaytun contested.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see this
MOS:ACRO. One needs to write out the acronym fully the first time it is introduced. As far as the spokesman himself is concerned, he's not the only spokesman. He is not "the" spokesman, which is too vague. He is a specific spokesman. RGloucester — ☎ 18:46, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Umm Sharshuh
Maybe village of Umm Sharshuh under control by army because pro opposition source Qasion news reported that FSA has shelled with mortars over regime forces barriers in Um Sharshooh in Homs countryside. Also this source earlier reportd that regime forces stationed in villages Kafr Nan and Jabburin shelled with explosive cylinders village Al-Thawra in northern Homs countryside.Qasion news Here village Al-Thawra So it is likely Umm Sharshuh now controlled Syrian troops and maybe Syrian rebels shelled it is village from nearby villages al-Thawrah or Ghajar Amir. As you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 17:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Reliable source Edward Dark said that village Rityan is on front line now but other towns which army early gained still under regime control, supply line from Turkey to rebel-held east Aleppo still cut. Rebels aslo reported that Dweir al Zaytun still contestedArchicivilians and SOHR also rported that army still in Hardatin. What do you think about this information? Hanibal911 (talk) 18:29, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Here new article and map from pro government source about situation to north of Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You can give your opinion on this issues.here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 13:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Need your help in situation with Tell Ahmar in Quneitra.
In Quneitra editor marked the Tell Ahmar as under control by rebels here on basis pro government source here But the source not specify that it is under rebel control. So that this editor changed it on the basis of assumptions. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hanibal911 is correct. Tell Ahmar is misplaced on our map, so it is not in green area of amateur map & we never heard from any source that it was captured by rebels. So not only it has to be changed back to red, but also its position has to be adjusted because it is not next to Ufaniya but rather closer to Ain al-Nuriyah, here also called Tell Ain al-Nuriyah: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=de&lat=33.213630&lon=35.881176&z=14&m=b&show=/27429295/Tell-Ain-al-Nuriyah Tradedia talk 06:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Darat Iza
What is your source to change this town from green to JAN held ?? The source you posted doesn't mention it at all ... DuckZz (talk) 23:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * DuckZz Maybe this town was marked under control by Al Nusra on the basis of report from SOHR where it said that Al Nusra seize Hazm posts in the Regiment 46, al- Mashtal, Miznar, Kafar Nouran and the Second Rif al- Muhandisin in the west of Aleppo. And that other factions in the movement in the town of Daret Ezzeh declared their retreat too.SOHR Here's more information from the pro-opposition source.here But I just provided a data but you decide how use these data. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah Offensive
the YPG began the offensive,,first on villages,near Jazaa,encircling Tal Hamis,then capturing it,then going for Tal Brak.Alhanuty (talk) 02:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC) when,i have time,i will reorganize the article,and help you in writing it.Alhanuty (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

why did you remove the words i wrote,about the YPG capturing villages south and northeast of Tal Hamis,news sources don't give details,but we have to at least mention,where these villages are.Alhanuty (talk) 05:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Raqqa
How you think maybe this pro opposition source made mistake because he reported about clashes between Syrian troops and ISIS in the in the village of Al-Mastoor near the Brigade 93 to north of Al-Raqqa.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 18:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qalamoun offensive (June–August 2014), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mujahideen Shura Council. 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) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Handarat
Here reports about a situation in Handarat and surrounding area.herehere Hanibal911 (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

SOHR not a neutral source?
Here in interview the director of SOHR said that that international community not have a human conscience and does not care for the tragedy of the Syrian people, which is transmitted in the hands of the executioner Bashar al-Assad and the hands of al-Baghdadi(ISIS leader ) and others kill him, and Ban Ki-moon, a partner in the killing of these people, and the international community to impose a political solution and stop the killing and end the system of Bashar al-Assad, and the transition to democracy.here So you can correct me if I'm wrong but this is clearly not statement from the neutral source. So I think that we need seriously decide that the use of data from this source for display successes of rebels against of the Syrian army violates the rule of editing. Or, use they if this data confirmed any reliable sources. Because lately SOHR becoming more biased and often simply repeats the data from opposition sources. I have long been following this source and more and more convinced that that he year ago he was more neutral but now SOHR more support rebels and often distorts a data to favor of rebels. What do you think? Simply the sources which called rebels as terrorists we called as biased the pro-government sources. But when SOHR said that the Bashar Assad it is executioner we called this source neutral. Or if we use partially pro-opposition source SOHR for displayed success of rebels we need select from pro-government sources less biased and more neutral which we can use for display success of army. But if I'm not a right! You just delete this message. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2015 (UTC) SOHR is still the most authentic and reliable source.PERIOD.Alhanuty (talk) 21:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Alhanuty SOHR most reliable among sources which opposes to Syrian government but still he is partially opposition source and we need gently use it data. Especially true of reports translated into English because very often, they contain serious errors and different from the original. And I often seen translated reports in which was said that the clashes in the village or town but in the original report SOHR only said about fighting near the village or town, or in the vicinity from this locality. So it is always before we edit town or village as contested on the basis of reports of clashes need to double-check the data in the original report. Also many times in the reports from SOHR on english was said that village or town was fully captured but in original report SOHR only said that  most part of village or town was seized. So let's not rush edit map before we again check just in case   correctness  the data above which we going use. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:46, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Tikrit
I provided the sources. They were already mentioned in the article but I in hindsight I should have given them in the table also. Thank you for asking for citations.
 * Thank you for your diligence with regard to the article throughout.Parsa1993 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was wondering if you know how to request an editor to be blocked? The disruptive editing & POV pushing by Fotoriety has really gotten out of hand and I would do the request myself except I don't know how. Thank you.Parsa1993 (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying those casualty figures.Parsa1993 (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately the numbers you have provided are being continuously vandalised and deleted. I think it wouldn't be bad if you requested semi-protection for the article, especially as most vandalisers are comprised of the anonymous editors.90.213.166.55 (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

War in Donbass
I removed the reference to KP article because the table they have doesn't have links to the information they used. Can you tell who exactly claims 7577 separatists killed? Is it Ukrainian Health Ministry, Defense Ministry Medical Service, Defense Ministry, etc? No, you cannot. So I don't take it as a reliable source of information. Unlike the government source I provided this week. --Kyrylkov (talk) 17:16, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Hama
Here pro government source reported that Syrian troops (Tiger Forces) clashes with ISIS in Sheikh Hilal.Syria 24here But sourcesnot said that clashes inside this village because sometimes sources also same write if clashes near the town or village. So that maybe this village was marked as contested prematurely.here Hanibal911 (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * You can revert this because SOHR just reported that clashes near village of Sheikh Helal.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Help!
I know that you also want What would our map showed the real situation and not personal desires of someone from editors.here So maybe you can help me that would remedy this situation.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

The Sinjar massacre article now seems inconsistent
Please, take a look at: Talk:Sinjar massacre. --Corriebertus (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

What follows here below belongs to unspecified talk sections above:
Hello there, I saw you removed the casualties for the Military Intervention in Yemen article. The article refers to the Hadi and Saudi fight versus the Houthi fight. According to UN, Reuters and all, since the start of the two week war, there have been over 500 killed. You can find many articles about it. Before the actual air strikes, death toll was at the 10+ ish amount but the 500+ has been from joint civilian and rebel deaths in Yemen.. Please refer to source 2 for more information :)

Leorion PO (talk) 15:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

2015 Southern Syria Offensive
In several articles (such as 2014 Hama offensive and Operation Rainbow (Syrian Civil War)) you have openly acknowledged Al-Masdar News as a pro regime source, yet you aren't willing to make that clear when you rely on it as the only source for a significant claim in the 2015 Southern Syria Offensive article. Why is this? Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is impossible to call it a victory when the offensive failed in all of its stated goals. Al-Masdar is the only source pushing this narrative. However as there appears to be no other narrative currently and regime forces made limited initial gains it isn't such a big deal. Also, the same Israeli writer is used in several other references within the same article. Now all of a sudden he is bias when he states an opinion you apparently don't like? Your analogy with Iranian sources isn't accurate because unlike the Times of Israel, Press TV/Fars News Agency are state owned propaganda outlets and aren't independent WP:RS. Finally the results section and the sources used make it clear the supports and results are directly related to the offensive via arms and political decisions. Nulla Taciti (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Found a source
Hello there. I was waiting to find a credible source on the issue and finally found an up-to-date one. This CNN article reveals that 200 civilians have been killed in the fighting and the 600 killed were since the start of the Saudi coalition. As it is hard for even Yemeni authorities to distinguish between the rebels, citizens and army, just stating that over 600 have been killed in total should also suffice. P.S 200 killed from bombing itself can be seen in the video.

Leorion PO (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

ISIL's North Iraq offensive, August 2014
(by the way: 300 sections on your talk page, reaching back to 2010: perhaps you should archive some of it?)

Colleague, could you please have a look at my reaction in the discussion on User talk:Corriebertus? --Corriebertus (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Yemen civil war
I'm starting to think that what is missing from Yemen coverage is an umbrella page for military action. The Yemeni Crisis page is very broad; the aftermath page mostly covers events that preceded the full-scale clashes; the offensive, intervention, and battle pages are fairly specific. Also, a growing number of sources refer to the conflict now as a civil war.

I'd like your thoughts: Should there be a Yemeni Civil War (2015) or similarly named page? If so, should it be created by moving Southern Yemen offensive (2015) (the major ground action of the conflict, intertwined with the intervention) or built as a new and separate page? -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Al-Thaala airbase
You can help me in this situation.here Editor put green semicircle near this airbase only based one report from pro government source that clashes near this base.source But pro opposition source just said that FSA just shelled with mortars over Al-Thaala military airport.Qasion NewsQasion News and that clashes between Regime forces and FSA between towns of Umm Walid and Al-Karak in Daraa province.Qasion News So for now not need put this icon. And another pro opposition source also just said that some missiles fell on the Al-Thaala airbase to west of Suwayda.here So there is no reason for semicircle. I tried fix this here but he revert me.here So that help me! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * So that you can help me in this issue! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can express your opinion in this discussion.here Since I raised the question that we must to use only original reports from SOHR but not translated that contain a lot of mistakes and often highly distorted. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:11, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I need your help in this situation.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * This user based on his delusional assumptions distort map.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I no longer cant fix the map because I break the rule 1RR. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Editor of Chief of Al-Masdar,Leith Abo Fadel confirmed the edits here https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/587681945540255744,and stop these attacks on me hannibal.Alhanuty (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Leith Abo Fadel confirmed the edits https://twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/587650786416537600.Alhanuty (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC) Hannibal,Leith Abo Fadel confirmed it,so just admit it,and stop accusing me with Vandalism,i edited based upon al-masdar and its editor in chief leith abou fadel.Alhanuty (talk) 16:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/587655276368625664 https://twitter.com/leithfadel/status/587655710508523520 .Alhanuty (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You can express their opinions in these discussions.here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

'Partially besieged': contradiction in terms
In this edit of yours on ‘Sinjar massacre’, 30March, you speak of: ‘The mountains were partially again besieged after…October advance’ and: ‘(On 21 Oct…)The mountains had again been partially besieged..’—apparently to describe the event that ISIL on 21 October cut an escape route from the Sinjar Mountains leading north to Kurdish areas.

But what is ‘partially besieged’? ‘To besiege’ means: blocking all the routes in and out. Something is besieged or it is not, but it can’t be half, or partly, besieged, I’d say. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf answered my question on another page, see: here, 13 April. My reply on that answer is this:
 * Apparently, you, just like me, don’t know any possible meaning of ‘partially besieged’. (The fact that a newspaper, of for that matter the Pope or Caliph or whoever, writes something down, is no guarantee that is makes sense, nor that it is correct or truth.)
 * Remarkable is though, that source Al Jazeera, 19 Dec, writes, that ‘thousands of Yazidis had [in December 2014] been under (ISIL’s) siege (in the Sinjar mountains) since (…) August’. How do you explain the apparent contradiction that according to Al Jazeera, those Yazidis in those mountains were under (ISIL) siege from August until December, and source McClatchy, 22 December, says those mountains were in the beginning of December under ‘a partial (ISIL) siege’? --Corriebertus (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

EkoGraf answered my discussion on another page, see: here, 16 April. My reaction:

Concerning the use of the terms ‘siege’ and ‘partial siege’, you said: “it is not up to us to debate the meaning of an expression”. I must say that I disagree with you on that point. We, encyclopedians (you, me, and the other colleagues), are to be guardians and defenders of truth, in the first and the last place. Our only instrument for that purpose is language; so our first and last responsibility is always to guard the truthfullness and correctness of the language we use in our articles, in our edits. The responsibility for our articles lies only with us, the Wikipedia editors: it lies not with newspapers, not with politicians, Presidents, or generals. Which means ofcourse that we may not write on our own account phrases or assertions that we don’t understand ourselves or are not correct English. If some source, like a newspaper or politician, uses a phrase that we don’t know the meaning of or is incorrect English, we are allowed to copy the phrase, but only between quotation marks, thereby relaying the responsibility for it clearly to the speaker (newspaper, politician) who had felt the urge to use the phrase. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Dear EkoGraf, A user named Hyrudagon has deleted all the information that i and you added on 2015 death toll for Nagorono-Karabagh we need to report him since he is vandalizing all the pages!

Baiji
City of Baiji contested. Here reliable source reported that Iraqi troops and Hashd al-Sha'bi entered in city of Baiji from al Sina'ee where fierce battle with ISIS is ongoing Elijah J. Magnier and that the city hall inside city of Baiji is under control of the Iraqi Golden unit where battle is still ongoing.Elijah J. Magnier

Time for a Taiz battle article?
I don't know if I'll have time to spin one off today, so it might have to wait until tomorrow, but with many recent reports of fighting in Taiz, I'm thinking the struggle for control there needs its own page. What do you think? -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism again
Dear EkoGraf, User Hyrudagon keeps vandalizing same articles without proper reason i believe he should be reported as i already warned him twice.Thank you for your help! Agulani (talk) 05:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 April
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) 00:27, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Casualties of the Syrian Civil War page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=658815764 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (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%2F658815764%7CCasualties of the Syrian Civil War%5D%5D Ask for help])

Communication, discussion
Colleague EkoGraf: I don’t know where you grew up, but on planet Earth human beings are not automatically always of the same opinion. That’s why they’ve invented talking, and discussing. A while later, they invented writing, for the same purposes. Again a while later, they invented Internet, enabling them to reach much more people much quicker with written messages.

But I’m beginning to fear, after reading your posting of 12 April on User talk:Corriebertus#North Iraq offensive, that you don’t understand simple, proper, polite English written messages and discussion:

On 8 April on User talk:Corriebertus, I politely asked you, how I should understand your usage of the term ‘(partial) victory’ in that article. In your reaction (12Apr, under your point 5) you suggested that I had said that you were trying to imply that the northern offensive was a sports game or successful slaughterings. No: I have not said that, and you suggesting that I did means to me that you either cannot read and understand polite English discussion or you deliberately try to provoke a quarrel and unpleasant atmosphere. I have only asked whether some words were meant to suggest certain things (things you don’t even reproduce correctly)—and asking is a totally normal and acceptable thing to do in discussions. Also, under your point 1, you suggested that I had said that you were making a grave accusation. Again: no: I did not say that. Again: either you can’t read polite English written discussions, or you deliberately try to provoke a quarrel. And also under your point 5, you say that I asserted that there is no war in Iraq or that I was not aware of any war in Iraq. Again: no, I did not say any of those two things. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Civil discussion
On 1 April, on Talk:Sinjar massacre, you seemed to not understand or not allow normal and polite discussion, by denouncing my phrase “…(re-)define this article, following some (…) definition (…)” as being uncivil. There’s nothing uncivil in it, it is polite and civilized discussion. If you don’t know, or don’t allow, civil discussion, we’d better brace ourselves. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

No lies, please
EkoGraf, on 29 March, you reverted an updating attempt with the argument: “Reverting what is not in the sources, (…) For example, source says 100,000 PEPLE were displaced from Ninevah province, not 100,000 Christians”. That “example” (= ‘one out of many’) about Christians, you on 30March admitted, both on page ‘Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014)’ and on my Talk page, to have been a mistake (it really was ‘in the sources’). So, I asked you there on 8 April one or two other examples of me supposedly writing things that were ‘not in the sources’. But your answer there on 12 April says: ‘no — there never was any other instance in that updating edit where you (Corriebert) wrote things that were 'not in the sources' except the one with the Christians’. That makes your words “for example” on 29 March look to me like a lie, meant to disqualify me before the Wikipedia community as a very unreliable editor. There was no other ‘example’; there was no ‘ample’ (= many). If you notice a colleague making an error, writing ‘Christians’ where he should have written ‘people’, just tell us what you know: he made an error. Don’t insinuate that also the rest of his edit is full of errors. --Corriebertus (talk) 16:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

As-Safir reference on 2015 Southern Syria Offensive
Please see this link for additional information on how Al-Monitor works; yes the site has balanced original content, but when they re-publish a known WP:BIASED source, this needs to be made clear in the Wikipedia article. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Need your help!
Here is editor in the violation of the rules of editing uses amateur video from rebels to show the success for rebels and ignores rules of editing. You can help.here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Again the pro opposition editors broke the rules of editing and used the pro opposition source and amateur video from rebels for displayed success of rebels. So you can help me fix this.here And also you can help me explain for some editors that deSyracuse it is pro opposition source and we cant use him in addition to amateur video from rebels for displayed success of rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Huriyah
You made mistake! Becasue you want accorging to pro opposition source here noted a sunder control by Syrian troops village Al Huriyah in Quneitra but you marked under control by Syrian troops the village Huriyah in Idlib. You need fix this.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * DoneI fix this. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Need u to step in
Lol, that IP user, 189xxxxxx, had enough courage to counter my edits. But he somehow was not audacious enough to argue with such expert like you. ༆ (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

624 killed in Yemen
It was not a Reuters report but a UN report. "Figures from 26 March up to 3 May from the field show that at least 646 civilians have been killed, including 50 women and 131 children, and more than 1,364 civilians have been injured, Ms. Shamdasani told reporters at a press briefing at UN headquarters in Geneva." It is since the Saudi-led intervention started. Since the actual war, over 1,000 have been reported.ArabianWonders (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Second Battle of Idlib
Can you help me with this DYK nomination? As I was told, issues must be resolved. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Kumanovo
if you want reliable sources than there is facebook right now also if you want to translate an albanian source i will help you,and for those that you edited that are captured are all lies from qouted sources beacasue none of them show they face or something but many photos from them are being posted in facebook,also their family members are denouncing these reports that they are dead or captured.Lindi29 (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RDC casualties
Hello, if you see the talk page of Bosnian War, you will see that I later realised that 'your' figures were the 2007 RDC/BosBkoftheDead figures. However, a) 'our' prev. figures were 2009 (ie more recent) and b) 'final' figures were produced in 2012 by the RDC (each update produced slightly higher confirmed figures). I am in the process of modify BOTH text and info-boxes to include both the latest figures and slightly more info about their methodology. More info on talk.Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Second Battle of Idlib
Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

War in Donbass: Several orphaned sources
Hello EkoGraf,

With this edit you seem to have orphaned several sources. The article currently seems to have a bit of an edit-warring issue, so I did not want to revert myself, but I think you should make sure that your change does not orphan (further) sources. Thanks. Lklundin (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Rebels/Nusra offensive in the southern Syria against ex-rebels(now pro ISIS)
Maybe we need create new article? As we early create article about tension between rebels and Al Nusra in Idlib province. Here data from pro opposition source Syrian Rebellion Observatory:hereherehere As I see this will a big the military operation led by rebels against ex-rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Al-Nusra, Al-Qarmeed military base.jpg
Thank you for uploading File:Al-Nusra, Al-Qarmeed military base.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [ list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

You violated the 1RR in the page for the Al-Hasakah offensive (May 2015)
EkoGraf, I updated the page, you reverted me here, I provided an additional source to further justify my update and reverted you, you simply reverted me again here. All of which happened in less than 24 hours. The page has a 1RR restriction and you violated it.

Magog the Ogre, would you please look into this matter? Regards. Saeed alaee (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Saeed alaee You said that according to your source the offensive started FROM RAS AL-AYN and then extended to tell tamer and mount abdulaziz. I read your source. It in fact says the Kurdish fighters and their allies launched an offensive from the northeastern province of Hassakeh and in less than three weeks captured the strategic Abdul-Aziz Mountain along with 221 Kurdish and Christian villages that were held by IS. It says NOTHING about them starting out from Ras al-Ayn or that they later extended it to tell tamer and mount abdulaziz. And in fact, the source I cited for you when I reverted you (I did not simply revert you) comes from the Kurds themselves. In it they said the aim of the offensive was to liberate Mount Kezwan, a main stronghold of ISIS, the strategic region of Alya, and villages near river Xabur, which is all in the Tell Tamer area. Linking the two events (Ras al-Ayn and Tell Tamer) which are hundreds of miles apart without providing proper sources is OR. EkoGraf (talk) 19:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * PS I find your unilateral unsourced move of the article without discussing the issue first and calling in an admin to immediately potentially block me since I opposed your move not really in the spirit of WP: GOODFAITH. As for the 1RR, as far as I'm aware from my discussions with other Syria war editors and from what I've seen, the 1RR has been mostly applied to the main Syrian civil war article and its map, while 3RR has been generally applied at the other smaller Syria-related articles. If even the smallest Syria war-related articles are strictly under 1RR, which I was not aware of, than I apologize to Magog the Ogre and ask him how do we remedy this situation? I will revert myself so to be in line with the 1RR, if it is applied at this article as well, but the issue that the move and changes by Saeed alaee were unsourced and what he claimed was in the source was not remains. Thus I ask Magog the Ogre as a third-party editor to asses if indeed the move was unsourced. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Even if you were right, which you were not, you were not allowed to revert me twice in less than 24 hours. All pages related to either the Syrian Civil War or the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant are subject to the 1RR. And you have been active on Wikipedia for long enough to know that. I am not reporting you because I disagree with you, I am reporting you because you violated a rule.
 * And as for my edits, I provided two sources (SOHR and Associated Press) each of which would have been more than enough to justify my edits. And now I give you one other source from the same Kurdish source that you have been using to justify your reverts.
 * Oh, one more thing, I think if you were sincere in your apology for violating the 1RR you would have immediately reverted yourself out of respect for that rule, which you didn't... Saeed alaee (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Saeed alaee I am sincere, despite your hostile insinuation that I'm not (which I frankly find highly insulting), because I am currently in the middle of reverting myself and I'm not a computer that I can do it momentarily. Also, SOHR made no mention that the two operations are linked. As for your new source that you provided only just now it indeed links the two operations and if you had provided it from the very beginning we would have had no problems. As far as I'm concerned the matter has been resolved, although in a hostile atmosphere. Like I said earlier at the other talk page, proper Wiki editorial fellowship would have been to give me fair warning before immediately requesting to get me blocked or ask me to revert myself, which you did not, and I did on my own. EkoGraf (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Saeed alaee I have reverted myself and made edits based on the source you now provided which confirmed what you earlier claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf, If you think I have insulted you, you are more than welcome to report me. I personally don't think that my doubts into your sincerity qualify as an insult. And as I said before, I did not report you because we disagreed, I reported you because you violated a rule. Regards. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Saeed alaee Like I said, so much for Assume good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 20:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * To remedy the problem, the most common course of action is a self-revert. Please do so now if it is not too late. Saeed alaee is within his rights to report you (FYI recommended reporting location is WP:AN/EW), as you are to him. For future reference, the general sanctions page (which is linked in your block log and above) clearly states that they apply to all things Syria-conflict-related, broadly construed. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Also FYI, there is an exception for vandalism to 1RR. But the definition you've read for "vandalism" by most people in this conflict is wrong; it doesn't apply to content disputes, ever (WP:NOTVAND). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Magog the Ogre Yeah, I already reverted myself so to adhere to 1RR (apologies again). Also, although I assumed good faith and thought he was trying to make a constructive edit, the sources he provided were simply not backing up what he was saying until he finally produced the latest source, and I was of the opinion that he could have discussed the issue before heating up the situation. In any case its been resolved now to the satisfaction of both parties. EkoGraf (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Magog the Ogre thank you very much for your comments. I'll be sure to use the page you provided if I'll ever want to report a violation by a Wikipedian in the future. Regards. Saeed alaee (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

dates of capture of villages in Hasakah
why did you remove the dates of capture,these are important to keep tract of events occurring in the area,especially that the area is underreported.Alhanuty (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Result of the 3RR complaint
Please see WP:AN3. If numbers are being fudged, there must be some noticeboard where people can look into that. But due to the AN3 rules, any further reverts by either side are risky. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

al-Ghab plain & Aleppo
The al-Ghab plain comprise edit is fine, repelled is pretty inaccurate considering the limited gains and seeing as the area is a FSA turkey shoot for any regime forces going in or out (From today only:, ). The issue wasn't the sources (I added the McClatchy one to the article myself), rather your very liberal interpretation of them.

However I'm confused as to why you are removing the most recent result on the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) article. The WINEP reference cites this as a major regime operational failure, and the Editor-in-Chief of pro-regime Al-Masdar News has even admitted this offensive was a failure so I'm really not sure why you are obstructing this. It is the most notable event to happen in the battle (and one of the most notable in the conflict as a whole) this year, as the multiple references used demonstrate. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Until I found sources confirming that the one village was still rebel-held, sources pointed to all villages being recaptured by the Army, thus the liberal interpretation the assault on the plain was repelled. As for Aleppo, the chief editor calls the offensive abrupt. The offensive initially captured four villages, subsequently the SAA was expelled from two of them, but still they retained control in the other two and repelled the rebel counter-attack on Handarat. That's factually what happened and that's what I wrote in now in the results section. I even used your word failed in regard to the severing of the supply line. I am not obstructing anything, I simply want the full account to be given, while some analysts seem to prefer to focus on the failed part of the operation (supply line and the 2 villages) while ignoring the gains, albeit limited (the other 2 villages). EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Iraq War
I went ahead and did it. UASR (talk) 19:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

“Disregarding your opinions”?
As to you reproaching me, on User talk…North Iraq offensive, 26April, for “disregarding” your opinions, etc.: I’ve been painstakingly reading and regarding – in every sense – and taking serious all of your opinions in that discussion—which I believe sums up to the exact opposite of ‘disregarding’ them. Whether or not you want to continue to discuss, in the aforesaid discussion section, is up to you. But don’t talk of ‘disregarding your opinions’ when there’s only someone arguing against one of your opinions. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:23, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi
I noticed you edited War in Donbass article. One issue that seems to be unresolved on this article page is the following statement "42,000 Russian soldiers (RUSI estimate of combined rotation)". If you actually go to the source in question(that the information was attributed to) you will find the following statement "The views expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) alone, and do not represent the views of RUSI." It is actually a personal claim by Igor Sutyagin, a convicted spy, who was freed in US-Russia spy exchanges. At the moment the statement in the infobox is simply false, as can be seen. RUSI doesn't claim this information and the source specifically mentions this.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that the current Russian leadership lied before about the deployment of Russian troops in Ukraine. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:50, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
—  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:52, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War map
The Telegraph article clearly says ISIS took up positions West of the town. So if you are going to be pedantic on the definition of "reached" then that should be indicated. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 12 June
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) 00:30, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Daraa and As-Suwayda offensive (June 2015–present) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=666651406 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (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%2F666651406%7CDaraa and As-Suwayda offensive (June 2015–present)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Misplaced attempts-at-discussion on my Talk page
Colleague EkoGraf. I notice, that on 6 June, you have placed some discussions concerning the articles Sinjar offensive, Northern Iraq offensive (August 2014) and Sinjar massacre, on my talk page in a section User talk:Corriebertus. I consider those discussions on that page as off-topic: discussions purely about the content of a certain article should take place on the talk page of that specific article--that's what those talk pages are for. (You can notice that at all three talk pages of those three articles, I have also already started several discussions.) Therefore, I'll simply have to ignore those attempts-at-discussion you placed in that section on my talk page on 6 June. The reasons (apart from their being off-topic) are obvious: firstly, such discussions concerning an article should, if possible, be concentrated at one place (= page) to minimalize the chance that one problem is being studied/discussed at two places (independently); secondly, such discussions must be most easily retrievable for every participant of Wikipedia who is or will be, at any time, interested in that specific article. I therefore advise you, to translocate those discussions to the proper talk pages of those articles. And when you've done that, you have my permission to remove that whole new section from my talk page. But even if you don't remove it there yourself, I'll remove it within a few days from now, because, as I said, that section is off-topic on that (my) talk page. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

www.axishistory.com
G'day Ekograf. I take it you have had a look at www.axishistory.com or are familiar with it? In what way would you suggest it is reliable in any of the three meanings of "source" outlined at WP:RS? I contend that it meets none of the meanings because: So, Marcus (who is probably a bonza bloke I'd enjoy having a beer with) is the only one "engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing". Essentially, there is nothing on his site to support the idea that his site is reliable in a WP context. As WP:RS says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable." It is pretty clear that the content on www.axishistory.com is either Marcus' work, or is WP:USERGENERATED. Unless Marcus is an established expert whose work in military history has been published by reliable 3rd-party publications, it is really not acceptable. That isn't my opinion, I'm just quoting WP policy on reliable sources. So, au contraire, I think it is the editor that claiming it IS reliable, who has some work to do. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 12:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * the piece of work, ie the site and its pages (choose a random page) is not footnoted and does not even list the sources from which the information on a page is drawn;
 * the creator of the work, Marcus Wendel, by his own admission, is a graduate in Economics, Economic History and Political Science (ie not military history, and certainly not WWII Axis military history, a HUGE field of study) and does not mention any published works on the topic relevant to his site (Axis military history); and
 * the site is published by... Marcus Wendel (ie self-published).

Extremely disappointing bad faith behavior EkoGraf
I only just spotted this discussion on 's talk page. This is WP:CANVASS, and as per the the Wikipedia behavioral guideline, "is generally considered disruptive behavior". Obviously we edit the same subject matter and have differing opinions, yet I have gone to great lengths to compromise and include all opinions on the subject. I have not openly accused you of your obvious support for the Assad regime, your uncritical use of pro-regime sources like Al Masdar News, and your constant inordinate emphasis on "al-Qaeda" linked groups (such as your recent edits on Syrian Civil War).

For the record, the Assad regime is an authoritarian regime as I explained to you on my talk page, I recommend you read Lesch's Syria: The Fall of the House of Assad, Belhadj's La Syrie de Bashar Al-Asad: Anatomie d'un régime autoritaire, and Heydemann & Leender's Middle East Authoritarianisms: Governance, Contestation, and Regime Resilience in Syria and Iran, the three most authoritative works on the subject — this isn't an opinion, that is an established fact agreed to by all experts on the subject. Furthermore, the regime is a prolific state sponsor of terrorism, which is again a fact whether you like it or not, as their coordination with Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – General Command attests. This is not bias on my part, this is your apparent willful ignorance of the subject.

And I would strongly advise you to cease WP:EDITWARRING with on Syrian Civil War related subjects and stick to WP:CON. Factions should be given their correct titles as per WP:RS. I hope you can more forward and edit productively and adhere to Wikipeida's behavioral guidelines such as as WP:GF, and Wikipedia policies such as WP:SOAP, which will be more important than ever as the conflict progresses. I do not want to have to seek other avenues to have to resolve further instances of this kind of behavior on your part, so do not force me to. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I said there, you guys are better off discussing at length on the talk pages instead of reverting back and forth for eternity. As for Assad being a bad dictator and all, anyone criticising him here should be just as critical of people like Morsi, the Saudis, etc. For some reason, they usually aren't, which is where credibility evaporates. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No one called Assad a dictator. A dictatorship is another thing entirely vis-a-vis an authoritarian regime, as anyone who knows political science would be aware of; this is where ignorance of the subject at hand again comes into play. And if you think you are going to get away with repeatedly accusing me of being a WP:SOCK, you have another thing coming. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As this unfortunate exchange attests, I'm not entirely confident in my judgement when it comes to sock puppetry any more. FunkMonk (talk) 17:35, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

1. Its not WP:CANVASS when it was continuation of a subject FunkMonk started at that massacre's talk page. Comments like willful ignorance of the subject do not really help much the situation. And like I told you, probably dozens of times, the legality of the issue, weather regime best fits them or not, does not matter, because regime is still considered a deragatory term and per WP policy we stick to neutrality. Plus, like I already told you, the issue was discussed several times over the years among Syria editors and agreed to avoid using the term. And also, please refrain from threatening me. 2. As for my issues with LightandDark2000, which he and I always resolve in the end after extended discussions and compromises (because I know I can count on his good faith and that he's an excellent editor), that does not actually concern you. And its not actually WP:CON if its just 2 vs 1. Consensus is not the result of a vote, its an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, and when In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. So you should first start a discussion on the issue before accusing someone of breaking a non-existing consensus. But for sake of further good faith discussions, I will tell you what I told him - Its already obvious since the article is about a battle of the SYRIAN civil war, so saying syrian rebels or syrian government repeatedly is highly redundant. 3. Finally, your topic of bias, personally I am not for the Assad government, not for ether side actually, except maybe the Kurds. However, I do have a problem when rhetoric is stacked against one side in an unbalanced way. If that makes me biased than so be it. I have not uncritically used Al Masdar News. Each time when they report something I used the expressions such as reportedly, claimed, etc. and not stating it as verifiable fact. I am making an emphasis on the rise of the Syrian "al-Qaeda" branch, because the RS are making an emphasis on the rise of the "al-Qaeda" branch. Just like you are making constant inordinate emphasis on the issue of the possible decline of the government and Syrian Army, because the RS have made it their business as of late to emphasis it (they were probably drop it with the war's next months-long stalemate). EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)


 * In any case, arguing and accusing one another over this won't do ether of us any good or the articles. Good time to drop the arguing and get back to improving and living. EkoGraf (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Little comment here, I wouldn't say that I had too many "edit wars" with EkoGraf. We always managed to discuss it without the issue becoming to overblown, and it appears that we've always come to some kind of resolution. After reading what's been said here, I just think that we should remain neutral in the hot topics, and to just focus more on editing than on personal disputes (talk pages/discussion boards are there for resolving such issues anyhow). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the Shyrokyne Standoff
Ekograf, the village has been recaptured by ukrainian forces and the separatists have withdrawn to another nearby village. Ukraine is in total control of the village. You wrote "Source does not say they retook Shyrokyne, only that rebs withdrew." This is false, and you should google it since most media have covered it, I also posted a source which confirmed this.

You also said "And per an established agreement we avoid to include claims by one side on casualties suffered by the other since they are potentially propaganda, unrealiastic and not supported by other RS." Then why do other articles regarding the War in Donbass name unrealistic numbers claimed by the separatists and not Ukraine? I also wrote "according to Azov" which means it's not confirmed.

The infobox says that Ukraine had 200+ killed and 500 wounded while the separatist only suffered 5-6 killed and 56 wounded.

That's unrealistic if anything.

// Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.216.34.55 (talk) 10:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, it was you who assumed and pointed out in the first place that a fellow Wiki reader is posting propaganda without consideration and objectivity. That may also be against the WP policy. This source is regarded as the most accurate by people who on a regularly basis follow the War in Donbass. The map monitors ukrainian and separatist troop movements by using geotags and social media. It clearly shows that Shyrokyne is under ukrainian control and that the separatist have withdrawn within 2 kilometers east of the village on the M14 highway. The only forces remaining in Shyrokyne are ukrainian and the village is to be demined. If the separatist still had forces in the village I would agree with you. Now, the ukrainians do, the separatist don't. Ukraine controls the village, there is no longer a standoff over who controls it and therefore it shouldn't be indecisive.

I appreciate that steps have been made to reduce these claims regarding casualties from both sides. It is often hard to verify sources since both sides tend to diminish friendly casualties and exaggerate killed enemies. One way to look at it would be to present claims from both sides and let the readers decide the truth for themselves or to remove such claims completely. As for now, they are often mixed in the infoboxes and may cause confusion.

Daraa battle
Can you stop declaring the battle a regime victory based on a reference that predates further reports of fighting, and doesn't support the statement. Until confirmation that the SAA/NDF has recaptured all areas that the Southern Front captured (see here: ), it would be indecisive anyway. There is constant combat footage coming out of the area, also see the Al Masdar reference provided in the latest edit summary. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Al Bawaba reference shows the fire station as captured and territory to the West captured. I've seen informal confirmation on journalist's Twitter accounts that the opposition and JaN withdrew from the Industrial zone, but not the fire station. And no reliable source has made any claims regarding gains or the offensive ending (Al Masdar News is a borderline WP:RS and WP:BIASED anyway). ISW hasn't even came out with a situation report since the offensive began that would confirm or disprove gains/offensive ending (it clearly hasn't). Honestly think this is a WP:BADFAITH and WP:POV move based on weak referencing, but I'll leave it until new sources become available. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Happiness
Hello. I'm amazed that you are still editing the Syrian civil war articles. Sopher99 and Wüstenfuchs are long gone. You've done a lot of good work, and I want thank you for that. As you've probably noticed, I haven't been heavily involved the Syrian articles for a long time now. I noticed that constantly reading about warfare really darkened my mood and worldview. I had little hope for humanity. After I stopped reading about Syria and other ongoing conflicts, I began focusing my attention on the good things in life: science, technology, art, video games, friends, etc. I'm happier now and I am much more optimistic about humanity. My question for you is: how are you able to continue to research and write about this dark subject matter? Isn't it depressing? (I'm watching this page, so you can just reply here.)--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC) I agree with you Future,it is becoming very depressing,i don't even edit alot these days,but guess,there are new editors taking on the subject.Alhanuty (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC) I am also considering taking the same step as you Future,it is just depressing and it takes its toll.Alhanuty (talk) 23:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

“A violation of WP policy on civility”?
Why would you want to call my phrase: “…his—to my opinion—rather gibberish ‘sentences’…” (6 June) a violation of WP policy on civility (6June, 17:15)? Can you be a bit specific on that? I was discussing with you, trying to understand your ideas concerning (the presentation of) episode ‘evacuation of Yazidis…’ (in article Sinjar massacre), and you wrote a posting, 26April,18:26, that to me was vague and chaotic and not clear and not understandable – partly because you didn’t write it in grammatically correct sentences – for example you wrote: “I rewrote the text … and give it a historical context and you still reinserted it back”.

In my native language (Dutch), when someone in a written text for whatever reason doesn’t abide by the basic grammatical rules, we can call such a text: ‘wartaal’. My English dictionary gave three English synonyms for it: balderdash; gibberish; jargon. (German synonym: ‘irrereden’; French: ‘divaguer; radoter’).

So: how would you react, if in a discussion a discussing partner writes (to you personally) an answer which you can’t understand because it is written in ‘wartaal’ or in gibberish, and in non-grammatical language? --Corriebertus (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah result
the victory is major only for the YPG,they besieged ISIS in the town and were the ones whom finished them up,and captured most of the territory that SAA lost to ISIS,for SAA,before this offensive they control a sizable area:Hasakah city,the southern countryside,multip-le villages to the south of it,after this offensive,SAA control was reduced to city center,SAA in a sense won,but the losses of alot of territory,men and weapons,make it sound more like a defeat,so this is a Pyrrhic victory for SAA.Alhanuty (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding a dispute
Hi Ekograf, I would like your help concerning a dispute I am having with other editors on the Syrian Civil War map. Please look at the talk page and edit history of the module to see what I am referring to. I reverted an edit someone else made that changed towns to rebel control based on the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), on the grounds that I thought it was a biased, pro-rebel source. I was immediately reverted and criticized. Another user, Alhanuty, referred me to you. My question is this: is SOHR a biased, pro-rebel source, or is it reliable and able to be used for pro-rebel edits? I want your advice on this issue, as you are a well-respected editor of this map.Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:44, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Need help
Can you please revert the latest edits by Pbfreespace3,this edits are POV and ignoring an agreed consenscus and annoying.Alhanuty (talk) 00:00, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Homs_Governorate_offensive_(July–August_2015) listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Homs Governorate offensive (July–August 2015). Since you had some involvement with the Homs_Governorate_offensive_(July–August_2015) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. 495656778774 (talk) 18:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Zabadani
Ok, I reacted that you changed "Pro-governmment" to "per ro-government". I assume this was a typo? The reason is that there's a lot of people who try to sneak in subtle changes in articles by removing a letter or two in the belief that they are being "funny" and I might have jumped the gun thinking this was one such incident. If so, my apologies.Holanthony (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, in that case I apologise.Holanthony (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

3RR violation
Please self-revert on page Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis because you just violated 3RR rule. As about sources for the claim, they are numerous, for example that one, and they have been provided. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Please re-read the policy. It does not tell anywhere that reverting IP accounts is exempt from the rule. Yes, I saw such exemption working in the subject area related to ISIS, but nowhere else. So, yes, I would recommend you to self-revert. But I am not reporting you or anyone else on administrative noticeboards (excluding SPI) any longer - as a matter of principle. My very best wishes (talk) 16:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Saudi intervention in Yemen
Since you requested the page to be protected from IPs I suggest you make sure no user adds BS casualty numbers instead of being complicit.

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War in Donbass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cargo 200. 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) 12:28, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Russian military intervention
Are you following the events in Syria? It seems Russia is preparing military intervention. At the moment there are numerous military aircraft confirmed on the ground and the build up continues. A while ago there was an article suggesting Putin will declare an intervention with China and Iran on 28th September in UN.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 September
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) 00:23, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * On the Military intervention against ISIL page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=682430665 your edit] caused an unnamed parameter error (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%2F682430665%7CMilitary intervention against ISIL%5D%5D Ask for help])

Reference errors on 23 October
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) 00:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the 2nd Quneitra offensive (2015) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=687163630 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (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%2F687163630%7C2nd Quneitra offensive (2015)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Please, stop denying me (or anyone else) the right of rational (polite) discussions on Talk pages.
I've lost count, but I just found another spot where you seem to have wanted to (intimidate and) scare me away from rational, philosophical, polite discussion: see Talk:Siege of Homs, my latest post. Please stop that (intimidating etc.) behavior that (to my opinion) is harmful for a good working atmosphere on Wikipedia. If you don't stop it, I'll probably have to call in help from other participants on Wikipedia. --Corriebertus (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Northwestern Syria offensive (October 2015 – present)
Do you have any sources that says this operation is on Stalemate condition? It's clear according to SOHR and other sources that in Palmyra, Homs, Hama, Deir ez-Zur, Lattakia, Idlib war continues with heavy clashes and territory changes happening. This isn't Stalemate. Besides, There's no source that used "Stalemate" or even "Pause" and "Restart". We can't interpret events. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 07:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad
my bad --Bolter21 (talk to me) 16:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

plz help us
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of state visits to Iran. Thanks. Shahin (talk) 09:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Baraghidah
ISIS captured Baraghidah.herehere But later rebels (with support of Turkish artillery) regain Baraghidah from ISIS.here So you need do self-revert. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * But never mind for now I self do this. Sûriyeya (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Bayanoun
Please, stop changing Bayanoun to SAA-controled, the source You gave specifically say it's under rebel control. --Hogg 22 (talk) 08:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I suspected You mixed up the colors :). --Hogg 22 (talk) 08:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Raqqa offensive (February 2016–present)
Hi. Maybe you interested in following and updating this page. P. Pajouhesh (talk) 08:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

New Yemen battles
Hi Could you create the article of the Nihm offensive and of the new battle of Aden ? Reagrars. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

deSyracuse
Your edit broke the rules of edit because deSyracuse pro-opp. source which we can't use for show succes of rebels so you need revert you edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Jund al-Aqsa
The problem is that you do not understand the sources. The sources speak of defection. Many leaders left Jund al-Aqsa to join al-Nusra. Charles Lister said "Jund al-Aqsa has been virtually decapitated", therefore several members of Jund al-Aqsa did not join al-Nusra. And almasdarnews said that Jund al-Aqsa is a Syrian Al-Qaeda group, but he did not say that Jund al-Aqsa is a group of al-Nusra. But according to Hassan Hassan, Jund al-Aqsa is actually divided about al-Nusra and the Islamic state. . Tan Khaerr (talk) 09:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I read this article and the name "Al-Nusra Front" does not appear anywhere. No source said that Jund al-Aqsa has become a part of the Al-Nusra Front. Moreover Masdar's claims are inconsistent with those of Hassan Hassan who indicates that Jund Al-Aqsa is divided into several trends. Tan Khaerr (talk) 08:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I also repeat : No source said that Jund al-Aqsa has become a part of the Al-Nusra Front. The sources distinguish and indicate that they are two different groups 1 2 3 4 5. Tan Khaerr (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yemen conflict:new info on casualties
Hi EkoGraf, please see this article by Independent  They say military casualties are now officially 300, but "reliable sources" Independent contacted say that they could be up to 3,000.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! And thank you again fro the great work.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Warning?
Yes.I left you message in the talk page. Ferakp (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

"Still waiting on your response at the discussion page in regard to the questions about the large number of claims (and a threat) you have made. EkoGraf (talk) 19:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)"

You are removing sources and details without using the talk page. I told you in the reverse that this is already discussed and explained and also I have support of admins. I told you to use the talk page. You involved in the edit war and if you reverse the same changes third time, I would have to report you. I don't know why you see it as a threat. Also, there is no claims, there is sources.Ferakp (talk) 19:27, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Military intervention against ISIL until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
 * Hello there, I have nominated this article up for deletion as it seems to be a content fork. As you are one of the main contributors to the article I believe it pertinent to notify of the notice. If you would like to join the discussion follow the link in the above description. If you have any questions, refer to the talk page on the article or leave a message on my talk page. Mr rnddude (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Mosul offensive (2016)
Hello. Can you please help clean up (and reorganize) the Mosul offensive (2016) article? It's kind of a mess right now, and I really don't have that much spare time. By the way, the article could use an update as well. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

STOP VANDALIZING! the 2016 Armenian-Azerbaijani clashes - You are removing reliable sources repeatedly
Stop icon

Your recent editing history 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 article's 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. (Hebrew Mountain Man (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC))

Crediable sources
We can't use all maps for edit. Rule #2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR. WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Verifiability WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”here Sûriyeya (talk) 07:46, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Map of Azerbaijani Gains
Hi, EkoGraf wanted to know your opinion regarding the map of Azerbaijani gains for the article 2016 Armenian–Azerbaijani clashes you can check the talk page for our sources, Seems Armenian side does not object or does not bring a valid argument against the gains since the videos from neutral sides show the gains. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agulani (talk • contribs) 09:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

88 to 90
Dear EkoGraf, check the sources please 125 Injured, ok now the volunteer from the wounds Volunteer, the one missing now counted as dead http://news.am/rus/news/323258.html brings the total number of 88 previously informed and 1 missing to 90 i dont understand why their is such a problem with the sources even when they are Armenian? Agulani (talk) 08:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Suicide drone "sources"
I would like you to properly read the source that were used for the suicide drone. You claimed recently one of the sources say that Azeri said the suicide drone was a loss. However none of the sources say so.:
 * The first one used in the article http://panarmenian.net/m/eng/news/210323 isn't talking about suicide drones at all.


 * The second one http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/04/09/suicide-drone-reportedly-used-during-skirmishes-between-azerbaijan-and-armenia.html actually says the Azeri side claims it successfully hit its target.


 * The one cited in the talk page http://www.gazeta.ru/army/2016/04/08/8165951.shtml doesn't mention any Azeri claim of a loss. It only mentions Armenian claim of loss of 6 Azero drones, however it's unclear whether they're talking about suicide drones. But there's no Azeri claim of suicide drone loss.

This is a proof that you're wrong about there being any Azeri claim if loss of a suicide drone. Thus under all circumstances I was right to delete the suicide drone loss under the Azeri claim section of the article. Please read the sources carefully before commenting again. 59.96.134.86 (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

2015 Kurdish-Turkish conflict death tolls.
A new set of death tolls have been claimed yesterday by Pro-Turkish media stating that 5,000 PKK had been neutralized with over 400 Turkish forces killed which was reiterated in an Bloomberg article a little over a week ago, now we can both agree while the biased Turkish article maybe biased but it is restating factual claims that was enlisted in a Bloomberg article. I am updating the PKK death toll to 5,000+ and leaving the Turkish forces death toll at 430. I hope you see this before undoing my edit. This is different from the 5,000 killed, wounded or captured announcement by the Turks that was mistaken as a death-toll by some articles back in March as this claim is a pure- death toll claim and an altogether different claim. You can read both the Bloomberg and pro-Turkish articles here  Berkantagan (talk) 00:42, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Armenian losses for 2016
Dear EkoGraf, I would like to know your opinion on editing the number of death tools for Armenian side for 2016 all the numbers are from Armenian sources which are in line with their MOD. Since i'm compiling numbers based on sources which are numerous citing each would create a big mess on the table. Please let me know the way acceptable without violating the rules. Agulani (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited War in Donbass, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cargo 200. 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) 09:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Please edit the Fallujah article
Hello friend I want to ask you to edit the article. As you might know Fallujah has been fully captured by Iraqi army, you can check for it online. I wanted to edit the article to show this but I am unable to edit it as it is locked and I don't have an account and I found out even if I create one it will take days before I am able to edit this. So can you please edit it and remove the ISIL occupation tag from infonox along with adding that it's now under control of Iraqi army? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.199.82.121 (talk) 00:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

total soldiers
Hey, I thanked you for moving the info to the body, but just a question: is it always just the deployed figure in the infobox? For example, the Pacific War article has 3,621,383+ US troops involved, and surely they were not all actively deployed all at the same time. Is this a hard rule? --BLACK FUTURE (tlk2meh) 14:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Armenian–Azerbaijani border conflict, EkoGraf!

Wikipedia editor Batreeqah just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Amazing!"

To reply, leave a comment on Batreeqah's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Thank you for contributing to current war articles. Keep of the good work 👍 User.🌚 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrenadierSoldi3rsKill — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrenadierSoldi3rsKill (talk • contribs) 02:50, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello
Hello✋🏻. Thank you for contributing to current events articles, keep up the good work as always.👍🏻👍🏻 If you are interested in current Midd East news, feel free to comment on my talk page.🌚 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GrenadierSoldi3rsKill — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrenadierSoldi3rsKill (talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Your sources on Battle of Aleppo
The sources that you use on the page "Battle of Aleppo" are not reliable. They are biased, they're pro-Assad, pro-Russian, and Anti-west. I'm not saying to use western propaganda either. You need to use neutral sources that either represents the opinions and reports from both sides.

Al-Masdar and Al-Manar are sources that you use that are very biased and pro-Assad. If you don't believe me, go on the twitter account of Leith Abou Fadel, the CEO of Al-Masadar.

Check how unbiased and reliable your sources are before you use them.

Syrialive is more reliable than most of the sources you use because it represents reports from both sides of the conflict. Wikipedia is a neutral site, not a biased one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talk • contribs) 06:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Jammooly Masdar has been considered a semi-reliable site by most Wikipedia editors for a long time and has been extensively used for changes to the Syria civil war map. Syrialive is almost an equivalent of Twitter, which is generally not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Finally, I haven't used Manar as a source because it is not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia editors. EkoGraf (talk) 14:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * EkoGraf Please read Al-Masdar News. It is ultra-biased towards Assad. Yes, Al-Masdar News might help with the map but half of their reports are lies, the reasonings they use to explain what is happening on the battlefields are literally all lies. For example, if the regime loses, they make us some bogus reason for them losing, such as "they had to protect civilians in the other villages" or some BS like that. Just because some wikipedia editors use Al-Masdar News doesn't make it a good source. Just because some people jump off a cliff, does it mean you should jump off a cliff? The majority of Syrians themselves know that Al-Masdar is a bunch of BS and you're using that as a source to explain what is happening in their country. I agree with you when you say that Syrialive is not a reliable source and I will stop using that as a source but everybody knows Al-Masdar News is much more worse. Jammooly 11:37, 1 August (CT)  —Preceding undated comment added 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Jammooly Listen, if you do not have reliable sources calling what Masdar is reporting lies, than your view is regarded as POV Original Research per Wikipedia policy and its not something that edits are allowed to be based on. Those are Wikipedia's rules. When the issue of Masdar as a reliable source was discussed more than a year ago among Wikipedia editors, I was one of those that advocated not to use Masdar as a reliable source. However, the discussion ultimately ended in a consensus among editors that the reliability of Masdar is almost equivalent to that of SOHR (on the opposition side) and thus it was accepted for usage in editing. To try and balance this, I have been implementing the word reportedly when a sentence is based on something that is cited from Masdar. However, if it ultimately comes out to be true based on subsequent other sources (including opposition ones) than I remove the word reportedly. So, doesn't matter what I think, or what you think. A consensus was established and that's how Wikipedia works. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * EkoGraf Ok, I understand now. Sorry for the trouble. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jammooly (talk • contribs) 18:27, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo offensive
Yep! Mehmedsons (talk) 07:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Your threat
I'm not scared by your threats. I didn't know the sanction before. But it is ironic how you tell others to calmly discuss when unlike me you have been imposing your edits for a long time and don't even discuss, which by the way can easily make a case for your block. I told you to discuss, did you? No, but I did. And I clearly detailed all your mistakes. And yes I say mistakes, you haven't read sources carefully. Instead of blaming others, see your own faults. Newsboy39 (talk) 10:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

First, yes it was a threat intended to make me submit to your will. Second, two people already informed of what you said. Third, you ask me for good faith yet yoy say I'm edit-warring and tell me to discuss first, like you're not obliged to. Fourth, you are showing a bossy attitude. That's no personal attack. Newsboy39 (talk) 10:55, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

No you need to stop threats at my page. You are telling others what to do, that's it. I don't know what else is that called and besides I'm not attacking you, simply stating what is obvious. And besides telling you'll block me if I don't do what you want is nothing more than a threat. Now please keep the discussion on talk page of the article. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Battle of Sirte (2016). Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. NgYShung huh? 11:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

2016 Latakia offensive
Sorry that I bother you with this, but I am at loss with this anon. He constantly changes the 2016 Latakia offensive to "Indecisive" or "Rebel victory", has removed sources and now posted edit warnings (as anon!) on my talk page. He does not appear to stop, so I wanted to ask for your advice, because I do not want to cause an edit war. Applodion (talk) 17:06, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

According to your faulty & biased logic: 1- You claim that rebel's Latakia Offensive was failed despite the fact they successfully captured the all 13 villages and held it for 1 month. You have no problem considering SAA counter-offensive (which started 3 weeks later) as part of the initial offensive 2- HOWEVER, in Aleppo's case you have no problem splitting that into a campaign into 2 offensives. First one by SAA with a victory, then a second one by rebels with a victory.

If we want to follow your logic then we will split Latakia Campaign to two parts: 1- Rebels Offensive in July which results in clear victory by rebels and capture of all 13 villages 2- Second counter offensive by SAA which resulted in another victory by them Of course you wouldn't agree given your apparent bias with your friend Applodion who came here begging for help in his edit war. 67.8.53.13 (talk) 22:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You do realize that rebels Latakia Offensive ended in 1st of July by them capturing Kinsibba. Yep, that was more than 1.5 month ago according to your favorite biased news source. Do you realize that SAA only captured Kinsibba this week?. That's 6 weeks after rebel's offensive was already declared successful. Rebels as a matter of fact redeployed to Aleppo and left their positions, that's when SAA came and took them. Again that's according to another SAA-biased source which is mentioned in that page. Completely different battles, completely different times, second one wasn't even a battle. How for god sake, you declare that SAA victory 6 weeks after rebels already won. 67.8.53.13 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Just because a commander died in that front, that doesn't by any mean prove that rebels offensive was still ongoing till last week. The battle was initiated by Army of Conquest which already completed their objective more than 50 days ago. 1st Coastal Division by no mean represent that offensive as you know that. The major rebel force wasn't even there last week, they left their positions to 1st Coastal Division. It's clear that rebels offensive which ended in July 1st is a completely separate event than what happened last week (50 days apart + most rebels forces are different). Any attempt to show them as a single offensive that resulted in SAA victory is pathetic show of bias. For god sake, they stopped their offensive 50 days, how much proof do you need more than that. 67.8.53.13 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Warning: Harassment of other users
Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you.

I'm submitting the warning above due to the fact that you have shown bad faith towards me by giving warning of reverts and not the other editor Applodion who has done as many ,if not more, reverts. By visiting his & your talk page, it's clear that you have participated in this type of collusion multiple times. I would ask you to refrain from targeting others to show support for your friend. This place is for all editors to contribute and collaborate. If you're not going to be neutral, then I would suggest that you stop using Wikipedia. 67.8.53.13 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I see, that explains why a mysterious anonymous IPs started reverting the changes all of sudden when this registered user stopped reverting in the last 24 hours. In complete coincidence a message by this "good faith" user appeared in your talk page urging for support in his edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.53.13 (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 August
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) 00:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=736048656 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%2F736048656%7CBattle of Aleppo (2012–present)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Revert
Sorry, i just want to "Watch the page" but i click to "undo" Rogal Dorm (talk) 13:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Turkish military intervention in Syria
Someone has removed the space between all the sentences in the "Status" section of the article's infobox. This is making all the content appear in one paragraph without any space. Someone please correct it. 61.1.56.185 (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Recaptured villages by ISIL
Regarding Dabiq offensive, there are two separate versions of the recent advances. Come to article talk page, I'll explain there in detail. 61.1.56.185 (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits at Mosul offensive (2016).
Some disruptive editor keeps adding his undue edits (you've got to see it to believe it), keeps changing information that is contrary to what is in source and keeps on saying I'm vandalising the article. Not just that, he's also create a Battle of Mosul (2016) by ripping off his undue content from Mosul offensive. This is getting too much, please do something if you can. 117.199.86.130 (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

New al-Bab offensive
Rebels have renewed their push to al-Bab, do if you can create a new article (if you want to) then please do. If you choose to do something else with it, then no problem. Nobody's replied to my comment on Turkish military intervention, so I don't see any choice but to ask others to make edits. 117.199.94.169 (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Please create a new article about it already, the rebels started moving towards al-Bab yesterday. 117.199.92.92 (talk) 23:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Cann't create an article yet because there is no indication that current advances are part of an organised offensive to take the city. In fact, it seems more as an advance to reach Kurdish lines and clash with them. If there is an offensive towards al-Bab announced I will create an article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Take charge of Battle fot Mosul (2016)
We are becoming familiar pals. The user Wikimandia has again started making undue edits and disruptive edits again. Sometimes his sources either do not say what his edits say, are biased and not reliable. Sometimes his edits are even sourceless. I'm getting tired of this. I know you are busy. But I think the article needs your and others' attention as much as it can get, and also it will do much good that you bring other editors along with you as well. This is in order for upkeeping its quality which is already not much good. 59.89.101.140 (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Aleppo mistake
sorry for my revert on Aleppo. I have checked and it seems correct a rebel offensive ha begun. 190.217.208.182 (talk) 12:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Humanitarian assistance to the Russian military intervention in individual states.
Greece, Canada, Italy, Singapore, European countries, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Belgium, Slovenia, Croatia participating in the humanitarian operation in Iraq. It is located in the template.

Also, Belarus, Armenia, Serbia, China, Azerbaijan, India and Kazakhstan participate in the Russian humanitarian operation. It is located in the most relevant Russian and Serbian media outlets. Yes sources:

Next: https://rs.sputniknews.com/rusija/201610111108432217-sirija-srbija-humanitarna-pomoc/

http://www.slobodnaevropa.org/a/srbija-alepo-rusija/28063420.html

Министерство обороны Сербии заявило о решении направить в Алеппо гуманитарную помощь, которую доставят российские самолёты.

По сообщению сербской газеты «Politika», в гуманитарную помощь войдут продовольственные товары, одежда, обувь, медикаменты и электрогенераторы.

Следует напомнить, что накануне заместитель министра обороны РФ Анатолий Антонов сообщил, что при содействии российских военных в Сирию будет направлена гуманитарная помощь из Китая, Сербии, Азербайджана, Индии, Пакистана, отметив, что уже доставлена помощь из Армении и Беларуси.

http://sana.sy/ru/?p=88388

This message will stick to the talk page "Russian military intervention in Syria."
 * If this applies only to the fighters, then you should have the same treatment as a member of the American intervention in Iraq (2014-present). Humanitarian assistance can not stand in this article, if you can in a previous article. To help in Iraq from Greece, Canada, Italy, Singapore, the European Union, the Czech Republic, Albania, Bulgaria, Belgium, Slovenia and the Croatian humanitarian? Why is humanitarian aid to Syria in dispute, but Iraq is not? Does Belarus, Armenia, Serbia, China, Azerbaijan, India and Kazakhstan are not the state? Do these countries less valuable compared to the members of the European Union? You are not fair.

I will wipe humanitarian assistance in Iraq. I will use their arguments. I will use the argument that you made in the previous article. If you restore humanitarian aid to Iraq in the template, I'll be back in the article the Russian military intervention in Syria.--Baba Mica (talk) 22:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Your assertions are sourceless
All you do is make assertions. We don't go by what you or anyone thinks has been gping on. It is usual in an offensive for there to be either a temporary pause or no reports as there is no notable devolpment, it doesn't mean it has ended. Now as I asked you, bring a source it is part of a new offensive. If you can't then your edits are sourceless and baseless. Simple, nothing else matters except sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.122.145.195 (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your other assertion, there's again no source for your claim regarding an airstrike (it aaid bombing) being part of a different offensive. As I told you many times, offensives have temporary pauses and no reports sometimes. But regardless, we need a source for your claims. 45.122.145.195 (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

First thing's first, it is you who is sourcelessly claiming the battle seized. As I said temporary pauses or no notable devolpments and reports are usual. But still I've reverted it, that too only because you are acting stubbornly and I don't want an edit war over a one reported bombing. Regardless, do not remove it as it is sourced. Nowhere it is classified as part of a new offensive. Neither does it need to. 45.122.145.195 (talk) 20:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

November 2016
Your recent editing history at Eastern Qalamoun offensive (September—October 2016) 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&mdash;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&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.''So far I've counted three reverts within a 3-hour period. '' <font color="#0645AD">Minima <font color="#0645AD">© (<font color="#0645AD">talk ) 20:34, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

User Hakan3400 and User Beshogur Links.
See here, a possible sock puppet??? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Turkish_military_intervention_in_Syria&diff=prev&oldid=751444102. Mr.User200 (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

User Hakan3400 disruptive editing at Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War.
Hakan3400 continue its disruptive behaviour on another Turkish related article, this time at the Turkish involvement in the Syrian Civil War, he continue to erase sourced information. Can you talk to him please.Mr.User200 (talk) 20:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Tried to do reflist-talk
Hello EkoGraf. While I was reading your page, I noticed that a bunch of references were piling up at the bottom of the talk page. I tried putting in a couple of reflist-talk templates and trust that you approve of this. While I'm here, I want to comment on your patience with a difficult subject, since you've been editing about the Syrian civil war for a long time and the discussions on your page seem very calm. (At least your side is calm). Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Civilian casualties edits
I would realy like it if you could say something about the behaviour of Mr.User200. Already asked him to go to the talk page witch he ignores and he keeps editing the article while I already reverted the civilian casualties to the botom of the list. Hakan3400 (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2012–2016)
Syrian Arab army defeated the rebels today in. Victory is determined. Battle of Aleppo not yet completed. Not the whole area under the control of Alepo SAA. Turkey, ISIL and the Kurds hold the north of the municipality. Municipalities west of Aleppo rebels still hold. The resulting battle was only for city.--Baba Mica (talk) 00:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Jel need and Kurds to surrender but to be confirmed? I think it's Aleppo offensive (November-December 2016) ended. He beat Asad in the city. The entire province is not.--Baba Mica (talk) 01:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I have to look at this site:http://syria.liveuamap.com/en/2016/12-december-photo-progovernment-force-fire-into-the-air-celebrating --Baba Mica (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Fuck this shit
Goddamn rebels and the goddamn governments and the goddamn militias. They keep breaking the ceasefires as soon as they start. What the fuck's the point. The evacuation deal broke second time, but ceasefire have been broken for long. The motherfuckers are crazy and only care about themselves. Let the damn civilians leave already and then kill each other! I am getting sick of this, I've stayed awake for 3 nights in a row now because of these stubborn motherfuckers making one pang or the another. And yes I'm using foul language against them all, I'm getting tired of them. 124.253.252.212 (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard
Hi,

I have requested dispute resolution, where you and another use who was banned are part of the dispute. Link to the discussion: Ferakp (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Psss.. Message to you at my Talkpage.
Cheers. Mr.User200 (talk) 21:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I require Information on your edits "Turkish military intervention in Syria"
I have noticed that references provided by me on said page "Turkish military intervention in Syria" regarding Turkish Army casualties have been repeatedly replaced by you. I would like to know whether you replace with AP because considering it as better source or this page has any specific requirements? I may consider adding AP source myself if any such requirements exist. My Talk page Good Day :)