User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2020 1

Edit warring and violation of 1RR
You've violated 1RR on Template:Syrian Civil War infobox while telling me that's not how Wikipedia works. Looks like you need to learn better how Wikipedia works before giving others lessons. 182.52.51.4 (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * 1RR on that page only applies to logged in users, as the notice clearly states. El_C 06:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * He is a logged in user is he not? 182.52.51.4 (talk) 07:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, 1RR only applies to reverting logged in users, not IPs. El_C 07:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * So I'll just create an account and revert him than, that should be OK... 182.52.51.4 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No, you will leave the status quo ante version in place, per WP:ONUS, while the matter is discussed. Gain consensus for your changes first. El_C 07:36, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War infobox
Hi EkoGraf, i undid your addition of Israel in the infobox, which you based on source (stating "finally confirmed") due to WP:RS and WP:REDFLAG policies. The source is coming for Middle East Monitor which is a kind of blog and the sourced article is an opinion piece by an unnamed author full with conspiracy claims (Israel supporting ISIS, al-Qaeda, etc), but that is not the only thing ringing the bell. The article links to other sources which seem to be the origin of information, referring to Haaretz publication made "last month". However going to Haaretz link reveals an old article from February 2019, which is an opinion piece. Going further, the Haaretz opinion refers to Sunday Times article from January 2019 about the Iran-Israel conflict during the Syrian Civil War, which is truncated; the existing text in Sunday Times doesn't say anything about Israeli-Syrian rebel relations. The issue had already been discussed at talk:Syrian Civil War/Israel, so probably this is nothing new. I don't mind adding Israel to the infobox as a belligerent against Iran and Hezbollah in the 4th column with US coalition and Rojava, but that is not the Syrian Opposition column where you did put it and it could also have opposition (Israel and Rojava have no relations at all, and if anything are not even friendly); so far, there has been no consensus on where to put Israel in the box, even though many would like to see it present there.GreyShark (dibra) 08:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Rename request.
Hi, can you do this edit request? Thanks. 176.88.136.20 (talk) 17:41, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Original Research
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You have doubled casualties at an infobox without a reference and used the news about same casualty two times, doubling the casualty number. Please self revert otherwise administrators will have to be notified as this is a serious violation of Wikipedia rules. DIFF: Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Turkish losses.
Ekograf, this is a headache for me. In our changes based on Reuters it says 55 killed plus 3 from the diferrence (34 Strike early claims -36 Erdogan numbers), total 58, plus 2 killed yesterday and today, grand total 60. But Reuters in today article talk about 57 killed in Idlib since February. There is a contradiction here. What numbers should we use. a) Wait for Trukish official numbers and place them on the lower number. b) Just use SOHR outright??Mr.User200 (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a question, do you checked one by one, the Turkish soldiers deaths in the TSK MOD ?? Because I have found other numbers. What about using SOHR and Erdogan Comments only.Mr.User200 (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, finally SOHR published a total deadth toll of the Idlib Campaing. So we just use their 73 reported killed for the upper number. Seems all have de-escalated with the Putin Erdogan Meeting. And the Syrian advances recapturing Saraqib. Maybe the battle will be over and another short lived cease fire will take place.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq
Hi, due to your interest in Middle Eastern history, you are welcome to contribute to the newly created 1979–80 Shia uprising in Iraq article.GreyShark (dibra) 12:51, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

New looming clashes at Idlib
Hey Eko, what about preparing another Article (At a Sandbox) of the looming conflict in Idlib between Syria and the Opp.Mr.User200 (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your edits in 2020 China–India skirmishes
Unfortunately, there is no official confirmation of the number of casualties in the clashes by China, so your amendment depends on 43 dead, which is not yet certain. Mr. James Dimsey (talk) 18:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Your information that 72 India n soldiers were injured in the separate Sikkim incident, is wrong. Non of Indian official statement or any media house has reported this figure. Voortrekker70 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Voortrekker70 (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War → Casualties of the Ukrainian crisis
There has been some interesting developments which are relevant to this move proposal:


 * It turns out that (the account that moved the page) and  (one of the account that opposed your move request) are sockpuppets of Dolyn, and they are all now blocked from editing Wikipedia.
 * RGloucester had been topic banned from editing articles related to Eastern Europe, broadly construed, in large part due to uncivil conduct and a failure to WP:AGF. They are however quite likely to make a successful appeal.

The Ukrainian crisis has a greater scope than Russo-Ukrainian War, and therefore the old title is in my opinion preferable. Heptor (talk) 11:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Heptor, I don't really think this form of gloating is appropriate ...my topic ban was self-imposed. In any case, I've returned. I don't agree that everything should be moved back until a clear consensus emerges at Russo-Ukrainian War. If that article stays put, as it likely will, there will be no need to revert this move. RGloucester  — ☎ 16:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Being at the receiving end of your incivility, I think some level of gloating is appropriate. Heptor (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey Heptor, I was against the move/renaming since it was undiscussed and thus I earlier requested it be reverted back. But since two more editors appeared to be against the reverting back to the old title I dropped the issue. However, since two of the three editors (including the one who made the undiscussed move) turned out to be the same person (an apparently known indefinitely blocked sock puppeteer) then I think the whole undiscussed move was controversial. Thus reverting back to the "crisis" title may be the most appropriate action. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the one that reported the relevant sock farm, so believe me, I'm aware. However, if a new consensus does not emerge at Heptor's RM at Russo-Ukrainian War, I would suggest moving the article back.  RGloucester  — ☎ 14:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Join the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!
Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Please revert these to unreliable indian referenced edits from the infobox
Resapp (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Disruptive editing at the infobox of 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh conflict
Please refrain from biased editing as you have here. Your reference says "Armenian forces announced that they restored a number of previously lost positions." Not all positions, as your edit states. Resapp (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Adding information without reading the reference is disruptive, whether you do it knowingly or unknowingly. There are no personal attacks directed towards you with this regard, warning are made to improve Wikipedia, if you feel that warnings are attacks directed towards you personally please see WP:BATTLEGROUND. Resapp (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

14 Azerbaijani civilian deaths
Hello. The image provided by the source shows that 14 Azerbaijani civilians were killed. So I had to revert your edit. Cheers! --► Sincerely:  Sola Virum  13:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Armenia/Azerbaijan discretionary sanctions
Cabayi (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

3RR Warning
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. 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 the bold, revert, discuss cycle 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 you 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 do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Peervalaa (talk) 15:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!
You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Casualties on Azeri side
Hi there, as you can read here the total amount is 1,500 + 2,000. --Nicola Romani (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverting at 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war
Hi EkoGraf, rather than continue to revert the changes regarding the number of casualties please engage in discussion on the talk page so that blocks aren't necessary. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Battle of kosare
There is not a single KLA affiliated primary source which refers to the number 200 as the amount of casualties in the battle. in fact there are only 114 graves at the memorial in koshare to the KLA militants. this here is a pdf document by the Kosovo government which reference the casualties. "LOSSES In the Battle of Koshare, 114 Martyrs of the Nation died (two of them have been decorated by the Order Hero of Kosovo, whereas three other fighters are international freedom-loving and volunteers, foreign citizens from: Italy, France and Morocco) and 423 fighters were wounded from the KLA Brigade 138 Agim Ramadani. Whereas, on the enemy side, there is still no official record on the exact or approximate data of the losses." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Durraz0 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring, as you did at Battle of Košare. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC) While I appreciate your efforts to discuss the issue at the talk page, it is not a trump card for edit warring. Edit warring is not acceptable in any case, even when you state your arguments on the talk page and the other editor fails to respond.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  10:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am sorry for the edit warring that ensued. I was not aware that articles involving the Balkans have been so heated that administrator discretionary sanctions were authorized (didn't see the ARBCOM notice at the top of the article's talk page that was recently added, saw it only now), I have mostly been involved in Middle East-related articles. If I had known, I would have tried to let a discussion run its course with more editors involved at the article's talk page. I am otherwise very careful when it comes to the 1RR or 3RR guidelines and try to use an article's talk page as much as possible to find a compromise solution beneficial to both parties (whether as an involved party or an uninvolved mediator). In any case, thank you, I will use this period to take a step back, take a break and cool down as they say. EkoGraf (talk) 11:35, 30 December 2020 (UTC)