User talk:EllsworthSK/Archive 2

Battle of Zabadani
I saw the situation developing at the article on the Battle of Zabadani. And I think we have to look at the time-frame and what the sources really do say. So I have carefully worded the article per the sources. First, I agree that it seems that a large part of the town is not under the control of the government, with the military only focusing on guarding government buildings in the town and the roads into and out of Zabadani. However, the sources are clear that the FSA itself doesn't have any control of Zabadani, with them holding positions outside the city (not being able to enter due to the checkpoints) while the ones who are actually on the streets of Zabadani are civilian opposition members who are organising the protests. Second, I do not agree the battle is ongoing because too much time has passed since the last phase. Three months, and the sources themselves state that battle ended with the military regaining control of Zabadani. So the event that the article covers is done. If there is a new event create a new article. However, as it seems, there is no actual battle for the city. The Army won the battle. Now it seems more of a situation where the military controls the critical points of the city, while they are letting the opposition protesters roam free on the streets. Again...three months, too much time has passed. All this now is for the aftermath section of the battle. EkoGraf (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Al-Bukamal protests
Your opinion on this issue Articles for deletion/Al-Bukamal protests would be appreciated, since you have been involved a lot on the Syria conflict articles. EkoGraf (talk) 18:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Done. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Maarat al-Numaan
Another one. Siege of Maarat al-Numaan I proposed a delete, or a merge if at least one source is found. EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Bratislava
Ahoj, pozri prosim aktualnu diskusnu stranku clanku Bratislava. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.98.47.189 (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

First and Second Damascus offensives
I was thinking. What would you think about creating an article on a First Damascus offensive (back from January-February 2012) when the rebels were repelled after managing to capture the capital's suburbs for two weeks. Than a Second Damascus offensive (now). And we merge several of those small fork articles into one with the First Damascus offensive? Primarily maybe merge Battle of Douma into that article, or leave the Douma battle as a separate one because it was big and notable? Also, we redirect 2011 Rif Dimashq blockades to the First offensive article. Because that one was also created without any real references provided. EkoGraf (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the first part (creation of first battle of Damascus subrurbs, not Damascus as Douma and other cities are technically not part of Damascus), but second seems hairy. Frankly, we do not have enough informations to say who controls what, we know that rebels are active in that area and they are conducting hit and run attacks at nights but do they control the at least part of suburbs? Do they have checkpoints there as before? It is all unknown to us so maybe I´d wait with that for a while. EllsworthSK (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok than, I will create an article in a day or so named something like 2012 Damascus suburbs offensive. If the current fighting in the suburbs that started 3-4 days ago continues than I will rename that article to First Damascus suburbs offensive, and the current one being the Second, but will wait a bit as you say. I don't think they have any checkpoints or taken any control during the latest offensive. I think it has been more of a hit-and-run thing. And I will redirect the Rif Dimashq blockades to the first offensive article. But what about the Douma battle? Leave it as a separate article and note in the main article that it was part of the overall offensive, or merge it too? Personally I think we should merge, because most of the fighting during the offensive was in Douma, but there were still clashes in 2-3 other suburbs (towns). EkoGraf (talk) 14:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * They had, if you check Douma article, several journalists which were accompanying AL mission ninja´d out of Damascus hotel and went to the Douma and filmed FSA guarding entrances to the city. It was the same in other suburbs, they were completely out of government control. Frankly, large protests during daylight in the center of city are always indication that Syrian security forces are not present in the area and it is controlled by FSA. I saw smaller daylight protests in Douma recently but my personal opinion is that parts of Douma are out of government control and parts are not (something like Qusayr up until recently) as government shells areas (logically it won´t shell it´s own) in those suburbs and several tanks and IFVs were destroyed by RPG fire. And since I am already talking about Douma, merge. It was most prominent Damascus suburbs but far from the only one. Also since we are talking about merge I would propose the same thing with other Idlib forks and Homs (except the bombardment as that was prominent enough). Frankly, those articles like "Hama May 2012 offensive" "Homs month X offensive" "Idbli second shooting" are useless and I will shorty propose merge of all of them into the main which many times already covers these events. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Except for the Homs bombardment offensive I would support all your merge proposals. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I wrote that Homs bombardment should be an exception given its prominence in media at time of event (although that prominence may have been diminished given that bombardment continues up until this very day). Also, could you provide your opinion on this matter ? EllsworthSK (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

User: Clarificationgiven
This user has been causing alot of POV pushing I see... but I can't help but think that he is actually an alternative account of the banned []. This guy I seen before on the Libyan-related pages, vandalizing things and making everything pro gaddafi. I would file a report to the administrators investigating this, and if you notice the time between in which clarification was created and the time between Justicejayant was banned is very short , and all of the sudden he is an expert on how Gaddafi was a "good guy". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.127.171.51 (talk) 05:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong section, try taking such matters to the talk page of the article, and try to make some contributions instead of complaining about them and stop vandalizing the sourced contents as per your own thoughts.69.46.82.36 (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Foreign fighters
The Washington post source at the same time confirms that 10 percent of the FSA fighters are foreign. They even cite a number of 500-900. That is not a small number and their role in the conflict has been talked about at length in many recent articles. Yes, Fatah al-Islam's group was estimated to be just 30 back in March-April and that is not much. However, recently there was an article that stated almost all of the Lebanese fighters joining the FSA are under the overall command of Fatah. And the Lebanese are estimated to be around 300 and rising. Also, the presence of Fatah is notable given they were the main instigator of the Lebanese conflict from 2007 so are thus a Lebanese player. Overall the presence of the foreigners, though still only estimated to be 10 percent of the rebels, is still highly notable. It's being mentioned constantly in the media as being the main fear of not just the various governments who barely support the rebels but of the rebels themselves. Just today there was a CNN report in which an FSA commander confirmed the foreign presence is still small but that he is highly concerned that their numbers are rising. So the foreigners are a combatant in the conflict however you look at it. Oh, by the way, I forgot to tell you, recently a US government official stated the number of FSA to be a lot smaller than the 40,000 figure, he cited a number of 10,000-20,000 to CNN. I have cited the source in the infobox as a lower estimate of the number of rebels while leaving the higher 40,000 figure. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I put my reply from here on the main talk page of the Syrian war article as well so to keep the continuity of that discussion going. I didn't see it before, saw it only after you pointed me to it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Government death toll
I have removed from the main article on the conflict the death toll provided by the government because it was becoming out-of-date. The last civilian deaths number was back from March, 3,600, the last rebel deaths number was back from September of last year, 700, since than they only sporadicly updated that, and the last number for security forces deaths was a week ago, when it was approaching 4,000 and came in line with the SOHR number. If a new and fresh number is provided by the government I will add it. For now the numbers are SOHR, VDC, UN, Shuhada and the LCC. But I'm thinking of removing the LCC number because they have not provided a solid overall number for two months now. Will have to think about that some more. EkoGraf (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem here. If you want, I can look on LCC website tomorrow (or rather today) and see if I find any death toll. However I would appreciate if you´d respond on my post here Talk:Syrian_uprising_(2011–present). Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Replied yesterday. And I would be glad if you could look up the LCC website for a figure. I tried looking around it but found no number. There is a page on the site that says Statistics but when I click on it it comes out blank, nothing on it. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 00:10, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

"Read the sources"
Interestingly the BBC actually changed their article (note it was updated at around the same time I added my comments) - it did originally say the helicopter incident was at Tripoli. Number  5  7  15:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the tone than. I meant no offence. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Good work on improving the article. Number   5  7  17:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Where are you getting the results from? Number  5  7  09:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted source in above text. It is Libya Herald EllsworthSK (talk) 09:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. Number   5  7  09:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2011 Homs operation
Proposed a merger, at the articles talk page, to the main article on the Siege of Homs. EkoGraf (talk) 01:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Midan
I think we should maybe make an article called Battle of Midan or Midan raid or July 2012 Damascus raid. What you think? EkoGraf (talk) 03:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, we should make a section about it in main article, but not create any more forks. It remains to be seen how significant this clashes will become. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Continuing for a third day, and the rebels are calling it a deliberate operation on their part called Damascus Volcano. So I think its notable. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * True, but I´d still wait till its over and than decide. Just to be sure. EllsworthSK (talk) 14:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:56, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Bombing
Done. EkoGraf (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Kurds
First, I totally agree with you in regards to adding the Kurds, but no need for a third coloumn since they haven't engaged in open conflict with the opposition. One skirmish doesn't mean open war with the opposition. Since they are anti-Assad just add them to the anti-Assad coloumn. But separate them with a line like we have done with the mujahedeen and the official syrian opposition since the kurds have not alligned themselves with ether. Anyway, the mujahedeen have also skirmished at least once with the opposition but we still put them all in the same coloumn. Also, if you would read the same source you put, since that one skirmish on 3 July the Kurds and the opposition have reached an agreement to let the FSA operate in Arab areas if they leave them alone and have offered to even smuggle weapons to the FSA across the Turkish border. That would even imply that they are on some level allies. EkoGraf (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally, I´ve been talking to one Iraqi Kurd for past few weeks about Kurdish position in the Syria as western media nearly completely ignore this minority and focuses solely on sunnis, Alawites and Christians. As you can see on the talk, firstly editors wanted to add them to pro-Assad collum, because of that skirmish and PYD not allowing FSA entering Kurdish areas. But from what several sources I posted says and what I learned is that PYD is anti-Turkish in everything that can be. They see FSA as Turkish allies and even though PYD and KNC does not like Assad for the way he has been treating Kurds (destruction of culture, language, names, removal of citizenship, that concession was farce and only 6,000 Kurds were able to get Syrian citizienship), they do not trust FSA as well and so their position is very simple. Keep out of Kurdish areas, we will keep out of Arab areas, you take down the regime in Arab areas, we will deal with it in Kurdistan. And that agreement in Iraqi Kurdistan was between KNC and PYD. Clashes happened between Salahedin battalion, Kurdish battalion of FSA, and PYD (although PYD claims that those were "Kurds" who chased them out). Even though yesterday both PYD and FSA militias cooperated in protection of protesters in Salahedin neighbourhood of Aleppo, I still do not think that it is smart to make 2 collums. Kurds have their own agenda, as in Iraq. They want their Syrian Kurdistan, just as they have Iraqi Kurdistan. They are not helping FSA in their fight against regime in Hama, Homs and other provinces, they are forcing out both FSA and regime out of their territories. That FSA does not have a foothold of their territories is just by a chance. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Though that may be, and I actually may agree with you, we have to base our edits on verified sources. And most at the moment, with the exception of that one skirmish, present them as, at best, distant buddies (weapons smuggling, joint protection of protesters, agreement on territory). If that changes in the near future we gonna discuss it again. EkoGraf (talk) 16:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok you start and we see where to go from there. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo 2012
there is really a battle in Aleppo between the Free Syrian Army and the Syrian Army (Alhanuty (talk) 19:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)).


 * And it is also a WP:CFORK. We already have article which deals with Aleppo. EllsworthSK (talk) 19:10, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgot totally about Al-Bukamal protests. You want to redirect and merge it to the timeline article or do I do it? EkoGraf (talk) 19:27, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please, do it. I am tired and am going to get some sleep. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Should we maybe change our arguments from merge to keep at the Battle of Aleppo article? Because it seems it has really escalated into a full-on battle for the city now like in Damascus and maybe even more and its highly notable in the media. EkoGraf (talk) 19:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am thinkg about it as well. I´ll take another day for it and see how it escalates. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Casualties article
Should we maybe create an article and move most of the casualties section to it with only a sumarization in the main article on the conflict? EkoGraf (talk) 01:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe yes, the main page is already too big as it is and it takes sometimes minutes for me to load it. It is especially frustrating when I want to edit it and meanwhile someone makes some minor edit. Taking some pressure off of it can´t be that bad. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:03, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will see to try and cook up something. :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, what do you think Casualties of the Syrian civil war? EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool. Not too long, easy to navigate, I like it. Also easily updated. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Jihadist border crossing
Sorry, I wrote badly before, I got confused about parts of that source article and wrote wrongly. My bad. I have now written properly. Hope its ok this time. :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I have the Washington post article link
Finally some rationality rather than fearmongering. I7laseral (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflict
Looks like User:DanielUmel has reported you for breaking the 3rv rule or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:EllsworthSK_reported_by_User:DanielUmel_.28Result:_.29

Sopher99 (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Cute. EllsworthSK (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

SOHR rebel toll
An editor has expressed reservation at my attempt to combine SOHR-only day-to-day numbers of rebels killed into a unified death toll and wants to remove the full toll on the basis that it is OR if the full toll itself was not cited. I have stated that I agree with him if the figures were coming from different organisations, but in this case it is coming from one organisation with its own constant methodology. I have proposed that the toll be removed temporarily until the discussion is resolved and we include other editors. Your opinion would be appreciated. Discussion here Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Should we maybe close this discussion Talk:July 2011 Homs operation? Seems the administrators forgot about it hehe. EkoGraf (talk) 13:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Shit, forgot about this. I´ll close it. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Flag
Please check out the article Flag of Syria. User:DanielUmel is—like usual—edit warring and causing problems there. Hopefully we can gain consensus with the views of editors like you, consensus which the aforementioned user claims does not exist. حرية (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  17:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Possible signing issue
This:


 * It keeps on showing up wherever you leave a talk page message. I suspect it is a signature issue (as in: ~ ). حرية 10:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Weird. Everything looks fine from here. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And when I am signed off as well. 95.103.20.70 (talk) 13:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Qaeda on Aleppo page
I just read again the talk page and it appears that you are the only one wanting to remove Al Qaeda from the infobox. Me and user Wustenfuchs are in favour of letting them in. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Than read again. You ignored the talk, me and Wustenfuchs meanwhile agreed on compromise. Anyone was free to join it. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I also oppose having Al Qaeda there. Stop misrepresenting things constantly. حرية (talk) 19:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

2012 Aleppo Governorate clashes
I have reorganised a bit the article and renamed it to clashes to be in line with the titles of the other articles. Since the clashes itself started in February 2012 I have left out 2011 in the title. I put the protests, which were minimal, in the background section like its in the other articles. What do you think? Looking better? EkoGraf (talk) 20:42, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good. I think even Greyshark will like it. Bytheway what will we do with that Kurdish issue on battle of Aleppo page.
 * PS: I wasn´t much active in recent days and for next two weeks I won´t be as I will be aboard. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Al-Qusayr
I deleted the section titled Christian exodus created by DanielUmel, who we have found out is really ChronicalUsual. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/DanielUmel Sopher99 (talk) 01:50, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow. I mean, wow. He had over 40 sock-puppet accounts. This guy will be back, I would treat any new editor who starts adding articles from SANA with suspicion. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:16, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Sockpuppets
I'd be surprised if Dimitrish is a sockpuppet. He'd almost certainly have been caught in the initial checkuser if he was. While he certainly edits from a similar POV, he's not a standoffish jackass like "Daniel", and he also seems to have a much poorer command of English. I'll keep an eye on him, though. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2011–present Libyan factional fighting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ansar al-Sharia (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) 11:07, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)
Your take on the situation here Talk:Battle of Damascus (2012) to find a compromise could help. That Arabic name user is trying to make it look like the July battle/rebel offensive is still ongoing and it didn't end. I tried to explain to him that that article covers only the rebel's push for control of the city back in July, which failed, and that we already have two separate articles covering the current fighting in and around Damascus (Rif Dimashq offensive and 2011–2012 Damascus clashes). But he is being un-compromising. I know you at the time expressed the opinion that the battle ended, however I am asking you to join the discussion because, even though we can disagree on issues from time to time, you always had a way to propose a compromise that was agreeable to the majority of people, which I would also follow. Bottom line, I appreciate you as a compromising negotiator who can find middle ground for both parties. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 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) 08:20, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Maarrat al-Nu'man
Should we create a battle article for that city? Been in the news for two days and it seems 60 people (40 civilians and 20 rebels) have been killed in the fighting there, unknown number of government troops dead. Or should we maybe wait a few more days to see if it escalates? EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * That city has been fought over before, frankly maybe we could incorporate it into the 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes for the moment. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok. EkoGraf (talk) 13:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Battle becoming more notable. Army counter-attack today, 30 rebels killed, bringing rebel/civilian toll to 100. Another 50 defectors reportedly executed in the city. Will wait until tomorrow. If more news of heavy fighting comes out tomorrow I will proceed and create an article for it. In the meantime, all the info we do have on the current fighting I have included in 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes as you said. Check it out and make corrections if you think they are needed. EkoGraf (talk) 20:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

May be we have to create battle bacause government forces starting operation to take control of city. Here is source: http://www.itar-tass.com/c45/563241.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.40.118.68 (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo
Heawy fightings in Aleppo - region Al-Zehraa. I can not find it on map. Local pepoles say: 'This is heavies fight from beginning of war.' Position is near military airforce inteligence building at nord east part of city???? link: http://news.ibox.bg/news/id_398523024 May be translation is not correct or this part of city si not good described on map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

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) 11:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to admit that I lost you here. Regardless, I am not following Aleppo battle that closely, try to bring it to its talk page. Several users there will be more informed about such events than I am. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:02, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya
Sorry for the late response. When I helped in creating the Libyan factional fighting article my intent was to branch out the info from the Aftermath article into a separate one which would deal with the continuing conflict/clashes aspect of the aftermath, while the Aftermath article itself would talk also about the Politics, Economy etc. I agree that certain things that don't belong in the Libyan factional fighting article have ended up there, namely the political wrangling, and I think that they should be removed and moved to the overall Aftermath article. But I think that the Factional fighting article needs to be a separate article because it talks about one aspect of the Aftermath of the civil war which is separate from the other problematic issues plaguing the country right now. Sidenote, do you think we should create an article on the rebel siege of the government-loyal town of Harem in Idlib that has been going on for the last 3 weeks? It has been poping up in the news on occasion lately. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I can agree with that, but I do not think that vast majority of article fits that description. It is not only about political struggle but every clash, even between families which pops out on Reuters, AFP, APA, Libya Herald or elsewhere finds its way into the article even though, frankly, it is unimportant from the larger perspective. What about this force example User:EllsworthSK/sandbox/Libya_interfactional. I took out unimportant stuff (and even though much remained).


 * As for Harem according to this source all but ancient fortress already has fallen under rebel control. IDK if we need article for that. Id rather use it in Idlib article. EllsworthSK (talk) 20:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

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

Deonis 2012
Please comment about this user: WP:ANI.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I've reported him to Commons AN. Please comment here:. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

December 2012
There is currently a discussion on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you. Regards -- Director  ( talk )  01:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

DRN thread
A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director  ( talk )  14:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:1. stihacia letka sliac.png)
Thanks for uploading File:1. stihacia letka sliac.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Letecka zakladna Presov logo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Letecka zakladna Presov logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Lzsliac.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Lzsliac.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Mi-17 sqn logo.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Mi-17 sqn logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 will be useful. However, please note that media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Slovakian help needed
Hello EllsworthSK, I'm contacting you because we need some Slovakian translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on sk.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Slovakian Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi Pat. I've just translated interface strings on TW and put info about your request and VisualEditor localization into our Village Pump (here). Hope, there'll be some interest... Regards --Teslaton (talk) 00:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Post-civil war violence in Libya
Can you please look at the article. User:EkoGraf keeps using a bias fringe source from Mathaba News Agency to claim that some kind of coordinated "Green Resistance" exists (it doesn't). The other sources he is using don't use that term either. Thanks.

al-Mukalla
Later reliable source reported that al-Qaeda in Yemen stormed the center of the port city of al-Mukalla in the Hadhramaut province.Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also you marked several towns as under control by Yemeni troops here on based pro government source but this is not correct. This source biased. But earlier other source confirmed that these towns of under control of AQ.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Battle of Idlib
Do me a favor and monitor this article as well the 2015 Jisr al-Shughur offensive article. I'm certain EkoGraf is going to try and pull this same stunt when declaring the opposition victory on this article also, despite the hugely broad coalition of forces and notable FSA contribution. He is already trying to erase mention of the the FSA brigades involved the the battle despite it being meticulously referenced. Nulla Taciti (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I removed it because the NYT source, which was the only one you cited for the sentence, made no mention of ether the 1st Coastal Division or the notable gunner. Only after my edit (that you linked here) did you add the Stratfor source. So, meticulously referenced? Also, no stunts, only requests for proper references per WP: Verifiability. And accusing someone of making stunts is not per WP: Assume good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Azov
If you feel this is something important, you are welcome to make an RfC: "If Azov battalion should be described as a "neo-Nazi" unit in first phrase?". I personally do not care that much. My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 1 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) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ordinary People and Independent Personalities logo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:Ordinary People and Independent Personalities logo.gif. 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 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).

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. --B-bot (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

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. 01:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dnipro Raion
You have blanked the page without explanation. If you want to remove the redirect, please ask for deletion.Xx236 (talk) 07:59, 22 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I wasn't done with it. Now I am. EllsworthSK (talk) 08:01, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dnipro Raion, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dnipro. 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) 10:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:HZDS/logo
Template:HZDS/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:40, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KDH/logo
Template:KDH/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Slovak National Party/logo
Template:Slovak National Party/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:OLANO/logo
Template:OLANO/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SaS/logo
Template:SaS/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SDKU/logo
Template:SDKU/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:SMK/logo
Template:SMK/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Most/logo
Template:Most/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Smer/logo
Template:Smer/logo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 17:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Libyan Civil War sources
Just a heads-up, we are not allowed to use YouTube as a source, even for the Module maps. If the video came from a reliable source (reputable Twitter source, article, etc.) please link it instead. Just remember this in the future. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am used to SCW module where YT videos are (or at least were) accepted. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:35, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Why are the changes in the Libyan Map taking long recently?
It's been a couple of hours since i assigned Sokna, Hun, and Waddan to LNA, yet still haven't taken effect.

AngryCyrenaican (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont know. I noticed it couple days back. Seems to take from couple hours to a day. I know that Template on Syrian page also takes a while but you have nearly thousand places there marked and even there, IIRC, it takes up to 1 hour. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


 * PS: Since you are from Cyrenaica, do you have any way of finging out if Military Police units in Ghat are not loyal to GNA MoD or still to LNA? I think they switched after creation of GNA, but I am unsure about that as little information is present. I know that munincipality council is loyal to Serraj gov because it needs it money in same way that Sebha does, although armed power there now is 12th. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!