User talk:Spesh531/Archive 2012

Ongoing conflicts map
Your edits on this map have not been constructive and have infact created major consistency inssues. Since first of all, your drawing of so-called warzones are not only very disputed (and can definetly be seen as POV) but also inaccurate and also create consistency issues because in some countries the full country is denoted. You have to set some kind of standard when you make such map and the only way we can do it is to just put conflict per country. For instance in Iraq the conflict is mainly centered around Mosul and Baghdad, in Afghanistan around Herat and Kandahar, in Somalia around Moqadishu and the Kenya border, ect. but there are also sometimes clashes in other cities and regions and then for instance in Turkey they PKK is only also active further westwards (including the Black-Sea coast area, Instanbul, Ankara and Izmir), so then your drawing of the warzone there (which BTW was also not based on any provincial borders or anything like that, and was, like your Russia warzone just drawn up by you without any proper definitions) is also inacurate. Consistency is not only a problem when it comes to the fact that you leave some countries fully coloured and others partially, but also some areas you left out in the map are infact more violent than some areas you included in it. And here comes the main problem, we do not have the all the data for all the regions, cities and provinces on the world and how many casualties there were in those areas per conflict. Therefore the only proper, consistent guideline we can follow for this map is per country.Kermanshahi (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing the ongoing conflicts map. I have explained numerous times what is wrong with it, why it is inconsistent, POV, original research, unsourced, and the borders (meaning the areas you colored - not referring to the mess you made of the horn of Africa) are inaccurate and practically drawn up randomly. Again, you have no sources, and thus not really anything to stand on either in defense of your map. I suggest you make a new map once you've got your facts and figures sourced and sorted out.Kermanshahi (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have warned you before and I will do so again, unless you have sources to back up your claims, you cannot suddenly draw up random bs maps which are completely inconsistent. I know you would like to break down the conflicts per provinces, ect. but you can't suddenly make maps like that without without providing actual information regarding number of casualties per province, per country. Most of the grey areas in Afghanistan have far higher casualties than any of the blue areas in neighbouring Iran (only 5 casualties in Iran's Kordestan province this year, none in Kermanshah or West Azerbaijan). In Iraq, the least violent, most safe provinces with the lowest casualties are colored in light blue while Anbar as one of the more violent provinces is in grey. In fact, forget Iran and Iraq, there is not a single grey province in Afghanistan which has less violence than the areas you colored in Ireland. And somehow the Punjabi and Sindhi areas of Pakistan have become a complete warzone. Really, your map has no consistency because it isn't based on any numbers either, you just randomly colored some areas blue, some grey and some dark blue. You really think that meets wikipedia standards? The other map, while far from perfect at least has a standard, any country with over 1000+ casualties is dark blue, any country with an ongoing conflict of less than 1000 casualties in light blue. Your map is just random, and no sources were provided. Please provide your sources showing number of casualties per province in every single country in question, and then decide on a standard of provinces with 10+ casualties X color, provinces with 50+ casualtied Y color, provinces with 100+ casualties Z color, etc. until that is done you cannot change the map from nation-based to province-based. By same standards I can fill in provinces with random colors with my eyes closed and post it, because you have yet to show a single source.Kermanshahi (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

You calling my edit vandalism about sovereignty
Please look at this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereignty

And once you have done so, self revert yourself because clearly you have misunderstood the meaning of the word sovereign. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 02:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am waiting for your response. Instead, you ignored me and went and reverted more edits with no comment. If you don't respond or self-revert, I will have to report you to the administrators for abusing the revert system and calling legitimate edits vandalism. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, if a country recognizes a territory (like Russia recognizes South Ossetia administering that area). Egypt recognizes Israel, and recognizes that Gaza Strip and West Bank are the sovereign State of Palestine. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 18:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the response. Did you consult the page on sovereignty that I linked above? Your response suggests that you did not. Your explanation does not prove sovereignty whatsoever. Recognition does not mean sovereignty. Palestine is by definition definitely not sovereign. 174.113.154.168 (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Note
See Talk:List of sovereign_states and please be more careful/selective when adding Niue and Cook Islands to lists.  Night w   11:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As the huge pages of discussion on the archives of the Sovereign states page shows, the status of these two polities is far from well defined and clear cut. I suggest you bring changes you wish to make in regards to their status to Talk:List of sovereign states, for wider discussion. Cheers, CMD (talk) 03:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

ARBPIA notification
As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.


 * Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
 * The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
 * Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
 * Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here. Ks0stm (T•C•G•E) 04:25, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

world map changes
Nice work; thanks! --RichardMills65 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Oceania nav template
Just to notify you that I mention your edits in my post at User_talk:Chipmunkdavis. Japinderum (talk) 08:46, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Republic of China article
Since you mentioned about the Republic of China in your user page, I guess you are interested to share your insights at Talk:Republic of China#Requested Move (February 2012). Thanks for your attention. 61.18.170.36 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:Xbox 360
Just wanted to drop a note and let you know that Template:Edit semi-protected doesn't request semi-protection of a page, it's used on a talk page to request an edit of an already semi-protected page. To request semi-protection of a page, you'd use WP:RFPP. - SudoGhost 03:47, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was not sure. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 12:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Map of Somalia
Hello, i'm glad to see someones been updating the map of the somali civil war but i noticed one big change you enacted recently that seems to be inaccurate. The area you labeled adwalland is under the control of the somaliland government. Though there is an active minor unionist movement there that wants to break away from somaliland, that movement controls no territory and the area is in firm somalilander control. If you have sources that suggest otherwise i would love to take a look at them.XavierGreen (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I know they claim autonomy from Somalia, but I see no sources of either one controlling Awdalland. I know since they claim autonomy from Somalia, they are anti-Somaliland. That is what I know and what the artical says. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the problem is they control no actual territory so they shouldn't be included on the map.XavierGreen (talk) 14:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For example this source, which is actually an anti-somaliland hit piece, mentions that the capital of the Adwal region Borama is under Somaliland control.[]] This source also aludes to the fact that the Somalilanders are in control of not only Borama but the entire area.[]XavierGreen (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian-language map of Libyan civil war at Commons
Hey, this is bringing up some ancient stuff, but since it hasn't been fixed yet despite several notices at Commons, I feel as though I should bring it to your attention here. With this version you seem to have changed some of the names from Russian to Serbian (e.g. аль–Байда —> аль–Баjда). I'd do it myself, but I am not "tech-savvy" enough to figure out how to work one-a them fancy editing programs. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a PC, go to the start menu, and go to search, and type "Character Map". That will give you the letters in cyrillic.  I screwed up my internet, and I was working what I guess was a bad translater.  Or just use Google translate as translation.  My internet is down, but I have a short period of time I cam edit, (8-9 am, 11 am-12:30 pm).  I am doing this on my phone, and things get screwed up. It is very annoying. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 00:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. When you recently edited List of world map changes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greater German Reich (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) 10:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sudan split maps
Actually, I have created two separate maps for the new, smaller Sudan and for the South Sudan. I did that many months ago, but I haven't uploaded them. I am not at all sure whether I have the new border right. The odd village may be shown on the wrong side, and the alignment may be fundamentally wrong. I'll tell you what. I'll try uploading them from home (I'm at work right now) and posting them here on this page. If you see anything dreadfully wrong with them, just point it out and I'll see if I can set it right. Both maps are, of course, based on the old one. Kelisi (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All right, here they come now.......................
 * All right, here they come now.......................
 * All right, here they come now.......................

There y'are. Kelisi (talk) 04:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of List of characters in Call of Duty: Black Ops II


The article List of characters in Call of Duty: Black Ops II has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:CRYSTAL or otherwise WP:TOOSOON

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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Soetermans. T / C 19:30, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

palestine additions/removals
He Spesh, I noted your interaction with an IP (user talk:99.237.236.218) regarding the addition/removal of Palestine in 3 lists of sovereign states (List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2010s, List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_2000s and List_of_sovereign_states_in_the_1980s). I had warned the IP already (List of world map changes‎ is on my watch list) and now I saw his interactions with you, I have made a report at the WP:3RR notice board, which might lead to a block for him/her. It does take 2 two edit war however and it seems that you are also close to or over the line (the formal line is: over 3 reverts of a single article in 24 hours, but in view of the many articles you were working, and the lack of discussion, this might already be construed as edit warring before). My advice is thus the same as to the IP: please refrain from further reverting eachother and seek some kind of dispute resolution system, or discuss (further?) on the talk page. Rgds! L.tak (talk) 22:33, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. You were placed on notice about the restrictions on articles concerning Israel and Palestine above, but engaged in sustained edit warring over the last few days. Please note that I have also blocked the IP editor for this as well. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you should read the guide to appealing blocks, then contact administrators by submitting a request to the Unblock Ticket Request System. 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. Nick-D (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Upon being unblocked, the first thing you did was go back to the articles and revert again. If you don't self revert, I will have to contact an admin to report you for continuing the edit war. This is getting ridiculous now. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am putting the fact that their is a needed citation, I am not going back to that page to undo or redo anything related to Palestine for at least a month. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 02:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You reverted my edit as soon as your block expired and put in unsourced content but added an unsourced tag. That doesn't make it any better. You continued the edit war without joining the conversation on the talk page. Like I said, I am giving you the chance to undo the revert now because I am tired of this fight with you and do not want to continue the edit war by reverting you again. But if you are refusing to self-revert, I will seek admin action tomorrow morning. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 04:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your selective removal of only one bit of unsourced text doesn't speak well for your aims IP. You're the one changing the status quo, and therefore you need to justify the change on talk, not Spesh. Besides, you already started a conversation at Talk:List of world map changes, how many more do you want? CMD (talk) 12:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Evading your block with an IP
Is this you?  I have a feeling you have used this IP to edit while you are blocked on your account. 99.237.236.218 (talk) 00:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. My IP address is 69.###.##.33. I do not want to give away my IP for security reseaons, but no 187.120.4.164 is not my IP. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 02:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Palestine is/is not a sovereign state
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Palestine is/is not a sovereign state". Thank you. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 20:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns about your edits regarding Palestinian sovereignty
Please see User talk:EdJohnston, which mentions a dispute you've been involved in. See also Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. If you make any further reverts of this article (or related ones) regarding Palestinian sovereignty before consensus is reached it may open you to sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oceania nav template
Please see my 12:17, 11 May 2012 comment (and earlier comments in the same thread) at Template talk:Oceania topic. In related discussions I had mentioned that you support my position, but maybe it's better if you confirm/deny this yourself. Japinderum (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see the RFC related to a Template talk:Oceania topic discussion or associated edits you participated in. Japinderum (talk) 07:24, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

the syrian civil war
Rastan and Qusayr and Azaz are under rebel control too — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 01:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Source?–Spesh531, My talk, and External links 01:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

this happened months ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 03:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Syria-Damascus-Aleppo Battles Live

Syria - Mar 4, 2012 - 11:48

Qusayr prepares for Ramandan under siege

Syrian Map
You have edited Aleppo on the map as being under rebel control but surrounded. That is highly not accurate. Per FSA commanders themselves 50 percent of the city is under their control while the other half is held by the military. The sources can be found in the article on the Battle of Aleppo. Please revert the color of Aleppo back to dark blue. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 22:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree Aleppo and Homs Should be dark blue. (third time (talk) 23:06, 4 August 2012 (UTC)).
 * That's my bad, I thought majority was when you color it in with green or red, even 51%. Kurds control some part of Aleppo, so 50% plus kurds is majority. Doesn't matter, I will fix it. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 03:59, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

there is reports saying that rebels control talkalakh. (third time (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC))

Idlib city has same situation as Damascus. The city itself is under full Army control, but the surrounding countryside is under attack by rebels. So please change color there from dark blue to light green but with blue ring. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello Mr. Spesh, have you seen the new section I added to the Syrian Civil War.svg talk page? I have some very important points and suggestions for it, please see it. Thanks, bye. Moester101 (talk) 07:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, I am currently working on adding the cities and fixing all the current ones sizes, as many are incorrect, I'd say by sometime from tomorrow to next Thursday it will be updated. –Spesh531, My talk, and External links 07:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hama city has the same situation as Idlib city. Government-controlled, but with rebels in the surrounding countryside. Please change collor to light green with blue circle around it. Also, change Deir Ez-Zor to fully colored blue, due to the FSA controlling, per their claim, 70 percent of the city. That means a third of the city is still government-controlled. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Would be good to check out Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war. Per the article and sources within it, Douma, Zabadani and Daraa should all be light green not blue (controlled by the government). And maybe add a blue ring to them due to fighting in the surrounding countryside. EkoGraf (talk) 14:47, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestion: According to Reuters, the Syrian Army still controls the base outside of Albu Kamal, near the Iraqi border. Therefore the town should have a blue circle around it. -- Futuretrillionaire (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

the location of tal abyad is wrong correct it. Alhanuty (talk) 18:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

the rebels took over tal abyad in raqqah governrate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 20:02, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Somalia map
Your File:Somalia map states regions districts.png shows that all parts of the border are controlled by neighbouring forces, however the BBC eg still show part of the border with Kenya and part of the border with Ethiopia as outside government control. As its near a border, I doubt the BBC is going to just as easily simply discout desert. As an aside, I don't understand why a map of divisions of Somalia has ethnic somali areas outside Somalia highlighted. It makes them seem almost as part of Somalia, which they aren't. CMD (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2012 (UTC)