User talk:AlAboud83/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
VisualEditor
Hey Alhanuty
I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).
So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.
What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.
The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.
Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Capitalization of "civil war"
Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:28, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The template map of syria
I have provided February-March 2013 reliable sources stating that the two towns are disputed. If you have newer sources stating other thing, bring them, if not, stop edit-warring.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
RE
Stop Messing Around And Brain-washing In Wikipedia You F!@# !, Or You Don't Deserve Wikipedia .. --CaeserKaiser (talk) 12:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) Notice vulgar language is prohibited in wikipedia .Alhanuty (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Criminal categories and BLP
I reverted a couple of your edits. Please see WP:BLPCAT, specifically "...Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you confirm that you understand what the phrase "the subject was convicted" means in the WP:BLPCAT policy ? Your edits violate mandatory policy so they have to be reverted. If you are unable or unwilling to comply with this policy for any reason, please just say so. I will then report the matter at WP:ANI where you can argue your case with the site administrators. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop your POV Vandalism
If you continue vandalising WP by breaking its rules (use of Facebook as a source, use partisan sources presenting them as neutral ones, etc...) you will be reported for vandalism. I suggest you to review Wikipedia policies and rules after making such damages to WP credibility.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) per all editors,we use use SOHR,because it is a reliable sources all western and neutral sources as Reuters ,and CNN and others use sohr as a source,and it publish its report on it page on facebook,and your sources are unreliable.Alhanuty (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Rif Dimashq offensive (March 2013–present)
The reliability of the source you provided is questionable. This source is the only one that has mentioned a major offensive by the rebels. Not to mention that this dubious source is citing a youtube video as proof of this rebel offensive, which in itself is not allowed on Wikipedia. None of the highly reliable sources likes Reuters, BBC, AFP, AP, Guardian, Telegraph or even CNN have made mention of a major rebel offensive. In fact, most are reporting of the Army still being the one who is on the offensive, with Barzeh, Jobar and Qaboun being reported by the opposition SOHR to be under continues attack by the military. EkoGraf (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
But the website is a very reliable,with military experts and analysts,and there were news that rebels were able to counter-attack government forces and reach back to the abbaseyeen squareAlhanuty (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not seen evidence of its reliability, in fact, this was the first time I ever saw this site. The source itself actually cites other news reports as its sources so it is in fact second-hand reporting, while Wikipedia requests prime sources. Plus, the site cites for its sources youtube videos (not permitted on Wikipedia), one never-heard-of opposition news site (reliability and neutrality in question), in one instance even Russia Today (also not allowed on Wikipedia), etc... However, the main point is, nobody else, not one of the major news sites, reported a major rebel offensive in Damascus, they are all actually reporting on continues government offensive, which in itself contradicts and invalidates this dubious source. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The sources which your source quotes for a major rebel offensive are these [1][2], none of which is permissible on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Lets discuss the issue with other editors than ourselves,put it on the talkpage and let the editors react Alhanuty (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
NOW Media is a known pro-Syrian opposition news website. The news they report is almost exclusively about Syria and not neutral. They have had a few news reports about events outside of Syria, some about Lebanon and Yemen and so, but most of those again were in some way Syria-related. And you again ignored the discussion on the talk page for which you also called for, where one other editor already agreed your sources are unreliable and not meeting Wikipedia standards. So, I will repeat again, the only sources of a big rebel offensive you have are a youtube video (which Wikipedia disregards outright) and a pro-opposition (non-neutral) news site. Not one report by AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph or even CNN has reported or mentioned a rebel offensive. In fact, they have done the opposite, they have reported on continuing Army offensive operations. Even if it did maybe occur, the lack of news on it via reliable sources makes it non-notable per Wikipedia standards and not worth an article being created for it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ariha
Ariha under the control of the government in that the source word that she disputed it said about what it used to be in his hands, but after heavy fighting took control of the government! Please carefully study the source when making changes37.55.213.139 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ar Rastan, Syria Civil war template
Dear Alhanuty, thank you for your edit. I added a comment as follows on the Template talk section.
I would appreciate your comment. Regards, Ariskar (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Reported to administrators board
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/us-syria-crisis-damascus-siege-idUSBRE9AN09420131124
Read the articles tell me where is the mentioning of the towns you put as contested because Eastern Ghuta is a large place and you only put Gov. held towns as contested not opp held like Irbin Kafr Batna and others and they are in eastern ghuta as wellDaki122 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Notification of Syrian civil war general sanctions
As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described at WP:SCWGS and below.
- Any uninvolved administrator may, at 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 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.
- Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.
These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. 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 effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:SCWGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Eastern Ghouta
I think the situation is at this point highly unclear. We got opposition political commities and the rebel leadership claiming victories, opposition activists on the ground fiercely denying the victories and saying they are still besieged [3] and the rebel units involved in the fighting and most importantly SOHR being silent about what has happened or has in fact not happened. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
- Should we then put them contested till further news appear Alhanuty (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Which towns are to be included.Alhanuty (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
is Yabrud contested.Alhanuty (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Which cities do you suggest we put contested.Alhanuty (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
Hey some guy added a section onto the Syrian Civil War page called "shelling of peaceful quarters" , where he uses a bunch of Russian sources to say that "oppposition terrorists" are always the ones shelling peaceful neighborhoods according to residents. Its really undue and POV pushing, can you remove it? I would my self but I am topic banned until the 18th Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Show me the history of the article so I could act of this .Alhanuty (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Shortening, summarizing, (in) article Syrian civil war
Hello Alhanuty. Article Syrian civil war tends to get (much) too long. In recent months several editors have noticed it to be too long, in discussions or by putting a tag above the article (for example the tags on 13Nov and 24Nov2013 when the article was 197,000 bytes and 200,000 bytes respectively).
The Wiki guideline Wikipedia:Splitting#Size split recommends that an article larger than 100 kB “should almost certainly be divided”. Although that guideline (like everything) is ofcourse open for discussion, I think that in the history of this article too, repeatedly editors have urged for summarizing and shortening when the article became much bigger than 100kB. The tag presently above the article also asks for the content to be condensed, and/or to be split into sub-articles.
When between 13Nov(when a first tag was placed) and 6Dec2013 nobody had taken a shot at summarizing and condensing, I made my attempt, 6Dec,16:39, shortening section 2.7 (civil war, Nov2012 – 3April2013) from 1397 to 140 words (which shortened the article from 203,000 to 186,000 bytes) and moving the complete removed part of old section 2.7 to a sub-article Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013. Some hours later, you reverted that edit for the most part, saying In your edit summary: “Restored information that was deleted”.
This puzzles me. Information “deleted”? I removed the entire old text of 2.7 to a new page, new article, in Wikipedia, so no “information” was lost, “deleted”, at all, from Wikipedia. Yes: I replaced (‘summarized’) that old text in that article for a new, shorter text. Technically, that is pretty much the only way how anyone can make an article shorter. It is done dayly in many articles, and has also very often been done already in article Syrian civil war.
You told us in your edit summary what you did (you replaced, restored that old version), but not, why you did that.
Why did you (mostly) revert that edit of mine? Do you principally object to condensing, shortening articles, even when the removed information is moved to a new subarticle? Do you not mind an article to be 200,000 or today 204,000 (or, later, 300,000; 400,000; 500,000 ...) bytes long? Or did you perceive grave errors in the summary I proposed? Corriebertus (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- but the info is soooooooo important,it mentions how thr rebels expanded from small pocket,to controlling nearly 60% of syria.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why do you think the rebels between Nov 2012 and March 2013 expanded from small pockets to controlling 60% ? If it is true, and as important as you say it is, why then is it not mentioned in that section 2.7 : Syrian civil war#Rebel offensives (November 2012 – April 2013) ? Corriebertus (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Reliable sources
I did not use pro government sources I try to stick neutrality. And many reliable sources used information from the agency SANA and SOHR if they believe their data accurate. But directly use SANA and SOHR for editing we should not. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Russia today and xish are pro-govornment and all editor in 2012,have decided to not use them are sources,also xish is controlled by the Chinese communist government.also Russia today by the Russian government.Alhanuty (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
So self revert yourself,because other editors will revert your edit.Alhanuty (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
If you think I'm wrong then why you are editing map without specifying the source.her And why you add the archaeological site to map because there's nothing there are only ruins. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
And if you noticed, I have not used as a source Xinhua or SANA. I used reliable sources, who used information from the Xinhua News Agency. Like many news agencies use the information from the pro opposition source SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Here is confirmation of my information from a branch of the Chinese news agency in the U.S. China Daily USA Hanibal911 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
how you are arab and kurdish at the same time? you mean that you has both arab and kurdish ancestory?
or you are just adding userboxes for fun?. you already has ridiculous userboxes like "This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return.‡" and "This user supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli apartheid".do you know anything about the "palestinians" and the israeli-arab conflict at all??. your favorite subject is history so its about time for you to read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Southern_Levant instead believing in the arabic propaganda. --109.67.124.116 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Why are you judging me ip,user boxes describes,the views of an editor on Wikipedia.Alhanuty (talk) 01:45, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Discuss before making such controversial edits and edit warring on the pretext of "un-neutrality" because this is simply your own opinion not someone else's. I've added sources describing the event as a revolution and i believe that i'm not obliged to do so since it was already agreed on in this discussion so you should start using talk pages or you would otherwise end up in a block. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Al-Taybah
Stop changing Al-Taybah on contested because this village under control Syrian troops.All Voices Hanibal911 (talk) 06:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Both are opposition sources,but sohr is also so credable,so,leave it contested as unclear till new info emerges.Alhanuty (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's we for now leave all as is. Until we not obtain other informations. Because my source newer. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Damascus/Rif Dimashq area
What's difficult about changing a map? It might be easier on a template, but it is hard to tell who has control of what. —SPESH531Other 04:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
It will be very hard to edit especially one person will be only able to edit it,that means the map can stay outdated for weeks.Alhanuty (talk) 05:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm really amazed by how you insist on something that is not even related to this article. Did you even pay attention to anything that was said to you since you started your disruptive edits? Because if you didn't, it's not our fault, and i will have no intention to reply on this argument anymore. So again and for the last time, check this discussion on Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état NOT on the revolution talk page, and which clearly explains that what happened between June 30 and July 3 is undeniably a revolution, while what happened on the night of July 3 is undeniably a coup d'état. If you keep insisting that this page about the revolution is also a coup, then you would simply prove how biased you are. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Clearly that is the point of view of Egyptian editors only who are biased towards Mubarak and his military,but in the other requests all the editors where from all over the world not concentrated from one country,I am suspecting meat puppetry in this article ,since who added the info is biased to one sides of the event.and I will move the rename quest to the Egyptian coup d'état page and let's see how other editor,(not biased editors),will respond.Alhanuty (talk) 23:30, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
- Good, then i suggest that while you're there, check the "Coup or revolution?" section where it is clearly explained that no one denies that what happened on the night of July 3 is a coup d'état and this proves that no one here is "biased towards Mubarak and his military" as you claim. Fitzcarmalan (talk)
All call the June 30 as demonstrations ,not a revolution.Alhanuty (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Firstly the mass demonstrations where reported on the night of June 30,and lasted for 12 hours,the coup technically began on July 1 after Sisi's announcement threatening to impose a road map on both sides if the crisis isn't resolved,and the coup has occured on July 3,and we have never heard of a revolution that was 12 hours long,so best thing is calling the June 30 demonstrations.Alhanuty (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- Please, it was called a "Revolution" and was expected to be one months before it even started and the military's preparation for the coup that happened on July 3 is no pretext to say the protests ended 12 hours after they began on June 30. Even the leftist and liberal political groups that now oppose Sisi and who took to the streets in those protests said they opposed the military taking advantage of their "revolution". Just because the time interval between the beginning of the protests and Morsi's eventual removal by the military was small, doesn't mean that what happened these 4 days was not a revolution. But hey, don't take my word for it..
- The Guardian - Mohamed Morsi ousted in Egypt's second revolution in two years
- Der Spiegel - Egypt Struggles With Political Chaos After Second Revolution
- Voice of America - Thousands Gather to Celebrate Egypt's 'Second Revolution'
- Financial Times - Egypt: The second revolution
- Al Monitor - Egypt’s Second Revolution a Blow to Turkey
- Fitzcarmalan (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- The fact that you accuse other users of being pro-Mubarak and of being hostile towards the 2011 revolution (in which i personally participated myself), such as your entry on User:Tkuvho's talk page, clearly proves how biased you are towards one side of the conflict, along with other evidence of vandalism on which you never gave an explanation here, and the funniest part is that you accuse me of being "unneutral" all the time. Don't get me wrong, but i'm very open for criticism on my edits and i don't know what is it that bothers you so much to call the article "unneutral" that got you once to the point of deleting the whole article under an IP name. I clearly explained how "neutral" my point of view was on the issue when i discussed it in the coup d'état talk page. Neglecting the revolution that took place would only increase the dis-credibility of both articles and the debate would go on for years to come if we hadn't solved this issue by creating the revolution article with sources. Anyway, i won't play this witch hunting game of mutual accusations anymore (which i started myself though and for which i apologize to the Wikipedia administration) so i'll stick to the discussions on Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013 or Talk:2013 Egyptian coup d'état instead. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
- I see many different users discussing the issue in the revolution talk page. I'm not willing to take a look at different pages in the same time and i believe the revolution page is the only appropriate location to discuss this since this is the article you request moving to a different title, not the coup d'état article. You can simply invite other "non-biased" users to discuss it with us (the biased ones), but the discussion will be kept in its new location (Talk:Egyptian Revolution of 2013). Or you can simply go to WP:Requested moves and make your request there. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
- I moved the argument back to the revolution talk page, so please stick to that. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Egypt
Panam2014 made a move request here. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panam2014 (talk • contribs)
Bayt Ablak
Say me why you added the village Bayt Ablak although your source say about the city Bayirbucak.World Bulletin After all, this is a distortion of information. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Listen Alhanuty maybe your source to indicates the city Bayer Aakjh and would be more correct to remove the village Bayt Ablak and add city Bayer Aakjh Hanibal911 (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
There is a different between the Turkish name and the Syria name,besides rebel control the near by rabia.Alhanuty (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Also according of your source the ISIS militants left the town Bayirbucak. On map this the city Aqjah Bayir its name translates from Arabic as (Bayer Aakjh). I replaced it on the map because so will more correct. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Sources
Why when you are editing you do not always specify the sources that confirm your editings. I'm not saying that your editings are not correct but in the future I would recommend you to specify the sources that there was no doubt about the correctness of your editings. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Kasab crossing
Before you edit the map you need to carefully consider your source: Al-Nusra Front, Sham al-Islam and Ansar al-Sham are engaged in fierce clashes around the Kasab crossing and rebels have seized guard posts around the crossing but are not yet in control of it.your source but here's another sources also confirm that clashes continue around Kasab border crossing NaharnetAhramZee NewsThe Daily StarNOW News So it would be more correct now mark it how contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
They control the border crossing and kasab and Samra and Karadouran beach in the Mediterranean Sea.Alhanuty (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Accusation
I found high offense at your claim that I play with facts. And your claim that the source says region is simply put a lie. The word region is nowhere to be found in the source. If you need more confirmation, here is the original English version of the report [4], no mention of the word region, just says violent clashes continue in Kasab. So I would ask you to revert yourself, or I will take the matter to the discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I am a good reader of Arabic,it says the region.not town,when Sohr mentions that the army is closing on on kassab or that there is clashes in the City,then put it contested.Alhanuty (talk) 21:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Last AC map
The map you mention has two black arrows showing the alleged route by ISIL militants during the attack on Abu Kamal, but clearly that doesnt means that the territory covered by the arrows is ISIL-held (if so, ISIL would be controlling nearly half of Deir Ezzor Governorate, and we know that is not the case). While the arrows in that map simply means attacks, territorial control is shown with circles (zone south-west of Deir Ezzor, zone north of Shaddadi, Raqqa, Abu Kamal, Sukna, Deir Ezzor & Shaddadi) or rectangles in the case of military infrastructure (Division 17 & Tabqa military airport). So please, revert your changes, as Al-Shulah is just on the western border of the red circle south-west of Deir Ezzor (you can use Wikimapia to see it).--HCPUNXKID 19:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Al-shulah isn't on the western edge it is way far,it is in the interior,which means under ISIL control,and there is zero reports that Assad controls it,meanwhile,there is a source saying that shulah is ISIL held ,al thayeem is clearly under gov.control,about the southern area of the deir ezzor airport is is rebel held.Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alhanuty reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned Alhanuty and Paolowalter). You have been warned for violating the WP:1RR restriction on pages relating to the Syrian Civil War. It is normal to issue blocks for 1RR violations. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Okay edjohnston,i got it,did realize it was 1rr,so all syrian civil war articles are 1rr. Okay. Not going to break the 1RR rule.Alhanuty (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
LibDutch = ChronicalUsual Sockpuppet?
I think it is likely.
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibDutch
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XxReflectionxX
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual/Archive
IPinvestigates (talk) 22:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
ISIS advances in Hama
Than please provide these sources and I will personally make the changes myself and add the black dots. EkoGraf (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
here is the source,first this is a pro-opposition force talking about the takeover http://orient-news.net/?page=news_show&id=5270\
but here sohr confirms that one of the villages has been under airstrikes were i quote " In Hama 6 rebel fighters were killed by an air raid on areas of the A'qeirbat town of eastern Reef Hama." via https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/421309201310757
also another source indicated ISIS commited a massacre in the sabura village in the region,and then a rebel source confirms ISIS controls the area,and i don't think they will be biased towards ISIS and want to see ISIS advancing.sorry for the late reply,time difference issue btw US and Serbia.Alhanuty (talk) 14:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
regarding Iraqi Insurgency map
I have looked into Al-Awja and it is under the complete control of the Iraqi government, the source provided by IP 86.26.230.122 was correct and now there are other news agencies reporting on this news
http://www.telegraaf.nl/buitenland/22796775/__Iraaks_leger_herovert_Al-Awja__.html
please stop reverting sourced changes, you had no reference of your own and no basis to your claim.
refer to Wikipedia terms of use for further information on reverting https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use
Regards
Jumada (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
the user was using a pro-maliki source, al aawsat Alhanuty (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
even the sources states,that the iraqi army said they recaptured al awja,this is an unconfirmed claim.Alhanuty (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Zibdin
Listen Alhanuty you need carefully read your source because in it says that violent clashes took place in the vicinity of village Zibin but not in the itself village.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
my mistake,then put a ring then,hannibal911.Alhanuty (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
Deir ez Zour
How do you think we can be trusted of this map? Because according to this map, some towns and villages in the Deir ez Zour province controlled by local tribes who oppose IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
al-Aziziyah
Hey, what makes you think the al-Aziziyah mentioned http://aranews.net/2014/07/aleppo-struggles-barrels-death/ is the one on the Rif Aleppo map? You mean http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.120849&lon=37.341019&z=13&m=b&search=al-aziziyah - that one, right? I ask because to my knowledge the rebels have not been active in that area for months (that's waaaay behind SAA lines), as opposed to the region of the al-Aziziyah that I originally mapped out, where the SAA and rebels actually have a front line. Just curious what you're basing that revert off of. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
there is reports of clashes in the regione,and to the latest knowledge, government forces didn't march that far way beyond jabal azzan.Alhanuty (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Blocked from editing
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.
AlAboud83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
after looking through the reasons that you presented mr admin,i found out that i didn't even break the 1RR rule, the first edit is a new edit not a revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=618623073&oldid=618616933 User EkoGrak was editing of the 121 regiment,i was making a brand new edit of keweires airport meanwhile the second one is my only revert concerning the subject of kweires airport https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=618637140&oldid=618635232thus i didn't break the 1RR edit rule of the template syrian civil war map i hope this issue get resolved as soon as possible.Alhanuty (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Decline reason:
Even assuming the first of the two edits listed by Callanecc above was brand new material, in addition to the second edit listed, which you acknowledge was a revert, you reverted three times earlier, once in two consecutive edits completed on July 26 at 16:59, and once in five consecutive edits completed on July 26 at 20:47, and once in two consecutive edits completed on July 26 at 23:02. That's a lot of reverts in a 24-hour window. Bbb23 (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
that was one revert,so i didn't break the rule.Alhanuty (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
but still i didn't break the first 1RR rule of any new edit,and concerning this subject i didn't break the rule,so i wish i would be unblock,and if i am i will focus on other issue excluding the syrian civil war,please.Alhanuty (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
and the reverts you mentioned are in various things,not one single topic.Alhanuty (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- You reverted four times, and it only takes two to violate WP:1RR, and for goodness sake, read the policy. The reverts don't have to be of the same material. If you can't understand the policy, don't edit in that area of the project because you'll just continue to get in trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
but still i didn't break the 1RR rule at all,i don't know why should i be blocked for three days on an offense i didn't even do.Alhanuty (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
the 1RR rule is if you make more that one revert on a particular subject,not on various things.Alhanuty (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
and i didn't even make more than one revert on a particular subject.Alhanuty (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- Does this mean you can't understand what you read or that you didn't bother to read the policy: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." (bold added by me) --Bbb23 (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
But still i didn't break the 1RR rule on the one that admin callanecc is telling about.Alhanuty (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
AlAboud83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
after looking through the reasons that you presented mr admin,i found out that i didn't even break the 1RR rule, the first edit is a new edit not a revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=618623073&oldid=618616933 User EkoGrak was editing of the 121 regiment,i was making a brand new edit of keweires airport meanwhile the second one is my only revert concerning the subject of kweires airport https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&diff=618637140&oldid=618635232thus i didn't break the 1RR edit rule of the template syrian civil war map i hope this issue get resolved as soon as possible.i am sure i didn't break the rule.
Decline reason:
It's not necessarily a reason for a block or unblock denial, but reposting the same exact request as before with one non-substantial sentence added takes considerable chutzpah. So, since it seems you didn't hear that, neither did we. If you continue in this vein not only will you get forcefully smacked down by another admin, you will get your talk page access revoked. Can you hear me now? — Daniel Case (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Alhanuty (talk) 17:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) It's taking all my powers of restraint not to tell you what I think of that "defense", not to mention your earlier misguided statements. What do you want - to be unblocked on a technicality and then reblocked, perhaps for longer because you actually reverted far more, thereby causing even more disruption? I won't be responding to any more of your nonsense.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
i promise this will never happen again.i swear.Alhanuty (talk) 17:23, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
i just only want to unblock and i promise this will never happen again,please.Alhanuty (talk) 17:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC) i just want this to be over.Alhanuty (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
any response.Alhanuty (talk) 22:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
okay,but what is your opinion on the issue.Alhanuty (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hama north west
Clashes were reported near the villages, not inside. They were probably previously to the taking of the villages. The conquer of SAA of the villages is supported by syrian documents, that is reliable, and by many pro-gov and pro-opp tweet sources. It is more that enough to changed the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolowalter (talk • contribs) 07:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Sohr reported the clashes in the vinicity,not that SAA seize them,so i would suggest a green with a red ring around it.Alhanuty (talk) 07:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Brigade 93
Fighters from the Islamic State group have seized parts of a military base in Syria's Raqa province after launching triple suicide bomb attacks at its gates.The Daily StarAl JazeeraReutersNOW NewsSOHR Also, none of the sources did not confirm that the IS has captured village Khirbat Fulayfil. And editor Jafar Saeed marked this village under control of IS without identifying the source of confirming his editing. Also on the talk page, it was agreed that, in accordance with the data from many reliable sources confirming clashes in the military base of Brigade 93 we will leave it at that. Until obtain new data.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
the washington post confirmed it.Alhanuty (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I several times read the article The Washington Post, and in it does not say that the village of Khirbat Fulayfil was captured by IS militants. Also many other reliable sources such as Reuters and the Daily Star confirmed that clashes for the base Brigade 93 are still ongoing. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Hama
Alhanuty pro opposition source which you used indicates that the rebels in the time interval between 29 and 30 July captured the villages Arze and al-Sheyha but another pro opposition source about the 31 July here showed these villages of under control of the army so that its data is more relevant. Also, you must remember that we do not use pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebel. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
ISW is not a pro-opposition source,that is an indepedent military research center and it has been used alot for the map.Alhanuty (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- ISW it is on hundred percent the pro-opposition blog. And if you carefully read of your source there said that the rebels from the 29 july to 30 July , captured these villages but here is another pro opposition source of 31 July noted that these villages are under the control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alhanuty tell my you well read your source because it is said that the rebels captured the village Arze and al-Sheyha in period for 29 to 30 July, but the other pro opposition map of the 31 July noted these villages under control the army and these information is more relevant. So stop marked these villages under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
july 29-30 is the span where the event took place,not that it was only for that period,and stop this reverting,ISW is A very reliable source,stop,there is no need to revert reliable edits.Alhanuty (talk) 06:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- But if the later pro opposition source confirmed that these villages under the control we use this data. In addition, many participants agreed that the ISW is not a reliable or neutral source. Also, if the rebels captured these villages should be confirmed from other reliable sources. But I suggest you compromise if we do not find other data on the situation in these villages then we mark them as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:54, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
we have used ISW several times,way before you even came here,in 2012,and alot of the veteran editors agreed it is reliable,just agree and move on,why you are insisting.Alhanuty (talk) 17:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alhanuty firstly the city Mhardeh under army control this confirmed pro opposition source source And the second if the pro-government and pro-opposition sources jointly noted that the village Arzeh contested, and the village al-Sheyha under army control then the way it is and you need stop your not constructive action. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:40, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
if you check clearly hannibal,you will find that SOHR mentioned the fighting in mahardah,secondly,i told you several times,that ISW is a reliable source,and also it is the newest source of them all,both pro-opposition (july 31),and pro-government (august 2) sources are older sources,considering to the ISW source (august 7),what is the benefit of hiding this opposition advance,this is nonsense,you kind of remind me when some editors tried to prevent other editors from showing the rebel advance in the eastern ghouta following the rebel counter-offensive back in november 2013,and in the end,the advance was posted,also the situation,with the villages that IS controls in eastern hama province and propably soon we will find out they actually controlled them,and we kept it all this time under government control,just Accept it and move on,and your accusations that ISW is a pro-opposition source,are baseless and clueless,and if you check the edit history of the template,you will see that ISW was used several time to show both government and opposition advances,and if a reliable source reports that the government recaptured them or it is contested,then we change it to contested or army-held,cheers,fine.Alhanuty (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- But Alhanuty if you also carefully look you see that pro opposition source clearly said on the map that the city is under the control of the army and clashes go outside of the city. So Alhanuty you need understand that I did the right thing when noted city Mahardah under army control because this confirmed the pro opposition source.here and SOHR also later said that clashes in regime checkpoint near the city Mahardah.source So the case is closed! Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- So also Alhanuty data from the ISW are sometimes are erroneous. So the source of ISW shows that Menagh Airport under control by IS but we all know that this airport under control by rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:05, 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) 16:46, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
- So also Alhanuty data from the ISW are sometimes are erroneous. So the source of ISW shows that Menagh Airport under control by IS but we all know that this airport under control by rebels.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Umm Khorayza
SOHR said that regime forces and NDF fighters could control the village of Om Khorayza.sourceSOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 22:03, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- And listen to me Alhanuty if you continue to misrepresent data and revert my edits which confirmed data from reliable sources I will be forced to notify admins about your actions. Reagards! Hanibal911 (talk) 22:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
i misunderstood the Qbeibat one,but "could" doesn't mean that the government retook Om Khorayza,and why are you threatening me,stop the threatening thing,and you too misrepresent data from reliable sources when you turned alot of rebel-held village to government-held,based one map source from syracuse,and disregarded the pro-government map,that admitted that the villages are opposition-held.Alhanuty (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
okay,now i saw the reliable source that you brought,sorry didn't see till now.Alhanuty (talk) 22:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, no problem! Also you can help me in situation with the village Ayyash because the editor Pototo1 revert all my edits which show that this village under control by IS. Although I have presented data from a reliable source they confirms that the village under control of IS.here Hanibal911 (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Hama
Soure said that warplanes raided areas in Nahya Aqirbat in the eastern countryside of Hama, which is under control by IS but not said that IS conrol these villages.SOHR SOHR said that IS control Nahya Aqirbat in the eastern countryside of Hama but not said that IS control east part Hama province. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
nayhiyat aqribat is the area with its towns and villages,check the meaning of nahiyat,and now SOHR confirmed it,what do you want further than that,hide all advances except the government advances . that is double standard by you .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
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uqayribat_Nahiyah
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nahiyah
so self-revert yourself hannibal,bc now a reliable source now SOHR,confirmed it.
nahia is a regional or local type of administrative division that usually consists of a number of villages and/or sometimes smaller towns
also an anti-ISIS source confirmed that the villages are under IS control. https://twitter.com/archicivilians/status/479657968388956162
Alhanuty (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- But source said that warplanes raided areas in Nahya Aqirbat in the eastern countryside of Hama, which is under control by ISIS. But not said that all Nahya Aqirbat under IS control. Source said that IS control some areas in Nahya Aqirbat but not said that IS controled all this area. Need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
NO,it clearly said it is under IS control.
- OK! Agree. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- I make small adjustments of your edits because Uqayribat Nahiyah it is part of Hama province but not Homs province.Uqayribat Nahiyahhere I hope for your understanding!Hanibal911 (talk) 18:52, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
IS does control the region near mount shaer,so i would propose leaving them IS-held,till further reports come
also the towns and villages are connected and IS-held region in homs and hama are connected.Alhanuty (talk) 19:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alhanuty I agree with your arguments regarding the Hama province because the source indicated that the IS controls Nahya Aqirbat but he never said a word about the villages in the province of Homs. So we need data which confirmed that they villages in Homs province under control of IS. Let's edit is strictly based on the data in the source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
can you revert LogFTW,he reverted the edit.Alhanuty (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Did you read the discussion I just opened up with Hanibal [5] and at the main page [6]? EkoGraf (talk) 04:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
oh,never realized it,thank you EkoGrak.Alhanuty (talk) 04:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
what about Grouh and Jinn albawi,they are part of the sub-district.Alhanuty (talk) 04:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
what about Rasm al Abd,Al-hanuteh,Qastal-al ghazi.Alhanuty (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Reserved on that point. I'm inclined to put Rasm al-Abd contested and the other two ISIS-held. But those three are in Homs province and SOHR only confirmed the Hama subdistrict area as ISIS-held. So wouldn't make changes on those three for now. I will make the other changes tomorrow if nobody objects. I think Hanibal will agree. EkoGraf (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You are right about Grouh and Jinn Albawi. They should also be ISIS-held. Didn't see them because they have different names at desyracuse and Grouh is off on our main map, its location should be moved and place properly. EkoGraf (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
SOHR confirmed that there was clashes near barri sharqi,which in terms confirms syracuse's map for the rebel-held area near barri sharqi,so i propose that hardane be put as rebel-held and for abu hebelat as contested between ISIS and the opposition, and rasm al abd as ISIS-held,i rather continue the conversation tommorrow.Alhanuty (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC) https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/572113726230303.Alhanuty (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Balil
On the map near village Zughba no there village Balil look on the map.GeonamesMap Carta Hanibal911 (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Bait tima
The village Baytima contested this confirm pro opposition source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
then why was it deleted then.Alhanuty (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- I not delete it, I just move it in accordance with correct coordinates.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Qomhane
SOHR said that clashes continue between regime forces backed by NDf against Islamic battalions and Jabhat al-Nusra around Qamhana village which is under control by regime forces.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
a newer post by SOHR says clashes in Qomhane http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=22371&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U_jLaPldWSq Alhanuty (talk) 21:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alhanuty carefully read your source he said that clashes continue between fighters battalions Islamic battalions fighter Front victory (al-Qaeda in the Levant) and Jund al-Aqsa from the party, and the regime's forces and gunmen loyal to her from another party near the town of Qmhana controlled by the latter. SOHR confirmed that the city under control tha army.And english virsion SOHR said SOHR said that clashes continue around Qamhana village which is under control by regime forces.here So the question is closed. And where does the city taiba in reef dimashq? Hanibal911 (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
also there is reports of airraids on halfaya via https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573047822803560
also air-raids on taiba in reef dimashq via https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573159692792373.Alhanuty (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- SOHR said about al Teba but not Taiba carefully read the source! Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
what about this https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573456112762731,violent clashes took place between regime forces against rebel and Islamic battalions in Drosha front in the western Ghouta.the map for the western ghouta is outdated.Alhanuty (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
also SOHR reported "The Nusra Front targeted a car for the regime forces on the road that links the two towns of al Hamameyyat and Karnaz , initial information casualties."
https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573508276090848,
Raqqa villages
SOHR confirmed all those villages to be Army-held just a week or so ago. And there have been NO reports the Army lost them. And a stronghold, like I told Hannibal, is a military fortification (in this case an air base) not an occupied town or village. EkoGraf (talk) 19:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
the new source of SOHR report clashes to the south and the east of the airport,IF these villages were under the army control,then it would be impossible for these clashes to occur in the tabaqa airport,for ayad kabir,i agree on self-revert that due that no clashes were reported to the north of the west of the airport.Alhanuty (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Your argument that SOHR report clashes to the south and the east of the airport,IF these villages were under the army control,then it would be impossible for these clashes to occur in the tabaqa airport is unsourced OR. The source makes no mention of the villages and making edits based on your own conclusions is not allowed per WP policy. Besides, the clashes could happen on the southern and eastern edges of the airport and the villages still be army held (desert countryside between them and the base). EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
SOHR said that some soldiers withdrawal from the regime army towards of Athraya Area but not said that all soldiers withdrawal.SOHR But The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights also said there were still clashes taking place on the outskirts of the airport.Naharnet Hanibal911 (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
the isolated soldiers in those villages has no-chance to stay in the area after the fall of the Tabqa airbase,and SOHR confirmed they withdrew to Athria.Alhanuty (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- But SOHR also said that some soldiers still continue clashes on the outskirts of the airport.NDTVMSN News Hanibal911 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- So I think us cost not much to wait before marking these villages under control of IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
SOHR confirms most have withdrew https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573530579421951.Alhanuty (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- To be precise SOHR said that most of the soldiers withdrawal towards the farmlands near the airbase and Athrayya Area. But not said that they left villages in area AIrbase. Also clashes continue inside Airbase.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Halfaya
Would hold up until tomorrow when the situation becomes clearer. I find it strange though that Al Jazeera could make a report in daylight in the town if the reported rebel assault started in the evening. But in any case, we see what the morning brings. EkoGraf (talk) 04:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
it looks like the situation that wikipedia editors faced about who controls msallata and tarhuna back in 2011,it looks unclear,but the latest 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) 04:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
also this source of SOHR is saying the same. http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=22403&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U_lyVvldWSo Alhanuty (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Also SOHR says clashes are occurring in Qomhane http://syriahr.com/index.php?option=com_news&nid=22371&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U_jLaPldWSq Alhanuty (talk) 05:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- Stop inventing because english version SOHR clear said that helicopters dropped explosive barrels in Helfaia area. This means that Syrian helicopters bombed near the town rather than the city itself! And given the fact that SOHR partially support the Syrian opposition so this information is not enough. Because it is not one of the reliable sources do not said about clashes in the city Halfaya. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
- And pro opposition source that regime forces shelling some areas inside Halfaya, after the increasing of the Rebellion sleeper cells inside the city. This means that the city has subversive rebel groups and the army is trying to eliminate them but it does not mean that the city go full-scale clashes. So that we can change the city to contested if the reliable source confirm that in the city really are clashes. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
firstly,i am not inventing secondly why would the regime drop barrel bomb on halfaya if he controls it,and rebel sleeper cells doesn't make sense at all https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/573384699436539,also this unclear situation occur msallata and tarhuna back in 2011 during the libyan civil war.Alhanuty (talk) 13:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I saw the pro-opposition reports last night claiming they captured Halfaya. Archicivilians claimed it (who I mostly ignore). Seems he jumped the gun. SOHR making no mention of Halfaya or Marhada today. EkoGraf (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
what about the video and SOHR reports of barrel-bombs being thrown on halfaya.Alhanuty (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Al Jazeera video talking about the absence of civilians in the streets of the town. One more thing to add to the uncertainty and why I'm advocating only the ring for now...Kuna reported [7] the shelling, that we talked about, was of the Halfaya area. EkoGraf (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
But,al-alam said that the rebel attack on mahardah is coming from halfaya,i propose to put halfaya as contested.Alhanuty (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
They came from Halfaya but that doesn't make the town contested. Archicivilians already noted a presence of sleeper cells in Halfaya. I agree the rebels are there around the town (lime ring), but am against marking the town contested until a source shows up that explicetly says its contested (fighting for the town). EkoGraf (talk) 04:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Taiba al-Emam
But original report from SOHR said that army bombing areas south of the city Taiba al-Emam here And other report from SOHR not said about bombing the city Taiba al-Emam.here So that as I said before, let's just use for edit only reports from the SOHR original site and not from a page on Facebook because there are many discrepancies unlike the original reports. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
leave it contested until a further source comes.Alhanuty (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- Let us as compromise just put green circle around town because the source did not say that the clashes in the city. Also on 5 September SOHR reported that clashes took place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in the western side of city Talbisa herebut i not edit him to contested because I decided to wait for confirmation that information from other sources. So let's wait a little bit and now just put the green circle around town. Also here is the original reports from SOHR and they not said about bombing of this city today so you can read this reports.hereand here I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Aqrab
Alhanuty you are not right! Because your source said that violent clashes have taken place between IS fighters and the regime forces near the town of Aqrab in the eastern countryside.here And source by which editior Jafar Saeed noted town Aqrib to contested said that clashes taking place between the two sides around al-Taouna checkpoint near Aqrab town in the western countryside of Hama.here So not one of these sources not said that the clashes in the city Aqrib. So for the future before revert someone's editing in the beginning, carefully review the sources. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
al-Sukhnah, Al-Taybah
Alhanuty you can show me where in this article said that these cities under control of IS. The New York Times
- One bomb struck an insurgent meeting place and weapons storehouse. Another hit the Islamic law court. A third hit a heavy machine gun position, but not just any position — the leader of the largest local insurgent formation was manning a gun there, and was killed.
The people of Talbiseh, a rebel-held village north of Homs in central Syria, have seen many government air raids, but the strikes on Wednesday morning surprised them with their ferocity and their precision.
“Something new is going on,” said Hassan Abu Nouh, an antigovernment activist in Talbiseh who has close ties to the local insurgent force, the Iman bil Allah Brigade.
“They are hitting us like crazy,” Mr. Abu Nouh said of the government’s air campaign. “Maybe no one will be alive to tell the story next week.”
In Talbiseh and across Syria, insurgent fighters who oppose the government of President Bashar al-Assad and the foreign-led militants of the extremist group called the Islamic State are being pummeled by a new wave of attacks and assassination attempts. The assaults are coming at a crucial moment, as President Obama tries to intensify efforts to defeat the Islamic State extremists.
Mr. Obama has ruled out cooperating with Mr. Assad’s military against the extremists, because of the Syrian government’s brutal crackdown on an uprising that started with peaceful protests and grew into civil war. Instead, the United States hopes that insurgent groups it sees as more moderate can, with increased aid, provide the necessary ground forces to fight the extremists in conjunction with American-led airstrikes.
Insurgents of all stripes, except for the Islamic State group, say the Syrian government appears to be stepping up its attacks on them ahead of the threatened American air campaign. Pro-government and antigovernment analysts say Mr. Assad has an interest in eliminating the more moderate rebels, to make sure his forces are the only ones left to benefit on the ground from any weakening of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.
Mr. Assad has maintained from the start of the conflict that he and his allies are the only force in Syria capable of battling the extremists effectively. But Islamic State activists in Homs said on Wednesday that there had been no recent government airstrikes against the group, adding to opposition suspicions that Mr. Assad prefers to focus on attacking his other opponents while letting the Islamic State’s unchecked brutality argue the case to Syria and the world that his rule is the best alternative.
The Faith in God Brigade in Talbiseh is probably one of the most moderate forces left on the battlefield. Many others have been radicalized by years of inconclusive violence and the influence of foreign fighters and deep-pocketed Islamist donors. For several months recently, parts of the brigade operated under Harakat al-Hazm, an insurgent umbrella group that has received American-made TOW missiles and other aid that the United States has tried to keep out of the hands of more extreme groups.
Before the war, Mr. Abu Nouh, 29, was an Internet technician. In the early days of the uprising, he wore his hair long, kept a poster of the heavy metal band Iron Maiden in his house, and watched American movies like “Fight Club” with civilian activists and asked them to bring him vodka from Damascus along with medical supplies and computer equipment.
The brigade was one of the local groups that first formed the loose-knit Free Syrian Army, founded by defectors from the Syrian Army who had refused to take part in crackdowns on demonstrations.
It is the kind of group that the Syrian government has recently seen as a possible partner for reconciliation. State employees in Talbiseh received their salaries; some residents kept up contacts with Mr. Assad’s governor in Homs, the provincial capital; and students traveled out of Talbiseh to take exams. There have been intermittent talks to reach local cease-fires.
Airstrikes on the village had never stopped, but they had become random and sporadic lately, hitting civilian areas or fields without taking a heavy toll on the fighters.
That changed on Wednesday, Mr. Abu Nouh said.
The new airstrikes killed about 50 people, including at least a dozen fighters and several leaders. Residents said about 18 civilians had been killed, including a woman and her five children. Syrian state news media said the attacks were aimed at “terrorists.”
Mr. Abu Nouh said it appeared that the government knew just where Abu Hatem al Dahiq, the commander of the brigade, would be.
“They hit accurately,” he said. “Maybe they have a mole.”
The hardships of war have made informants easy for the government to recruit with money, Mr. Abu Nouh said, adding that informants sometimes mark targets for airstrikes by dropping electronic beacons on the ground.
The brigade in Talbiseh has refused to join with more extreme groups like the Islamic State or the Nusra Front, the Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda, Mr. Abu Nouh said. He said the brigade raised money mainly from Syrian émigrés in Persian Gulf states who have local relatives.
Its history illustrates why Syrian insurgents have never jelled into a unified fighting force able to coordinate efforts across the country.
Two battalions from the brigade joined Harakat al-Hazm, the American-aided group, and accepted new American weapons, Mr. Abu Nouh said. But after four months, they broke away again — keeping the weapons — because they did not want to follow Hazm’s orders to deploy to another front.
“They just want to protect Talbiseh,” he said.
And while they are more moderate than the Islamic State, the brigade’s Sunni fighters nonetheless express sectarian hatred toward the minority Alawite sect that forms Mr. Assad’s base. Mr. Abu Nouh shrugged at the news that 18 civilians were wounded in pro-government neighborhoods on Wednesday, saying, “They are Alawites.”
In Souknah, farther to the east in Homs Province, an Islamic State activist who goes by the name Abu Bilal al-Homsi said Wednesday that the group had neither attacked nor been attacked by the government in recent weeks.
“We are establishing a state here and trying to bring services to Muslims, and to avoid any security breach,” he said. “There have been no assaults from the infidel regime forces.”
But the group, he said, was preparing for American strikes. “Now we will be facing a crusade world war,” he said, “and we should be ready.
After reading you can delete for my comment. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
what about this part In Souknah, farther to the east in Homs Province, an Islamic State activist who goes by the name Abu Bilal al-Homsi said Wednesday that the group had neither attacked nor been attacked by the government in recent weeks.
“We are establishing a state here and trying to bring services to Muslims, and to avoid any security breach,” he said. “There have been no assaults from the infidel regime forces.”
But the group, he said, was preparing for American strikes. “Now we will be facing a crusade world war,” he said, “and we should be ready.Alhanuty (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
which means IS controls Souknah,and there has been reports that they took souknah.Alhanuty (talk) 06:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Source said about IS activist which located in city Souknah but not said that this city under control by IS. Also many rebel activist located in government-held area including citys Hama, Tartus and Latakia and many other cities or villages which under control by army but this does not mean that this cities under rebel control. Also pro opposition map clear show that this city under control by army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- So that need a source that clear says that the city Al Sukhan is under control by IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also the IS insurgents currently have begun to retreat from their positions in Dair ez Zor province.Al ArabiaEl Balad Hanibal911 (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- So that need a source that clear says that the city Al Sukhan is under control by IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:44, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Ayn al Arab countryside
Perhaps we should note some Kurdish villages under the control of IS. Because today pro opposition Kurdish source reported that clashes continued between IS militant fighters and the Kurdish forces of the YPG very close to the city Ayn al Arab in the vicinity of the village Mojik (about 6 km west of Kobane) and the village of Alishar (7 km east of the city).Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 10:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
please make the change,then i am sort of busy.Alhanuty (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also how do you think we can use this pro-opposition map for edit the Ayn al Arab countryside. Especially considering the fact that now the rebels and Kurds fought together against the IS in the province of Aleppo. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Homs province
This map from The Wall Street Gournal not said that villages (Al-Dilieiat, Humaymah, Tarag El Hbari, Jabal al Ghurab, Faydat Aljviv) under control by IS and another map from BBS shows a very different situation and not showed that the area where located this villages under control by IS. And we also have previously agreed not to use for to add of cities or villages the maps if they do specifically not indicate about these towns or villages. So let's not do this. Also Yahoo News and SOHR not said that villages Al-Halbah, Dalhous under control IS but we cant use pro opposition Orient TV to to display the advances for all anti-government rebel groups if their data is not confirmed from reliable source. Reliable sources only said that U.S.-Arab coalition struck IS bases in the eastern desert of Homs province, in the area of Al-Hammad, on east of ancient city Palmyra where no the cities or villages it only the desert area.NaharnetThe Daily StarFrance 24 Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
but Orient is an Anti-ISIS source,they have no reason to deny an ISIS advance,and i am myself surprised and shocked that ISIS does control this far in the Syrian Badiyah,and also those villages do le in the Hammad Dessert,and why would the international coalition bomb an empty area in the Dessert,they would rather bobm a town with importance,although WSJ is a very reliable source,but i will wait a little for,but for territorial control,i advise that editors make the area between Deir ez zor province and the hammad dessert as ISIS-held.Alhanuty (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- But Orient TV also the anti government but reliable source said that coalition struck IS bases in al Hammad area in eastern desert of Homs province and al Hammad it is not desert this only area in the desert.France 24 and also a very reliable source BBC clear show that IS not held this are in Homs province.here So let's not rush to edit. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
still there is no reason for an Anti-ISIS source to deny an ISIS advance,if for example JAN or FSA are the ones who took the area,then i would have agreed with you,and you know the rule,if an Anti-source reports an advance for the other side we use it.Alhanuty (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- By the way here map from the pro opposition source dated on 23 September and it is clearly shows that the area where located the IS insurgents is far from the area where located these villages. So I think we need more data to be edited. Especially if reliable sources indicated that the coalition air strikes caused in the area which is in the wilderness, and where are no settlements. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
some areas don't get reported frequently,and this happened during the libyan civil war,when there was barely any reporting in the southern libyan deseert,and i would rather go with the rule.Alhanuty (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also on the map not have the village Dalhous near the village Al Halbah.here or here so I would recommend that you remove from the map the village of Dalhous. Or I'll do it because dont need to place on the map the village if her no on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- I dont know very well the situation with the war in Libya because this topic never interested me. I heard about this war on the EuroNews channel and nothing more. And besides, I began to edit in Wikipedia already after it ended so that can not say anything on this issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
lol,you got to least see how the situation was there,very too much edit wars occured then and alot of areas when unreported,like kafra and the southern libyan desert.Alhanuty (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC) okay,but leave Al-Halbah,but please try to look for Dalhous.Alhanuty (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Agree! And ok I try search this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
- Also you can help me because the editor Jafar Saeed note the all rebel-held villages in Raqqa province of the under control by IS to according of the article from Al Jazeera here but in this article not said that all area the Raqqa province under control by IS. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry,hitted the limit of reverts for today.Alhanuty (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Re: Stop Edit Warring.
Al-Masdar is a reliable source based on its track record of being right in all events so far. Besides, by your "brilliant" thesis, if al-Masdar is unreliable because you have designated the editor to be pro-regime, then SOHR must go because its Editor in Chief is openly pro-opp, but you wouldn't want that, would you now?. Also, under no definition of the phrase "edit warring" is one revert considered to be an edit war. Either that, or you are just as guilty as I am for reverting, so please, do not try to intimate me with your false charges of edit warring. Have a Good day =) . 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
READ Before you talk,https://twitter.com/KeepingtheLeith. SECONDLY,SOHR is considered as an authoritive source by all well-known medias.Alhanuty (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
- "READ Before you talk", Perhaps you should do that with your own words, remember the "Genius" who said that the Editor of Al-Masdar is pro-gov and used that to invalidate Al-Masdar. Well, the man who IS SOHR is OPENLY PRO-OPP so your statement "SOHR is considered as an authoritive source by all well-known medias" does not matter. According to YOUR own logic, SOHR must go.Al-Madar has been right about everything it said so far, so it and the SOHR are in the same boat, either both swim or sink. Anyway, there is no point in further debate since the news from Al-Masdar which you tried to remove has been confirmed by Al-Jazeera. Also, you might want to take your own advice on reading before talking [again], since you were the one who made the completely ignorant claim that one revert constitutes an edit war. Again, have a good day =). 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Aleppo siege
The SOHR source literally says Thus the regime forces cut off the supply lines of the rebels-held areas in the city of Aleppo. Also, I added one more source (an opposition activist) that confirmed barriers have been erected on the road. EkoGraf (talk) 01:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- A source you just removed I might add. P.S. I left the mention of the renewed fighting in the paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 01:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
the City is not under siege yet Eko,the Castillo Road from the Jandoul roundabout is still open,so the siege isn't complete,just make it renewed government advance,until the Siege is really imposed,which is not yet imposed and the battle didn't ended,that violates Wikipedia is not a crystal ball rule,so wait until the Siege is really imposed.Alhanuty (talk) 01:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think I will need to say this again. Did you even read the SOHR report or even the NEW source that I added? SOHR literally says CUT. In what way do you think they could monitor the road and thus cutting it if they were not ON it? If they were monitoring it from a mile away ok it wouldn't be cut. But SOHR says they cut it by monitoring it, which means they are ON it. Further, the second source literally quotes an opposition activist who says the Army has erected barries ON the road. In addition, I would remind you that when looking at the map, Handarat village is on the western side of the road. To reach it the Army, which came in from the east, needed to cross the road (thus securing it). So even if the village was contested again tonight, that does not mean in any way the road itself is also contested because no evidence so far the Army has been pushed back from Handarat across the road. So I am not using my crystal ball, but writing per source, and you got TWO sources saying they are ON the road. And no sources are saying the roads are open as you claimed. EkoGraf (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
they didn't say cut,they said monitor,so technically the siege is not imposed and also via pro-government map https://twitter.com/ArmedResearch/status/518070310042869760.the Castillo road is not cut yet,and al-layramoon is still rebel-held,so there is still a road yet opened,which means the siege is not yet imposed.Alhanuty (talk) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Except for the part about al-Layramoon, literally everything else you just said in that sentence is incorrect. First, they didn't say cut,they said monitor??? Are you reading only the second part of that post on purpose and ignoring the first part of the post where it says Thus the regime forces cut off the supply lines of the rebels-held areas in the city of Aleppo (second time I'm quoting this for you)? Second, you ignored for the THIRD time the other source where an activist is saying the SAA put up barriers ON the road. Third, you probably did not look too carefully that pro-government map before you linked it, but if you would care to look more carefully you would see that the roundabout where the Castello road turns towards Turkey is in fact SAA-held! So that road IS a supply line as you say, but only for the rebels in Layramoon and of not much use for the guys in East Aleppo. EkoGraf (talk) 01:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- P.S. Original SOHR report in Arabic [8]. Doesn't say fighting renewed in the village itself, just that the number of those killed in the whole Handarat area (assuming village and hill) for the day has increased to 45 rebels and 20 soldiers with disadvantages for the Army. EkoGraf (talk) 01:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Samlin and Inkhil
But army also bombarded city Dara and city Nawa but this not mean these cities not under control the rebels. Although you know I agree with you about the city Inkhil because earlier about government map shows it under the control of the rebels. So I suggest you compromise: put the city Samlin to contested but put the city of Inkhil under control the rebels. Also the Mazra'at Bayt Jinn it is village but not farmlands so I suggest you put it back in the red color Hanibal911 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Mazra'a is the arabic word for farmland lol.Alhanuty (talk) 15:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
- Hey Alhanuty maybe we need stop our disputes and better instead this let's we will try to find these villages (al Wehdah al, Da’emah and Masaken al Shabab) in which located the IS position and international coalition bombed there.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
okay,i will agree with putting only Inkhil as rebel-held then.Alhanuty (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
- Alhanuty carefully read the source because SOHR only said that clashes in al Harrah area but not said that in the city Al Harrah also previously SOHR reported that clashes are in al Harrah hill here and SOHR this had in mind when reported that clashes in Al Harrah areaSOHR. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Jaz'ah
I need your help in the situation with the city Jaz'ah herebecause the editor Cobanas without any reason reverted our with you changes in this area even though I tried to prove to him that the changes were made correctly. Because I already today revert his editing and do not want to break 1RR. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 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)