User talk:AlAboud83/Archive 3

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

Aranews

Aranews it is pro opposition source and this well-known fact. So it is not necessary to invent! Hanibal911 (talk) 06:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Also another source talks about it http://www.kuna.net.kw/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=2400854&Language=en.Alhanuty (talk) 07:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

OK Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty in the future need to carefully read the sources because if the source said that clashes in area the city or village this does not mean that clashes inside this city or village. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

RE: Al-Masdar

If you have so many editors on your side, get them to message me or start a discussion on the map talk page. You keep failing to understand what I tell you don't you? You continue to operate with the statement that Al-Masdar is unreliable because "thee prrof of that is that the Pro-government map maker Leith Abu Fadel is the editor in chief". This statement that you made is a logical axiom, and you have to follow through with it in ALL cases. Since Rami Abdullrahman, SOHR editor in chief, is a self avowed opposition support, SOHR MUST be removed based on you logic. Yet SOHR is not removed because editors points to its good track record. Al-Masdar also has a good track record of accuracy, so it does not matter that the editor is pro-gov. Understand now? I will make it simple for you if you did not. Through you reasoning, either both SOHR and Al-Masdar go or neither of them goes. Remember, since you have so much support for your point, creating a section on the map talk page to settle the "Masdar question" should be a snap. Have a nice day =). 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning regarding 1RR etc at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

I've unblocked you as I think it's better to explain my thinking rather than block. These were the three edits which I was looking at: 1, 2 & 3. There isn't a clear 1RR violation as the two clear reverts are around 3-4 hours outside the 24 window. However the 2nd edit also changes some content which I don't generally refer to as a revert on that page (due to the amount of information and how often it changes). The other problem with the 3rd edit is that you have mislabeled it as vandalism (please see WP:VAND) which makes the editing environment harder for people to participate in. If you have a problem with someone's edits you need to discuss it on the module's talk page, or, failing that on their talk page. Incorrectly labeling edits as vandalism makes it more difficult for others to contribute and is needlessly confrontational. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Nawa

Why did you mark the city Nawa under control by rebels bu source said that government forces have left their positions in the vicinity of al-Harra, northwest of Daraa, and in Tal al-Harra. Maybe you wanted marked under control by rebels the city Nimr. Because many pro-government and the pro opposition sources indicate that the town of Nawa contested between the army and rebels. West part the city under control by rebels but the east part under control by army.Al Monitor Hanibal911 (talk) 16:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

i am sorry Hannibal,made a wrong edit,i meant to change Nimr,not Nawa.Alhanuty (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's okay I myself previously committed similar mistakes. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And thank's for your help in editing this template Yemen Insurgency detailed map Hanibal911 (talk) 16:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yemen Insurgency detailed map

How do you think we can use this map to edit this template Yemen Insurgency detailed map In Syrian conflict we clear know that the source Archicivilians support the Syrian opposition and against Syrian government and ISIS. But i dont know which of the belligerents in this conflict support this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	It is an award for your help in improving this template Yemen Insurgency detailed map Hanibal911 (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thank you,Hannibal.Alhanuty (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nassib

Alhanuty Let's do not rush edit the city Nassaib under control by rebels because SOHR not said that Nassib taken the rebels it only said that regime dropped barrel bombs onto the town Nasib and shelled areas in the town of Nasib.SOHR Also if rebels captured town Nassib then the Nassib border crossing will be captured in the next few days. Just let's wait a couple of days. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

why would the government bombard the town,unless it lost control of it.Alhanuty (talk) 07:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes aircraft target the city in which there are clashes thus helping one of the parties. Also international coalition aircraft bombed those parts of the city Kobane where located ISIS position thus coalition helping a YPG expel ISIS militants out the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Template:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map

Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Template:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map isn't the right way to make a new map at all. Please tag it and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Template:Lebanese Insurgency detailed map as G7 so that I can remake them properly. Also, do the maps have any marks yet? Jackmcbarn (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC) I just made the map,and also they said you should do it this way,but anyway i made the template on my own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lebanese_Insurgency_detailed_map.Alhanuty (talk) 14:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Who's "they"? Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tall Qarah

Help me fix a map because editor Ariskar put red ring around village Tall Qarah here but this village not besieged by army and no clashes near or around this village. Source only said that Syrian government forces have stepped up shelling of rebel-held areas, killing nine people in a village in the country's north. Also Local activist Ibrahim Khatib and Rami Abdurrahman of the SOHR said that government forces targeted the village of Tel Qrah the previous night.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 15:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Lebanese Insurgency detailed map

What do you think might be worth adding ISIS as one of the participants to the conflict in Lebanon. Because some source reported that ISIS presence in Lebanon. The Wall Street Journal Al Monitor Also the reliable source reported about clashes between Lebanese troops and ISIS in Tripoli.The Daily Star Albawaba Hanibal911 (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Biased sources

You can undo the editing in the Hama province which made based on biased source Al Masdar.here Because if I do this I break the rule 1RR. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

even,if i revert,another editor will revert claiming that Al-Masdar is reliable,this issue needs to be put under a firm discussion about the issuw and finally a ban on the use of Al-Masdar for government advance,only just use it for oposition/IS/YPG advance only,as what was done in putting Israel in the templatebox,and now who puts puts israel on the templatebox,can immediately get blocked,also did you see,they used Al-Masdar to change Madyaa to government-held and other cases.Alhanuty (talk) 00:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Homs province

Alhanuty I ask you to carefully examine your sources before you edit the map because source which you use not said that villages Rasm al Abd, Qastal al-Ghazi and Al-Hanuteh under control ISIS. On map which you use to editing not marked the area where located the villages Qastal al-Ghazi and Al-Hanuteh so that we cant edit based only on hunches. Also this map clear showed that the village Rasm al Abd under the control of the army bit clashes go near so I put black circle around this village. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hannibal it is clear marked,the area north of Shaer is IS-held.Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Look carefully on map and you see that village Rasm al Abd located in area which under control by army. On this map under the control of ISIS marked only the nearby village of Soha. And so I ask you correct the mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

SOHR has previously said the area is IS-held,also http://www.albawaba.com/news/is-closes-in-on-hama-countryside--617583 confirms that Assad defense line is Saan, Saboura, and Akareb,Soha is IS-held,and it doesn't make sense that Regime still controls an isolated village in an ocean of IS-held areas.

what do you think about the area,west of Jub Jarrah,should it be put contested or it stays the same.Alhanuty (talk) 20:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Also,back then in september i wanted to note that Aqaribat Naihyah is connected to the region in homs,also Syracuse,map show these villages as IS-held.Alhanuty (talk) 21:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

But now the source which you used did not show that the village Rasm al Abd under control by ISIS. I hope for your understanding. So that will correctly note this village to red and put the black circle around. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that the village is still regime-held,with ISIS control the surrounding the region.Alhanuty (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I see that you dont want edit in accordance with the data in the source that you use for editing so I do not see a point in continuing the discussion. Very sorry that you have not heeded of my arguments. Although we only began to improve our cooperation. This is very sad! Hanibal911 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Listen Hannibal,i am editing according to the source,and the cooperation can continue on,i am just pointing out,that how a the regime can still control a village in the midst of IS-held territory,also the map shows Qastal Ghazi and Al-Hanuteh as IS-held,and there is something that i have to note out,Aqaribat Nahiyah is connected with the Jubb al-Jarrah Nahiyah in homs,like Hannibal does it make sense that IS controls a group of villages,and the government controls a village in the midst of them,cut off from supplyline.Alhanuty (talk) 22:52, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hannibal,now i get what you were meaning hannibal,i didn't realize it,i was sort of busy,Okay,now i understand what you were saying about Rasm Al-Abd,okay put it then either contested for a black circle around it.Alhanuty (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC) i will see if i can make the edit or not,but ,revert Daki on the Tiyas airport issue.Alhanuty (talk) 18:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

We now received confirmation that maps from the source deSyracuse it is pro-opposition maps. These maps are the result of joint work of pro-opposition activists from deSyracuse and Archicivilians.here And we can not use these maps for display the success of all anti-government rebels including FSA and ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Dayr Makir

Alhabuty pro government source not said that the city Dayr Makir under rebel control. Source only said that in Quneitra: army foiled an attempt by militants to infiltrate into the town of Deir Sly Habariyah. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC) \ Hannibal it clear says they failed an attempt to attack Habariyah from Dayr Makir,so revert it.Alhanuty (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry buddy! You are was right. I found this message on English.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nawa

Alhanuty you can fix not big mistake in your editing. Because SOHR said that rebels captured Tell Huwran to west from Tank Battalion and Tank Battalion but you probably mistakenly noted under control by rebel the Tell al Hish.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR in its report says Tal Hish.Alhanuty (talk) 09:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Meskin

Your pro-government source dated on 9 November. But totay SOHR said that violent clashes are erupting between the regime forces against al- Nusra Front, the rebel and Islamic battalions in the town of al- Sheikh Meskin, initial information reported advance for the regime forces in the area.SOHR So this means that the city still is contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Himrit

Alhanuty when you put the green circle aound Himrit you provide a broken link.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry,Hannibal,here is the link https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/611848722256803.Alhanuty (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That's okay everyone can make a mistake. Just wanted to show you where you made mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayn al Afa

Khirbat Ayn al Afa it is not a village or a military objective is simply ruins. So I think no need to add it on the map.here here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Al-Suhayliyah

Dont need edit just based on assumptions. SOHR not said that the village Al-Suhayliyah captured.here So you have need again noted this village under the control of the army. Or provide a source that can confirm that the village was captured. After all, according to the rules of editing, we must edited the map only on the basis of specific data from the sources. So just fix mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:39, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

SOHR only reported that the battalions seized the Battalion 60 near the town of Al-Suhayliyah. But not said that the town of Al-Suhayliyah also taken.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

check the map http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.889156&lon=36.158473&z=16&m=b&show=/25752495/60th-Engineering-Army-Battalion-(Brigade-82),they are like very close to each other,but nevermind,ust revert Paolowalter's vandalism,he putted Dilli red without any source and also calling my revert of his unsourced edit as vandalism,also if you are going to use archicivillian to mark pro-gov edits,then petolucem is to be used for oppo advance,like this one here https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/533710485968125952.regards.Alhanuty (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Pro gov. source just said that pro opposition source reported that Insurgents have captured the villages Buriqa and Dilli located north of ShaykhMiskin. But pro gov. source not confirm this data.here And pro opposition source reported that clashes take place between Syrian army and Islamist battalions fighters in Enkhil, and Barka of Daraa countryside.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I put green circle around the town of Al-Suhayliyah. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:02, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

And Paolowalter edit a village Dilli to red the based on report from a pro-opposition source.here But this source later said that Field activists confirmed that village Dilli is under Rebels control, after the Regime failed attempts to retake the village.here But later other the pro-opposition source said that clashes in Dilli still continues.here Thus we have a very confusing situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thus it seems to me that the best solution in this situation can be only one. Mark this village as a contested. This is my personal opinion. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, AlAboud83. You have new messages at Tradedia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ARA News

Ara News it is biased pro opposition source and they cant be used tho show success of anti government forces. And also this source not said that Sabaa Skor and al-Melabiya under control of ISIS. Source just said that the coalition’s warplanes bombed IS sites in the areas of Sabaa Skor, and al-Melabiya, and the vicinity of Mount Abdulaziz, west and south of Hasakah. So it means that is present in this area but not means that this areas under ISIS controlled. Now a village of Sabaa Skor marked as contested and this correct also this source earlier reported that village al-Melabiya regime-held.here So we need confirmation from the neutral source that those villages under control by ISIS. Or if this data confirmed the pro-government source. So let's not rush and wait for confirmation! Hanibal911 (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Just as I said earlier in this debate, there is no need to rush need try to collect more detailed information before edit. here Especially if there is no specific data. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

the usage of Al-Masdar for pro-government edit should stop,this is plaguing the map,lot of positions are change to government held based on a pro-government source.Alhanuty (talk) 18:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

it is not a pro-opposition source,it is pro-kurdish,and it is reporting its rivals success,which is in this case ISIS.Alhanuty (talk) 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this source too biased in opposition side and very often distorts information in favor of the rebels. But like I said earlier, also he does not said that the villages of which you speak under the control of ISIS. According to data from this source ISIS are present in the area but did not say that they control these villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked from editing

To enforce a community sanction, and for violating the one revert rule at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map per WP:GS/SCW,

you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Wifione ^Message

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.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

AlAboud83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

i don't really know why i was blocked,i didn't break any rule,i didn't break the 1 RR rule of the article,actually i just reported an editor who broke the rule,i believe this is an error

Decline reason:

The first and third reverts listed below are indeed reverts as they changed material in the article. It doesn't matter whether it's the same material. You clearly violated 1RR and this isn't the first time. In any event, the person you have to convince is the blocking administrator as no other administrator may accept an unblock request from you, and it doesn't sound like you've convinced them. Bbb23 (talk) 20:26, 23 November 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.

the first and third are plain new edits,you can check the history,the first edit is a new edit by the telegraph,the second one is the revert,that i made,the third one is a plain new edit using a reliable source,i clearly understand what a revert is,and i clearly believe that i made one revert.Alhanuty (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

1st revert, 2nd revert. 3rd revert Wifione ^Message 19:42, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the first edit was a plain new edit about Sheikh Maskeen,the second one is the only revert i made about Sheikh Maskeen,and the third one was a new edit for another subject,about Zahraa,i clearly didn't break any rule,and i don't know why i am blocked,i believe this is merely an error.Alhanuty (talk) 19:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the first and third are plain new edits,you can check the history,the first edit is a new edit by the telegraph,the second one is the revert,that i made,the third one is a plain new edit using a reliable source,i clearly understand what a revert is,and i clearly believe that i made one revert.Alhanuty (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I swear,i respected the rule,i clearly made one revert,only one.Alhanuty (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

the first and third are plain new edits

It's more disturbing than your 1RR violation that after all this time you still don't understand the policy definition of a revert. It doesn't bode well for the future.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Second unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

AlAboud83 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

after clearly and analyzing several times the 3RR and the 1RR,which states "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. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." and which in this case is the 1RR and based on the reasons why Admin Wifione blocked based on these three edits,*1st revert, 2nd revert. 3rd revert,after analyzing it,it is clear that the first edit is not a revert,because this edit doesn't remove another edit,it is a plain new revert using a brand new source about Sheikh Maskeen,using the Telegraph,http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11247798/Syrian-Christians-Help-us-to-stay-stop-arming-terrorists.html),for the second edit,this is my only revert,because i reverted once a editor edits and changed it,while the third one is clearly a new edit,because,i don't change or undo another editors work and it is clear that no other edit was reverted,and no other material is reverted here,and a new source is used here http://syriahr.com/en/2014/11/jabhat-al-nusra-and-islamic-battalions-take-control-on-al-maamel-area-in-advances-of-their-massive-attack/,in conclusion based on the disucssion i clearly didn't break the 1 RR rule,and my edits here is based on authentic source and is based on good faith,and i have no intents to ever engage in useless edit warring at all,that bring only blocks,not constructive work and writing,and i will be careful of that,thank you Mr.Admin

Accept reason:

Block has expired. MER-C 08:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Alhanuty (talk) 23:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alhanuty, kindly note that on November 10th, you reverted and added "Location dot lime.svg" to "lat = "32.828", long = "36.158". On November 12th, you again reverted and added "Location dot lime.svg" to the same coordinates. On November 22nd, you once again reverted and added exactly the same details to the same coordinates. A few hours later, you again reverted and added the same details to the same coordinates. This is just for your records and information. Please feel free to comment further if you believe that would help. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 08:25, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

after again clearly and analyzing several times the 3RR and the 1RR,which states "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. Violations of the rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." and which in this case is the 1RR and based on the new reasons you provided,it is clear that the November 10th is a plain new edit because,it was put for the first time,secondly my edit the second edit November 12th is an edit out of the 24 hour frame,so no violation,after 10 days,after i agreed on the revert i made a plain new edit and case November 22nd using an authentic source,and then i used my 1RR rule and made one revert after it later,and because of the reasons that i mentioned and explained,it is clear that there is no violation to the rule,and thus the current block is unjustified,i would my block to be repealed,thank you.Alhanuty (talk) 21:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

While the November 10th edit is a new edit, all the other edits are reverts pushing the same material in the same place. The last two reverts happened within a period of 24 hours. If you do not get this clearly, your block may be extended by me to an indefinite period until you understand that a revert is a revert, irrespective of your claim of having found new sources to support a revert (and in this case, egregiously the same old material). Like I said, please clarify you've understood your mistake. If you believe there's nothing wrong in your edits, I would have to block you indefinitely to prevent further disruption to the project. Kindly confirm. Wifione ^Message 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

i confirm i understand.Alhanuty (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Now that you claim you understand, please explain why each of the three reverts was a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

the Nov 12 and 22 and 22 are reverts,it looks i misunderstood it,because it was focused on one material Sheikh Maskeen,but Bbb23,don't think i would edit war on purpose,i would never edit war on purpose,i don't intend to edit war at all,i am editing here on good faith,i swear if i knew that even after ten days,it would still count as a revert,i would have never done so.Alhanuty (talk) 19:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I need to hear why you now understand that all three edits on November 22 were reverts. So far, you've only accounted for two, and your exlanation, although there's obviously a language barrier, is not convincing because it doesn't really explain your "conversion". I don't want to spoon-feed the answer to you because that doesn't really help you understand how the policy works.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

i understand how the policy works now.Alhanuty (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wifione may do as he wishes, but I'm not buying it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

the block on my account has expired,but there is a block associated with my IP adress from the computer i am using,can that block be repeal,since the block on my account has expired.Alhanuty (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Al Zahraa

SOHR just said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have taken over al-Ma’amel area south of al-Zahraa town after violent clashes against regime forces and allied gunmen from the towns of Nubol and al-Zahraa towns.here But this not inside city Al Zarha this area (al-Ma’amel) is located south of city. And also later SOHR clear said that violent clashes continue around Nubol and al-Zahraa towns which are inhabited by Shia.here So that means a city of Al Zahraa still under siege by rebels but not contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

they enter Zahraa,and seized an area in Zahraa,so i think this is enough to make it contested.

Stop inventing because SOHR not said that rebels entered in Al Zahra. SOHR just said that rebels captured al-Ma’amel area south of al-Zahraa. And here SOHR clear said that clashes around this city but not inside him. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also other reliable sources clear said that the fighters advanced overnight on al-Zahra, north of Aleppo city, seizing territory to the south and also trying to take land to the east in an attempt to capture the village.The Daily Star Yahoo News Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 20:09, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay,Hannibal,Nubl and Zahraa can stay encircled, i need you help,in the section above,do you think that i broke,the 1RR rule.Alhanuty (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but than I can help you if this decision two admins. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: SOHR

Wow, you must have some serious analysis problems. Elijah J Mangir, a PROFESSIONAL news correspondent for an accredited and well respected news organization, is LESS reliable than the guy reporting from a two room flat in Coventry? Come on, get real. And this professional news correspondent said that the perimeter of the airport had been secured by SAA. SOHR may be reliable, but my edit was more reliably sourced than yours. Unless you find something more reliable that EJM [i.e. Not SOHR], or leave the edit alone. XJ-0461 v2 (talk) 01:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

SOHR is way reliable than him,he has a sort of biasness,also the SOHR source is more recent,so SELF-REVERT.Alhanuty (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

But you also previously recognized that Elijah J. Magnier it is a reliable source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Sawran

Listen you have any information about a situation in the city Sawran in northen part of Aleppo province. Because with I was contacted by editor DuckZz about the situation in this city.here He provided information from opposition sources that the city is under control by moderate rebels but ISIS trying to storm city.here here But I have also not found information from neutral sources about the situation in this city. Only find pro opposition source in which said that several ISIS militants were killed in heavy clashes with rebels in Sawran N. Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:43, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

it is under the control of Syrian rebels,but there is a more serious Issue on the wikipedia map,Pototo's Vandalism can't be tolerated anymore,can anybody report him for balant Vandalism,he Put all ISIS-Held in Suwayda as Regime-held,even that multiple sources reported that ISIS controls those villages and also he removed Bir Qassab.Alhanuty (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

he also removed the rings from the Qalamoun mountains.Alhanuty (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In this situation for now I cant anything do because today I use (1 revert). Hanibal911 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't he be reported.Alhanuty (talk) 21:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Maar Hitat

Alhanuty maybe you not read this discussion where clear said that it is offencive Al Nusra and their allied Ahrar al-Sham and Jund al Aqsa.here And SOHR clear said about Al Nusra and Amhar al Sham ambushed to troops which retreated from Maar Hitat. But not said that village taken moderate rebels.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC) yeah,i wasn't here for the discussion of using a fifth color for Nusra,but Nusra still cooperates with the rebellion,also Ahrar Al-Sham participated in taking Hamidiyah and Nusra took on Wadi Deif,and Ahrar Al-Sham are a part of IF,so Ahrar Al-Sham is to be marked with Lime.Alhanuty (talk) 18:11, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating Template:Libyan Civil War detailed map! I was about to start developing a similar Libyan War module myself, only to discover you had already thought of that. Good job. GreyShark (dibra) 12:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Alhanuty (talk) 16:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Qaser Ibn Wardan

Link to report SOHR which you used here does not work. Maybe you made a mistake when you indicated source. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

here is the source http://www.syriahr.com/2014/12/%D9%82%D8%B5%D9%81-%D9%85%D9%83%D8%AB%D9%81-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%B7%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A8%D9%8A-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%AD%D9%8A-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%B1/ ,it looks the link was too long so it didn't show it fully.Alhanuty (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hasakah

We need more data about situation in the village of Abu Qusayib because pro-oppositionhere and pro-ISIShere sources said that village was captured by ISIS but pro Kurdish source just said that clashes around this villagehere Also pro government source said that Islamic State forces captured the village of Abu Qasayib.here Also pro-ISIS source showed that Tall Mar'uf under the joint control of the army and the Kurds.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Abu Qasayeb is contested btw the YPG and ISIS.Alhanuty (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

leave Tal Marouf as YPG-held.Alhanuty (talk) 21:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

But the reliable source reported that clashes between SAA and ISIS in Abu-Qasayeb, Twarij, Mathloutha, al-Ghanamiya, Abu Khazaf, Qbaiyah and Tal Nasr in al-Hasaka. Not YPG vs ISIS.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 21:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Mosul

You can help me translate this article. This is an article about the situation in Iraqi city Mosul.Al Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 20:59, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

So what you think how we can use data with this article? Hanibal911 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

really,nothing.Alhanuty (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Libyan civil war map and

alhanuty i dont know which map you used to create the template for the libyan civil war i just wanted to suggest you this map.here.Regard and Respect Lindi29 (talk) 13:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

it is reliable,just put Tuareg and Berber as Fajr Libya-held,except Ghat,because the area announced loyalty to Toruk gov,and for Gadames,it is a place of negotiations.Alhanuty (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Put the Tobu as with Tobruk Gov.Alhanuty (talk) 19:36, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Here some data about situation in the capital of Libya.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

What do you think about this information.Libyan Armchair Arab Hanibal911 (talk) 12:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you need to add on the map the border crossings. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 82

According to pro opposition sources rebels captured only HQ Brigade 82 inside city and Army radar base (Brigade 82) which refers to the Brigade 82 here Archicivilians But main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here The base that considered as part of Brigade 82, located between NE-Sheikh Maskin and SW-Izzra', still under the Regime control.Archicivilians this clear showed on the pro opposition map here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

SOHR confirmed that the entire Brigade fell today.Alhanuty (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But,Honestly,Eko,it is very impossible for Sheikh Maskeen to stay contested after todays reports.

the same argument happened bac in november for Nawa.Alhanuty (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

And I say again, unsourced OR cann't be accepted. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But Alhanuty SOHR not said that rebels captured main base of Brigade 82! Btu pro opposition sources clear said that main base of Brigade 82 still under control by army.here Archicivilians And about the city Sheikh Maskeen SOHR and some other sources many times reported that city under control by rebels but later again reported that clashes inside city still ongoing. So let's not rush edit. Also SOHR previously some times made mistakes especially when reported about clashes in the city Dail when even the pro government sources showed that the city is under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Closed the article as a rebel victory since there has been no major fighting or organised offensive actions for more than a week. EkoGraf (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

for the incoming battle,it is to be solely named the Battle of Izraa,that is where the next battle will be for sure and if the rebels capture Izraa,it is to be noted as Decisive rebel victory.Alhanuty (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Not up to us to predict what could happen or what kind of outcome it can be. EkoGraf (talk) 07:20, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Islamist insurgency in Nigeria

Alhanuty I have a request to you,Can you create a template for the Insurgency in Nigeria,the problem is i cant find a reliable map like Hanibal911 provided for the South Sudanese Civil War from Imgur.I think a map like this that Hanibal911 provided can be found in Imgur so I want to ask Hanibal911 if you can find this map on Imgur.Thank You. Lindi29 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29Here is a map which shows in detail the situation in Nigeria.here But this map showed a situation on 6 February, but I think that this map can be useful to you. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Hanibal911,so to the request Alhanuty can you create a template of the Insurgency of Nigeria this is a reliable map to begin with.imgur.Lindi29 (talk) 22:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

South Sudanese Civil War

I have a big request to you! You have done a detailed map for Lebanese conflict and Libyan conflict. So I want to ask you make the detaled map for the conflict in Southern Sudan. Here is the source on basis which it is possible to make a map.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:42, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

You can help me in this issue? Or should I turn to another editor. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

i believe it is to early for The Southern Sudanese civil war,because,the conflict might be resolved,i would recommend to wait until march,since i am busy now.Alhanuty (talk) 16:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

OK! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

after,thinking it over,i will soon,make a template for it.Alhanuty (talk) 06:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC) here you go.Alhanuty (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Southern_Sudan_Civil_War

Kobane

What is the source for your Kobane edit ? You can't edit villages just like that. DuckZz (talk) 20:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense that ISIS still controls villages inside YPG territory,they withdraw,not stay stuck in villages,also confirmed sources indicate that Chelebi is YPG-held,so it is impossible for ISIS to control Villages Deep in YPG territory.Alhanuty (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RE:Islamist insurgency in Nigeria

Alhanuty I made an request to you to create a template for this Inscuregency once but you didn't respond to the request so I am requesting you again if can create the template and here is the source on basis which is possible to make the map.Imgur.Lindi29 (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I will try as soon,i am done with work.Alhanuty (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

OK!Lindi29 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah offensive

I removed it because we cann't simply insert information without any sources. EkoGraf (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Tadmur airport

It is very protected a military object and we cant put black semicircle near this airport only on basis of report of the shelling and about the sporadic clashes in area near this airport. Also it is located deep on territory which under control by army.here here SOHR Need more reasons in order to put black semicircle near this airport. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also another one pro opposition source said that ISIS just targeting Tadmur military airport by Grad rockets.Ikhwan Syria So there is no need put a black semicircle. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Also here another one pro opposition source said that the no clashes near Palmyra airbase between Assad forces and ISIS - only shelling by long range Grad rockets. Clashes to 30km N/W in desert.markito0171 Hanibal911 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

And later SOHR just said that ISIS militants shelled places in the vicinity of Tadmur airbase.here Hanibal911 (talk) 07:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Busra al Sham

Maybe we hurry marked as under control by rebels city of Busra al Sham because the spokesman for the Southern Front rebel alliance, Maj. Isam Rayes, told that regime forces were holed up in the historical citadel in Busra and he denying reports that the town had been taken.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 08:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Here reliable source reported that according to data from SOHR rebel groups which fighting against the Syrian government have seized southern town near the border with Jordan after four days of battles.The Daily Star but later the spokesman for the Southern Front of rebel alliance, Maj. Isam Rayes, told that regime forces were holed up in the historical citadel in Busra, denying reports that the town had been taken.The Daily Star So I think we need for now noted of this town as contested. Because rebels denied that town fully under of their control. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

SOHR later clear said that the violent clashes between the Nusra Front, Jund al- Aqsa, Ahrar al- Sham Movement and other Islamic factions against the regime forces and allied militiamen are still taking places in the vicinity of the city of Idlib.SOHR So SOHR clear said that clashes still on the outskirts of the city of Idlib but not inside.SOHR Also we never mark big cities just as contested if we not have data that clashes on big territory inside city. We make a map as for Aleppo or Dara or marked as contested only area where going clashes as we did before for Homs. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe we need just turn to the editor who made maps for cities of Damascus, Deir Ez Zor, Aleppo Darra what be he made a similar map for city of Idlib. Then we will be able to avoid war the edits in future. If you agree, I will ask him to make such a map and this will be the best solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

No need,because Idlib City is small,the islamist coalition is in the town and SOHR confirmed it,most likely they will capture Idlib City.Alhanuty (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Syrian border

Oppositio activist Al-Masalmeh just said rebels captured Nasib and the nearby border guard posts known as 62, 63 and 67. He added that the Syrian government still controls a post known as the “Amman Brigade” east of Nasib. But no one said that rebels captured all small villages near border and that border area between Syria and Jordan for now under control by rebels.The Cairo Post The Daily Mail Hanibal911 (talk) 05:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)Al-Akhbar clealy said that they captured the remaining companies on the border,والمخافر الحدودية القليلة الباقية من الجهة السورية على الحدود الأردنية، والسيطرة عليها,so self-revert.Alhanuty (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC) plus,you sources say that regime forces withdrew to Suweida,adding that government forces withdrew in the direction of the nearby Sweida province.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-3022693/Syrian-rebels-capture-main-border-crossing-Jordan.html#ixzz3WFFGQmr6 Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook.Alhanuty (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2015 (UTC) this is the amman company,http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=32.415038&lon=36.366720&z=14&m=b&show=/11590351/قرية-العمان and the article said that the regime withdrew to the amman company,so that means all villages before the amman village where captured by the southern front,so,SELF-REVERT.Alhanuty (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

almokhtsar

This source not neutral because he called Syrian government as Assad regime and this clear confirm that he pro opposition source.here here and he call the Syrian army as Assad militia.here ot regime force here We agreed to use SOHR as a neutral source although he also named Syrian army as regime troops but data from SOHR uses many the reliable sources. But it was the only one exception but no more. So even in in battle between rebels and ISIS we can not use sources that support rebels and opposes of Syrian troops. Because if source support moderate rebels we cant use data from this source for displayed success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here this source also reported that 75 civilians killed as a result the massacre of Assad regime.almokhtsar So this source cant be neutral. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Rastan

Listen buddy we discussed in this discussion the situation in the city of Rastan and we think that city under jointly control between rebels and JAN. So you can view a data in this discussion and to express their opinion on the matter.here Hanibal911 (talk) 06:44, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Border crossing

Maybe we should add to the map all border crossings that exist even unofficial border crossings.here here here here here here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

What do you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 14:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Hirak

Also reliable source later clear showed that the city of al Hirak contested.here and we noted him as contested on based data from report about clashes inside city of Al Hirak but not based of report about Aerial bombardment or mortar attack. Misunderstand me right, I do say this to you not for that would to dispute edits which you made but just only for that would clarify the situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

not only SOHR reported it,also DeSyracuse,the problem is regime sources won't admit rebel advances,until they launch counter-offensive,and the best example is Kafr Shams,it stayed red,even with multiple report being bombarded by regime,until in the south syrian offensive was launched,then regime admitted it to be under rebel control,don't get me wrong hannibal,i want the map to be accurate,and i would never exaggerate advances.Alhanuty (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Plus bombardement and clashes inside Kiswah,http://www.syriahr.com/2015/04/%D8%AA%D8%AC%D8%AF%D8%AF-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B4%D8%AA%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%A9-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7/ Alhanuty (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Khanasser

Source just said about attacks in Khanaser but not say who attacked (rebels or ISIS) and not said that attacked on village Khanasser and that clashes inside this village.Elijah J. Magnier Maybe someone attacked army positions in Khanasir plain so need more data. Also pro government source said that Syrian army ‪control the road west of the village of Al ‪‎Rashidiya‬ ‪- ‎Khanasser‬ in the southern countryside of ‪‎Aleppo‬, after clashes with armed groups.Syrian 24 Pro opposition source said that in Khanasser area the helicopters target explosive barrels on villages Sayaleh, Shaheed and Khober al-Hos.Local Coordination Committees of Syria And another pro government source said that Syrian troops captured Al-Rashaadiyah in southeast Aleppo near of Khanasser Highway. This is huge victory and alleviates pressure on the Highway.Leith Al-Halabi and here another pro opposition source just said that rebels destroy regime tank on road between Khanasser- Aleppo.here So there for now is no reason to mark this village as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR also reported about clashes in Rashadiyah in Khanasser area near the southern countryside of Aleppo.SOHR and pro government source reportged that the Syrian troops captured village of Al-Rashadiyah near with Khanasser highway .Al Masdar So no clashes in the village of Khanasser. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Strange guy !!!

Strange guy add village in Dara province on based map from article about clashes in Southern Syria but this not a source for editing and also he removes some semi-circles. You can fix this. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC) I will as soon,i am done with work.Alhanuty (talk) 15:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ok! Because I dont want to violate the rule 1RR. This is not first new editor who made the not justified update on the map just on based maps from the articles in Wikipedia. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Latakia

Source Al Masdar clear said that Al Nusra & rebels retreated on Turkish territory and that they nothing captured. Also source hastened when he say that it was offensive. Because SOHR justa said that about clashes between regime Syrian troops and their allied against fighters of the brigades and the Islamic militant from another party, near the Observatory 45.SOHR So that early to say that there was an attempt to offensive most likely hit and run. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Also here Cédric Labrousse said that this was just a small campaign near Kessab and Tower 45 created in fact with one goal : divide the regime forces advancing at dlib southern coutryside.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Syrian Rebellion Observatory So that it was just a small attack for that would distract the Syrian army from their offensive on the city of Idlib. Their aim was not taken a border crossing just to distract the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Also here pro opposition source reported that about attack only report pro government source Al Masdar that the rebels attacked the border crossing and “infiltrating” militia positions. They reached the strategic hill of Tower 45 before they were pushed back. But source said that rebel channels have not released news about the attack.EA WorldView But as said Cédric Labrousse this was just a small campaign near of Kessab and Tower 45 with one goal : divide the regime forces advancing in the Idlib southern coutryside. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Jisr al-Shughur

Jisr al-Shughur still under control by Syrian troops. Here pro opposition source showed that the rebels and Al Nusra still located on distance of 3-4 km from the city.Conflict Reporter Conflict Reporter Conflict Reporter and another pro opposition source Cedric Labrousse also confirmed that the Jisr al-Shughur is still under regime control as rebellion forces took some checkpoints north, west and east to city.Syrian Rebellion Observatory and that rebels didn't take any real strategic objective as the offensive aimed to do. Qarmid battle turned to blood bath.Syrian Rebellion Observatory and regime Ghab plain defense line (despite Simaniyah defeat) is more strongest contrary to what was expected.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Without cut of any real supply lines in next 24 hours, Assad generals will have possibility to make a redeployment and rebels must now achieve one of their objectives or they face strong regime reinforcements from e Latakia and Hama army bases.Syrian Rebellion Observatory Syrian Rebellion Observatory So as I said earlier sometimes SOHR hurry to publish data in their reports before they are confirmed. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And here new report from pro opposition source in which he said that Ahrar al-Sham tank T-55 fires at BMP-1 of Syrian troops near northern entrance of city Jisr al-Shughur and that rebels still located on distance 2-4 km away from entrance in city.here and pro government source also reported that rebels no entered in the city.here also as previous reports this source also clear indicated that the rebels and Al Nusra still outside the city.here here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

T3 Pumping Station

This source clear said that regime managed to secure T3 but only one opposition activist denied this.here So for now I left this object as under control Syrian troops but put near of it black semicircle. Also we two days ago marked under control of ISIS Al-Hail and Arak gas fields but they only today captured these gas fields.The Daily Star So that probably earlier we are hastened to note their aa under control of ISIS and source also said that the governer denied that ISIS captured these gas fields. So that as I understand for now we have many conflicting information. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral sources

Firstly it is Turkish pro opp. source and secondly source not indicated that ISIS captured border crossing in Homs province. Also we not use to displayed success of army all Iranian and Russian sources because Iran and Russia support Syrian government so if Turkey opposes Syrian government sends the ammo and training fighters for Syrian rebels so we also cant be use all Turkish sources against Syrian troops. Also all sources of Saudi Arabia. Because these country clear opposes Syrian government. We must adhere to these rules. Because if we used against Syrian troops Turkish and Saudi sources then we also can use Iranian and Russian sources for display the success of Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2015 (UTC) ANADOLU is known to be a credible source,Not a biased one.Alhanuty (talk) 17:40, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Airfield in Hasakah

Maybe you know what this Airfield south of village of Khiriat Haylah. This active object or not active object (Air Base or AirPort) Here this object on maphere Maybe if this is a active object we can add him on map as under control by YPG. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC) it is just an airstrip.Alhanuty (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Villages dates

The dates are already stated in the main articles on the specific offensives. The results section in the infobox should only have a very very short summarization. EkoGraf (talk) 16:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)