User talk:Lothar von Richthofen/Archive6

Hama

Lothar, fighting at checkpoints of one town does not strike me as a province-wide rebel offensive. So I am asking again...are there reports of widespread rebel attempts of advancement as part of their offensive per which the article is called for? And hold of on renaming the article for 2013 if we still have not established if an offensive is still indeed ongoing. For now per most sources rebel attempts at advancements stopped the moment they pulled back from those three alawite villages. Also, not to mention that the town in question, Tibat al-Imn, is under siege by government forces and not rebel ones, and the rebels are trying to break the siege. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

These government counterattacks are the ongoing reaction to the offensive; remember that Taybat al-Imam was captured as a result of the offensive. We shouldn't separate these clashes simply because the momentum has been reversed—that is confusing to readers and a very strange way to produce a cohesive narrative of the fighting. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

But the government isn't actually in a counterattack are they? They themselves actually stopped after retaking those three alawite villages. Now they are laying siege to that one town and hitting the other 5 the rebels took with air-strikes. They are not actually making attempts at recapturing them. It's their standard tactics all over again. Surrounding a town and bombing it without making attempts to recapture it. They can go on like that for months. If the Army was making attempts at recapturing those towns I would totally agree with you and leave the article open. But....If a source shows up that confirms that indeed the rebels or even the army are still making attempts at ground advancements than I myself will reopen the article, but for now there are no reports of anybody going on the attack throughout Hama, as was the stated goal of the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

First you say that you want to see "ongoing fighting", and now there must be significant movement? Can't have it both ways. It's too early to tell whether or not the "siege" of Taybat al-Imam is just preliminary bombardment for a ground effort to retake it—I think it is. Also, you totally screwed up the edit histories of the page with that cut-n-paste move—the page itself is at 2012 Hama offensive, while all the edits are at Hama offensive (2012-2013). I'll get an admin to clean it up, but please don't do that again! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

When I said ongoing fighting I ment throughout the area the offensive was ment to encompass, not just one town. In any ase in the next few days we see how the situation develops. And sorry for the screw up with cut-n-paste, I didn't know how else to do it. My bad. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Alawite villages emptied in Latakia by rebel fighters

Hey could you put that comment about the latakia region of the map in the row titled "Outside of listed towns in Latakia G." in the table of cities and towns (its not widely mentioned or a city/town that is major enough to have its own row yet). Just put it in the comment column of the row ("History during the syrian uprising"). Also dont forget to footnote/reference the source link you stated in comment to the map changes. Thanks Ass711 (talk) 10:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.222.16 (talk)

Battle of Ras al-Ayn

Do we reopen Battle of Ras al-Ayn since the ceasefire has collapsed and 10 Kurdish and jihadist fighters were killed yesterday with more fighting today? Or is the one month that has passed since the ceasefire too long a time? EkoGraf (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok I will reopen it than. And breaking it down into phases is a good idea. Also can you jump in at the Aleppo page for a minute and provide your opinion? An anonymous editor is refusing to include the NYT as a reliable source and refusing to acknowledge that despite the continuing fighting in Aleppo there is a general stalemate. I have proposed as a compromise to note that there are continuing attacks on the two remaining air bases at Aleppo but that generally there is a stalemate. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

al-Oqaidi's statement would make tactical and strategic sense. They weren't able to push through the city center for 5 months from the eastern part of the city to the western government-held part. So now they are shifting to taking those bases on the outskirts for the last month and a half. EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Tatars (again)

Hi there! I was rather disappointed to see how much rubbish and vandalism were added to the article since my last visit. It seems that the only valuable contribution was the one about Tatars in Poland. As it was very difficult for me to identify all the changes, I have reverted the article to the last appropriate version. I will add the valuable entries to it, hopefully tomorrow. Thanks for understanding. Regards, JackofDiamonds1 (talk) 01:26, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:23, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Hello Lothar.

I understand the thing about CU's puppets, but please don't remove content from my talk page. I'm aware of your good intentions, but I need to be aware of messages I recieve... You know you get a notification when you recieve one, and it confuses when you see no message on your talk page after that. I responded on his message, and I don't see anything that would offend me in any way, which is another reason why not to remove messages.

Cheers!

--Wüstenfuchs 13:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea, but whatever. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011–present Libyan factional fighting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011–present Libyan factional fighting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–present Libyan factional fighting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Van Ophuijsen Spelling System, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diaeresis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo: Thawra dam & al-Jarrah base

Lothar, can you please add the Thawra dam to the strategy section of the Battle of Aleppo article. This BBC article states its relevance. Also, could you enlightenment me as to where exactly the al-Jarrah airbase is located (i.e. north of Aleppo, in Aleppo)? The opposition have captured and laid siege to so many airbases it is hard to keep track.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.254.240 (talk • contribs)

Jerrah is here; I'll write that up when I have time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Re:Move rationale

I don't know how I missed that, so I apologize for writing "No reason given." And either way, I didn't doubt your goodfaith intentions. The main reason I moved the article back still stands, however. --Al Ameer son (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread

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

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Syrian civil war".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC) About Janoudiyah being a "Christian" village and the source I'm not lying about the source, you can see in the link about the reference to janoudiyeh, its in the 12th line/sentence: "Units of the Armed Forces targeted terrorists' gatherings in al-Shaghr, al-Bashiriyeh and near al-Janoudiyeh crossroad in the countryside of Jisr al-Shughour in Idleb, inflicting heavy losses upon them." http://www.syriaonline.sy/?f=Details&catid=12&pageid=5161 I fail to see why this source is unreliable. if its a state-owned/government media source, then that is an insufficient reason since this wikipedia article has references and sources from SANA which is also a government/state-owned media. With regards to the town being "Christian" I havent found any other source/articles indicating the town's christian demography (even any articles mentioning janoudiyeh) the article meant to reference the "christian" to the town yacoubiyeh which is predominantly armenian christian -- Ass711 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 21 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ras al-Ayn (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for February 28 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Kurdistan conflict (2012–present), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Sur, Yenişehir and Bağlar (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Template:Syrian civil war detailed map I am not seeing at all what you are talking about. What web browser are you using? For example, I had discovered some time ago that "label_size=1" (which does not appear on Explorer), appears on Chrome... I now check my edits on both browsers, but this time i didn't see any problem. Tradedia (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I'm using Safari 5.1.7. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC) I downloaded Safari 5.1.7. for Windows and looked at my edits/version on it and it looked fine. However, i will rm the black labels to be safe and put back my other edits. By the way, we should no longer add towns with "label_size=1" because eventhought they look fine in Safari, they look extremely small in Chrome, and don't even appear in Explorer... Tradedia (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 8 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Shem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indo-European peoples (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) baba amr this source confirms that baba amr is under rebel control http://gulftoday.ae/portal/584472b9-53a8-422c-a408-09271be0127f.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Actually the text of that source is a copy-paste of the text in those other sources of yours. The only difference is in the name of the article, which was probably given by the Gulf journalist who put up the article on its site. Today's news [1] is contradictory at best. SOHR says fighting is ongoing in and around Baba Amr, a opposition activist in Homs says the rebels captured parts of the district, a opposition activist far away in Lebanon says they captured all of it. So again the area is best described as contested. EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Some sources are saying that the rebels recaptured most of baba amr, and contested doesn't best describe the situation Abdo45 (talk) 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Contested is the BEST description. I have seen only that one opposition activist from Lebanon to have claimed that they captured Baba Amr, while most others, including activists on the ground in Homs city are saying that the situation is unclear or that the rebels captured parts of it but that fighting is still ongoing. I would think people who are on the ground in the mids of it are more reliable sources than someone in another country. Even reports today from Baba Amr are saying that fighting in the district is still ongoing. EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC) What Eko said. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 04:30, 25 March 2013 (UTC) DYK for Qalaat al-Madiq The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 25 March 2013 (UTC) That's a great new article! Surprised to see Sabburah is missing, can you or Al Ameer son start it?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 14:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC) What a pleasant surprise! I'll see if I can't start something when I find the time. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC) Self-determination Apologies for removing your addition which is clearly correct. I mis-read the meaning. Dbfirs 19:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC) No worries, mate! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Chronical is back Winston Churchill popped up today on the aleppo page. [2] And on the same day an expert on how the "Syrian army is winning and everything is a conspiracy" showed up on the Damascus page [3] Like all of Chronicals accounts, French shows up as the second wiki created. [4] [5] Keep your eyes open. Sopher99 (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Second one is definitely him, iffy on the first. Alhanuty created a (badly formatted) SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Deonis 2012, I'm heading over to redirect attention to the real one. Ugh, where the hell did Salvio go? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC) What do you think of this guy? He is hard-core pro-syrian regime and pro-gaddafi. He was created 3 months ago to primarily work on the Mali-conflict, which was the biggest the Chronical's socks worked on besides Syria. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/EthanKP Sopher99 (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Given that he wasn't caught up in the latest SPI sweep, which netted 9 CU socks, I don't think it's him. May be someone else, though. I'd need to do a bit of digging. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for April 13 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Südfall, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warft (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) Syria civil war Please undo your recent edit to the Syrian civil war page. The system broke and reverted tens of edits done in the past week when you tried to remove the brigade. Sopher99 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC) I would do it myself but I am not allowed to edit the civil war page for 1 week due to edit warring. Sopher99 (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC) On the Syrian Islamic Front and SNC, you said: “but this is not how the project operates”. Can you add more detail? 92.16.157.187 (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2013 (UTC) This isn't News of the World. Who is Sopher99? Who gives a flying fuck, pardon my french? Allegations of misconduct here are not settled by stalkerish background checks, except in the most extreme of cases. If you think Sopher has been doing some egregious wrongs, then that should be evident without having to pry into his life off the internet. We have any number of noticeboards if you want to make an actionable report. But if you're going to play Rupert Murdoch, you can go join Wikipediocracy or start a blog or something. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC) violation of 1RR hi lothar, if you look at: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B%27Tselem&action=history you will see that you are in violation of WP:1RR (which can lead to you being blocked), by editing the page on april 16 at 04:19 and then again on april 17 at 01:54, with there being intervening edits which relate to your revert material. if it is not clear, i will try to explain further - just ask. in any case, it would be best if you did a self-revert of those two edits and then discuss it on the talk page. thanks. Soosim (talk) 06:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC) My mistake, I hadn't intended the second edit as a reversion, just a regular old edit. I can see how it might be considered a revert. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC) i think both of your edits are in violation. in any case, best to discuss on the btselem talk page. thanks, Soosim (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) I made two initial edits to the page. You reverted one and "counteredited" the other. I reverted your "clear" revert and then made a small alteration with a restoration of a bit of content from your "counteredit". I reverted the second action, thus mine (and your) revert count stands at 1. If both of my edits are a violation, then I do not understand why both of your edits to my added material are not considered as such. RRs are per editor, not per page: An editor must not perform more than three [in this case one] reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC) for this page, the 1RR applies, not 3RR. when i said "both your edits" i did not mean two violations, but that both count towards the same violation since they were made consecutively without any other editor intervening. Soosim (talk) 18:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Soosim has a little counting problem. You made a single revert, Lothar, and Soosim was wrong to advise you to self-revert. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:58, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Thanks, Malik. I've been reading about the Pirahã language recently and I was almost starting to question my own counting abilities.... o_O ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC) thanks malik - but alas, it is a violation, but no problem. unlike many other editors here, i always try to talk first, explain, and hope things work out before running to the sanctions page. afg! Soosim (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Ultimately, I'll trust the admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) Tatars Who is this? I recall similar being added some time ago but cannot recall who that was. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC) User:Фаиз Махмудов aka User:XYellowBananaX. Likely also the operator of several Slovene IPs who have been slipping the same bunk in for years. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:53, 23 April 2013 (UTC) Deir ez Zor I never knew that it was copy and pasting,but can you summarize the info in you own word,because there is a blank period between jan and feb and from march till now Alhanuty (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Syria civil war Some guy is trying to label al nusra as alqaeda, despite the source saying otherwise. Can you fix this? I already have my one revert. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=553915951&oldid=553913583 Sopher99 (talk) 08:08, 7 May 2013 (UTC) I don't want to get involved, but The sentence-case message is: Baseball Bugs is the primary instigator in this mess. If we can get Bugs blocked, or get him to stop sticking his nose in our business, things will go a hell of a lot [easier?]. And I am certain about all but that last word. The all-caps comes out (roughly) as: THE WORD CHRISTMAS IS OLD ENGLISH. IT'S A CONTRACTION OF CHRIST'S MASS. IN GREEK, X MEANS CHRIST. THAT IS WHERE THE WORD 'X-MAS' COMES FROM. IT IS JUST A MISCONCEPTION THAT THE WORD XMAS WAS CREATED BY PEOPLE WHO WANT TO TAKE 'CHRIST' OUT. The final "ha" is either an ungrammatical "of," or a derisive attempt to confuse those trying to decode it. I have no idea if any of that helps. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC) The final word in that first thing is supposed to be "smoother", but he spelled it "smother". I take that stuff to be an attempt at getting Axmann and WhiteChristian into further trouble. Best to deny the troll further recognition. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:32, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Thanks, I had actually decoded the second one on a whim (easier of the two) but was having some difficulty with the first. The second one looks like pure trolling, the first one suggests some connection between the accounts (possibly Axmann8 reaching out to a fellow nutjob). 14 Reasons has been shown the door, however, so it may be moot. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC) Фаиз Махмудов Is likely back at the Taters article. I have filed an SPI and hope you can comment on it. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC) Heh. Looks like Salvio's already arrived on the scene, so the situation is under control. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Hit, Syria Hey Lothar, just curious what other Syrian village named Hit you were referring to? You said it was in Homs Province but there doesn't appear to be an article by that name nor is one mentioned anywhere in Template:Homs Governorate. --Al Ameer son (talk) 03:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC) This one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC) Yes, but there's currently no article on that village and the one in al-Suwayda Gov. is more notable. Normally, in a situation where one town is better known, the title of that article is less specific. An example would be Alexandria (in Egypt) and Alexandria, Virginia. That's of course if there is another article on a Syrian village named Hit. If you create one, we could add a hatnote in Hit, Syria, notifying the reader about the village in Homs Gov. --Al Ameer son (talk) 02:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC) The fact that there is no article now does not mean that there will never be one. "More notable" is kind of a logical stretch when you consider that the one in Suwayda is little more than just another cluster of some dozens of mud-brick homes housing only a few hundred people—comparable in size to the one near Qusayr. Both Alexandrias are much larger and better-known in their own rights, so the analogy is weak. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC) My Alexandria comparison was to just provide an example. The Hit in Suwayda was a historic Roman/Byzantine era city and military garrison while the other Hit doesn't appear to be particularly notable (unless I'm mistaken.) It is only a weak comparison because there is currently no article on Hit, Homs. When there is one, we could discuss this further, although my take on the issue would be the same. For now I will restore the previous title and you could open a "request to move" if you still feel that we should use the new title. If there's a consensus for the new title (and the other Hit article is created), then I won't object. --Al Ameer son (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC) Template:Syrian civil war detailed map 2 I don't know where you see the piles of black letters in the middle. I don't see them, nor in Firefox, nor in IE and no matter what version. It would be a good idea to just make sure that newly added links are correct links and not go to disambiguation pages. The Banner talk 22:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Or at least that they are solved before they appear in "Templates with disambiguation links". I'm using Safari and Monobook skin. Problem is now fixed. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Ah, since my self-inflicted computer crash (= installing Windows 8) I never download a version of that browser. The Banner talk 22:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for May 30 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Siege of Menagh Air Base, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2013 (UTC) SOHR source in Damascus offensive 2013 I am really not understanding User talk:HCPUNXKID what his problem is. He is constantly trying to remove SOHR as a source at Damascus offensive (2013). At first his complaint was because its Facebook. I explained to him that it was agreed by consensus two years ago to use it because its the official English version page of SOHR and they were the only ones who were posting and their info was being used by reliable media. He did not want to acknowledge that. For sake of compromise I than replaced the Facebook SOHR source with the main SOHR site, which has nothing to do with Facebook. He than removed that as well without any explanation, and his personal attacks against me I really don't understand. I explained to him that reliable media as BBC news, Reuters and others use SOHR as a source. He said that if Russia Today or Press TV were using it I wouldn't regard SOHR as reliable because I'm a hypocrit who regards those other news sites as unreliable. I explained to him that in my personal opinion those news sites should also be used for sake of neutrality but that the decision of the Wikipedia community is they are not reliable so I am sticking with that. He than said I was contradicting myself. Like I said, I really don't understand him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC) He's edit-warring, plain and simple. If he keeps it up, I'll see if I can't get it handled. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2013 (UTC) So, you are threating me of being blocked for ENFORCING WIKIPEDIA RULES. Wow, each day in WP is a surprise...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC) This is actually getting funny now. Now he has taken SOHR to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC) Syrian civil war map For Marj ruhayyil it is a mistake on my part, but Balil and Shaatah were taken over by the army as other cities and others that are not yet on the map, just read the article on 2013 Hama offensive. So why all undone? Rogal Dorm (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC) The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Siege of Base 46 I am not contradicting the sources. The siege, per the sources, may have had an impact on the course of the Battle of Aleppo, but its not part of the battle for the city itself. Per discussion at the start of the Aleppo battle it was agreed that only fighting in and around Aleppo is considered part of that battle. Base 46 is too far away from Aleppo. Just like the Battle of Safira was considered to have an impact on the battle of Aleppo for the very same reasons as Base 46, because of the supply lines, but in the end it was not considered part of the battle itself. In fact, per one of the sources in the Siege of Base 46 article, the siege was actually considered more key to the battle for the province of Idlib [6], because it borders the Idlib governorate and government supply lines from Idlib city run along that path. EkoGraf (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)