User talk:Rhocagil

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Rhocagil, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 23:02, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:57, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War and ISIL general sanctions[edit]

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Syrian Civil War Map Updates[edit]

Cizire Canton has been identified as a reliable source despite being pro-Kurd for previous edits on the Syrian Civil War map. Also, why is using a map as a source for edits forbidden?Prohibited Area (talk) 13:40, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area you forgot to read the top of the talk page: Important message from creator of map: Please read. Some times I do not see why we should not use maps, but that does not matter. As for Cizire Cantons I don´t know how reliable he is… I can say I hope he is right but as an example I can say that there has been no reports of that the cities along M4 highway Abwah and Surab Sharqiya have been captured by YPG. No reports what so ever, the only one stating that the are i under YPG control is him. There is another pro-kurd map-maker sylezjusz that is in constant conflict with Cizire Canton and he has yet not shown YPG persons in the mentioned area.Rhocagil (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cizire Canton has been used in the past however it is a pro-Kurd source. It frustrates me that you cant use reliable sources for advances if they favour he advancing party whilst you can use apparently unreliable sources for retreats of favourable party. Sources should be based on reliability not on whether they favour a party to the conflict. I havent found any sources specifically relating to the liberation of the villages along the M4 but have found some sources claiming the M4 is under YPG control, most however are pro-Kurdish Prohibited Area (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area Yes i know it has been used a lot of times and the rules of editing have as well been broken a lot of times. And i f you see any sources of M4 please present them, news is always interesting. What bothers me with the maps today is that this map published today by Cizire Canton and this map published today by Sylezjusz have many differences. What bothers me especially is that Sylezjusz indicates SAA presence to the north-west. Witch of those should we trust? I think both guys have local connections. Rhocagil (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are just maps which are not viable sources for editing the map, however they are made from a variety of amateur sources. In regards to the maps I would trust Sylezjusz as the SAA was known to hold positions west of Hasakah city prior to the ISIS offensive. I don't think ISIS ever attacked these positions and there has been no reports of YPG-SAA conflict in these areas therefore suggesting that the SAA are still present unless they have since withdrawn. Prohibited Area (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Khirbat Zammalah[edit]

Done Thanks for the notice! Regards,--HC PUNXKID 00:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Tall Dadin[edit]

Done. Thanks again. Regards,--HC PUNXKID 23:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Eis[edit]

The town Al Eis to west of the Al Hadher under control by Syrian troops. http://www.syriahr.com/2015/11/%D8%AD%D8%B2%D8%A8-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D9%87-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%86%D8%A7%D9%86%D9%8A-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%86%D8%B8%D8%A7%D9%85-%D9%8A%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1%D8%A7/ 46.201.74.27 (talk) 21:43, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

46.201.74.27 Somebody already fixt the edit.Rhocagil (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homs province[edit]

SAA recaptured Hawareen and Tall Daher hill.source so this clearly confirms that ISIS retreated and Hadath under SAA also earlier Hadat was erroneously marked as contested because then source only said that clashes was near Hadath but not inside village.here

SAA retake: Army Storage Base near Mahin.SOHR Step News Agency Aksalser Alkhaleej Onlin Jabal Mahin source and SAA retake parts of the town Mahin.SOHR 46.200.240.93 (talk) 21:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Malikia[edit]

We cant marked as jointly control of YPG and FSA here the village of Malikia. Becasue source said that Jaysh al-Thuwar retake this village from Al Nusra and source but Ahrar Al-Sham which is a part of Syrian rebels which is allies of FSA). Also other pro-opposition sources clear said about clashes between Rebels and YPG in North Aleppo countryside wher YPG trying to storm Al-Malikiyah. Se talk pageher and reliable source reported that the YPG and Jaysh Al-Thuwar struck the rebels in northern Aleppo, targeting the Jabhat Al-Nusra and Harakat Ahrar Al-Sham controlled villages of Kashta’ar, Al-Ziyara, and Mulkiyah near the city of ‘Azaz.here So Jaysh Al-Thuwar help YPG in their clashes against rebels and we need put Malikia to yellow . 46.201.74.151 (talk) 12:56, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are making no sense Rhocagil (talk) 13:54, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But when the YPG forces fight against the FSA/allies and Al Nusra in Malikiya no of any sense put the village as joint control between YPG and rebels and when all pro-opp. and reliable sources report that the YPG try to storm FSA-held village Malikiya.source source Qasioun News Reliable source earlier said that Jaysh al-Thuwar together with YPG was trying to storm FSA-held village of Al-Malikiyah.here Also pro-opp. source said that the clashes still ongoing in the village of the Malikiya.here So we have conflict between YPG and rebels. Malikiya under control YPG or contested between YPG and rebels but not under jointly control. 46.201.74.151 (talk) 15:26, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysh al-Thuwar and YPG are in the SDF together and in the Hasakah region we mark cities under their control like this. I know this is a bit messy but it´s the best alternative. I have described an alternative earlier to add "SDF" to the description of the yellow dot under the map. Then all SDF-dot could be yellow and you would be right, but this is not the situation as it is.Rhocagil (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jaysh al-Thuwar and YPG coopirated with rebels in Hasakah province but in Aleppo province Jaysh al-Thuwar cooperat with the YPG against Al Nusra and rebels.here SOHR clear said that the clashes between Jaysh al-Thuwar against Jabhat al- Nusra and the rebel and Islamist factions are still taking place around the village of al- Malkiyyah located in A’zaz area and around Mathanet al- Faysal near the village of Keshe’tar north of Aleppo.SOHR So need noted the village of Malikiya as under control YPG and allies Jaysh al-Thuwar. Because the Jaysh al-Thuwar retake Malikiya from FSA, Islamic insurgents and Al Nusra but we noted this village as under their joint control. This is nonsense. 37.52.29.233 (talk) 17:43, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why don´t you raise this discussion on the talk page instead? You can´t blame me for this! I won´t edit the map in one way in the east and another in the west. I said I do agree to make all "joint control lime/yellow" in to "yellow" if we add "SDF" to the description of the yellow dot under the map. But thats not up to me to decide. Debate this on the general talk page not on my talk page. Rhocagil (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]