User talk:Hanibal911

The

Adventure

Hi Hanibal911!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

• Hey there! I saw your recent large edits on Iraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) and I decided to write here before taking action. As you can see the sections Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec are meant as an overview of major attacks within the country, almost always linking to an actual article. While it is true that some recent major attacks (or days with, let's say more than 75 casualties) have been missed, but we know have a detailed day-by-day account of events on the ground, which is nice, but is not fit for Wikipedia. It is unrealistic to think we are going to add every single day from now on, and add every day from Dec 2011 to the present as well, and for this case I wanted to tell you that I will be heavily editing the article later today and the majority of what was added will be gone - I will leave only a few major attacks that were missing + some random bits of info about monthly death toll statistics that is also valuable, but most of it will be gone. Please take a closer look at how the rest of the article looks and feel free to add to it, but in a constructive and realistic manner - WP is a collective process, so let's try to make the article better, but in a proper way, not just mindlessly adding buckets of text to it every day. I have put a LOT of effort and time into this article, and I would love to have someone help me out, especially if you follow the conflict and are knowledgeable :) Thanks in advance! Skycycle (talk) 11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are continuously adding new information day by day, which IS NOT the point of the article, or any wikipedia article of this sort. I already explained my position above, 3 months ago, and you failed to reply. My next step will be to report this to higher authorities, because the article is slowly becoming a huge pile of text, full of information that is not always correct, or even relevant to the big picture. Please contact me to avoid any further possible action towards your account, as I WILL report this in a few days time! Skycycle (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey: 10 minute survey.

--thanks and cheers, Ocaasi 20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Template:Syrian civil war infobox, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you have been active on the South Sudan article and wanted to ask you if you could jump in on the article's talk page and offer you opinion about the problems Lihass has with trusting the UN as a source and his constand reinserting of out-dated information. EkoGraf (talk) 18:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although hesitant, I have went even further and even removed the 1,000 figure by the UN coordinator, beside the claim by the aid worker, because the coordinator said the number probably has gone over 1,000. I hope this is a fair enough compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is reliable. It is a real source, and someone confirmed it in "comments" on the website. They said that the "YPG" said the same thing. --68.229.239.155 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is official confirmation from a reliable source.The Daily Star.

Your opinion would be appreciated here [1]. EkoGraf (talk) 13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Al-Jazeera, Reuters, WashingtonInstitute there are about 1700-4000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria.
Dailystar.com.lb is anti-Hezbollah website of Lebanon.
Hezbollah have total 15,000-20,000 soldiers. Its not possible for them to send 10,000-15,000 soldiers in Syria to defend Assad. SpidErxD (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources Al-Jazeera and Reuters for 29 May, while my source The Daily Star for 24 December. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i said Dailystar.com.lb is anti-Hezbollah website of Lebanon which is not valid source.
Hezbollah have total 15,000-20,000 soldiers. Its not possible for them to send 10,000-15,000 soldiers in Syria to defend Assad.
According to WashingtonInstitute article which is published on December 5, 2013, there are 3000-5000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria.
If you think there are 10,000-15,000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria please provide authentic source like BBC,Reuters,CNN etc. ThankYou SpidErxD (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about creating an article titled for example Battles of Ramadi and Fallujah? EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start it and I will help you expand it. I thought about the title and maybe the title Ramadi and Fallujah uprising would also fit nice because some media outlets have also called it an uprising. We can always change the name in later discussions with editors. EkoGraf (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already created it hehe 2013–14 Anbar clashes. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured that article about the IF-FSA conflict into the current Opposition-ISIS conflict. Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflict EkoGraf (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to rename the article. Now this article looks more correct. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This [2] repeats content from the paragraph above, Ive removed it, btw.(Lihaas (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Just a heads up that this "north of the Iraqi capital Baghdad, according to security and hospital sources. The deadly incident took place on Tuesday on a highway north of the city of Samarra, the sources said" seems like its copy+paste from the source. WP cant do that it is a copyvio. Seperately, Tuesday doesn't mean anything when you look back at it years for now. Also be aware of WP:OVERLINK and merely saying "sources said" as this is not a newspaper. I reworded it slightly.Lihaas (talk) 11:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of WP:OVERLINK and do not copy+paste from the article. This is not a media story and further it is a copyright violation to blindly write what is from the source!.

This is a verbatim quote copy+pasted from the source "security forces backed by tanks engaged in heavy fighting with Al-Qaeda linked militants in the Albubali area, between Ramadi and Fallujah, a police officer said. "A big force last night attacked hideouts in an area of Albubali that had been turned into a stronghold for Al-Qaeda fighters and, since this morning, there have been fierce clashes between both sides involving army tanks," the officer said"(Lihaas (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for reminder. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP, keep up the good additions. Ill correct here and there if you have issues. Just that sometimes it was too redundant ;)Lihaas (talk) 07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but I implore you again not to copy and paste from sources as that is a copyright violation:

Here "fierce clashes have erupted between Iraqi special forces and al-Qaeda linked fighters in a village in the western Anbar province, officials say. The village, al-Bubali, lies between Fallujah and Ramadi, two cities in Anbar that are under siege by Iraqi security forces and their allies from Sunni Arab tribes" is a direct copy and paste from the first 2 lines of the source. I haven't checked the second source in that para, but it appears to be similar.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very close copy vio from nthisLihaas (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I wanted to do yesterday but didn't have the time it is great like this as it represents what actualy happened in the area :) good job.Daki122 (talk) 16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to show more accurately what the happening there. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you except for Deir Salman, which you should mark contested. http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-rebel-offensives-in-east-ghouta.html

If you mark deir salman back to contested, I will leave the East ghouta region alone, so long as its not tampered with again until multiple reliable sources come through. Sopher99 (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this source [3] notes Deir Salman under control army. Map for 21 December shows it under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Deir Selman is shown under government control by the pro-opp source so that does make it reliable an as far as I'm informed the rebels never reached Deir Salman and that is not only confirmed by por-government sources but also by pro rebel sources as well no need to change anything.Daki122 (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You got a pro-rebel source saying the town is most likely government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the NDF showed up sources indicated that the Shabiha and other pro-government militias were being integrated into the NDF, while Jaysh al-Sha'bi was even speculated to already BE the NDF. For almost a year now there has been no mention of Shabiha and Jaysh al-Sha'bi in the conflict, or very minimal. Even SOHR has described, in its daily death tolls, the pro-government Syrian militiamen killed as all NDF. That suggests that those two have at this point become non-existent and have been completely merged into the NDF. EkoGraf (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check their daily death tolls, in each one SOHR only says NDF members are killed. No mention of the two. The two do still exist but as subgroups of the NDF. Besides, the SOHR may as well be talking in that link of yours about those killed before the mergers. But the main point is they call them collectively the NDF in their daily reports. And Future and Sopher agree with me on this on the condition we note in brackets that the two still exist albait as part of the NDF. EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are listed on the wikiproject page for South Sudan as a member, I was thus wondering if you are interested in collaborating on a page together? There is more info on the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Sudan#Agricultural_page?Lihaas (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because SOHR regards all the rebels the same except for ISIS and Nusra and thus calls the rebel fatalities collectively as rebel brigades. Also, we got sources from earlier in 2013 and from late 2012 confirming the start of a merger of those two government militias INTO the NDF. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source - [4] clearly refers to Jaysh al-Sha'bi as the NDF and even links them to the Shabiha. EkoGraf (talk) 16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution for the raqqa problem is a green circle with a black ring. Kind of like hassakah and qamishli. Sopher99 (talk) 15:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This will be best option. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But here some more information. ISIL is now in control of 95 percent of Raqqa.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here more map (opposition source) showing situation in northern part of Aleppo province. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in azaz according to pro-opposition sources, in case you find it useful. https://twitter.com/ced_lab/status/426199220429672448/photo/1/large Sopher99 (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation, I will be grateful for any information. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you are good with adding new towns to the map. Could you please add the town of Ayyash in east Syria as government-held (its just north of Deir ez-Zor). We have both government [5] and opposition sources [6] confirming the towns capture by the Army. Also, the town of Tal Al-Azaeh should be added. We have a government source saying it was also captured, no confirmation from the opposition on this, but it should be marked at least as contested. Thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not found on map city Tal Al-Azaeh. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand your point. I dont see any problem to use old sources to add towns to the map, of course, only in the case that there arent newer sources available (As in the Nawa case, something the well-known vandal user we all know seems to not understand). If there are newer sources, good, lets use it (as they supersede the older ones), but if not, lets use the ones we have. As far as I know, there aint any WP rule that states that sources have expiration dates. And If we use that measure, for example, all the checkpoints should be removed from the map, as they were added months or years ago, so we dont now who control s them or if they even exists now.

Im starting to think that some users (not you, of course) are trying to do anything to avoid my edits. They used partisan maps (Syrian Persective, Cedric Labrousse) to add towns to the map with no problems or opposition, but when I started doing the same they suddenly discover that they were published on Twitter and oppose its use. Now, oppose the use of reliable sources with the excuse of being outdated (who decides that? and, wich is the outdate limit? one week? one month?). Unless you or other users found a better reason to avoid my edits, I ask you to restore them or I will do it by myself, as (if Im not wrong) Im not breaking any WP rule. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partially right that sometimes we could be used older sources but only to add new cities and villages. But then we need to be 100% sure that it was not later sources indicate other information relating to a particular town or village. But it's not easy to do. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Hanibal911. We would like to invite you to join WikiProject Mass surveillance, a group of Wikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to the list of participants and joining the discussion on the talkpage. -- We are just starting up and could really use help getting things set up.HectorMoffet (talk) 11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut WP:SETEC

	The Original Barnstar
	hi hanibal, why you are undoing my changes? these are real stuff. Thanks for your work anyway Barcaxx1980 (talk) 16:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all your changes because they unfounded. You have to specify sources which confirm all your changes. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reliable source !! is Aljazeera reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcaxx1980 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! for everything....

I don't know how to replay directly to your notifications! so I add it here.

Barcaxx1980 —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was happy to help. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Raqqa is the only provincial capital not controlled by the Syrian gov., but by ISIS. And it seems that most of the road from Aleppo to Daraa (wich passes through Hama, Homs and Damascus and is the most important road in the country) is controlled by SAA and allied forces. That's what I know about that issue. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As Alhanuty has removed the towns you added based on a previous WP map (something wich could be discussable, but at least you provide something to back your edit), you should remove the towns Sopher99 added WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=595067679&oldid=595059738 & https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=595059407&oldid=595045023). I removed them for not being backed by any type of source, but he reverted my changes with one of his typical dumb and false argumentations. Lets oppose this flagrant double standards. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I returned those the cities which were earlier added by me because there is confirmation from opposition source that these towns under control the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ANI-notice.Alhanuty (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--HCPUNXKID 00:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the map conflict only HPUNXKID appeared to had concenrs with Barcaxx. Indeed, I only saw you contact him about his use of pro-regime sites. Furthermore you and the other editors didn't have a problem with the use of wikimapia to add villages and towns so long as as it stayed within the clear defined boundaries of syria maps (like the BBC maps)

Like-wise for the same reason I took no issue with your additions to the deir ezzor province using twitter maps.

There fore your comment "Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all." is a bit in error, since I was abiding by a underlying rule I assume everyone was following.

I would like you to please reconsider my situation, and retract your support for a block/ban. Sopher99 (talk) 22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher I wanted to retract of my support for a block / ban but your friend Alhanuty became threaten me and I now doubt whether I should do it. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You  also did the same thing,so you could be blocked also for this.Alhanuty (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply] 

I added a citys in Tartous Province because that province is completely under control of army and this is confirmed by data from Wikipedia but this is also confirmed by many sources including the pro opposition sources. Maybe I was wrong adding two cities in province of Deir ez-Zor but this information confirmed pro opposition source. And at the moment no information confirming that rebels surrounded military in Deir ez-Zor hence road from Homs province under control of the army but if I wrong then I apologize. Also as you have probably noticed that I not returned them back because agree with your argument that maybe you're right and source of which I used to add them not entirely reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are accepting a double standard. While you have accepted the removal of your unsourced edit, Sopher still denies the removal of the towns he added without sources. That cannot be like that, both should be removed or both added.--HCPUNXKID 22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was first published in Foreign Affairs, then re-pubished in the pro-opp. outlets. As FA is a reliable source, I think it should stay like that. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you please tell me what exactly the 1 revert rule is?

Thanks Barcaxx1980 —Preceding undated comment added 00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is he doing Reverting for 3 or 4 times without any source. He is not even looking for reality, but playing with the map like a toy or a rubbish.

Barcaxx1980 —Preceding undated comment added 10:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 reverts in a row !!!! wow he made a record

What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do.

User:Barcaxx1980 —Preceding undated comment added 11:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-add the lime part , rebels only handed heavy weapons over (aritllery and such)

also it says both red and green flag were raised. Thanks Sopher99 (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I agree with you on raqqa. Perhaps we can add a contested dot within Raqqa itself to represent the neighborhood. Sopher99 (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source said opposition fighters handing over heavy weapons and the regime raising its red, white, black and green flag there. There is not told about the rebel flag this source only listed all the colors of the Syrian flag. Regime troops raised the Syrian flag over the municipality of the southern suburb.The Daily Star NOW News

I now try of note the contested area in Raqqa and try to find more data confirming clashes in the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, thats not acceptable, not only for the source (LCC) but for the media used to publish it (Facebook). I will revert it when possible.--HCPUNXKID 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the diffs that show Barcaxx adding villages without a source, or with youtube and twitter. I wouldn't have a problem except for the fact HCPUNX keeps reverting my villages I added with wikimapia.

Please help me remove these villages, I will continue myself after 24hours of my last revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594646538&oldid=594642856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594260126&oldid=594233591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594642856&oldid=594580088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594658448&oldid=594649722

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594362268&oldid=594360075

or you can just revert HCPUNX's removal of my villages, and then we don't have to remove all these villages. Which ever way you feel is best. Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us, as a compromise, I just bring back on the map villages that you added earlier. And we will not do such changes in the future. If you agree with me it would be the best solution. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean you'll re-add the rebel villages under the condition that no additional regime or rebel village gets added without a good reliable source, then I agree. Sopher99 (talk) 22:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here on this and agreed. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below: 

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood everything. Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source says regime bombs rebel held territories, immediately after that it says it bombed Inkhil. PBS Map shows Inkhil under rebel control. Please self-revert. Sopher99 (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to remove the map of Damascus as it is out of date please see the talk page on the Tamplate i the last section "Damascus map not working out of date and hard to update" I would quite like to hear your opinion as a reliable source says the front lines have changed and they are a lot different from the ones on the map and even on the Tamplate as it seems the Army has pushed the rebels away from Abadeh.Daki122 (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you turn to this editor that edits this map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you said about the source on Ayyash when you reverted it was totally wrong. It doesn't talk about any "district" 'Ayyash, it says "بلدة عياش بريف دير الزور", which means "town of 'Ayyash in the countryside (rif) of Deir ez-Zor". Taken in full, it says "The LCC reported that opposition forces killed three soldiers as they repulsed an attack on the town of 'Ayyash in the countryside of Deir ez-Zor..." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But Aayash it is village not city. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baldah means "town", and such semantic hair-splitting makes absolutely no difference anyway. Still referring the the exact same place. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice: if you're going to try to make educated decisions on content from Arabic-language sources, you really should take some time to learn at least some basic elements of the language. It's clear from both the discussion here and past threads like this one that you don't know much at all about it. While Google Translate is certainly a powerful tool that can do a lot of the translation work for you, it is prone to error like any such automatic program is. By learning even a little bit about Arabic and how it works, you can make more accurate judgements on what Google Translate shows you.

At the very least, you should familiarise yourself with Arabic letters. This table here is very useful for this—it's largely how I learned. By doing this, you can more easily recognise names (which online translators often get wrong—this is actually a big problem for them) and can also learn how to transliterate them in a more standard way when you add them to the map or talk about them in discussions. After this, you can move on to learning some vocabulary. It's particularly smart to learn some words commonly used in news reports so that you can quickly direct your attention to place-names or other important information in an article by searching for them on the page. Examples are geographical terms like "قرية" (qaryah=village) "بلدة" (baldah=town), مدينة (madīnah=city), or "ريف" (rīf=countryside); political terms like نظام (niẓām=regime), ثوار (thuwwār="revolutionaries"/rebels), معارضة (mu'āraḍah=opposition), or إرهابيين (irhābiyyīn=terrorists); and military terms like "حاجز" (hājiz=checkpoint), قوات (quwwāt=troops), or "مطار" (maṭār=airport/airbase). Remember that nouns often have the definite article ال (al-) added to them as a prefix. If you feel comfortable, you can even try learning some of the grammar too.

For instance, if we take a look at the older discussion thread that I linked above, you say that the source doesn't mention the village in question (البويضة: al-Buwaydah or with a less-standard spelling "al-Boida"). That's not true, but given that Google Translate says that "البويضة" means "egg" (which it does, just not in this context), it's at least a somewhat understandable mistake. If you look at a translation and it has a random word like "egg" thrown in that doesn't make sense in context, you should immediately recognise that something is wrong—especially if it has a geographical term like "qaryah" in front of it. Since GT has a helpful function of highlighting the original word when you hold your cursor over the translated word, you can use the table of Arabic letters (or your memory, after enough practise) to figure out what's wrong. Here, you can see that the letters spell out a-l-b-ū/w-ī/y-ḍ-ah; after accounting for the fact that Arabic uses an abjad and so not all vowel sounds are honestly represented in normal writing, you can infer that it's talking about "al-Buwaydah".

I'm not saying this to insult you or be mean to you; quite the opposite, I only want to help you. You're also not at all the only person who needs to do this; what I'm saying could be directed at most editors of the map. And I'm not at all trying to claim that I myself am at all "fluent" in Arabic; I can't even carry on a basic conversation in it. But trust me, you'll be surprised at how much better you can obtain information from Arabic sources if you just learn a little bit of the language! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change to the status of Khirbet-Gazahleh from red to contested was never supported by reliable source. I made a search, presented on the talk page, that shows that the contested status of Khirbet-Gazahleh is not supported and nobody found any argument against it. Furthermore this town is considered gov held even in pro-opp maps. Therefore unless you find a reason justifying Khirbet-Gazahleh to be contested or revert it to red as it has alwaays been.--Paolowalter (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the source Hanibal911 (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion as you and agree with you that the source for the fighting is too dubious and that it should stay red (government held). But that editor keeps continuing to edit war. So I proposed the lime ring as a compromise solution and one other editor has also agreed to it. So I would ask you and the other guy to refrain from further edit warring. If you agree to the compromise solution to temporarily put the lime ring for a week (and than remove it if no further fighting is reported) we can than shut out the other editor with a majority compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always believed that in any situation we need to find a compromise solution. And I agree with your proposal. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out both at that guys talk page and at the maps talk page. I can not get through to him to follow the rules. 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

He too does not listen to me. 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Send him the 1RR warning. 17:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

I have already notified the admins. You can also take part in the discussion.her Hanibal911 (talk) 17:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:1RR in contravention of WP:SCWGS, as you did at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing anything. There were two villages in Quneitra and Qalamoun with the same name and by mistake I changed both and not only the one in Quneitra. The change in Quneitra is fully justified, syrian documents is relaible and nobody has shon any evodence of the contrary. Furthermore also SOHR reports the same new https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/501083430000000?stream_ref=10 I have already proved in the talk page under Quneitra section that the red assignment was wrong since the beginning due, probably, to an error in going from aran to english. The original article http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/people-golan-return-%E2%80%98shouting-valley%E2%80%99 was talking about a place in the north of Quneitra. Therefore, thanks for fixng the error on Qalamoun, but the other is correct and must be reverted.

It is extremely unfair to revert changes without previous discussion.--Paolowalter (talk) 21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you but and you get me that we do not use Syrian Documents for editing the map. Also we do not use for editing data from facebook you must find more reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report by SOHR from today [7]. Fighting IN the southern side of the town. EkoGraf (talk) 14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this information when edited the map but even now we can not use this information because we do not use Facebook for map editing. Need to wait for the appearance of this information on the official website SOHR or in other sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake. Here is the english version on SOHR's facebook page [8]. Note Clashes are ongoing between islamic fighters, the ISIS and al-Nusra front from one side and regular forces, NDF combatants and Hezbollah fighters from the other in the Ras al-Ma’ara town, with reports that regular forces and Hezbllah progressed inside the town and took hold of large parts of it. The Army is advancing in both villages. :) EkoGraf (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear thanks to that explained! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your view in this discussion [9] on the opposition source Syria: direct would be appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hanibal911. You have new messages at Tradedia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hanibal911. You have new messages at Tradedia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you know, changes of status in the map must be backed by a source (if not, they could be reverted), so someone should warn that user about it. But about the 1RR rule, I dont think he broke it, as his edits were consecutive. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc You blocked me on 10 days and I will admit the fact that I broke the rule 1RR but I did this when I tried to correct unjustified changes made editor Alhanuty. Because his actions are vandalism because he edited using sources that do not support his changes. Because when he edits it often distorts the data in source which he use as this he needed that make an edit.hereherehere Other editors are also trying to correct this actions but that does not stop him.hereherehere Perhaps you need to make an exception for this module Syrian Civil War detailed map which will allow the other editors to revert the wrong changes if they are made without providing the specific sources which can confirm such action. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB states that you need to show that the block is no longer needed or was wrong in the first place. With the above you've shown the exact opposite of that. Blaming your actions on someone else shows that you won't take care in the future. Only one of the reverts you were blocked because of was a revert of Alhanuty. Also you need to re-read WP:Vandalism as the edits you've labelled as vandalism are not. The one revert rule on that page is doing it's job, if you believe that Alhanuty has a record of adding unsourced changes you need to present evidence of that at WP:AN or talk to them about it on their talk page first. As the community has imposed the restriction only the community can remove it, which I don't see happening as it's preventing edit warring on that page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zabadani was confirmed last month to be under the same ceasefire deal as the towns around Damascus, so not contested. Bloudan is government-held per the opposition map, but I added a lime ring around it since its on the frontline. EkoGraf (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sohr confirms Observatory sitll in rebel hands. Your yahoo source only says state tv claimed syrian army recapture.

SOHRs reliability exceeds state tv.

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2023&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UznDzvldVsM Sopher99 (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we maybe create an article about a Battle of Al-Malihah if fighting for the town continues into the next day (we wait one more day)? And would you want to create it? I would clean it up. EkoGraf (talk) 14:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is necessary to create an article Battle of Al-Malihah because many sources say that the Syrian army launched an offensive in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, create the article and I will clean it up. EkoGraf (talk) 10:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im not too supportive of adding that infrastructure, but in case of adding it, I would choose the Panorama base, as its an army site, and not the police academy, because until now there's no police sites added, and I think that adding more new infrastructure would made the map more chaotic (for that same reason I dont support the add of oil fields like the T2, but it seems no one has opposed its inclusion, so I dont want to cause disruption. For example, I opposed the add of Aleppo power plant, but when it was accepted, I started to add other power plants in the map). By the way, I found more important to add towns like Al-Shoula, wich Alhanuty misinterpretate like ISIL-held (seems he thinks that in the AC map the territory where the black arrows are is ISIL-held, when they simply show the route of their attack), when its SAA (or NDF)-held. Could you revert his revert on my edit, as I dont want to break 1RR?. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it but then I too break 1RR because today I already revert its editing. But I absolutely agree with you that this city is under the control of the army and the pro opposition source AC confirms this. Also I think that you are right and we need to remove the T2 oil pumping station because this object has no strategic value. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you it's written. But if you look to the place of the village itself, there is absolutely nothing... There is no village : http://wikimapia.org/#lang=fr&lat=32.940962&lon=36.010029&z=17&m=b&search=Al-Jabiyah Wikimapia is made by normal people, maybe someone made a mistake... What do you think about it ?Oussj (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here this village on the other maps.GeoNamesMap CartaOpenstreetmap Hanibal911 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I think you're right on this issue, as the 3 towns you mentioned are not explicitly mentioned on that article, they must be removed from the map, as for example other towns I added without an explicit mention (based on a partial map) were removed later, so same must be done with that. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation in Zabadani is still unclear, perhaps we should wait 24 or 48 hours to see what finally happens there. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, that user is trying to mess with the map. He reverted my edit removing the towns in Deir Ezzor governorate added without specific source. So, we have two options: one is removing again that towns (that should be done by you, as I couldnt do it without breaking 1RR) and the other is taking him to the administrators board, as he perhaps (Im not sure at all) have broken the 1RR (see the hours of this & this edits). Regards, --HCPUNXKID 16:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look. I self reverted BOTH edits. Sopher99 (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher99:No you don't. You added again that 3 towns near Abu Kamal wich were added WITHOUT SPECIFIC CITATION ON THE SOURCES GIVEN. If I acted the same way, I could had half a dozen towns in red on south Hasakah governorate.--HCPUNXKID 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |<span style="display:none">r</span>[[File:Flag of Syria (2011 combined).svg|40px]
• raises tension in Syria] [[al-Jazeera]], 9 July 2013</ref> ISIS rebels withdrew from Al-Dana.<ref>[http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326685 Syria: ISIS agrees truce, withdraws from Turkish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this map, I think 7, not 5, would be a better choice. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Siege_of_Homs_Map.svg

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2230&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2urpvl_tCh says that one fighter died of its wounds (from the fighting at the prison weeks ago) and seven others were killed by a pipeline explosion. Not 8 fighters killed in the prison.

Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the truce and the rebels must leave the city, we can not be sure they keep the same territory which they controlled before the armistice. So let's leave it at that and see because if all the terms of the armistice will be performed and the rebels leave Homs then all the city will be marked in red. Also source said that government troops have blockaded rebels inside a string of districts on the territory eight miles.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... you do realize that Homs city is 19 square miles right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homs Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets we note Homs as before and close this issue.compromise version because I think this option is the most appropriate in this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there in the wiki map from Syrian conflict https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Some one put the Khan Abu Shamat chemical facility in Insurgents hands http://fotos.subefotos.com/d498ef8a09d1125b47da4f515475d321o.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502 These Activists who obviously support the claim only = Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals are believed to be held.

They said just believe...And they claim is only about Sayqal air base claiming this place was "shelling away by rocket" when they "believed" and are talking about air base no about Khan Abu Shamat that sounds very ambiguous coming from anonymous activists who only "believed".

They no talk about Khan Abu Shamat chemical weapon facility....

And before was confirmed the Dumair air base it's not under siege-

Basically I no found a single solid evidence the Rebels controlled this Chemical Weapon Facility.

Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the source says that : "The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal, which lies between Dumair and Sayqal, and cut the road linking them."Reuters But I will try look for the data which will be able to clarify the situation with the Khan Abu Shamat Chemical Plant. But even if the rebels were there we can not be sure that they are still there. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put this question here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Homs_.3D_Al_waer_.28al-Wa.27ar.29_still_in_conflict_.3F

This zone in Homs stilling in conflict ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this area is still the conflict zone.The Daily Star But I track information about this and if will be other data then I'll change the status this area on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real problem with the military bases that were added based on a name found on Wikimapia. The problem is that ANYONE can edit Wikimapia and put ANYTHING they like without any source or explanation. So in terms of finding military bases, Wikimapia is unreliable. I can go now to Wikimapia and put in Brigade 69 (Shaykh Yurbuty) in some random place. Then, I can come back and put it on our map. The problem is that Brigade 69 (Shaykh Yurbuty) does not exist, as I just invented it. That is why we need some source other than Wikimapia to mention the military base before we can put it on our map. In this case, any pro-gov or pro-rebel source is fine. Notice that our problem here is not about which party controls the area in question, but rather whether the military base exists or still exists.

For all the above reasons, Wikipedia rules forbid using “wikis” (such as Wikimapia) as a source. Wikipedia rule WP:USERGENERATED is very clear. It states: “open wikis are largely not acceptable as a source. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated.” This is exactly the case of Wikimapia, as users (anyone) generate the content. So Wikimapia can only be used to get coordinates for something that is already validly sourced. Please let me know what you think. Tradedia^talk 01:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this I absolutely agree with you. I have long talked about it but then this problem was ignored. Hanibal911 (talk) 05:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will go ahead and remove these bases from the map. Tradedia^talk 23:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help with an anonymous editor here 2014 Latakia offensive (check edit history for the last several days) and here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#2014 Latakia Offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This city is already on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Days ago was army reported the control from a place called Um al-Awsaj

sana.sy/eng/337/2014/05/18/545193.html https://www.facebook.com/SyrianArabNewsAgencySana/posts/740021592687037

If you got time put it on map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 17:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cant use data from the pro government sources to display of army advances. But if you find confirmation of this data in neutral or pro opposition sources so I can add this town on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another pro government source http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930229000940

SANA usually reports the correct information most times.. Are the Lebanese and Iranian News agencies who usually exaggerated the things some times...Anyway the Iranian and Lebanese Media are very active following the conflict with professional Journalist, west media basically doing nothing just quoted everything who Anti Regime SOHR in London tell them and at the same time the SORH just quoted SANA for save his "Credibility"

But if you need "Third sources" there is a anti regime source who confirm that =

The army also took control of the village of Umm al-Awsaj in al-Sanamein in the Daraa countryside. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/05/syria-national-coalition-defense-minister-resignation.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you added that town based on this Al-Monitor article, wich calls Al-Shahil Nusra's main stronghold. While the Al-Shahil on the Euphrates river is a small city or a big town near the oild fields, the other Al Shahil is a remote small village. And due to the fact that the ISIS-"rebels" clashes had taken place mostly in the surroundings of the Euphrates & Khabur rivers, I doubt very much that the article refers to that tiny village, but to the Euphrates Al Shahil. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I think in this case you are right! Thanks buddy that all to me explained. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont found that map important or reliable enough to be used, also most of the towns on the map had been added.--HCPUNXKID 21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that map is not from a pro-opposition source, but an outdated version of a Wikipedia map based on the one we edit, with some minor differences. See it here. Regards, --HCPUNXKID 21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the template map talk page, the big mistakes on maps made by that twitter account make it so unreliable, unless we are going to accept any type of amateur child-like draw map...--HCPUNXKID 14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although we agreed on use maps published on Twitter, I dont think that simply using tweets as a source for edits is good or even reliable. For example, you use a tweet for adding Ishtabraq to the map. Only few hours ago, the same Twitter account published a map of the zone with Ishtabraq on it. So I think its better to avoid the use of tweets and wait a little bit for confirmation by maps, websites or other more reliable type of sources. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK buddy! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed before that Mahdi Army, Badr Brigades, Kata'ib Hezbollah and Asa'ib Ahl al-Haq should not be added (read the hidden tag just below the part you added in the editing template). We don't include every group that fights with Assad since they are numerous. Please self-revert your last edit and take it to talk. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 10:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I agree with you that we should not add these groups. But I think that we should add the Arab National Guard because this combat unit which takes an active part in the battles. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree again. How crucial is the Arab Nationalist Guard's role in combat? Is Assad incapable of winning certain battles without their support? There is also nothing unique about them since they are not the only nationlist group supporting the government. Please remove it for now and if you want you can initiate a discussion on talk so different editors can voice their opinions. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Regime May 25 https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/470534599479943168/photo/1

Pro Regime May 23 https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=827637347255514&set=a.777540598931856.1073741827.777533765599206&type=1&theater

Map from June 2 (Dunno if it's pro or anti Government) https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/473403042243809280

Three maps coincide about Al-Shulah

This map used as source before is not credible - https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/473225872942858240 creator is trolling seems he is just a follower racer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 07:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this map is not a reliable source. But now I'm not going to use this map to display the army advances, because I'm not sure that she is from the opposition source. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Could be pro Rebel no idea really - At the moments who got more credibility are Larousse and Sy Per maps seems the regime controlled Al-Shulah however both ISIS and Army move with very high OPSEC - Since February 2014 ISIS avoid combats with the Army some Pro Insurgents twitter account claim ISIS and Army sharing territories and ISIS is backed by the Army but the high OPSEC level makes that very difficult to know - — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As as-Suwayda got many towns under Regime control there are I showing the locations from a fews https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Towns_From_as-Suwayda_governorate_.281.29

Putting it to map will be look like that = http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/06/05/140605113023769226.jpg

__________

In both maps who you are showing to me (I see both before) these towns are in regime held territory the 99,99% from as-Suwayda governorate is in regime hands everyone who know about the conflict agree with that, I just edited this crap just one fvcking time and some one reverted it anyway.

But there is a fact like 50+ tows in as-Suwayda governorate are under regime control and are not in map i just draw 13 of these and were deleted.

Here is the discussion about these towns anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Towns_From_as-Suwayda_governorate_.281.29

These both map 1map 2 maps like most available are just partial pirate copies from Wikpedia map this people just watch here Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil who we made here and in base of that they make their own maps..

The most accurate map stilling be this one here on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Syrian_civil_war_2.png and it showing showing very clear the 100% from as-Suwayda countryside in Army Hands same case with these copies map 1map 2

These are a copy also http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1395974204 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1396132515

And same case 100% from as-Suwayda countryside in regime control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway when you can see there are not violations from rules because the towns who I draw and latter were deleted coincide 100% with all these maps http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1395974204 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1396132515 map 1map 2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer — Preceding unsigned comment added by LogFTW (talk • contribs) 08:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for violating WP:1RR at Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map per WP:SCWGS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Hanibal911 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why you blocked me from editing for a period of one week for violating WP:1RR rule although I am not break WP:1RR when editing of this article Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map is probably this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. — Daniel Case (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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.

It takes two reverts to violate 1RR. You reverted three times today, at 4:22, 14:50, and at 18:48 UTC.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong because I only once revert editing which made ​​the editor Paolowalter.18:48 but hereit is not a violation of 1RR as it is simply an adjustment which has not changed very essence of the edit and here I also made ​​small corrections which also did not change the essence of changes and it is also not a violation of 1RR. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page's edits are a series of adjustments, some large, some very small. Each of your three edits changed the content of the page and was clearly a revert. You're not new to this. If you can't figure out what is and what isn't a revert, then don't edit the page more than once in a 24-hour period. Short of obvious gamesmanship, you should then at least be safe from 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again to look my edits and you will see that I not revert edits of other editors I just corrected them. After all, if you look you will see that the editor LogFTW added some villages from the Suwayda province to the list of towns and villages of the Dara province and I just moved them to the list of towns and villages the Suwayda province according to the map but I'm not revert his editing. So I'm helped him but I was not going to break WP:1RR. Also, I added source confirming his editing and I only helped a newbie.here. Also in this case, if I broke WP:1RR I did it not intentionally simple if you look at all the previous changes in this article Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map you'll notice that when we indicate on the map that the city besieged we mark it differently and not as did the editor Paolowalter and I wanted help him correct this. Yet I am not asking you to cancel my punishment I just ask you him to soften. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to know that media often interchanges between provinces, districts and cities. For example, there are still report that talk about Kerkuk being partially held by insurgents, while the city itself is clearly in the hands of Peshmerga. The writers of such news mean that the province of Kerkuk is partially held, but don't indicate this difference. This is the same with other cities/provinces/districts in Iraq like Khaneqin. The city itself is in hands of the Peshmerga but parts of the district not, like Saadiya, where fighting is continuing.

NadaCambia — Preceding unsigned comment added by NadaCambia (talk • contribs) 14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this source, [10] hopefully you'll understand why I changed it to contested & lift my ban.

Benjamin 145 (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what does this have to do with to your editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologize, wrong link. [11]

"The YPG captured several buildings at the entrance of the northern Aleppo city of Jarabulus from the ISIL, as well as the water facilities."

Benjamin 145 (talk) 07:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that is not need now mark the city Jarabulus to contested because your source said that the YPG fighters was captured several buildings at the entrance to the city. I think until we get more information about the situation in Jarablus we can to install a yellow circle around the city. But if appears the data confirming that the clashes are already in the city I'll change status the city Jarabulus to contested. I hope you will agree with me. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark the semi-protect edit requests as answered after you have either denied or accepted the edit. :) — LeoFrank  ^Talk 04:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]