User talk:Jim7049

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Jim7049!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 22:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Jim

Regarding your revert to Syrian_Civil_War_map.svg [1], did you notice that the legend also changed? White no longer represents just HTS, it represents the Salvation government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kami888 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Kami888: Yes, even in that case not the entire province is under salvation gov control. Jaysh al-Izza was not a part of NFL, which surrendered to the salvation government. The south should be left green. Jim7049 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Makes sense, but are you sure about it? This map:[2] shows that the Jaysh al-Izza controlled parts of Idlib had already been under the authority of the Salvation Government even before 2019. Can't exactly vouch for the reliability of this map, but it's the only thing we have to go by. Kami888 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

In either case Salvation Gov's control is just de jure. The most accurate situation I found regarding Idlib is at Syriancivilwarmap.com - While generally I found it extremely biased it has done a good job regarding Idlib. It's best to show HTS control areas rather than the dejure salvation gov. Jim7049 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The problem is, the same exact thing could easily be said of the Syrian government control over many areas, yet these areas are colored in solid red on our map. Recall for example that many areas in Deraa province are still controlled exclusively by the former rebel brigades, with no Syrian army presence [3]. But they are colored red on the map here, with no nuance. And that is not even counting the many areas of Syria where the effective power on the ground belongs to Hezbollah or other pro-Iranian groups such as LDF, yet they are also simply red on our map. And this simplification makes sense, because through accepting the civil governance of the Syrian government, they are not just agreeing to pay taxes and cooperate with Damascus, but they are also effectively recognizing the primacy of and showing their submission towards the Syrian Armed Forces, Syrian police, and other security forces of the Syrian government as the real ultimate authority over the entire region. Thus they can be safely counted as "allies" of the SAA in the civil war, even if they did not exactly arrive at status of their own free will as is the case of many former rebel brigades. I think the same could be said of the HTS control in Idlib. HTS doesn't have to dissolve all other groups in order to maintain effective control over the province, it is enough to crush the opposition to such an extent that it is forced to recognize HTS as the effective leader in the Idlib area, and the recognition of the Salvation Government as the only governing civil authority in the region serves as both legal and symbolic acceptance of that fact. This was my thinking behind making the change. Kami888 (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So with this in mind, tell me, what is the difference between the former FSA-SF brigades still "holding" on to swaths of territory in Deraa, versus the former NFL brigades still "holding" on to swaths of territory in Idlib? Kami888 (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The Syrian Government and allies haven't seen an infighting though, and are much more united than the Idlib rebels. They have fought with each other several times since 2013. Also I'm %100 sure there are no opposition groups left in Daraa now, I haven't seen any map what so ever regarding rebel positions still not evacuated since Summer offensive. That map you gave is also from October, 3 months ago. Jim7049 (talk) 23:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

>Also I'm %100 sure there are no opposition groups left in Daraa now, I haven't seen any map what so ever regarding rebel positions still not evacuated since Summer offensive.

Well, you've seen one such map just now, cause i showed it to you. :) But the reason that most maps don't show you this is precisely because most maps simplify the situation by coloring everything red, since the former rebel brigades now recognize the authority of the Syrian government. But that doesn't mean they disappeared, in fact most of them didn't go anywhere. In reality, you can read many on-the-ground accounts of the situation in Deraa which state that many former rebel groups are still very much present on the ground in certain areas, they simply switched allegiance and agreed to "reconcile" with the Syrian government during the offensive of 2018. In fact, the Syrian army is prohibited from entering many of these areas due to the agreements they signed with the rebel leaders, mediated by the Russian side. Read more about this here when you get the chance: [4]. And always remember this: Just because you haven't heard of something yet, doesn't mean it's not true. :) Kami888 (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the government is in military control of these areas, militarily at least. Are there still armed rebels in the south as of Jan 2019? Jim7049 (talk) 00:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

There should be, that article I linked is just from mid December, I haven't heard of any drastic changes in Deraa since then. So basically those green shaded pockets you saw on the map I linked, they still have no Syrian army presence, just former rebel brigades now flying a new flag. But is it really that different from what happened with the NFL groups in Idlib? Kami888 (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

No it's not, rather than making all Idlib the same colour you should add those pockets in Daraa to the map as well. If you can. Maybe add a new tag mentioning reconciliation rather than making it Green. Jim7049 (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Eh, maybe, I thought about that as well, but that would mean introducing a new color and further complicating the map, it has a lot of colors already. Also problematic is the fact that we don't really know the precise boundaries between different factions in Idlib. I've looked at many different sources attempt to map out the boundaries between those groups, and the results tend to be wildly divergent from each other. There are as many different versions of the situation in Idlib as there are sources telling you about it. So if we try to be very detailed and specific, we also risk being very imprecise and just wrong. It may not even be possible to really map them out meaningfully, as chances are multiple factions can be simultaneously present in the same area. Alternatively, we could do what mapmakers normally do and just simplify the map to the best of our ability, and then if there's an outbreak of fighting again, like say if Faylaq al Sham or Jayish al Izza decide to stand up to HTS or the same sort of thing happens in Deraa between the SAA and Shabab a-Sunnah, we could again mark them a different color at that point. That would be my preference anyway. Kami888 (talk) 00:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe pick a new color then? White has represented HTS so far, people will think of white as HTS rather than salvation Gov, perhaps a light blue for TFSA areas and Dark green for Idlib? Jim7049 (talk) 00:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps, will think about it later. :) Kami888 (talk) 02:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Venezuela president recognition map 2019.svg

Hi, I understood why you reverted but there are some countries calling for dialogue or have relations with Venezuela before crisis like India, Belarus and Belize. Moreover, the Wikipedia article stated that Taiwan supports the National Assembly. Is there any suggestions? Thank you. --cyrfaw (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have the sources backing up these countries claim as well. --cyrfaw (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I have opened an RfC regarding this. [5] Jim7049 (talk) 04:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, will discuss it. --cyrfaw (talk) 04:32, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Just curious

What is your source for those Hezbollah areas in Southern Lebanon? --Mlpwtfisthat Backup 3.0 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This. [6] Jim7049 (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Your account has been blocked

You have been blocked from editing Commons. The reason for the block is available in the block log as is the name of the administrator who blocked you. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may add {{Unblock}} below this message explaining clearly why you should be unblocked. For more information, see Appealing a block.

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs)

@Magog the Ogre: Is this a joke? Where is my past warning about edit warring? And where do you believe I have edit warred now? Because I have not. I demand immediate answer for this outrageous foolish block. Jim7049 (talk) 19:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I'm not going to play games with you. You know the answer to both of these questions. If you want to play stupid, I will happily extend your block to indefinite as someone who is clearly not willing to work in the spirit of collegiality of Commons. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 19:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: You are the one playing stupid. And you are the one not defining which article I have edit warred on. As you can see I have never been warned of edit warring on the talk page of Wiki Commons. And if you believe I have edit warred now it is you duty to tell what it was before blocking somebody. Otherwise I will report you as a bad administrator and you may stop being one as well. Jim7049 (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Moderator has not given the reason for the block other than "edit warring". Despite being pinged asked three times the mod refused to respond about it. Requesting another administrator intervention to hopefully ban this administrator for calling users acting stupid and not giving them the reason for block. Jim7049 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Unblock request declined This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators has reviewed and declined this request. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not override the decision without discussion. Request reason: "Moderator has not given the reason for the block" Decline reason: "The rationale of "Moderator has not given the reason for the block" is nonsense; it is in the block log ("Edit warring after warnings") clear as day. Alternatively, the purport that "I have not been blocked or warned by neither (sic) a user or an admin on Wiki commons" is also nonsense: 1) you were warned about edit warring on the Commons by three people ([7], [8], [9]), two of whom are admins (not that it matters)--all in conversations in which you participated and had been pinged; and 2) the purpose of warnings is to ensure awareness of the issue. As Magog identified below, you have an extensive history of warnings and blocks for edit warring on en.wiki (i.e., that history demonstrates that any competent person would be unambiguously aware of the prohibition on edit warring even in the hypothetical absence of local warnings; you are not being "punished for them again," as you disingenuously purport.) Subsequent to the Commons warnings, you continued to edit war (e.g., File:Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese insurgencies.png) and thus were blocked. You have not acknowledged the issue or made a credible commitment to discontinue (COM:BLOCK), but have instead impugned and threatened Magog. If you continue to abuse your ability to edit your talk page, it may be removed. Эlcobbola talk 19:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)" Administrators: This template should be removed when the block has expired.

(Block log) (unblock) (Change local status for a global block) (contribs)

@Elcobbola: I can confirm all the points you have said except for the, threatening a mod part. Where have I threatened him? It was rather me who was personally attacked by being called "playing stupid" by an administrator. SO I called him back that name, now I have threatened a mod? I would rather never visit this site again if it's rules allow for users to be harassed by such names and then be blamed for it themselves. I am not objecting any of this except for the name calling part, and further extension of the block when calling that name back to the mod. Because it clearly shows the mod does not like being called the name themselves, but doesn't mind calling it to other users. Do you see my point? I request that the extension of the block to a month be reduced to a week like it originally was before I called the mod the name he called me. Jim7049 (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

No, you haven't got a point:

1. Magog has not called you stupid. "To play stupid" is merely an idiom meaning "to feign ignorance" and is no comment whatsoever on your intelligence. (In fact, the saying has the inherent implication that the subject is not stupid (ignorant), as someone who was actually stupid (ignorant) would not need to pretend);
2. You have threatened Magog, for example:
   • "Otherwise I will report you as a bad administrator and you may stop being one as well. Like how it sounds?" [10]
   • "If you don't respond this time as well I will report you to other administrators and you may get disciplined or have your adminship revoked." [11]
   • "Requesting another administrator intervention to hopefully ban this administrator" [12]

   In fact, you actually know these are threats as you explicitly added "when equally threatened?" [13], before deciding against it. (!!!)

3. Blocks are preventive, not punitive. As you shown no indication that you understand why your edit warring was wrong; no indication that you are able to reflect on your actions genuinely; no indication that you understand COM:AGF; and a willingness to engage in personal attacks, I see no reason to shorten your block. Actually, you might consider yourself lucky it is not indefinite pending an acknowledgement of the issues and a credible commitment to discontinue. Эlcobbola _talk 20:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: The initial response to the mod that, he not giving a reason for the block was him not specifying what article I had edit warred on. Which is very rude if you ask me. I had to ask the mod 3 times before he responded to me for which article he gave me the edit warring warning for.

But even you haven't touched on how that edit I've made here [14] is considered an edit war which the mod initially gave me a week ban for. I have asked this to the initial mod as well, but he did not respond when I asked him how this was an edit war. So perhaps you can answer this on how it was an edit war, I won't ask any further questions after this. Let me explain how I believe this was not an edit war, I have made a total of 3 edits of which only 2 of them were reverts. First I have added removed an unsourced change, second (first revert): I have reverted an user who undid my initial edit. My reason for this was the user provided a source that didn't support the material he reversed. After than the (2nd revert) I've made, another user reverted my edit, without giving an explanation. So I reverted that user and told him to provide an explanation for his revert. And then got a week ban. Can you explain how this was worthy of a week block for me? Jim7049 (talk) 20:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Your initial response was "Is this a joke? Where is my past warning about edit warring? And where do you believe I have edit warred now? Because I have not. I demand immediate answer for this outrageous foolish block." [15] That certainly forfeited your ability to complain about politeness ("Which is very rude if you ask me") and I probably would have ignored that inappropriate bluster too. This is you edit warring:

• 02:23, 23 February 2019 - you changed the image, it was reverted by LyriaSiders;
• 03:13, 24 February 2019 - you reverted the reversion, it was reverted by AVRTM2;
• 18:59, 24 February 2019 - you reverted the reversion, it was reverted by AVRTM2.

That you find the reversions invalid ("the user provided a source that didn't support the material" and "another user reverted my edit, without giving an explanation") is not an excuse. If you are reverted, you are to attempt to discuss the issue (including escalating to a noticeboard if that discussion is not forthcoming or fruitful) rather than reverting. This is something I suspect you actually know full well, but, in any case, you have been giving ample notice and links to relevant policies; I would suggest you finally begin to engage with them. Эlcobbola _talk 21:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: "If you are reverted, you are to attempt to discuss the issue" And which editor with exactly I should have done this with? Did I receive the ban for reverting just once? Because that was the only user who was engaged in a discussion. Second user didn't even say a word, was I suppose to discuss it with him (also I don't believe he speaks English because he has made a Spanish edit summary (after I was blocked)). So please tell me, how this single revert that I made with the user who attempted to discuss it, just 1 revert. Is and edit warring, let alone one that should give me a week block. Jim7049 (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Elcobbola: If you still believe the edit warring about this is correct after reading what I said above, please respond. Otherwise I'm starting to think that you know the block wasn't necessary but aren't willing to respond because you don't care or do not want to back down from your argument. How is reverting somebody not giving an explaination for their revert considered edit warring? The user did not say a word in their edit summary, how is it me that is considered edit warring? Just 1 revert about a subject would not give anybody a block. Jim7049 (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

With this, we're done here. If the concept of edit warring continues to evade you when the block expires, the next will be indefinite. Эlcobbola _talk 02:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Reason not given for block

@Magog the Ogre: As an administrator it is your duty to give an explanation when you block someone. You have blocked me, without telling which article the edit warring was for. When I pinged you about it you refused to respond. And the second time didn't reply at all. I'm pinging you for the third time although I shouldn't have as it is you responsibility to explain it without even being asked. If you don't respond this time as well I will report you to other administrators and you may get disciplined or have your adminship revoked. Jim7049 (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Alright, well here we are.

• You were warned on the Commons vandalism noticeboard: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism/Archive 12#Jim7049
• You were warned on the Commons administrator noticeboard: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 72#User:Jim7049
• You were warned on English Wikipedia: w:User talk:Jim7049#Reported
• You were warned on English Wikipedia: w:User talk:Jim7049#Reported 2
• You were warned on English Wikipedia: w:User talk:Jim7049#Reported 3
• You were warned to stop personal attacks and mislabeling other users' edits vandalism, which you ignored in your most recent edits. w:User talk:Jim7049#NPA[16]
• You made clear you understand what edit warring is on the 3RR noticeboard w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive382#User:Mikrobølgeovn reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: decline)
• You made clear you understand what edit warring is on the 3RR noticeboard w:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive383#User:Nice4What reported by User:Jim7049 (Result: blocked)
• You demonstrated that you know what edit warring is. [17]
• You were blocked on English Wikipedia: w:User talk:Jim7049#January 2019. There, as here, you played dumb and acted like you had no idea what you did.
• You were blocked again on English Wikipedia: w:User talk:Jim7049#February 2019. There, as here, you played dumb and acted like you didn't know what 3RR is.
• And here you pretend like you weren't edit warring, when you warned someone for edit warring with you, and yet you committed more reverts than the other person.[18]

In light of the above, and in light of the fact that you have made it clear that you will lie and attack other users instead of dealing with your own issues, even when warned to stop all of this: I do not believe that we can trust you to edit in our community for the time being, or that a one week block is sufficient, and I have extended your block as promised to one month. You may continue your appeal. I caution any reviewing administrators to look at this user's history, both here and on English Wikipedia, of trying to talk his way out of blocks and refusal to listen to any administrators or other users. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Such hate towards an user, why are you taking up issues of the past as if I should be punished for them again? Those warnings and blocks you have cited were not on commons. There may have been a discussion regarding me on commons but as you can see no one left a notification message about that on me on my talk page (Which they are required by rules to do). And I have not been blocked or warned by neither a user or an admin on Wiki commons.

Regarding the blocks I have received on Wikipedia they have nothing to do with this and you giving me a ban of a week without even a warning and then raising it to a month clearly shows you care more about your pride and personal feelings when giving blocks rather than obeying the Wikipedia rules. You are an outrageous mod as I've said before and I doubt any other mod will back or support your behaviour.

Finally for the article you have given the block for, [19] I would've expected you block or warn the other user (User:AVRTM2) who has reverted the file without a single explanation. As for the most important edit warring part, did you take you time to read what the 2 reverts I have done were made for? This is what surprises me the most about this blog. First I add a material that was wrongfully removed, Second edit an user removes it citing a false source, so I explain to that user that the source does not actually support the edit he has made and revert it for 1 time. (1 TIME). And for my second revert a different user reverts my revert without a single word in the edit summary, neither giving a source or a reason for his revert. So I warn that user on their talk page about edit warring since no summary, explanation was given for the material they edit and revert it since it is against the rules to make unsourced and unexplained edit. AND THEN BAM, you give ME a WEEK block, citing that it was me who EDIT WARRED, not giving a warning, and not explaining why that constituted an edit war. Now you have raised that block to a MONTH, called me playing stupid 2 times. And cited my unrelated warnings for the block you have given, if you still believe your actions to be just I hope other moderators can read it and decide that first of all, the week block you have given was false and against WP rules and second of all you should have your adminship revoked for calling users playing stupid and then raising their block 4 times when they call you the same name back. I will patiently wait for another admins to read this because I don't believe you will have the courage to reply to all mistakes you've made that I've presented, although I hope you do. Jim7049 (talk) 03:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)