User talk:Duzz123

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources!

Listen you break the rule of editing! Because according to the rules of editing you must specify the source which can confirm of your editings. So you must provide the source which can confirm your editing, or it will be considered as vandalism. And your changes on the card will be removed. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

What edit you mean exactly ?

Here's you made editing without identifying the source which can confirm it. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Why you added Mazraat without specifying the source which could confirm this action. But you simply provide a link to mikroblog in Twitter and more nor any evidence. But you have to provide a link or source confirming your edit. You are required to provide when you edit source confirming your editing or else remove it. Otherwise, your actions will be considered as vandalism and I will be forced to notify administrators about your actions. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Also this the pro opposition source and he may not be used to display the progress of the rebels. But even this source does not confirm your edit. So you need revert your unconfirmed changes on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I find him neutral, because he works for Al Jazeera. He wrote about their presence in Mazrat but I'll remove it.

But when you are add the village Mazrat you not provide the link to the source in which it is said that she was under rebel control. You can do it or else remove this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Because earlier pro opposition source clearly showed that village Mazraat Amud under control by YPG and village Mazraat Saghir under control a Islamic State. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have to you small request! When you edit on the basis of data from the talk page here you would not be able to do it like thishere Just in order to there were not extra questions. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

al-Karim

SOHR clear said that clashes taking place between regime forces and Islamic battalions near the villages of al-Karim and Qaber Fedda west of Hama, accompanied by regime's bombardment. Warplanes went in air strikes around Bet Hwes and Bet al-Ras bridge village west of Hama, reports that regime forces took control on al-Karim village.SOHR So correct your mistake! Hanibal911 (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Correct the mistake because the data from the SOHR is more reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

No problemDuckZz (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no problem because everyone can mistakes. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan Arnabah

Hey you need carefully read the source! Because SOHR just said that violent clashes in the vicinity of Khan Arnabah and not said about clashes inside city.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Until we get more data I put green circle on south of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you should read it carefully. It says "vicinity of Baath city", that means the area around Medina Baath, and the "town of Khan Arbanah", that means the town itself. But I guess your're right, either rebels take it or not, it won't be contested for a longer time.

Bombing

You probably have not read the discussion on the talk page in which we decided not to edit only on the basis of a single report about the bombardment. Also you put a villages of Ma'er Kebbeh and Lahaya from the government control to the control by rebels based only one messages about bombing.here But source not said that this villages now under rebel control. You need fix your mistake and noted those villages as contested. Otherwise, your actions will be considered as vandalism. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I belive those villages are too small, 2 barrel bombs can completely destroy them. Bombing them probably means rebels do control then, that wouldn't be the case for a bigger town. I haven't read the discussion. If you think I'm wrong you can revert the edits no problem, I'm not gonna revert them again after you did, as I hate being the guy ho vandalises this map.DuckZz (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

South Aleppo

The Lebanese source reported that villages al-Jaara, Tat, and Aqriba near defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo are still under the control of the army.Al-Ahed News So at the moment dont need mark them under rebel control because we need to wait until the situation becomes clearer. Because on the moment we only have data from the pro opposition source in twitter which said that this villages controlled by rebels. Let's try to find more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Menagh Air Base

Menagh Air Base in Aleppo province under control of Al Nusra.Al Monitor So why you marked this base under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought grey airbase means nobody controls it.

Kafr Nabudah

I'm sorry but your source Al Jazeera has not confirmed that militants from the Front Al Nusra left a town of Kafr Nabudah. So that either you provide a source that clearly says that Front Al Nusra left a town of Kafr Nabudah or again you need noted him under control by Al Nusra. Regards Hanibal911 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

LoL but it says "JAN left the frontline in west Hama and control most of south Idlib towns". I don't understand what the problem is ? I thought Al Jazeera is a neutral source.

I'm sorry but the entire report doesn't mention WEST Hama. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

General sanctions notification

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) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Hamidiyah

I will look into your sources/arguments/cases here and here tomorrow if I can. Cheers for bringing it up - I'm among the guilty parties who made all of the recent rebel advances in Idlib grey. If it's more accurate to change some to green or shared control icons I'd like to rectify the error. Sorry for the headache. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid (talk) Don't worry. I know what is happening there and I will edit everything to be just fine. Well unless Hanibal reverts the edits again lol, he will probably do that. DuckZz (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid (talk) Can you change Al Dahrooj, Hamidiyah and Al-Nasih to green. These sources are definitely confirming that. Step News Syria Mubashar Al Jazeera

Videos from Islamic front channel Al Dahrooj

The only trusted source mentioning Al Nusra for these areas is SOHR, and they use their name next to Ahrar Al Sham, Sham legion. That only means they participated in small numbers, because their main offensive was Wadi Daif and the checkpoints around. There are dozens of other pro-rebel videos and pictures confirming that. DuckZz (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Here data from sources which confirm that Al Dahrooj, Hamidiyah and Al-Nasih under control by Al Nusra.

• Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases.Daily Mail Al-Nusra Front, in coordination with rebel groups of Jund al-Aqsa and Ahrar al-Sham, seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif army baseAl Jazeera Al Nusra Front and other Islamist groups have seized two major army bases in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib, rebel activists said. After two days of heavy fighting, the groups - including Jund Al-Aqsa and Ahrar Al-Sham - took control of the bases Monday in Wadi Deif and Al-Hamidiyeh, about 22 miles south of Idlib near the town of Maaret Al-Numan.Los Angeles TimesAgency France Press Fighters from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and other Islamist groups have seized two strategic army bases Charles Lister of the Brookings Doha Center said the gains highlighted the rise of the jihadists in the province. "The nature of the operations has served to underline the renewed prominence of more Islamically minded forces in Idlib, with Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham having played the dominant role in practically capturing the facilities.Voice of America Rebel fighters linked to al Qaeda have taken control of two key military bases in north Syria, striking an important victory over government forces. Islamists now control most of Idlib province.Deutsche Welle
• Jabht al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have also took control al-Naseh checkpoint.SOHR
• Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions took control al-Dahroj checkpoint.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm with DuckZz on this one - when SOHR says "and Islamic battalions", that means Ahrar al-Sham or the Islamic Front. Either way, that's clear evidence that JAN does not completely govern these sites, so they can't be marked as grey. Same logic we're using in Daraa - JAN is there, but do not have sole control anywhere, so nothing is marked as grey. Grey is ONLY for sites 100% JAN controlled. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid Reliable source clear said that Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases. Within hours of their Wadi al-Deif victory, Al-Nusra and the two other Islamist rebel groups (Jund al Aqsa and Anhar al Sham) also took over Hamidiyeh, taking 15 soldiers prisoner, said the Observatory.Daily Mail And Anhar al Sham now allied with Al Nusra.Naharnet They also previously helped Al Nusra in their fight against the moderate rebels.here So that Hamidiyeh base need again mark under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

But, the grey is for 100% JAN-held places. Yes, Jund al Aqsa is part of JAN, but Ahrar al Sham is certainly not. For the last 3 years we've marked places of joint-control in green.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Anyone know where we can access the JAN-published map mentioned here?

Boredwhytekid here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Kafr Nabl

I remember that we discussed the situation in the city Kafr Nabl. So here another confirmation from the pro opposition source that city controlled by Al Nusra.TahrirSyTahrirSy Hanibal911 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I see, too bad. DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Al Hamra

We recognized that SOHR pro opposition sources and we agree edit the city or village under rebel control or as contested only if SOHR clearly says that in a city or village collision or under rebel control.here And pro opposition sources clear showed that this area under control by army.hereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Harjalah

It seems to me that the village Harjalah not contested between rebels and ISIS. Most likely this village under rebel control because there is no more nor any evidence that ISIS still presence in the village. Pro opposition source deSyracuse showed that this village under control by rebels here but in this situation we cant use this data. Maybe you have some other confirmation of this information. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid You can express your opinion on this issue! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not know offhand, but will look for information Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

It should stay contested, not just because we have no information, but we know that this area is really important for IS members if they really want to advance any further. We can change it to green as soon as they retreat to Dabiq or rebels start a new offensive and capture towns like Ehtimilat, Aktarin, Dabiq ... DuckZz (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Brigade 82

You are wrong in the city just located the headquarter of Brigade 82. But the itself base is located outside the city.Brigade 82 Hanibal911 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Engineering Battalion

Sorry guy but you provide as source broken link but you need to specify a working link. You can provide a working link to the source based on which you have edited this military base under control by rebels. Do not misunderstand me, I believe that your edit justified but you are provide broken link. My advice to you in the future if you use as source of reference to the Arabic source of better specify it on the talk page. And when editing just put a link to discussion in which you indicated its source. Can you send me the link to the source and I self revert my editing.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Al Jazeera, "rebels took batalion 60 army base in Suhaylija area". They also said that Government forces are sheling Sheik Miskin with missiles and airstrikes and that rebels are clashing with regime army in the vicinity of the electric station. That means there are no clashes inside the town of Sheik Miskin. DuckZz (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Al Jazeera not confirmed that rebels captured Engineering Battalion. Al Jazeera only said that Syrian armed opposition forces announced the control of the "Battalion 60" of the forces of order in the Asheilah area northwest of the city of Daraa. So that source not confirm this data it is only publish statement from rebels. So need more data. So we need more data. And SOHR npt trported that rebels captured this military base. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

However, you can help me in this discussion explain the editor 8fra0 that we cant use Kurdish source to display success of Kurds. Because this violates the rules of editing.Qarah Halinj Hanibal911 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Nevermind then. But i think Sheik Miskin should be changed because the SAA has retreated to a point. Clashes may be erupting but in the vicinity, certainly not inside the town. And they are bombing the city. DuckZz (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Rebels said that the capture of the base Brigade 82 had helped them overrun most of Sheikh Miskeen, which they have attacked several times in last few months, but failed to seize. The town is one of the main army supply routes to the city of Deraa, that was mainly in regime hands.The Daily Star And Archicivilians it is biased anti-government source and we cant use data from this source in this issue for display success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Here, reporter in Sheik Miskin said that rebels took control over bases around the city and took control of the city itself. It doesn't look like it's contested. DuckZz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hannibal,especially after the fall of the 82th brigade,the city can't no longer be contested,Hannibal stop this nonsense,of keeping rebel-held town contested,and even if you claim that they control the majority,that has to be reflected as rebel-held,not contested.Alhanuty (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Also here pro opposition source herehere which showed that rebels only try to storm the base of Engineering Battalion 60th in Al-Suhayliyah. So that it clearly confirm that the base is still under the control of the Army. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Al-Fu'ah

Source which you are provide not said about clashes near Al-Fu'ah.SOHR So you need remove unjustified semi circle to north east from Al-Fu'ah.here You used the wrong source.here Because under this link here located this source here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused. Check again the facebook post. You posted a source that talks about Hama but when i open the post, it talks about Al Foah, maybe it's because the browser you use ? I'm using Mozilla Firefox. DuckZz (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

No it's just a mistake in Facebook! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As Sa'an

We add semicircle if we have several reports about clashes near village or town. Also SOHR some times make mistakes in their reports. He reported about clashes inside the city of Talbishe but later reported that the fighting on its outskirts, and so repeatedly. He also said about clashes near the village of al- Sa’en in the eastern countryside of Hama. but village al- Sa,en located in the eastern countryside of Homs but in the eastern countryside of Hama located village As Sa'an. So let's wait more data. We have previously agreed add semicircles if the report about clashes repeated within a few days. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

You can give your opinion about this issue.here This is a more important question. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Jadah

You not correctly noted village Jadah because you source just said that ISIS retreated from this village but not said that village under control by moderate rebels.here Also here another pro opposition source reported that joint forces YPG and Peshmerga seized control of the village of Jaada in southwestern Kobane, near the Qara Qozak Bridge, after an air strike launched by the U.S.-led coalition’s warplanes on a checkpoint of the Islamic State group (IS/ISIS) near the bridge.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Well I actually had an Kurdish source for this, posted on the talk page of chriss (he knows arabic really good) and he translated it. But now the site is broken, don't know why, so i found this pro-opposition source...

Your source says joint forces, and forces backed by FSA groups, and then kurdish fources YPG and Pesmerga. So i belive the best thing would be to put a yellow icon in the middle of Jadah just like in other similiar villages with joint control. DuckZz (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

 Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New color for Al Nusra

Why you marked Menagh Air Base under control by moderate rebels because this Air Base was marked under the control of Al Nusra on based data from reliable source. But maybe you just make mistake when updating the icons for Al Nusra? Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And why you marked Kafr Shalaya from red to grey? But I correct this. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Don't know, i changed every grey.svg to blue.svg. I know i have asked this before but why is Minakh actually grey, as it doesn't make sense. DuckZz (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Morek tank battailon

Why you add green semicircle to north from Morek tank battalion. Because SOHR not said that clashes near this object? SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

SOHR said that regime forces droped barrel bombs on Morek. That's probably a mistake and they mean "Morek area" and not the town itself. They also said that clashes were present since monts, again they don't mean the town itself but the area around. So i guess they said it good, since there are some videos from this month showing rebels destroying some SAA tanks north of Morek. DuckZz (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But original report just said that helicopters dropped barrel bombs on areas in the towns of Kafr Zita and Al-Lataminah around the town of Mork and farmland controlled by the forces of order and witness surroundings clashes since several months between supported by the National Defense Forces by regime forces, and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front Nasra (al-Qaeda in the Levant) from another party. But not said that they dropped barrel bombs on the tanks batallion or that clashes near this batallion.SOHR So SOHR clearly said that helicopters bombed the some towns near the town of Morek and area near farmland which under control of Syrian troops. So that Syrian helicopters not bombed the town of Morek or Morek tanks batallion. As I have said earlier, some reports from SOHR when translating highly distorted. So you need remove green semicircle near this object. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish and their allies (rebels and Peshmerga) advanced in Raqqa province

Many source reported that Kurdish and their allies advanced in Raqqa province and captured many villages. So maybe we can use this map [1]here to display situation in this area. Because they captured many villages but on map we dont showed this. What are you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't know from where that guy gets his info but I'm following bigger pro-kurdish channels on twitter and their reports are almost the same as on our map. Our map is perfectly up to date, no need to make mistakes based on some guys map we don't even know how reliable he is. DuckZz (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

OK! Agreed. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Darat Iza

Source [2] clearly says Hazzm abandoned/retreated from the town. Last sentence in the paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The Arabic SOHR says that Hazm fighters in Darat Iza said that they withdrew from those areas and then it says from where exactly "Regiment 46, Kafr Nuran etc..", it means that they "said it after they arived in Darat Iza", that's how i read it in Arabic and here it looks the same in English. You can read the places above from where they withdrew and then SOHR mentions Darat Iza, from where the rebels said from where they withdrew ? DuckZz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Serghaya

Source not said that Ak Nusra controlled Serghaa source just said that Al Nusra is believed to be deployed in the rugged mountainous terrain straddling the border between the Tufail promontory and Arsal, 30 kilometers to the north. Syrian rebel factions control Zabadani, at the southern end of Qalamoun, and they also have access to Serghaya and Maaraboun, the latter a Sunni border village inside Lebanon, 15 kilometers north of Zabadani. But not said that they controlled this town. Also many surce earlier confirmed that the town of Serghaya under control by Syrian troops not Hezbollah.hereAl MonitorAs SafirAl ArabiyaArchicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Well yes I'm not talking about JAN but rebels in general. I posted a trusted source, from today. Your sources are too old, from last year. I'm not sure how well you understand English but when it says "They have acces to" it means that those locations are under their control, it is said like that, mostly because those "villages" are too small, and this "acces to" is used often for mountains/roads etc, sometimes for villages too. It also describes the nearest anti-rebel (in this case Hezbolah) positions, and they are on the Lebanons side, obviously because Serghaya is near the border. DuckZz (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong, this means that they are present in the area of this town and no more. Need more clear evidence that the city is under rebel control. Also here new pro opposition maphere which also showed as the map from Archicivilians that this area where located this town under control Syrian troops and Hezbollah. So as I said need more clear data. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

We have repeatedly discussed this issue and found that the town under control of the army but the Al Nusra controlled the village of Ain Hawr and Al Nusra/rebels position in the mountain area to east from Serghaya. So let's wait for more data which can clearly said that the insurgents or Al Nusra control this town. Also this source early said that Syrian troops captured the towns of Kafr Shams and Kafr Nasij but later it became clear that the source was wrong so let's not rush to edit. Let's better we wait more evidences. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here this source The Daily Star reported that the Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters retook the villages of Deir al-Adas, Kfar Nasej and Kfar Shams which lie roughly midway between Damascus and Deraa.The Daily Star But it turned out to be erroneous statement so let's wait for other confirmations about Serghaya. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Deir ez Zor

I seen some reports in which said that rebel troops and their allied tribes operated in the town of Abu Kamal and some small villages in Deir ez Zor province. But they essentially of the opposition springs. Maybe you have data about this from neutral sources. If you're interested, I can provide you those reports from the pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Sheikh Hilal

You can fix your mistake about village of Sheikh Hilal because SOHR just said that clashes near village of Sheikh Hilal.SOHR So no clashes inside this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I know what SOHR said, and we consider SOHR as neutral right ? So in this case, we have a neutral and a heavily pro-government source. This pro-government source said that the Syrian army is about to take the village, which means its still under ISIS control, but i marked it as contested just for the sake of being fair, don't understand where's the problem. It's like when we use Arcivilians for Regime gains.

SOHR only says that clashes are near the village which also could mean that IS controls the village but the SAA army is clashing with the near it, and that what the pro-regime source is confirming. DuckZz (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Here another pro-regime page listed over 40 dead soldiers while clashing with IS in this village. DuckZz (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Source just publishes list of names of soldiers which killed but not said that clashes was inside this village. Also pro opposition source said that later ISIS retreated toward town of Uqayribat Syria News Desk Hanibal911 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also SOHR said that to 63 increased the number of soldiers in regime forces and allied militiamen who were killed in time ISIS attack on their checkpoints and bastions in al-Shekh Hilal area near al-Sa’n in the eastern countryside of Hama in an attempt by IS to cut the road between Khanaser and al-Salamia.SOHR So that SOHR clearly indicated that attack was against checkpoints in area the village of Shekh Hilal near of al-Sa’an. So that there were no clashes in itself village. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Also another one pro opposition source confirmed that the Regime forces regain today morning over checkpoints that located near Al-Shiekh Hilal village in Aleppo-Slemeih highway in Hamah eastern countryside after fierce clashes with ISIS.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

It is Al Nursi captured most of the city and this confirmed many reliable sources. So you need again mark him as under jointly control.The Washington TimesThe Daily StarDeutsche WelleThe Huffington Post Hanibal911 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. Everyone is using either SOHR (older) or Al Nusra sources (they said the thing about capturing the town). The town is just too big to mark it under joint control, as that would be logical if only Al Nusra and one more group were involved. There were 8 groups involved, 7 of which are not Al Nusra. Even Al Nusra channels on youtube/twitter were showing Islamic front members in the city. While we know that JAN was involved, its still ridiculous to mark it as joint control as 80% of the town has not seen JAN members, 40 videos are showing exactly that.

Here latest SOHR source clearly marks JAN as last group. And rebels & islamic batalions have more groups. You see my point ? If there were only JAN & Ahrar Sham, i would put the town under joint control right away. DuckZz (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

And you have dozens of statements from inside the town, everyone says the same "Islamic front groups liberated the town, we thank Al Nusra and Faylaq Sham (FSA)". There were no statements by JAN, while they're retweeting those videos from IF, clearly OK with that DuckZz (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

::: Here more rliable sourcesclear said Al Nusra seized control of large parts of the northwestern city of Idlib from government forces. The Nusra Front is leading a group of ultra-conservative rebels in a major offensive that began earlier this week to take Idlib, near the border with Turkey. If the city falls, it would be the second provincial capital and major urban center lost by President Bashar Assad’s forces in the four-year-old conflict.The Washington TimesDeutsche WelleThe Huffington Post So you'll excuse me but the city should be marked under joint control. You know that in the Idlib province Al Nusra it is a leading force in fights against Syrian troops. Also Al Nusra previously defeated moderate rebels in Idlib. So that mark it under joint control. Also many rebels cvideo showed that rebels and Al Nusra in cooperation captured city. So when you marked city of Idlib as under control of moderate rebels you misrepresenting the real situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not talking about moderate rebels, but Islamic Front. And i know that the "FSA" is not controling the Idlib town but Islamic Front. We have the same situation as in Marat Numan offensive where IF groups were a dominant force supported with Al Nusra. Al Nusra already has their stronghols in Idlib, and according to IF statements from today, Idlib will be their capital stronghold.

I am only asking you to read from this part. Al Nusra did not make any statement from inside the town, they are retweeting the statements from Islamic front groups, and in those statements they clearly say "Jaish Islam etc etc took control etc etc supported by Al Nusra & Faylaq Sham". This is the same situation we had in Hamidiyah where IF made their statements, and Al Nusra not, because they were a supporting force. DuckZz (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I respect your opinion & sources, but i think you are wrong this time. You have to understand that in this situation every source will write the same, according to them, the entire Syria is Al Qaeda and nothing else, here and there some rebels, they don't even know what IF is, or even that it exist. DuckZz (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Nusra and its allies seized the city of Idlib. After five days of fighting, "Al-Nusra Front and its allies have captured all of Idlib.NaharnetThe Daily StarDeutsche WelleDaily Mail24 NewsAl ArabiyaThe IndependentFrance 24Gulf TimesAl JoumhouriaYnet News So all these sources clearly indicate that the decisive role is played by Al Nusra Front. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• First link uses SOHR as a source. And SOHR wrote something else 2 hours ago
• Second link the same
• Third link is doesn't work
• Fourth link the same as first two
• Fift again the same

Actually all the rest links the same.

You see, this confirms what i said. Every link wrote the same, and every link used the same source, so you could only send me 1 link. They used SOHR, a source from the early morning, and you can read what SOHR wrote 3 hours ago. Pretty clear to me. DuckZz (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Here pro opposition source confirm that Al Nusra and their allies from Jund al Aqsa jointly with a moderate rebels (Sham Legion, Islamic Front) jointly captured city of Idlib.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

• 1) Map shows the entire city under government control. Not the situation inside the city
• 2) I see 9 groups vs 4 flags ? Joint control means 50/50 or at least 60/40 but not 70/30 or 80/20
• 3) Jund Al Aqsa is an independent group, working with Al Nusra the same as Islamic front, both are cooperating, they don't fight each other, the same as Islamic Front. But they aren't a subb group for JAN, like for ex. Ahrar Sham is in the Islamic Front.
• 4)JAN published that 2000 of their fighters were involved. Islamic front published a number of 3000 for their number. Add another 1000 for other rebel groups like Faylaq Sham, FSA, Jund Al Aqsa and you get the number for 70/30, 80/20 control
• 5) The Same user for the maš, archivilian, said that it's stupid to say that JAN took control of the town. DuckZz (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Head SOHR reported that the Islamic factions and Al Nusra take over control of the city Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 They wrote the "too long didn't read" version for the video above. Now look at the video. Skip to 2:19,

• the girl asks "Did the Free Syrian Army capture it alone ?"
• SOHR "Ermmm more groups, Ahrar Sham, Islamic Front, Jund Aqsa, Al Nusra, Islamic Front groups, Free army groups, free army cooperated like in Bosra Sham etc ..."

Do you have anything else to post or ? I think you should revert your edit DuckZz (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Idlib jointly captured the moderate rebels and Al Nusra and this is confirmed by many sources. So if you do not like this fact we cant mark him under control only moderate rebels only on based your doubts. This fact confirm pro opposition sources, neutral sources and also pro government sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

You are spining your own words. Pro-opposition sources are posting the opposite thing, claiming that IF has the major presence. Government sources can't be used, and neutral sources are all using SOHR as a source, and the same SOHR says this in the latest statement, the same was said in the video statement. And this is against the rules to put a joint control for a city that has 70/30 to 80/20 JAN presence, it's just against the rules. DuckZz (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Also later other the pro opposition source reported that regime‬ forces ‪control the village AL-Zyara in Al-Ghab in Hama‬.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR

We use only original report from SOHR because the reports translated into English distort the data and their data not correspond to data in original reports. Also in original report SOHR just said about clashes in mountain area and not said that rebels advanced in this area.SOHR Therefore, we use only the original data from the reports in Arabic. Read this discussion here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I'm not really good in arabic but it says something like "Casulties among government forces and first party (rebels) have had open ground (which means they advances a bit)". And it says clashes in areas around Falita. How is this not enough for a semicircle ? I mean, according to our current map, it looks like rebels/Jan are not present in this area at all, and i can't see the reason why ISIS has a presence icon here, beacause they are on the lebanese side. DuckZz (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Clashes in mountain area overlooking on village of Falita have been going on for a long time sometimes rebels advanced but sometimes Syrian troops advanced so not need put semicircle because no clashes in vicinity the village of Falita only in moutns. But I agree with you that there is no reason for black mark in this area most likely in this area near the border with Leban position of Al Nusra or rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Here source said that rebels entered to Syria in area of Qalamoun from Lebanon and after clashes against Hezbollah they captured hill al-Mesh with overlooking on Flita.The Daily Star I put to map this hill. So that as I said clashes in mountain area not in the vicinity village of Falita. So for now not need add semicircle. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Original report confirmed your edit when you add green semicircle near of Rashidiyah but I ask you used only original reports from SOHR because we not use translated reports for editing on the map. We agreed with this. Because as I said earlier translated reports extremely not accurate and contain too many errors and inaccuracies so that in the future I ask you used for edit only original reports. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I read both arabic and english articles, but the arabic link is too long when posting here DuckZz (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I know that the references to the original reports are too long but you can provide these references to differently and here another way to specify a links to these reports like I do this. You can just provide a link to the original report and the one who wants to read this report it can easily do so. Here is an example: here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Aleppo

Your source just said that clashes in the town of Rashadiyah but not said that clashes also in the town of Ar Rubayl why you marked the town of Ar Rubayl as contested.here I fixed this! Be careful when editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Because it's not logical that only Rashdiyah is contested. Look at the wikimap and the road to Rashadiyah. Ar Rubayl is either contested or rebel held. We marked a semicircle there because SOHR said that clashes are near Rashidiyah (Rubayl ?), and now they are in Rashidiyah itself, that could mean that rebels captured Rubayl, it's a really small village, not really something to write about. But do what you think it's best.

By the way, revert your last edit for north Aleppo and Zahra area. The map you used as a source is made by a pro-regime follower, and is used by pro-government users like petrolucem DuckZz (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Idlib

You earlier said me that we cant use the pro government maps for change status villages who were under control by rebels. And that we cant on based the progovernment maps mark these villages as under control of Al Nusra. But then we probably we not should use these maps in situation when we mark as under control by rebels villages which previously under control by JAN. What you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 This is an interesting thing. The point is, Petrolucem is not just pro-government (that's not the problem) but he wants to show areas that are under Al Nusra control even thought they aren't. For example in Daraa province. According to him, Al Nusra controls 50% of the rebel areas, which is ridiculous and crazy because JAN themself said that they have no more than 2 000 soldiers in both Daraa and Quneitra province, while rebels have at least 38 000 (self claim). Another example is when rebels capture a smaller town, they post like 20 videos showing various rebel groups with FSA flags, statements etc. No videos, pictures, or twitter sources (JAN twitter channels) showing their members, and we know that they like to post pictures of their soldiers on the ground.

• Petrolucem is using propaganda for his followers, most of them want to see Al Nusra, ISIL flags, because they want that "Syrian Army vs terrorists scenario". Can we use his map for changes in favor for rebels ? Yes, but carefully, as you can see i only changed few villages that have "Islamic front" presence near them, and everything that's a bit further away, with no flags on it, i leave it to JAN held. DuckZz (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Dont need remove villages! But I agree with you when you removed some checkpoints. Also we can removed some checkpoints near Idlib becasue this area under control by rebels and Al Nusra and they lost their importance on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 I have already merged 3 checkpoints into 1 in Idlib. Also removed some 2 checkpoints around the town. That's enough because now it looks OK. Now the same thing must be donne to Jisr Shugur, because SAA withdrew. I will leave the important locations (Sugar factory, Hospital etc) and remove the "no name checkpoints". Also the village was removed because it was located above the factory, so nobody could see the factory because of the circle above it. The factory is big and more important than a small village, we already have enough of them. DuckZz (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz Let us not remove some objects because this will cause a lot of unjustified edits. So that let everything remains as it is. And SOHR said that clashes continued in the vicinity of the city from the south-west.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to remove anything that's near the frontline with SAA (South Jisr). The only thing that i want to remove are for example 2 checkpoints, one on another, you can't see one because the 2nd is above it. You won't even notice it. DuckZz (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

DuckZzWhy you marked Halfaya National Hospital naer Halfaya in Hama as under control by rebels but rebels captured Natinal Hoslital in Jusr al Shugur. Correct this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Dont worry! I fixed this. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

SOHR was wrong these villages (az Ziyarah and Ishtabraq) still control troops this confirmed pro opposition source.Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cédric Labrousse) Also he confirmed that the village of Qarqur still regime-held contrary to some amateurs reports and clashes still to east from Sirmaniyah and to north of Furayqah.Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cédric Labrousse) SOHR sometimes publish mistaken data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Ok for Istabraq, we will wait for other sources. But i'm pretty sure about Ziyarah. This reporter clearly says that he's in captured Ziyarah village. And this videos shows rebels inside Tamniyah checkpoint, and it's not possible to enter this checkpoint without to control the village first. Some other videos1 videos2. What do you think ? DuckZz (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

But probably troops recaptured this village or videos were filmed elsewhere. Also we cant check when these videos were filmed. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Also pro government TV chanel Al Mayadeen reported that troops launch counterattack in this area. Or maybe rebels retreated after airstrikes as this was yesterday with Tall Hakma. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Quneitra

Firstly we use only original reports and secondly translated report here and original report here just said that rebelscaptured Quneitra border crossing and town Quneitra after clashes against ISIS allies. But not said that they captured village Qahtaniyah. So that you need fix your mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Pro opposition source confirm that the village of Qahtnaiyah still controlled of allies of ISIS. Source said that the tanks of Israil Defence Force shelling the village of Qahtaniya . This is giving support to FSA/JN in their assault against Jaish al Jihad.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Al Nusra

I marked this two vilages as under JAN becasue previously some pro opposition and reliable source confirmed that area of Jabal al Zawia in Idlib province under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Also this was indicated in this article.al-Nusra Front–SRF/Hazzm Movement conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Nothing where these villages are mentioned. It's not like we didn't put this area under JAN control, especially the bigger towns. As for now, there's no text that mentions these specific villages at all. DuckZz (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok! But why you remove villages which I add in Latakia and marked as under control by rebels. If you just might remove two villages which I marked as under control by JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I just reverted the edit, didn't see other things you did. DuckZz (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Dumayr

Pro opposition source clear showed that city under truce and under jointly control between rebels and troops.here and pro government source not said that the city of Dumayr under control by rebels. Source just said that rebels restore their supply line to Dumayr which is as we know partialy controlled by rebels. So that we need more clear confirmation who is control this city. And many other sources many times confirm that city under jointly control. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 We don't use his biased maps, if you wan't to post pro-rebel maps, then use arcivilians or agadesyaruce. We only know that Dumayr is under truce while we have no sources saying anything more. I belive SAA has no presence inside the town and this Al masdar source is saying that Dumayr is a supply area for Rebels, and that wouldn't be possible if government forces have presence inside the town, especially because of weapons and such. But whateverDuckZz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I just suggest you jointly to monitor the situation in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

And pro opposition source @deSyracuse also showed that Dumay under truce but notsaid that city under control by rebels. So we have to leave it unchanged.here See the description for the map in right corner. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Hasw al Albawi

You should carefully read your sources. SOHR said about the village of Jinn al Albawi and this village for now marked under control of ISIS.SOHR SOHR not said that village Hasw al Albawi under control of ISIS. Please be careful when editing the map. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Then it's written wrong on this map. Now i found it with a slightly different name ... DuckZz (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Why reverting?

I just wanted to help. I already know Abu Serre is controlled by YPG and Jabhat al-Akrad (i.e yellow).

• But here is Abu Serre: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.481452&lon=38.721415&z=18&m=b
• and here is Khirbet Nahit: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.493203&lon=38.735969&z=17&m=b

The problem is you are marking Abu Serra as Khirbat Nahit. I already know both villages are under YPG control. So instead of reverting, try to assume good faith and try to communicate at the first hand. The reason I added Korek, the Kurdish name of Abu Heyya, is to AVOID confussion. NOT create problem. Personally I never heard of Abu Hayya, only of Korek, in Kurdish media. So here too, you removed good material, and did a unconstructive edit. Again I know from Abu serre to Korek is under YPG control: http://eldorar.com/node/76695 Roboskiye (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye Abu Serre was add on the map using sources which said that Khirbat Nahit was captured. They couldn't locate Khirbat so they thought it's this village, but it was a kurdish name, translating to Arabic mean Khirbat, so i removed Abu Serre and aded Khirbat Nahit. We tend not to use kurdish names because wikimapia is our map source, and only arabic names are located there. DuckZz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You mean Khirbet Nahit and Abuserra are the same? From my understanding Abu Serre is located on the highway in proximity of a hill.

All locations on wikipedia use local names, Kurdish names are important because they help not get confused. There are many villages with same Arabic name but with different Kurdish names.

My conclusion/Suggestion: Firsly, correct position of Khirbet Nahit to: lat = "36.493", long = "38.735" You can for the moment just ignore Abuserre. Secondly, Local name of Abu Heyya is important as it is valid for all other place-names on wiki. Roboskiye (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Zahr al Mafraq

Why did you remove this hill? It's not the time to remove it beacause that area in not captured yet there are still the rebels and the regime fighting.Lindi29 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 You're probably right. DuckZz (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

There still fighting there and need to show the presence of the rebels in that hill,and are shelling Nahayla town,also there are reports that around al-mastomah camp(vanguard camp) clashes are taking part.SOHR.Lindi29 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz can you re add the hill.Lindi29 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Lindi29 Just revert my edit

Al Nusra in Dara

According to the spokesman of the Free Syrian Army at the moment Al Nursa in Dara province it is only a small handful of fighters and nothing more because their numbers has diminished in recent weeks from 3,000 to no more than 700 fighters.The Times of Israel they located in the Tell al-Jabiyeh northwest of city of Nawa. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 But then you should remove the joint icon from Tell al-Hisr or Nawa because he said only Al-Jabiyeh. DuckZz (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Probably you are right. Because for now Al Nusra it is just not a big rebel group and we can't further mark such big city as Nawa as under jointly control. So we can mark a city of Nawa under control only by rebels. Probably soon the remaining fighters Al Nusra will leave the province or join to other groups. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

So I think we can put Nawa as under control of the moderate rebels because Al Nusra lost their power and for now have too small strength in Dara province and they can't be on par with other rebel groups and their number is not sufficient for that would mark a major city as Nawa under joint control between rebels/JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Tall Salmu near Abu Dihur Airbase

Tall Salmu it is not a small hill it is a village. See maphere Hanibal911 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Not Kurdish source!

This source not a Kurdish this a Turkish source.Orta Doğu Haber #TR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 Looks like from Turkey, but it still can be a kurd. Doesn't matter because SOHR confirmed my edits. DuckZz (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Al Sakman

On our map the village of Al Sakman marked as under control of YPG. But Syrian TV reported that the Syrian troops, YPG and NDF repelled the ISIS attack on village Al-Sekman south of Tell Brak.here So that probably we can marked this village as under jointly control as we have done this previously with village of Al Zaide and with some other villages in Raqqa. What you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

So what you can say about this? We use opposition sources to show that some villages under join control because YPG/FSA jointly fights against ISIS in Raqqa, Hasakah and Aleppo so maybe we can according to data from the pro-government TV channel marked Al Sakman as under jointly control Syrian troops and YPG. Because Syrian troops and YPG also jointly fight against ISIS in Hasakah province. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever you want. I'm not active in government-kurdish relations on the map. Joint control is not really a problem in Hasaka or Qamisli area, because nobody really cares about that. Do what you think it should be the best option. DuckZz (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hello, Duzz123. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I thank for your efforts of stopping vandalism at the Syria War Map page. We all need to keep it reliable. Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 20:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations DuckZz.Alhanuty (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR community sanctions, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• To explain:
  • Edit 1 Revert 1
  • Edit 2 Revert 2

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre This must be a joke

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

Duzz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I did not made those edits, i reverted them because a) no source at all b) rebel/uknown map used for rebel advances, and i even got a "Vandalism medal" for that, so it clearly doesn't make sense at all DuckZz (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Block expired. It was in no way a joke. Please read the messages on your talk page which make it clear that edit warring isn't acceptable, even if they other side is "wrong." Unless someone is committing vandalism (which doesn't apply in this case), you may not revert, even if you are sure you're right. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre So what should i do in cases when users make edits that they shouldn't make, ex. "using wrong sources" etc .. I don't know how to report them or something. DuckZz (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Please look at WP:DR. If you have a good point, you will usually end up convincing other users on the talk page. If the other guy edit wars anyway, report him for violating 1RR. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Can Jack Shahine be used to show Ayn Issa contested?

Jack Shahine says here that Ayn Issa is contested:

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/613035128743444481

Can we use him as a source? He is a reliable ground reporter. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR community sanctions, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Reversion 1 • Reversion 2. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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. 04:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

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. 02:58, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

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)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring without discussing

Please do not continue to edit war without constructive dialogue. This is seen as gaming the system (search for the bullet point titled Borderlining) and it a blockable offense. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Magog the Ogre And what edit do you mean exactly ? DuckZz (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The constant revert warring and name calling while making little to no attempt to discuss the problems civilly. Please don't play dumb, it won't help your cause. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I know what i'm doing. I will use my "privilege" in 1 day to revert any edit that's against the rules, or that has nothing to do with the source provided, and i am the last person that should be involved in some discussions. You should block users that enjoy the weakness of this map, and that's tolerance for trolls. DuckZz (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Except that such a privilege does not exist. Please take a look at these clauses of WP:3RR, which also applies to 1RR: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

I have warned other users on that page. But the ends do not justify the means. Just because you believe you're right doesn't mean you can edit war.

You're not in the Middle East on here where whoever has the biggest gun bullies everyone else and where no one else is even allowed to have an opinion different than your own. You're in a place where we use consensus and get along with each other even when we disagree. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindi29, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Pbfreespace3 and Qaryataan

SOHR is an agreed reliable source,why is Pbfreespace3 is reverting,report him for this,for Qaryataan,the source is Hassan Hassan,whom is a very reliable journalist and work for multiple respected new agencies,so i think he is reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty

I didn't report him, only said i would do it, because i knew that he would then make a section on the talk page, what he did. About Qaryataan, we should at least wait for some pictures or videos, or SOHR. The same thing happened with Sukhna town near Palmyra, where we had pictures and videos 48 hours after IS captured it. Also, the same source and many others said that ISIS captured the T4 airport, and we see that they didn't. DuckZz (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alhanuty, I only reverted edits in favor of the rebels based on SOHR, not any by Hassan Hassan. Also, where is the community consensus that SOHR is a reliable source? I don't recall everone agreeing that SOHR can be used in any case no matter what, and editing in favor of rebels seems to be the best example of that. I'm pretty sure SOHR is pro-rebel. Every day, they talk about the evil regime of Assad and all the barrel bomb droppings killing dozens of innocent civilians. Note that I am not denying that that is occuring, I'm just saying that if we want to show these rebel gains, we should use a source other than SOHR. Also, I don't recall anything about Qaryatayn, I think another editor removed that. But, in that case, we shouldn't used a rebel source to show an ISIS gain against the government, as the rebel source is biased against the government. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

there has been a consensus since 2012 and i was there,that SOHR is a reliable source for editing.Alhanuty (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Alhanuty, Please show me where this consensus is. It also may no longer apply due to more recent decisions. SOHR is pretty pro-rebel, based on the language and terminology. They refer to the Syrian government as the "regime" or "Assad regime", and they often accuse massive numbers of Hezbollah and "Asian" or "foreigner" fighters of fighting for Assad. They constantly report "regime aerial bombardment" and "barrel bombing of civilian areas" killing "innocent civilians". Whether or not that is true is not what is being considered here. The point is SOHR is pro-rebel and cannot be used. Also, if it can be used for rebel gains, then can al-Masdar News and Leith Fadel be used for government gains? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Ask editor EkoGrak and he will tell you.Alhanuty (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I see a consensus here Alhanuty, :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_37#SOHR_is_becoming_more_biased_and_less_reliable

Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) that is not a consensus,plus most of them have biased views,SOHR is agreed on to be a reliable source and all news sources describe it as reliable,period.Alhanuty (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) he has broken the 1RR rule and is ignoring agreed consenscus

help need

need your help,can you make the edits based on the info in this source.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/regime-forces-and-hezbollah-collapse-in-al-ghab-valley-and-lose-control-on-more-points/.Alhanuty (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Color for ceasefire/truce cities

The color for truce areas on the Damascus map is R: 205, G: 144, B: 201 How about we use this same color for the location dots? Can someone please make this into an SVG file? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The purple color on the .svg map is the same color as the purple icon we use at this moment. It looks lighter on the Damascus map because the red background. But if you still want to change the icon, you can open a discussion on the talk page and ask other editors. DuckZz (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Nan

Sorry but this source http://archicivilians.com/2015/06/24/jaysh-al-salam-al-salam-army-new-rebel-formation-of-7-free-syrian-army-groups-syria/ was used when Kafr Nan was changed to sontested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=675411508&oldid=675353414 Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You're playing dumb aren't you ? The user who changed this town from green to red was blocked. Then an user changed it to contested, because he thought it was contested before, and not under rebel control. This town should be green but nobody noticed it, and now you changed it to red instead of green, playing dump ? DuckZz (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Kafr Nan in Homs under SAA. Which source said that it is under FSA. Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been like that since 2013 and then someone changed it to contested without posting a source, but nobody reverted him, now you did, but in a stupid way instead of changing it back to green you have changed it to red, makes no sense and you are breaking the rules. DuckZz (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) DuckZz,this new editor is a sockpuppet of Deonis 2012 AKA Hannibal911.Alhanuty (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Sanctions for Rule break of Syria Civil war map.

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.

This is to inform you of the rules you have broken in the Syrian Civil war map recently, the towns of Al Basha, Sh 'arah and At Taff are currently Syrian Arab Army held according to Al masdar 24/08/2015, If you have a source from either SOHR or AL Masdar showing that these towns are in Terrorists control post it, all your reverts have been reverted and will contiue to be until you provide a source for making the edits. Thread carefully ISIS fan boy.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs)

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)