User talk:Niele~enwiki

Welcome!

Hello, Niele~enwiki, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, Tewfik^Talk 01:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

I notice you have expressed an interest in logic. Have you considered joining the Wikipedia:WikiProject Logic? It is an effort to coordinate the work of Wikipedians who are knowledgeable about logic in an effort to improve the general quality and range of Wikipedia articles on logic topics. We at the project invite your participation and correspondence. Be well.

Gregbard 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Military Conflict (3 sided) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Infobox Military Conflict (3 sided). Since you had some involvement with the Template:Infobox Military Conflict (3 sided) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Magioladitis (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

'Russia has launched a great war'|url=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29017736|newspaper=BBC)|date=2 September 2014|location=London}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Niele. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Niele~enwiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name. If you think you might own all of the accounts with this name and this message is in error, please visit Special:MergeAccount to check and attach all of your accounts to prevent them from being renamed.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

01:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

16:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources

We not use as a source only video from YouTube. Need confirmation from a more reliable sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:49, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Madakhah

why you revert my change?--Լրագրող (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not made that change deliberate. It must be result of simultaneous editing where I saved my edit and it canceled you edit you saved just before men without my knowledge? I don't touch government control.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I undersend. I did not know that it can happens.--Լրագրող (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shahba Canton

The article Shahba Canton has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The content of this article is just pure speculation with no sources provided. The only reference is the ANHA article which said that 3 gangs were killed near Manbij and "Shahba" was only mentioned once without any details.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Editor abcdef (talk) 00:25, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit

Niele~enwiki, your claim that Amaq said Haymar Labidah was captured by SDF is false. The source you gave (https://twitter.com/nothiefs/status/766474170339295232) is not reliable as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA nor does it mention Amaq or capture of Haymar Labidah. Please note that a mere suicide attack can't be regarded as the opposite side being in control. Suicide attacks can even be used when an opposite side is trying to take over a place. Not only that just because somebody claims some other organisation said so-and-so, doesn't make their post a reliable source. Anybody can claim anytging on social network websites. I hope you realise your mistake and revert yourself. It is surprising that I habe to tell this to a veteran who's been here fir 10 years. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:00, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Already 3 users in a span of 30 hours pointed out it is correct, that it very clearly state "AMAQ news agency"

You need to be blind to not see the 'AMAQ news agency' under it written full out. 75% of all edits are done with reliable-proven twitter-users on the map, according to the specific rules for editing the map. You are the only one left not accepting this...--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:09, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse others of personal stance without proof. That is not good faith. All individual Twitter users are self-published sources and they cannot be used as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA. If you believe that to be personal stance, then you are not trying to understand the rules. It is not me but Wikipedia itself that says it. Your statement that 75% of edits being done based on Twitter posts and 3 users claiming the Twitter post is correct just shows how widespread this problem of using unreliable sources is. Simply because others did it as well does not automatically make it correct and does not entitle you to break rules. I am surprised that you would make such a statement. Have you even read the sourve you used? I suggest you read the source carefully which you and others claim to be correct, it didn't even mention Amaq at all. Nor is mentioning another organisation is supposed to make someone reliable automatically.

I hope you see your fault and revert yourself. If you don't then I will revert you. I have already started a discussion about it. And if people keep using Twitter posts, then I will report about this to the administrator and demand a thourough probe to weed out all edits based on Twitter posts of individuals. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As 3 different users pointed out to you, Amaq news agency is mentioned twice in the source. You need to be blind to not see this.

You also removed the village Ilan (Yilanli, Aylan) of the map, doing it without any source, falsely claiming it is the same village as Qurt Wiran and has the same coordinates. As everyone can see, it has different coordinates, and on all maps of the area both Qurt Wiran en Yilanli are separate villages. It is very clearly that all you're edits are POV pushing. You're account is only up since 12 august 2016, making it very suspicious to be a sockpuppit of a previously banned user or other user.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really being serious? I never claimed it same as Qurt Wiran. I said the same village Ilan was mentioned twice. See my edit summary. This simply happened due to a mistake as while searching Ilan through Ctrl+F while editing it showed me 2 results and I thought the second result to be a duplicate of Ilan already mentioned. It was a mistaken identity. That's what happened. Yet you claim I'm POV pushing simply because I tried to follow the rules and removed a village accidentally. All you have done is trade one after another accusation against me. Newsboy39 (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And I've fixed it. Newsboy39 (talk) 08:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Ref. [1] and [2]. If you have a good reason to suspect sock puppetry, create a case here. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Can I ask you for advice in regards to editor Newsboy39? I have had several issues with him and I'm turning to you since it seems you have had an issue with him as well. As you can see from the discussions at the articles 2016 al-Bab offensive and Battle of Sirte (2016) he's had a really combative and hostile attitude towards me and has engaged in frequent edit wars and violations of the 1RR rule regarding ISIL-related articles or Syrian war-related articles. Each time saying he wasn't aware of the rule or that he didn't notice the 24 hours hadn't expired. When I tried talking to him to point out WP police about civility, assuming good faith and 1RR he made multiple borderline insulting comments towards me. When I sent him a 1RR warning on his talk page (as I am obligated to do) he reverted the warning, got really mad at me that I was leaving him messages on his talk page and accused me of threatening him. He has said that I only talk to him about article-related issues on the article talk pages and that I am forbidden from using his talk page. But when he again became hostile at a later date and I attempted again to point out the Civility and Goodfaith policies (issue not related to article content), as well as to attempt to point out a few other policies about undueweight and notnews he again became mad I was talking to him on his talk page and threatened that he will report me to an administrator for harassing attacks. I have really tried to be highly civil towards him, even though he has shown no such courtesy towards me. A few other editors at the Sirte article pointed out he shouldn't engage in petty arguing but it seems to have had no effect. If anything, I myself am feeling threatened by him in regards to his hostile language. So, can you advise me what can be done in regards to future issues that may rise up between me and him in regards to article content? EkoGraf (talk) 11:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if I had a miracle solution to handle difficult users I would advise it to you. Regretfully I don't have that. 'm also not an admin or mod. If you want me to help with argumenting, post reactions,... You can contact me via private communication https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Niele~enwiki to work something out. Kind regards,

Thanks. I think I will simply play it cool. I simply don't have any strength to argue with him or can take any more stress from his accusations and threats. I will simply play dumb and work on articles far away from him. EkoGraf (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Efrin Canton villages

I appreciate your addition of these villages. However, you should really decrease the size of the smallest ones, as in any Turkish invasion/rebel attack scenario, it will be very hard to edit the villages to the right control. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me as racist

Stop calling me as racist. Do you really think that Turkey banned letter Q because Kurdish? You're just stupid, there is not even Q in Turkish language, surely it will be banned same as X. What about the letter 'ş'? Why is 'ş' banned in Netherland? There's a Turkish population there, is Netherland also racist(!) Beshogur (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not call you racist, I called Turkish government policy of banning of the Kurdish letters Q and X from names of Kurdish villages and names on identity-cards in Turkey a racist inspired policy. If you identify yourself with that, support that, it is you're problem, not mine.

Offcource the letter ş is NOT banned in the country of Netherlands.

And in my federalized country of Belgium, all three linguistic communities their languages, alphabets, rights, governing autonomy are equally recognized and not oppressed. We don't murder, torture and imprison people by the ten-thousands, like the Turkish government does to the Kurdish people, opposition, teachers,free press,...

Nor do we flatten complete towns or thousands of Kurdish villages, nor does our police drive through the streets of our cities at night dragging Kurdish people tied on ropes behind their vehicles to dead while making fascist gestures/symbols to frighten the population.

DO NOT try to silence people when they speak out about deadly racist and fascist nature of government policies in present day Turkey. 'Wir haben es nicht gewusst', will not do as an excuse in the 21th century when deadly fascism resurfaced at the edges of the European continent.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow Turkey kills(!) Kurds but most of them still supporting Turkey, funny though. A video from Hakkari city. Stop with geting brainwashed with the western media. And at least; you can hear Kurdish musics in the video. Anti-PKK rally in Van city. Do you want see more videos? Beshogur (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help Kurdistantolive (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish name

Hi, can you help me

I add kurdish name for Mosul

But this user reject the kurdish name User:Beshogur

I sent to him messeges but he do not answer me and I opened subject in the talk page for this city

Thank you Kurdistantolive (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with abusing people with the Kurdish name of Mosul. Everyone knows that Mosul is 90% Sunni Arab city, and the rest, so: 10% of the population is/was just Assyrian, Turkmen, Shia Arab, Kurds, etc.. If you have prove that Mosul is 40% Kurdish city please add it. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

please stop vandalizing Beshogur . I am from Iraqi kurdistan . you are from turkey , I know my country not you , okKurdistantolive (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Go to Mosul talk page and answer me there Kurdistantolive (talk) 11:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How can you talk so confident? I have relatives in Talafar and Mosul. Beshogur (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Shahba region

The article Shahba region has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability-POV-the name itself is used only for Aleppo city

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caution about WP:1RR at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please be aware that a WP:1RR per 24 hours restriction is in effect for this module. It appears that you and one other party have recently violated 1RR by making more than one revert in a day. Also, calling someone a vandal in an edit summary can have consequences. Actual vandalism can be reported at WP:AIV but this is not vandalism, but a content dispute. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kafr Saghir

If the Kafr Saghir is under local militia, we should mark ik as blue, not yellow nor red. Beshogur (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me racist

You called me as "racist" for 3 times yesterday. Stop with that or I will report you. Beshogur (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't called you racist, I called several of you're actions, edits on wikipedia clearly based on racist motives.

So Stop acting based on racist motives against the Armenian, Jezidi and Kurdish peoples.

Wikipedia is an international multi-etnic community. You should act with respect to other peoples and etnicities.

You where blocked for a reason. If you do not stop proudly targeting etnicities you hate, based on racist motives on wikipedia, I will ask to lengteng you're blocks for this. I do not know in what for world you live, but you're behaviour, focus and hate against these peoples is not normal and is not tolerable here.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't my called as racist? Are you joking?

The map of "Ezidkhan" is just a fake map. Since when is Tal Afar and Mosul part of Kurdish world?

Since when I insulted the Armenians or Kurds on Wikipedia? Proof?

I was blocked just for a dumb reason.

Get your facts. Beshogur (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that the user Beshogur systematically deletes content concerning Kurds, vandalises pages about Kurds and his edits in general show a Turkish nationalist, probably racist agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:77:4F1B:E715:3D64:FC2C:FA81:776D (talk) 15:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you? You're claiming me as being "racist" and "vandal" while you're an IP user. Bunch of idi...s. Beshogur (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur had been blocked after repeatedly deleting parts of the article Kurdish tribes, in particular removing the CIA map that shows the area where Kurds live. This is only one instance. Everybody can look at his edit history and see that the accusations are not completely unjustified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.15.184.228 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Niele~enwiki - Calling others' edits "rasism-inspired (sic)" and stating that you reverted "racism-motivated vandalism" by someone that you describe as a "kurdophobic and armenophobic user" is behavior that is not acceptable. These are personal attacks toward other editors; they are not positive, they are not collaborative, and they are against Wikipedia's policies on civility. Please stop. If this behavior continues, you can be blocked for violating Wikipedia's policies on civility and disruption. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Niele~enwiki. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 13:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weird Black arc near Qusayr

can you please remove itAlhanuty (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

You may be interested in this SPI case: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lrednuas Senoroc. Unfortunately admins do not pay attention to that ip-hopping long-term abuser enough! 46.221.177.152 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAA controlled Sha'ale

According to the source not from Twitter, SAA take back the village Sha'ale.link Mehmedsons (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nêrebiyê/Nayrabiyah

Pro-SDF source make mention Syrian Army and YPG take back of Nayrabiyah.link Mehmedsons (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Changes without source!

You can't edit without source just on based you personal assumption. Qamishli border crossing it is a one of two SAA controlled crosing with Turkey. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:02, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Qamishli railwaycrossing and all small crossings are under SDF control.

This crossing is directly next to an Assayis building.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We say about border crossing which located in SAA controlled zone.link and Qamishli railway crossing link located to north east from Qamishli border crosing! And it not the reason to note Qamishli border crossing as SAA/SDF controlled. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Turkification

but,the turks didn't replace the original population,they turkified it and turned them to Turkish language and culture,and doesn't genetic testing prove that.Alhanuty (talk) 16:21, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ayn Daqnah checkpoint

Niele~enwiki entire of your sources which you used for revert my change say about the FSA assault at Ayn Daqnah of 17 July but my edit noted about event that occurred a three days later. When most likely YPG lost the Ayn Daqnah checkpoint as they withdraw from Ayn Daqnah after heavy artillery strikes but no any evidence that FSA entered to village.link If you still think it was wrong I will revert my change. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Revision 792350035 undoing

"Undid revision 792350035. Don't empty the 'detailled' map to be able to include it in an whole middle eastern 'overview' map. Include a new Syrian overview map/module in the middle eastern 'overview' map instead of the detailed map." Module:Middle_East_conflicts_detailed_map Citing an overt falsehood which is easily cited on the page of the module you're editing is not a valid reason for your edit. Please undo it, as the names imply that they are equally detailed and I do not wish to escalate this into an edit war or violate the special SCW/IS sanction to prevent edit wars. Please, if you wish, you may establish a Module:Syrian_Civil_War_extremely_detailed_map and I would fully support you in your endeavor. However, I do not see you doing this. Furthermore, I have already started work on Module:Syrian_War_map to fulfill your previous suggestions to that effect. Perhaps a tri-map approach, with three or four levels of detail, would be appropriate to satisfy all the whims of the editors of the maps. But this is beyond the scope of either area of discussion involved in this revision, and is furthermore not a valid reason, and not a consensus that has formally been reached on the talk page. Nuke (talk) 07:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

You must revert your last updates because they broke a module! Mehmedsons (talk) 09:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC) Working on fixing all the technicallities with splitting the module. I'm making progress but I not fully there, any help and advice is welcome --Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a best solution to our problem but make a new problems! So need to return everything as it was and find another solution. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Any code problems will be solved. Maps are working again, but not yet all villages load.

There are other people with expertise that will/can solve that.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You create a second module that does not have protection and anyone can be make edits it even IP editors and new editors. So you must revert all your last edits or we will have a lot problems. And you disrupted connection with others moduls! Mehmedsons (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The overview-module will get same protection as others. And is working fine in the large ME-overview map.

It takes time to do all this work, have some patience or help solving any remaining problems--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man we just create new module and nothing more! At map only the objects from the new module are displayed and from the old one there is no! So what's the point of all our work? Mehmedsons (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason only half of the objects inside the detailed module and all objects of the overview are displaying.

I'm still trying to understand why this is hapening and solve this.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I propose back all as it was earlier and tested new map at sandbox! We have been trying for too long to fix mistakes and thereby we will prevent to other editors. Let's reversed all and try do this at sandbox. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we both agree, I will try to cancel of my request to protect for new module!? Mehmedsons (talk) 14:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The longer we wait with for-filling this the more the detailled module will vandalised to keep it under larger module size limit. We're almost done now, so no turning back.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehmedsons All modules and includes are working fine, only the Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map is only displaying villages until line 2700.

I asked help on https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension_talk:Scribunto, but if you known users with expertise their help could be valuable.

I made sure that the most active frontlines in Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map are in the displayed lines, so that updates can go on unhindered.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Mehmedsons (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you two don't know what vandalism means on Wikipedia, lol. It means something like intentionally changing the location of Damascus to be in Deir ez-Zor governorate for the purpose of trolling readers, not removing content with a good reason like WP:NOTABILITY. Anyway, you've done well implementing your proposal while I've been asleep. Thanks. I already added the frontlines to the overview map and corrected some English issues you had in your comments within the module Lua code. Nuke (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How long a map will be updated? As for now it looks like the shit! Mehmedsons (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seriously needs to be fixed, and I'm pretty sure a big part of the problem is expecting that breaking up the module into multiple modules would fix things better than removing things. But it isn't, and it's caused a serious problem. Also, User:Niele~enwiki, stop violating the community sanctions against reverting edits multiple times and undo your prohibited reversions! The SCWMIM submodule that I created so that it could be excluded from the ME conflict detailed map was working properly until you removed it. Nuke (talk) 18:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm solving you're problem of wanting to create a map for the entire middle east, logically becoming to big in size.

Instead of solving you're own problem you start vandalising the detailled modules and destroying work of other people adn removing large amounts of sourced data from WM!

I work a full day solving you're problem, because you didn't solve it you'reself bur kept vanalising the syrian detailled map. Instead of being thankfull that you're ME-map is saved you start attacking me bc of a problem that the detailled Syrian map displaying not all villages in it, not affecting you're ME-map.

Talk to a person with expertise in Lua modules to solve the problem with the detailled module. But don't blame people that solve you're problems --Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed some users with expertise in Scribunto modules, because I don't understand why the detailled map suddenly stops displaying villages after line 2700.

There are no obvious code-errors witch I can find. Sorry for the inconvenience but somebody had to do this work otherwise more and more valuable sourced data would become deleted--Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:59, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niele You have to admit that the map does not work as must be. Your idea was a good but map is still not a work and we cant make new changes at map. So we must do it a working or restored "Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map" in its former working condition. As I say its should have tested it first in the sandbox before make editing! Nuke And most of these problems due to your malicious actions when you removed without a good reasons a lot villages and hills. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that we cant to divide one map into two modules? Mehmedsons (talk) 19:15, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The overview map works as intended and includes all intended data into the large MEmap.

The detailled map has still that that issue of not displaying after line 2700, I did not expect that to happen. But the important frontlines are displaying and can be updated.

There must be people on wikipedia with expertise that can solve this issue of the detailed map.

The detailled map was already divided over 2 modules (boder-elements where in a seperate module) we now divided it in 3--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its all a very intresting! But we cant jusy wait and hope that some one fix it. It is unacceptable. And Nile if tomorrow module will still be not work as it must, I will return everything as it was before. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mehmedsons @NuclearWizard All problems are now resolved and all modules are now fully working as intended!

Good work Nile! So now we are wait when admins will put the protection for new module.link Mehmedsons (talk) 07:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shaddadi

someone turned Shaddadi to contested.even though the source says that the ISIS attack was repelled.Alhanuty (talk) 16:09, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ezidkhan, readdition of unsourced material, use of sources

1. You should know that once a citation needed tag is placed you must add a reliable source before replacing the tag.

When 2 users are editing a page at the same exact time it results in to edit conflict and oversavings. That's why I asked to wait until the article is written. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2. You are using sources that say "PKK declares so-called ‘autonomy’ in Peshmerga-controlled Shingal" and "PKK Establishes Ezidkhan Self-Governance Council in Sinjar". The fact that you don't like what they say cannot be used to change what the sources say.

Peshmerga controlled? There hasn't been any Peshmerga or any KRG presence or officials inside west-Sinjar (the autonomous area) for more than 3 years, since it was taken by Daesh?

It seems you are speaking of east-Sinjar, wich is not the region that declared autonomy and is described in this article.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I now used Yezidi post (Yezidi news outlet) and an Assyrian news outlet as source. As Assyrians are neutral faction and Yezidi are the local community.

As a mapupdater I made the mistake of following mapupdate rules/traditions of providing media-outlet-sources of opposing side, instead of article sourcing traditions.

Turkish and Barzani propaganda outlets will offcourse not report in neutral language about a groups opposed to Turkey and the Barzani's version of the KRG and will use a demonized PKK-framing for all organisation that came in some way in to contact with the PKK.

The groups that control the area are the groups of the Sinjar Alliance (Sinjar Resistance Units (YBŞ), the Êzîdxan Women's Units (YJÊ) and the formerly Peshmerga-aligned Êzîdxan Protection Force (HPÊ)) and Arab Al-Sanadid Forces in the Êmdiban area of west Sinjar. They enjoy continuously military supported by the Syrian YPG when needed. But only the break of the siege of Sinjar mountain itself was directly supported by PKK's own units and PKK only supported training of local Yezidi in the beginning to form independent yezidi militias not part, under control or under command of the PKK in any way.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

3. There is nothing "de facto" about this. It's a declaration, that doesn't make it a fact. And the sources don't back that statement.

The area is already more then 2,5 year de facto autonomous? There has been no Iraqi government or Kurdish regional government control for more then 3 years?

It has been de facto autonomous more then 2 years before they closed the door fully to possible anexation to the KRG with the declaration?

It is not the recent declaration that makes it de facto autonomous, it the fact that it is under autonomous local control for more than 2,5 years now.

The unawareness about this anow already 2,5 year autonomous controlled area only proves why it is that important that there is an article about it.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

4. You removed sourced text about the Major of Sinjar. The article needs that to meet WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 13:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar city is not included in the autonomous area at present time and a person appointed by Barsani's KDP to be their hand of Sinjar city might describe himself as mayor but wikipedia can't describe this person in a neutral way as an elected mayor of Sinjar city while the governing control of sinjar city is blocked and diveded between opposing factions for since it's liberation from Daesh at the end of 2015.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot - the article probably should mention the referendum taking place this month (which couldn't take place if the area was under defacto control by the Exidkhan Self-Governance Council I presume_. Presuming any of this should be in this article and not another one, of course. Doug Weller talk 13:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Offcourse the KRG can't organise a referendum in an area it only shortly controlled in back in 2003-2004 between a brief period the federal Iraqi army retreated from west Sinjar and the KRG's Peshmerga briefly stepped in the vacuum and holding control for a short time before also retreating from this area and not setting foot in this area until this day? The area also recieved financial backing and indirect military support from the Iraqi fedeal goverment to obstruct the KRG,...--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug Weller,

I'm still working on the article and as a neutral, not related Belgian I'm determined to write it in a neutral way.

This means that propagande like calling syrian YPG and local yezidi groups lik YPS HPE as PKK is completly unacceptable to wikipedia's NPOV standards.

I might had set you on the wrong way by using Turkish source and pro-Barzani source.

Offcourse it is a de facto autonomous region as it is autonomous for more then 2 years, with no control of the KRG and the Iraqi government over the area. It is not de jure autonomous as Ezidkhan it is not recognised by other regions, although it is supported but the Iraqi government to block KRG from entering the region --Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Niele, I do believe that you are a good faith editor trying to improve the article but @Doug Weller: is right here. The area is lack of “institutionalization” to be labelled as “de-facto autonomous area”. For example, do they have their own constitution, ministries, schools(curriculum), etc.?. Seems they do not. At least for now. Therefore, it is better to refer it as “declaration of authonomy”, rather than “de-facto autonomous area”. In addition, all of the references seem primary sources and we need secondary sources too.

Yezidi and neutral sources are being added.

The area is under de facto autonomous local control for more then 2,5 years now, making it encyclopedical very relevant. Therefore it was under Daesh control, therefor shortly under KRG-control and therefor under Iraqi federal control. The area is ben much longer under Yezidi autonomous control than it has ever been under KRG control in the past.
They have their own administration, police force and military.
Schooling is certainly also established independent after Daesh.
The autonomy and administration was also announced and supported by the highest religious leader of the Yezidi's.
An own constitution is not needed as they fall back on the special post-Sadam Iraqi federal constitution that has a clausule allowing regions to determine autonomy within the Iraqi federation.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know the area is under the military control of certain Yazidi forces but military control alone does not make an area de-facto autonomous. Also, if I am not mistaken, the sources say the proclaimed autonomy is limited to western areas of Ezidkhan and eastern areas are still under the control of KRG? Shouldn't it be mentioned in the lead, at least? As for schooling, I mean their own "curriculum". Regards, 67.160.227.129 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To find a compromise and in accordance with WP:LEAD, I suggest a passage like this for the lead section:

Ezidkhan (Kurmanji Kurdish: Êzîdxan, IPA: [eːziːdˈxaːn]; Sorani Kurdish: ئێزدیخانە) is the historical area of settlement of the Yazidis. It includes the Sinjar District (Sinjar town, Khana Sor, Sinune, Zorava, Gohbal, Borek, Dohula, Dugure, Siba Sheikh Khidir, Til Ezer, Kocho etc.) and Shekhan District (Shekhan town, Ba'adra, Lalish, Hahad etc.) and also parts of the Al-Hamdaniya District (Bashiqa and Bahzani) and Tel Keppe District (Hatarah,^[1] Bozan etc.) in the Nineveh Governorate in northern Iraq. On 20 August 2017, the Ezidixan People’s Council (EPC) declared autonomy in a public statement.^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5]

I also suggest this layout: Lead section+ “Historical references” section + “Notable historical regions” section + “Modern usage” section + “Recent history” section including “Declaration of democtatic autonomy” sub-section. Current affairs are generally placed at the bottom of the articles. Regards, 67.160.227.129 (talk) 16:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This really should be on the talk page so others can take part. I'll reply there tomorrow. One final comment, in an ethnic dispute, don't both sides see each other as disseminating propaganda? Doug Weller talk 17:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Università di Torino. Facoltà di lettere e filosofia; Centro ricerche archeologiche e scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e l'Asia (Italy); Centro scavi di Torino per il medio oriente e l'Asia (1997). Mesopotamia, Volume 32. Giappichelli.
^ http://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/dc6ea92a-a066-4231-9443-c58797465a14
^ http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/373128
^ http://www.turktime.com/haber/demokratik-ozerklik-ilan-edildi/444813
^ http://gazetekarinca.com/2017/08/sengalde-demokratik-ozerklik-ilan-edildi/

September 2017

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Ezidkhan. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Doug,

Please give me some time to find better sourcing that describes the factual situation.
I'm more than 12 years wikipedia-editor.
But I hope that when you dig in to the subject you understand why you're re-edit based on the Turkish and pro-Barsani propaganda outlets could not remain.
There is no need to worry that I won't seek to bring the article to the best and most neutral standard possible. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Sorry, I wouldn't have used the template if I had noticed your post above. Going out right now but you really do need sources for all of this, otherwise it's WP:NOR. Doug Weller talk 15:45, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Husayniyah

All you reports for 13-14 September but new report from SOHR at 17 September denied this and say that ISIS still controlled village. And SAA prepare to cross Euphrates and take villages Al Husayniyah, Hatla, Sabhah, Maarat, Junaynah from ISIS.link Mehmedsons (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some reliable proven sources say SDF fully controlls Husayniyah (there are 17 sources confirming this, incl a Russian and an NEWS outlet), some say partly, some say Daesh still controlls it.

Reality is that SDF controls the northern part of Husayniyah, a part of southern-western Husayniyah is under SDF fire controll, while in the southern end there might be some Daesh left. So placing it contested is the most neutral way to report it.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:57, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Although some of ground sources say that SDF never entered to this village. But we remain it as disputed. Mehmedsons (talk) 11:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to pro-SDF sources yesterday SDF only take back 7km roundabout and Textile Plant link link. Plus accordng to the reliable source the Wasil al-Huwayj Grain Silos and Deir ez-Zor Freight Depot disputed.link Today pro-SDF sources showed that SDF still not take Jiyah, Al Husayniyah, Mahattah and Pulp&Paper Mill.link So seems I was right and SDF still not take Al Husayniyah. SDF still at distance of several km from this village. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not that if a pro-sdf account post an already outdated map not yet repressenting all advances, that news-outlet sources and other text sources become suddenly invalid. These are not mayor advances but advances of couple of 100 meters, consistent with each other. The fact that SDF fighters where hit by russian airstrikes targeting compounds at ar-Rawdah/as-Salihiyah proves those map's where outdated.

And reliable source SOHR confirmed SAA crossing to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.link Mehmedsons (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-backed-forces-capture-isis-stronghold-eastern-deir-ezzor/--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And reliable source SOHR confirmed SAA crossing to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River.link Mehmedsons (talk) 12:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR is often not that reliable. You do understand the difference between consistent small landadvances of 100 meters and mayor event as establishing a first bridgehold over the widest river of the ME. Extraordanary claims need extraordinary strong sources. While tiny consistent 100m advances (like building or hamlet hopping) don't need strong sources. That is so for all parties...

If SAA crosses the Euprates BBC, reuters, CNN,... will report and geolocated pictures/video's will emerge..., for a hamlet or a building not.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures showing that SAA crossed the river-arm toward Saqr Island and not the main river-arm toward otherside of Euprates. Offcourse al lot of sources start to think the second. But it is easy to see it is not the main Euphrates arm.

That Saqr island is the destination of Euphrate crossing is confirmed by pro-SAA sources: https://twitter.com/Syria_Hezb_Iran/status/909718611035598848--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:50, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR reliable source but BBC and CNN is it a FAKE NEWS! SOHR conrmed SAA crossing to the eastern bank of the Euphrates River at Saqr Island and some other areas.link Also most of your sources reported that SDF take area of 7km roundabout and Textile Plant almost week ago ago, but most of the reliable and pro-SDF sources reported that yesterday SDF take back those points from ISIS. But nevertheless, time will tell! Mehmedsons (talk) 13:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Video confirmation: SAA crossing the Euphrates River after fully recapturing Saqr Island. link Mehmedsons (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

anti SAA source!

Stop use too biased anti-SAA sources against SAA. You use anti-SAA source against SAA but we cant do this!link Mehmedsons (talk) 23:05, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inconsistent SAA-sources for SAA-gains. They claim the district center of Khushām under full SAA control, while in same time reporting Russian airstrikes on Khushām.

They falsely reported big Euphrates crossings for many days in a row, while now they all report that it started today. Why so many days of false reports?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources confirmed SAA controlled Sabha,Marat and Mazlum.link link but Khushām not controlled SAA.link And I ask you again not need use biased sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So yea you are right about Khusham! But I made mistake when use bad anti-source Qasioun for Khusham. Sorry! Mehmedsons (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You still cant understend that we not use anti-SAA sources against SAA. Reliable sources confirme SAA controlled Khasham.link But Vivarevolt pro oppsition and partialy pro-SDF but biased anti-SAA source and we cant use it against SAA. I hope for your understanding! Mehmedsons (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Local source also confirmed SAA controlled Khasham.link Mehmedsons (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bad reason to make it as disputed! DeireezZor24 anti-SAA source claimed SAA shelled Khasham but local source SOHR only say that shelling targeted areas in town Khasham! No any mention that it was SAA.link You need to revert your own changes because no crediable profe that Khasham are disputed. Only claims from anti-SAA source that they shelled it. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War

Please see my post at WP:VPT#Article with 201 unverifiable references due to exceeding the 2 MB template include size. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Khasham

According to crediable local source SOHR SAA controlled larg parts of Khasham but ISIS attempte to carry out counter attacks.link link So it means village disputed between SAA and ISIS. Clashe betwen SDF and ISIS was in Khasham Fawqani before SDF take back entire of it village.link but Khasham disputed between SAA and ISIS.link link Mehmedsons (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The village Khasham controlled SAA. And your anti-SAA source Fuat Hudaverdi points to the village Kusham Fawqain.link You need see of it link on map.link And second source Cano just a pro-SDF source at twitter and no any other sources which can confirm these claims.link Mehmedsons (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Suwar Khabur bridge

why you marked Al-Suwar Khabur bridge as under control of SDF! If all you sources say that still unconfirmed of reports that SDF crossed the Khabur river.link link link And pro-SDF sources confiermed that Al Suwar is not yet liberated.link link link Mehmedsons (talk) 20:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Misunderstanding about Nomination for deletion discussion of template

Hi. There has been a misunderstanding. I am not trying to delete the Syria war map. I am also not trying to delete any other country map. I remain committed as always to defend the maps and insure they stay on Wikipedia and prosper. In the name of consolidating the reputation of our maps, I want to delete just one template which is Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map. This template has only been trouble from the beginning. Remember that because of this template, you had to divide our Syria module into two parts. This problem is solved for now. However, this does not guarantee that we will not have other problems arise from this template that will affect our Syria map. We can never know what the people working on this template will come up with in the future. They might decide that we need to change the colors on our map to suite their map or some other bullshit like this... This Middle East template gives us a bad reputation and makes us vulnerable in the future. It might give the impression that all war map templates are of bad quality. For all these reasons, I would appreciate it if you could change your vote to “delete”. Thanks. Tradedia^talk 16:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jafra Oil Field

You made mistake! According SDF source ANHA: Yesterday SDF advanced 4 km south of the Jafra oil field and was strong clashes near the train station.link And you source just published photos when ISIS started their assault to the Jafra Oil Field before they are capture of it.link. But accordin to crediable source ISIS take the Jafra Oil Field.link And pro-ISIS source Amaq also claimed ISIS regains control over Al-Jafra Field link And your sources not make mention that SDF regained of it. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amaq ALWAYS unrealisticly blows up it's advances and shows it's losses as successes. Amaq proves SDF advanced toward train station by showing only pictures from inside train station and at correct distance of Jafra oil field smoke. Both Amaq-pictures, news outlets, most recent tweets and SDF sources prove fighting is at train station. When pictures represent fighting is located at the train station it is deliberate mispresenting sources if you use it for an other location.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know Amaq is it a pro-ISIS propagandistic source. But pictures about which you say was from ISIS assault to Jafra Oil Field. And news about SDF advance at train station was before the ISIS assault at Jafra Oil Field.link and the crediable source CivilWarMap confirm ISIS take oil field. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures or from Amaq, misusing photo's of wrong location to fake they had retaken Jafra oil station while Amaq's pictures with start-claim are from Jafra train station. Proving that Amaq statement was fake and Jafra oil station was never taken or reached by them. New reports also prove that the fighting is taking place 7 to 8 km SW of Jafra oil station in the train station area.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al Husayniyah

Local source SOHR reported: several hours ago SAA were able to make progress in viilage of Husseiniya and control large parts of the it. But later it said that SAA complete control of the village and tighten the ring around Deir al-Zor from the east of the Euphrates.link link And no any mentions about SDF. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAA controlled Al-Halabieh Roundabout according to multiply sources.link link link But VivaRevolt biased anti-SAA source and we cant use it against SAA. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't contradict. Both SDF and SAA reached roundabout and met with each other there. SOHR has no local knowledge of Deir Ezzor situation and and as pro-Rebel outlet often doesn't differentiate between SAA and SDF. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SAA controlled as-Salihiyah according to multiply sources.link link link andd visual confirmationlink But you use two anti-SAA sources link link and two pro-SDF sources link link Its a bad reason! And most pro rebel sources support SDF or ISIS against SAA. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR its a crediable local source for all changes! So I ask you not revert my changes which I do on based crediable sources! Mehmedsons (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR is not reliable for Deir Ezzor as it has no links with people on the ground. VivaRevolt has.
19 different sources, including news outlet, proSAA, pro-SDF, pro-Turkish sources state SDF in Hussaniya. SAA is only in the bridge area of/near Husayniyah not in the village itself.
Both SDF as SAA claim control and some full control over Sallahiya because both control a part of it.

I mapped neutral stable dual control. You NPOV push only SAA control claim. Please keep neutrality of wikipedia and don't push claims of one side over others while thouth is obvously in middle. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An addion to a lot sources we have the video from Syrian MOD provide visual confirmation that SAA controlled as Salihiyah.link video So you must revert thr your last change. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:07, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR its a crediable sources which are uses a lot world news agencys! Mehmedsons (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have the visual confirms that SAA at as-Salihiyah but not SDF. Only claims from pro-SDF and anti-SAA sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly pushing one source (that has proven to make many mistakes) above others becouse it fits you're narative. I neutrally map middleground between all sources. Altough I could also use one source in opposite direction instead of being neutral. Video does not show the North-west of Salahiya so video also conform to sources that state SDF and SAA met inside Salahiy resulting in NW under SDF control, SE under SAA control --Niele~enwiki (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree about Salihiyah but Al-Halabieh Roundabout at southern part of village and under control of SAA according a lost sources + video ahd the Al Husayniyah according SOHR. But SOHR a more reliable than the twitter sources! Many twitter sources at 14 Septemebr make fols claims that SDF take Al Husayniyah but it was untrue. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According local source SAA controlled Al-Halabieh Roundabout.link And you cant use VivaRevolt for SDF gains againt SAA because source oppose to SAA and support SDF. And according local source whch we use for all changes SAA also controlled Al-Salihiyah and Al Husayniyah.link link So not need edit the SAA controlled areas as under SAA-SFD control. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niele, today several sources again confirm that SAA controlled Salhiyah and Huseyniyah.link link link link I make Salhiyah the under control of SAA but to prevent a conflict between us I make Rawda the under control of SDF because as some telled that it the northen part of Salhiya area. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:22, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source "Syria Civil War Map" confirmed the both villages Salhiyah and Al Hueyniyah under control SAA.link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:05, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You again use data from ant-SAA sources against SAA. Yday local source SOHR confirmed Al Husaniyah under control SAA.link But you sources biaed anti SAA. 1) Report pro-Assad-forces withdrawn from al-Husayniyah.link 2) Report pro-Assad-forces withdrawn from al-Husayniyah.link 3) Report Assad-forces withdrawn from al-Husayniyah.link and all these sources used data from this biased anti-SAA source.link Your provide the three difrante sources which simply duplicate data from one not reliable source. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also this unreliable anti-SAA source(Mark) and many other anti-SAA sources also claimed SDF hand over Tel Rifat and former Menagh Military Airbase to Russia'n troops or SAA.link link lnk But it's untrue! So not use rumors fron unreliable sources. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Mahattah and al-Shahabat

SAA controlled Al-Mahattah and al-Shahabat according to multiply sorces, video and evidence of geolocation. link link link link Pleas I ask your to see of my sources which confirm this before do something. And the crediable source of Syrian Civil War Map also show this area at its interactive map as under control of SAA. If at you have other data please write to me. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Al Mansura Subdistrict

Hi, I'm Boleyn. Niele~enwiki, thanks for creating Al Mansura Subdistrict!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. The only reference given is a dead link.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Boleyn (talk) 16:42, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catalonia

I demand you an explanation about why you keep bringing forward your blatant accusations of NPOV editing on me. You've not justified your edit changing the image in the Catalonia article, and that's why I reverted it. That's it. But then you accuse me of non-neutral editing based on false statements that do not even report on conduct, but on a supposed "defense of Spanish integrity" in my profile which is absolutely false. Justify your change if you have to, but refrain whatsover from commenting on a contributor instead of on content. And if you have one such proof that I'm indeed so politically motivated in my edits, then please, bring those to a proper channel to discuss it and not to the edit summary of a Wikipedia article. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I as others I reverted because you're NPOV pushing. It is not justified to suddenly start stressing/adding 'withing Spain' multiple locations of Catalonia's article. This is very clear NPOV pushing at this point. Please stop this. If you are not able to maintain neutrality on this subject you should refrain of editing on it. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Stressing/adding"? Firstly, it's spelled within Spain. Secondly, I did not "stress" or "add" anything; that was the wording already present in the article until you tried to change it under no explanation (you may check it here). It was you who suddenly removed it with no explanation, then resorted on accusing me of NPOV just because I noted you precisely on this absence of explanation. Thirdly, what I disputed was your change of the map, not the specific wording used which, sincerely, I care little about. And fourthly, if you are not able to maintain civility or to respect other contributors, maybe it should be you who should refrain from editing Wikipedia. Impru20 (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about Catalonia, not about Spain. No need to replace map of Catalonia with a map of whole Spain unless you are trying to make a NPOV-point--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have any WP:PERSONAL issue with me, you should take that aside instead of outrightly violating WP:GOODFAITH. Because so far, the only one showing a clear political motivation when editing (as you did in your recent edit at Catalan Republic (2017)) seem to be you. Impru20 (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ahmar Oil Field

Why you are removed ISIS controlled Al-Ahmar Oil Field and Abu Hardan Oil Field? And notice, I never added Al-Ahmar Oil Field it was at the map when I just a started to edit. Mehmedsons (talk) 21:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You added a lot of wells and locations on to map as Daesh controlled at the time of SDF take over of omar oil fields/this area without any sources. When sources report locations in this area taken by SDF, you won't accept this.

This is absurd. You obviously trying to downplay/underpresent SDF advances and control around Omar oil fields and Deir Ezzor city north bank with this. Today new sources confirmed SAA and SDF are having shared control over al-Husayniyah but because you always only follow non-neutral or even vetted SAA sources with interest of mispresenting reality in this area the map is inaccurate there.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source for Al Husayniyah it's "Markito" biased anti-SAA source. And a weeks ago I added the several ISIS controlled oil and gas fields as a part of huge oil rich area "Omal oil fields". Other oil and gas fields I added at based a sources. But the Marad oil field is it not a part of oil rich area "Omar Oil fields" and you added it at based two pro-SDF sources. Al-Ahmar Oil Field was added at the map without my help a lot monts ago seems when I just a started to edit or perhaps even earlier. But OK! The question is closed. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

not justifed reverts

Three days ago local source SOHR confimred that Darnaj still under cotnrol of ISIS.link But why you revert this change? If you used for change of it two pro-SDF sources and it's bad reason.link link And most of you twitter sources make fake claims like it was with a villages east of Al Busayrah. SDF take back them only two days ago but according untrue claims of your sources SDF take these villages weeks ago. We no need tens biased or unreliable sources but need several crediable sources.Mehmedsons (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're edit was reverted bc it was based on one single source of a huge village list. We can't use such large summation of villages to override large amounts of villages each individually sourced with large amounts of sources. Reliability commes from different sources matching each other and strengten each other. Not by one source/person that with one messages can dictate the whole map, change the status of whole regions at once. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But one reliable source can be right despite data from the ten sources if these data incorrect or unreliable. You edit Al-Shahil/Shuhayl as under control of SDF but today the pro-SDF source which we good knowes confirmed that village are still under control of ISIS. And SDF only advance toward it after liberated the Al Busayrah.link link A simillar situation we can see at the other fronts. Some sources are hastily publish not verified or unreliable data and it's a big problem. I am not the anti-SDF editor but I against unreliable data and incorrect changes on bases of them.

Mehmedsons (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR is just one person 'Osama Suleiman' typing in his livingroom in Coventry, England. Not been in Syria for 6 years.

Making at least as much mistakes, messy estimates as a lot of sources with much less fancy names. But you call somone in coventry a local source.

I seems plausible that Shuhail-village center was left under Daesh control and its outskirts taken by SDF.

It was reported by pro-SAA, pro-Turk and pro-SDF sources as taken... Probably Shuhail area was reported taken by a local source but the villagecenter not yet and this detailled info was left out of communication that reached the internet.

This is something that happens more often in pro-SAA direction as in pro-SDF direction.

But this isn't that a problem at this location as this is not a highly delicate area as is northbank of Euphrates near Deir Ezzor and a by SDF sieged Daesh village with no SAA-competition is just a matter of days to fall fully under SDF control.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Niele~enwiki. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for January 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Afrin Canton, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on others again, as you did at User talk:Doug Weller, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please never add posts to closed WP:AfD discussions

They are pointless and disruptive. Appropriate notice was given to the sockpuppet who created the article. Doug Weller talk 17:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to place any deletion proposal box or warning to editors before deleting a highly important article!

What you are claiming/doing is completly absurd? Why are you not believing the Washington post, all conflict maps of Iraq including that of Wikipedia, +30 sources about this autonomous area? You don't have any source what so ever that to make you're ridiculous claim, but keep removing large amount of sources that proving you are wrong. This is mindblowing absurd...--Niele~enwiki (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The only person is meant to be notified is the article's creator. No one else, and in fact no one else edited the article except for a minor grammatical edit. I have no idea what you mean by a deletion proposal box, that isn't something we do. You clearly don't understand our policies and guidelines here such as no original research. Sources must meet WP:RS. "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The Washington Post clearly doesn't discuss an Ezidkhan autonomous region. It doesn't mention Ezidkhan or an autonomous region. That's true for most of your sources. The ISW map doesn't mention an Ezidkhan autonomous region. The map on commons isn't a reliable source for an article and is itself original research - you more or less admit it is a composite of edits from various editors, not from a reliable source. I admire the Yazidis greatly and Murad Ismael has emailed me before asking me for help with an article. You need sources discussing an Ezidkhan autonomous region and you seem unable to provide them. The only sources I could see later than the ones in September 2017 didn't. It's a serious problem that the sources you seem to put most weight on don't help you. One other point, all articles need to meet the criteria at WP:NOTABILITY and associated pages. "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." Note the "independent of the subject", ie not, for instance, Yazidi sources. Doug Weller talk 18:51, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you stating the information from 30 sources as original resaerch? I did no research, journalists of those sources did that. Why do you keep lying about the 30 sources provided in the article?

Yesterday the 'Washington Post' stated clearly the area is under (Yezidi)-Kurdish control. Why are you push you're personal beliefs over what sources like the Washington Post state? The article used, both American, KRG, Syrian-Kurdisch, Turkish and Yezidi sources? Why do you falsely claim it has only Yezidi sources, and why is one etnicity exluded of beïng quotes on wikipedia based on their etnicity? Everone knows this area is governed by the EPC and under the control of the Sinjar alliance-groups like it is for 4 years now. Why are you still denying this, without any indication whatsoever that this would be not the case?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you don't understand what we mean by original research. It's boring and reflects badly on you when you call me a liar and suggest I support genocide. Can you quote where the Washington Post discusses an Ezidkhan autonomous region? Because I can't find it. Oh, and where do I "falsely claim it only has Yezidi sources", because I can't find that in anything I've written. I don't know what "one etnicity exluded of beïng quotes on wikipedia" means but I doubt it's happened. How about proving what you say by posting quotes from your sources that mention this Ezidkhan autonomous region in depth enough to meet our notability requirements? If you can do that, perhaps an article on it can be written. Doug Weller talk 19:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ezidkhan

Hi, Niele. It appears you feel very strongly about this topic, and I would strongly advise you to calm down about it. You can get what you want if you go about it the right way, or you can end up blocked if you don't. So just approach this calmly and rationally, please. This is strictly about sources. An admin has already said they'd restore the article if you can demonstrate that there are adequate sources, and I don't see you doing that. Instead, you're making personal commentary and saying that there are sources, without any proof. First off, unsourced, user-made maps such as Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map or Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map are not considered to be reliable sources. And, apart from those, I don't see this autonomous region on any of the other maps you've mentioned. I see some minor sources which mention a Yazidi self-governance council was established, as well as a Yazidi militia. But apart from the Supreme Spiritual Leader's quote using the term, I don't see anything that conclusively states that the region exists, or that the declared government is in control of it, or that the Yazidi militia is part of it. It appears to be a bunch of OR and SYNTH. So, if I missed something, please list the sources you have below. Rest assured that if you can make the case, the article will be restored. Swarm ♠ 23:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it is are drawn on all the maps I mentioned.

Every village on the wikipedia conflict maps is indivually sourced. Strange that you believe otherwise?

The Sinjar alliance that fully controlls this area for 4 year now exists of 3 Yezidi and 1 Arabic group. These groups are all on wikipedia.

West-Sinjar is under self-control and governed by the EPC already 3,5 years before they formalised this to fully inline themself with the Iraqi constitution.

The council is established years ago when West-Sinjar district was taken from Daesh by Sinjar Alliance groups and east-Sinjar district by Peshmerga from the KRG.

Why are you assuming like this is something recent with no indication for this?

Why are you calling all the articles of news outlets as 'minor' sources? These are the largest sources reporting in this region of Iraq?

How can I provide any new sources if every source is directly removed by Doug?

We had already had already 30 different sources provided to the article about the autonomous region. Why is that not enough? This is much more and better sourced than most the article of the historic region.

Why do not delete the article about the historic region with almost no sources and keep the well sourced-article about the autonomous region?

What is happening here is that a user that has no knowledge or insight about the region, made a wrong assumption a half year ago.

And now will do anything to not having to admid he was wrong, including removing all the sources anyone provides and bc he is an admin, every non-informed user just believes him...

On wich location a can provide more sources and sourced content if the article and all sources are constantly removed?

An other user recreated a seperate page about the autonomous region without my knowledge and Doug removed that page without me ever noticing both the creation and the removal of that other page

Why is the removal of that other users page a reason to remove the sources contend I added on the other page?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 13:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks

Stop the personal attacks against Doug Weller. Now. Acroterion (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Acroterion (talk) 12:18, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the personal attack right after my warning [3] means you're blocked. Acroterion (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

??? The edit that you refer to https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=831833980 is a LAYOUT-EDIT that does NOT CONTAIN ANY CONTENT, let alone personal attacks??--Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So you were simply going back to improve the layout and signature for the personal attack? No, you're blocked, and this is long past due. If you continue to call other editors liars and censors, the next block will be much longer. Acroterion (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

Removing a linebreaking is NOT a personal attack as User Acroterion falsely claimes and he misused for incorrectly blocking someone.
But the only the edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Doug_Weller&diff=prev&oldid=831833980) after his warning and the the edit Acroterion uses here to false accredit me to making a personal attack after his warning, was a pure layout-edit for removing two linebreakings that undermined the layout of the page, with no single letter of content-change made after his warning! Removing a line breaking is NOT a personal attack. Niele~enwiki (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

As explained, you edited your personal attack, which would most certainly seem to be you ignoring the warning. Also, even if Acroterion was mistaken completely, as you claim, you still breached the warning here, in which you accused Doug of suppressing sources and making false claims. This again shows that you are not heeding the warnings about making personal attacks. I already gave you advice on what you should do regarding the content. All you had to do was calm down and compile your sources. We could have even given you access to the deleted article if you needed it. But instead, you ignored that advice completely. I warned you, explicitly, that if you didn't handle this the right way you were going to end up blocked. You chose to ignore all of the messages, warnings and advice you have received. And your post-block responses have just reinforced my view that you're refusing to listen to any of us. As such, I've removed the expiration date from your block, as it's clear a temporary block is having no effect. If you want to continue editing here, no problem. Simply read up on two policies, WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Once you have done that, read the Guide to Appealing Blocks, which tells you what you need to say in an unblock request, and then make a new unblock request that is compliant with the guide, and demonstrates to us that you know why you were blocked and have educated yourself on the two policies I linked to. That's what we require of you right now. It's no longer about the article. You can be unblocked as soon as you comply with my instructions, but it isn't negotiable. You're going to stay blocked until you do so. I'm not asking a lot. Swarm ♠ 18:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

(talk page watcher) What this edit did was remove a line-breaking space...from an edit which already accused someone of being a censor—when you han been explicitly told that you were unnecessarilly personalising the issue (mentioning genocide was also a tactical error) . Can you see that now? If you can't than, not only will you (probably) not be unblocked, but your ability to understand simple—but important—instructions may be questioned. This is not intended to annoy you further by the way, merely to cast some light on where you stand. —SerialNumberParanoia/^{cheap shit room} 13:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So,

When I see that an previous edit of me, breaks the layout because it lacks two linebreakings. And I add those linebraking so other users would not bet disturbed by messed up layout. The adding of these line breakings suddenly equals an personal attack?
Someone does not see the adding of a line-breaking as a personal attack are according to you 'incompetent' and you can personaly attack 13-year long contributers to wikipedia by calling them incompetent.
In those 13 years on wikipedia I constantly saw that wikipedia-moderation is fully done by mods that form small groups that always back each other, not anylonger interested in questioning the situation or the informational goal of wikipedia.
This is why I limit my edit's to wikipedia to only subjects that are extremly important for the world to have accurate and correct information about, like about the Ezidi's and the autonomous region they control since 2014.
The fact that you personnaly insult and attack me by calling me 'incompetent' here, proves there there wikipedia there is only the law of the strongest, the highest placed. Because Doug made an faulty assumption a half year ago, and he was an admin, now all wikipedians need to follow his faulty assumption, how many sources that prove him worng, it does noet matter or count. As usual only positions and status counts on wikipedia. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You went back and tidied up a personal attack, which indicates to me that you're not even trying to listen to advice, and you're continuing to demonstrate that you are not trying to respond constructively to politely-expressed cricism of your edits. As for competency, it has to do with your ability to effectively understand and communicate in English. For instance, I understand German and French, but I'm not sufficiently competent in either to effectively participate in those communities. My concerns about your competence to participate in the English Wikipedia extends to your obvious unwillingness to constructively engage other editors. Acroterion (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Acriterion: Stop personaly attacking experienced users and insulting them by calling them 'incompetent'. My concern with not breaking layout, does not grand you harassing my account.-Niele~enwiki (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, but it looks like an attack on all admins--"In those 13 years on wikipedia I constantly saw that wikipedia-moderation is fully done by mods that form small groups that always back each other, not any longer interested in questioning the situation or the informational goal of wikipedia." This being the case, you can hardly expect an unblock from us evil members of the Cabal™.

You copy edited the personal attack because you wanted it to be just right? If you'd struck and apologized in that edit, this conversation would not be dragging on. And you would not have been blocked--Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked indefinitely

Hi, as I said above, I've changed your block to indefinite. Please read the message in my block review for details on why I did this, as well as specific instructions on how to get unblocked easily. Until then, please only use your talk page to submit an unblock request that is compliant with the instructions I have provided you. If you fail to do so, your ability to edit your talk page will be revoked. Swarm ♠ 18:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Look I can appoligise to Doug that while beïng completly baffled about his absurd claim that the Autonomous region of Exzidistan would not exists, I did not use the best and appropiate wording. I was personally insulted by that statement, as it proclaimed that I as an 13-year-experienced wikipedia user would make things up. And frustrated as he keeps making a false claim like that, while he also could just state I have no personal knowledge about it. But I will help you with finding sources about the Sinjar Alliance controlled area in Iraq and how to improve the article. But the reality is that the Exzidistan autonomous region is common knowledge by anyone that follows the conflict and drawn on all important conflict maps. My initial reaction to Dougs absurd/unsourced claim, might have been better and I apologize for that wording. But so is the handling of admin-team of this case. Insulting/accusing experienced wikipedia-editors for no reason and acting like they are making things up while up and calling them incompetant is not. Maybe we should establish a fact and source finding group of wikipedia-users that have knowledge to the Syrian-Iraqese conflict to clear out Doug's misunderstanding of the Sinjar-Alliance controlled area in west Sinjar?--Niele~enwiki (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to ignore input and have not submitted an appropriate unblock request, and your ability to edit the talk page will be revoked without further warning if it continues. Again, please refer to my above message in the above block appeal. To summarize, if you want to be unblocked:
- Read WP:CIV and WP:NPA
- Read WP:GAB
- Submit a GAB-compliant unblock request

I genuinely hope that you're able to do this so that you can return to editing quickly. This block was not meant to be permanent, but you're doing everything you can in order to prevent your unblock from happening. Swarm ♠ 16:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

Request reason:

1,5 year passed and no need for this blockNiele~enwiki (talk) 14:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will need to explain why that is, and what you intend to do if unblocked, before unblocking you can be considered. 331dot (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] Università di Torino. Facoltà di lettere e filosofia; Centro ricerche archeologiche e scavi di Torino per il Medio Oriente e l'Asia (Italy); Centro scavi di Torino per il medio oriente e l'Asia (1997). Mesopotamia, Volume 32. Giappichelli.

[2] ttp://www.kurdistan24.net/en/news/dc6ea92a-a066-4231-9443-c58797465a14

[3] ttp://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/373128

[4] ttp://www.turktime.com/haber/demokratik-ozerklik-ilan-edildi/444813

[5] ttp://gazetekarinca.com/2017/08/sengalde-demokratik-ozerklik-ilan-edildi/

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]