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:
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) 10:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You add on the map two villages (Tall Barud, Heb Thorns) on based only pro government source buy we cant use only pro government source to show success of army. here So that we need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
There is a hill called Tell As Sadaikh, I don't think that it's the same Sabah taken by SAA, but if you have more sources you can revert the edit.
Please read this notification carefully:
A
community decision has authorised the use of
general sanctions for pages related to the
Syrian Civil War and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described
here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a
one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described
here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc ( talk • contribs) 07:13, 22 November 2014
This is a single purpose account with a history that now stretches over a quarter of a a year, please read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and consider its implications.
You have been warned by user:Callanecc of the restrictions on the pages such as Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. You have not broken the 1RR rule in terms of time:
but you have broken in when considering the interaction between edits, as you have not discussed the changes which you reverted on the talk page. I will not take any administrative action this time but be aware of the wording in
WP:3RR "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth [second] time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." next time follow the guidance in
WP:BRD. I suggest you start immediately and explain the reasons for your reverts on the talk page of the article before you make another edit to that page and give other editors time to reply before making any more changes to the article. --
PBS (
talk) 09:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
8fra0 check my edit when i add albu ghanem there were clashes there here,today i added another source to that the town is contested and clashe are still taking place. here.So i need you to change it back how it was. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc ( open channel) 16:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Before you change something without source, you need to discuss it with other users on the talk page. The 4 villages were added at the request of other users for more dots in the Kirkuk Region. There is no information as to who is in controle of what village. Lack of information or source does not mean that ISIS is in controle of all 4 villages. In lack of information the best option is to follow the consensus that has already been accepted on the other map, which I know is not a source. But there is no other choice as we cannot simply make all of them yellow or black because we want it to be so. You are free to add more black dots under the border on the 2011 Iraqi Insurgency map that has already been accepted by a majority. If you disagree go to talk page, express your oppinion and wait for others to vote Mozad655 ( talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi you changed the label of al-Baghdadi back to contested based on this twitter comment. But that source does not say that al-Baghdadi is NOT already taken by ISIS. It only confirms what this very trustworthy CNN-source says, which is that al-Baghdadi has been completely overtaken by ISIS. What the source is implying is that the millitary air-base OUTSIDE al-Baghdadi has yet to be captured. I hope you will change it back. Mozad655 ( talk) 13:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
You have added these villages as under jointly control Kurds and rebel on based pro opposition source. here Although we can not use the pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebels. But other source just reported that YPG earlier today reached to the strategic highway Aleppo-Hasakah and captured village Khan-Mamed south of Kobani. jack Shahine Hanibal911 ( talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Why you revert two editings on based Kurdish source which not confirm this action. here You marked under control by rebels Rityan and Zimrin. If in the situation with the village Zimrin I agree with you because this village was marked as challenged only on the basis of the pro-government source but we cant use pro-government sources for display a success the army. But Rityan was marked under control by army on based the reliable source. So in the future dont need do this. It is vandalism! Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Buddy you did not add any source that said the three towns have been captured by ISIS. No media has reported that any towns were captured by ISIS. Your source just says airstrikes, not capture. Airstrikes can happen mid battle and peshmerga commanders have been quoted as saying that isis was so close that they could throw grenades at them. Mozad655 ( talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
You should revert your edit. The source is 2 days old and can be used because those villages were not changed today or yesterday. DuckZz ( talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Many source reported that Kurdish and their allies advanced in Raqqa province and captured many villages. So maybe we can use this map here here to display situation in this area. Because they captured many villages but on map we dont showed this . Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
8fra0 you edited (added) this village with a biased source can you provide a reliable source and if you have any other reliable source then provide, if you dont have any tehn change it back also add and edit with reliable sources not with biased one in the article.Thank You Lindi29 ( talk) 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Please be more careful to avoid making links to disambiguation pages in complex modules as you did with this edit, adding a link to the disambiguation page, Rabia. It is particularly important to avoid making this kind of mistake in modules, since these links are generally fixed by disambiguators who may not be familiar with the coding used to make modules work, and will have a difficult time implementing the fix. If the article does not exist, create a redlink to the title where the article should exist if created. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
ISIS has taken Tal Khanzir via https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/564956-syria-kurds-under-fire. Alhanuty ( talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Why you revert my editing because I used source which dated 21 March and he more newer than your source which you use. here You look at the date over there clearly indicated that this map dated 21 March 2015. Just the date indicated not to the left to the right but vice versa. Hanibal911 ( talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Why did you changed Tal Tamer back to yellow? When you rv you have to do that with a source,if you dont have a source which tells that it kurd held than changed but I put it besieged in one side you put it back to yellow,you rv that editor ok he rv without a source but you didn't rv to previous fact which it was beseiged in the SS side so you need to fix your mistake. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Rawiyah under YPG control via this source http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/2015/5/27/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%A9 Alhanuty ( talk) 12:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Gire Ebubaker and tal tawkal anf Qarajah are YPG-held. Alhanuty ( talk) 15:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 July 2015.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
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. 02:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
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.)
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) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. However, you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
Bbb23 (
talk) 22:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC) Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).