User talk:Sopher99

Speedy deletion contested: List of Italian Prime Ministers by time in office

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of List of Italian Prime Ministers by time in office, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk 'bout it!} 21:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nominations

As per this, and many other messages you have received regarding your speedy deletion nominations, I would like to ask you to ensure that the pages you tag for speedy deletion actually meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. If an article has issues that can be solved through editing, please consider correcting the problem or use maintenance templates if you can't fix it yourself. If you believe the page should be deleted, but it doesn't meet a speedy deletion criterion, use another deletion process such as WP:AfD or WP:PROD. That said, your new page work is much appreciated, but keep in mind that speedy deletion is for blatant cases only. Do not hesitate to ask if you have questions. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire (UK) ratings

I have reverted your edit to List of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire (UK) ratings, where you reverted a perfectly good redirect with the comment This does not count as a redirect as it is just the difference of the capitalization of "A" and then tagged it with a CSD A3. Actually, it does count as a redirect. Redirects for minor variations in capitalisation are very common on Wikipedia. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Jimmy Pitt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shoreline Drive

I saw you removed the CSD from the article is there a particular reason for this? ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Invading the Sacred

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Invading the Sacred, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to books. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Jose h valdez

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I deleted Jose h valdez, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Great work, Sopher99! WikiCopterRadioChecklistFormerly AirplanePro 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: North Harrow, 1930 - 1950

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I deleted North Harrow, 1930 - 1950, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Why did you remove the automated copyright template from Dr. Saul Hertz? The text was clearly copied from the source. Theleftorium ^(talk) 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

-

set realmlist us.logon.worldofwarcraft.com set patchlist enUS.patch.battle.net:1119/patch set realmlistbn "" set portal us

New Article Patrol

Hi. I've noticed you reviewing new articles and removing "New unreviewed article" templates. I think you need to be a bit more careful, and don't remove the template until you have properly reviewed the article and fixed or flagged whatever faults it has. For example, Stone-Cup (game) was clearly an article with no content (and also had nonsensical categories added). It should have been left for a suitable time for the author to expand on it, with the template intact, or tagged for speedy deletion (after waiting a reasonable while). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Regarding this speedy delete nomination, please note that CSD:A2 is only for articles that you can show already exist on foreign-language Wikipedias, and not for anything that is not English. Alternatives you could consider are just marking the article {{notenglish}}, or having a go at translating it via Google Translate (which is far from perfect, but usually gives us enough to have a go at reviewing the article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Also, A1 is only for cases like "etnh4lscl3crhd uithtsth k;jk7u078au", not articles which make perfect sense, though being completely unencyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And you used {{db-same}} without properly specifying what it was the same as. A7 would have done better for that one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ILG Logistics

You removed the "Unreviewed" template from this one. However, the article is actually unsourced, as it contains no references other than the company's own web site. This one should at least have been tagged as unreferenced (or at least, needing refs improved). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Martha's Vineyard Magazine

This is another article you did not review properly, as its format is entirely non-standard and needs to be corrected before it is marked as reviewed. You really should re-read what people have been saying to you here on this Talk page, and stop removing "Unreviewed" templates without properly reviewing articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it also has no independent references - only to the magazine's own site. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Incident raised

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Sopher99. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Auku

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Auku to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. —fetch·comms 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Athletics at the 1960 Summer Olympics - Men's hammer throw

I see you speedy tagged this article as A3 (no content). If you see a blank article, you should check its history - in this case, the author had blanked it, so it should have been tagged with G7 (author blanked). Please take a little time to read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion and learn about how and when to use the various CSD criteria. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Canarsie Pol, Brooklyn

I've removed the comments you added to Talk:Canarsie Pol, Brooklyn, as they appeared to have no relevance to the subject of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to follow me where-ever I go. Were you using the link to the articles I created on my user-page? Sopher99 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on your activities because of all the errors you have been making in relation to new page patrol, article reviewing, and CSD tagging (as seen in your many messages here on this Talk page), and your complete lack of response to any of the messages you have been left. As I informed you above, there is an incident open at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sopher99. If you ignore all attempts at communication, there is little else we can do other than keep a close eye on what you are doing, so I'd urge you to reply to that incident and at show some willingness to listen to what people are saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Hi. Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, you are still making the same mistakes. In Stratus Building Solutions, you removed the "Unreviewed article" tag, but again you did not properly review the article - a quick read of it shows me that it is clearly too promotional in tone. You should have spotted that, and not marked it reviewed unless you had tagged it appropriately. Your enthusiasm is great, but I think you really must stop doing things until you fully understand how to do them properly. Here's a suggestion: If you review an article and find something wrong with it, you replace the "Unreviewed" tag with the appropriate tags - you seem to have been doing that quite well. But if you think there is nothing wrong with it, you just leave it for someone else to check and do not remove the "Unreviewed" tag. How does that sound? (Also, have you ever considered Wikipedia:Mentorship? I think it is something that might help you). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/middleeast/18homs.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/30/140070135/in-syria-homs-emerges-as-center-of-protest-movement

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/syrian-forces-storm-homs-assad

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/tanks-rumble-into-homs-as-33-killed-across-syria/460444

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8717361/Syria-two-anti-government-protesters-shot-in-Homs-as-army-shoots-to-kill.html

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/02/syria-rising-toll-homs

http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/1047663

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/activists-report-more-arrests-killings-in-syrian-town-of-homs/2011/09/06/gIQAGqMJ6J_story.html

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/shootings-kill-11-in-syria-s-homs-4385736

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=40597

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13358201

http://english.the-syrian.com/2011/07/23/peaceful-protests-in-homs/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110527

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/110906/syria-fresh-attacks-homs

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0512/1224296752475.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110512

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syrian-forces-attack-homs-in-wake-of-anti-government-protests-1.379639

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/14018-syrian-security-forces-carry-out-raids-in-homs-and-hama

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201152818244563547.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Rights-Activists-Say-Syrian-Forces-Kill-2-in-Homs-129252948.html

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/09/more-than-20-dead-in-syria-russia-criticises-eu-embargo/

http://www.qatar-tribune.com/data/20110816/content.asp?section=Gulf1_1

http://www.france24.com/en/20110820-syrian-tanks-storm-protest-homs-assad-middle-east-un-latakia

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110812/world/troops-open-fire-on-syria-rallies.379972

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4118021,00.html

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/30/160085.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13130401

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110512

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/20/syria-homs-protests-attract-thousands-video/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8710292/Syrian-security-forces-open-fire-in-Homs.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/syria-forces-kill-5-at-aleppo-homs-protests-activist-says-1-.html

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/shootings-kill-11-in-syrias-homs-activists

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=47934

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/apr/19/syria-homs-protests-shots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-homs-as-crackdown-intensifies/2011/04/19/AFuvaW4D_story.html

http://www.dawn.com/2011/08/15/heavy-fire-in-homs-five-months-into-syria-uprising.html

Connecticut Technology Council new page patrol

Greetings. I noticed you marked this page as patrolled, but didn't address any of the issues it has. It had a line at the bottom that said "Join CTC Now, online at <URL>." That's pretty promotional and has no place in a WP article. Furthermore, the article was unreferenced, unwikified, uncategorized, advert-like and has questionable notability. Please, if you are confused about what to do with a particular article, don't mark it patrolled, and instead let someone else handle it. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing your patrol log, I must recommend that you hold off on patrolling until you read up on Wikipedia polices. You are going through pages way too quickly. For example, you marked Matthew Parsons patrolled, but it has no references and is thus an unsourced BLP. The The New Three Stooges (2011 series) article seems like a hoax and has now been tagged as such. Olivia Tait was deleted under CSD A7. There are more, but I'll stop with that. Have you read the New Page Patrol page? It has a guideline on how to patrol, but you must be familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on sources, notability, verifiability, deletion and living persons, among others. Let me know if you have any questions. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott Fung

You tagged this article for deletion under criterion A2, a foreign-language article already on another Wikipedia; however, you didn't provide the link to the other language Wikipedia page. Would you please restore the deletion tag with a link to the other page? Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me the deletion tag for non-english articles that are not already wikipedia pages?Sopher99 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been told before not to tag all foreign-language articles as A2, but once again you're not listening. There is no speedy deletion tag for them - they should be given time for people to have a chance to translate them. There are two things you could possibly do...

• Use Google Translate, which is pretty good at auto-detecting a number of languages, and replace the article content with the translation, and then perhaps review that (It won't be a great translation, but it should be enough to establish context etc).
• Tag with {{notenglish}}, which is not a speedy-deletion category, and will give people up to 14 days to provide a translation.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Company list tags

Heya, I hope you don;t mind but I removed the unreferenced tags from those company lists that you just added. Generally speaking if there is a wiki article that establishes the link to the country that is sufficient (at least by the current consensus). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request declined

Hi Sopher, I declined your speedy deletion request for 0th grade. It is not a "blatant" hoax by any means, and seems to be legitimate (see, for example, the usage of the term in this study). Feel free to PROD it or submit it for WP:AFD, if you wish. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also declined the speedy for Product concept. Neither of the speedy deletion tags applies—the article clearly defined the concept, so A1 was invalid, and the subject does not fall under A7 (which is for actual businesses, not marketing concepts). Please be more careful with your speedy deletion tags in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rahim Jantan

Hello. Google says this is in Malay. Can you give me a link to this on the Malay Wikipedia? I could not find it. Google mangled the translation, but he looks notable. Will send for translation if I can't find it on Malay Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

L. Hirtuleius

Clearly it needs expanding but why the unreferenced tag?Dejvid (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

Hi. I've noticed you adding the {{unreferenced}} tag to a number of articles that actually have references - albeit insufficient ones. If an article has at least one reference, then it should not be tagged as {{unreferenced}}. If there are too few references, it should be tagged with {{refimprove}}, or if there is a list of references at the end but no inline references, you should use the {{no footnotes}} tag. As a few of us have asked a few times, please do be careful when doing new pages patrol and don't tag anything unless you are sure - if you are unsure, you are welcome to ask me for help on my Talk page at any time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just one more thought. I think that basically just slowing down and taking things easier would help you - it is far more important to do things correctly than quickly, so please do take the time to carefully think about each new page you look at before you do anything. (Oh, and it would be nice if you could reply to messages people leave here, so we know we're getting through to you). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read all the messages from your last one to this one, many of those so called references are notes though.Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Wikipedia actually recognizes different formats for referencing, and the "notes" format is considered an acceptable alternative. In fact, the whole area of citation style is quite complex, as you'll see if you look at WP:NOTES and WP:REF. As such, references, notes, and any supporting external links should really be seen as alike for our purposes here, and if there are any at all, we shouldn't really use the {{unreferenced}} tag - the {{refimprove}} tag is a better default to use, or {{no footnotes}} if there are references or notes only at the end and none cited inline in the source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Great northern tilefish speedy declined

Hello, I declined to hastily delete this. The context/content was obvious that this was going to be about a Tilefish. It even had the binomial classification. (CorenBot tagged it for a redirect.) I'm a little concerned by the fact that this article was tagged only 3 minutes after creation. The creator was probably still working on it. Hopefully he's not been frightened off.

I've found it to be well worth the effort to welcome new user's before deciding to tag their articles for deletion. And if one starts from the other end of new pages it gives people enough time to fix any defects. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard incident report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I'm sorry, but just talking to you here to explain what you keep doing wrong just isn't working, because you just keep making the same mistakes time after time, and you are likely to be scaring new contributors away) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You should stop doing New Page Patrol unless you are willing to take action in response to the problems that people have reported to you. You may be blocked if you continue. If you will stop all your New Page Patrol and work on other things, you can avoid this outcome. If you are willing to have a mentor to help you with New Page Patrol, respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#User:Sopher99 again. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, Ill stop placing Nocontext and Nocontent deletion tags then, just as I stopped removing unreviewed tags. Sopher99 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely to be enough to satisfy the concerns expressed at WP:ANI. I urge you to respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

From the message below, it looks as if you haven't been informing editors when you tag their new articles for speedy deletion - they should always be informed. Also, you really should not do new page patrol if you are not able to, or not prepared to, engage in discussion when someone asks why you have done something - you absolutely need to explain your actions when questioned. I strongly suggest you do as EdJohnston suggests and stop all new page patrol actions for now, and get a mentor to help you before you resume, because if you carry on as now you really are likely to be blocked - and you really should engage in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#User:Sopher99 again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Lender Processing Service this morning, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is good advice about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD, WP:A7M and the WP:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this message you just removed

Sopher99, you might consider holding off on tagging CSD. You don't seem to understand the criteria. I've asked you before to use edit summaries and notify users about deletion. You simply are not following people's advice. What should we do here? P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I see you deleted it.

There is good advice on how to carry out speedys here:

Wikipedia:Field guide to proper speedy deletion

This bit covers test pages. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What if the article has only one word like "yes" , also I am keeping he notices at 50 or below. Sopher99 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably qualify as a test page. That or 'no context'.

A test page is when somebody builds an article that says "Blah blah is this working?" or something similar. Nonsense is where someone types something that isn't understandable.

Most pages that qualify for speedy deletion fall under A7, but a ball game doesn't fit comfortably into that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "keeping the notices at 50 or below". I don't follow. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the table of contents it is at 49 right now. Sopher99 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're talking about this talk page. You should consider archiving instead of deleting. I can set up MiszaBot if you want me to. It automatically archives. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what archiving means. Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at here. Also, look at my my talk page. Notice how at the top there is a box with links that says "Archives: 1, 2, 3, etc." I setup a bot that automatically moves messages from my active talk page to those archives after 14 days. That way, I don't have to delete messages, and the messages stay around for people to see. I'd be happy to set up your talk page for you so that it functions like mine. Just let me know. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of expansion tag

On another note, it's not really necessary to add an {{expand}} tag to articles that have a stub tag at the bottom. Notice that the stub statements requests expansion. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then Sopher99 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What is biotic potential?

Please note that this page should not have been tagged as a WP:HOAX, because it deals with Biotic potential -- a legitimate topic that we already have an article about. I changed the tag to {{db-a10}}, reflecting the fact that it was a duplicate article on an existing topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Drone attacks in Pakistan

I would like to ask you to stop edit warring. I have started a discussion on the talk page about that topic. Please do stop reverting during the discussion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Gliese 581 g

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

The material you keep trying to add into the article will be added after discussion has taken place on the talk page. Please use the talk page to argue for it. Several editors have found it not to be useful, and I personally don't understand why it keeps getting added. On Wikipedia, we only cite directly from studies and reports if the material is uncontroversial and supported by secondary sources. Since several editors have contested it, you now need to find a secondary source that supports its inclusion. Edit warring is not a solution. Thanks, and look forward to seeing you on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Animal Farm characters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of Animal Farm characters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keith Springer

The article Keith Springer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable financial advisor. No notable reference on the subject himself.

While all 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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Springer for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Keith Springer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Springer until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD tags on Mmo/End of Nations ( The Trinity guild)

Please be careful when adding CSD tags to articles. This article was tagged as test page and "no context", neither of which are accurate. I suggest using PROD or AfD if you feel the article is not notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, I saw that you posted criteria for speedy deletion and it's completely understood, but I've already deleted that page - here's my problem: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aje2hSQ9fx0nXVBrIxY2gLIjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20101204120217AAaS2Xx As I see, the change on wiki article must be there for 1 day and then Facebook will also change information. So I though that, if I can't do nothing, at least I can correct article and then ask for deletion. Thanks! --Ogggy (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hi Sopher, when tagging articles for speedy deletion please remember to inform the authors of the articles, otherwise there is a risk that the article disappears without them knowing why and they just repeat themselves (there is a convenient line on the template that you can just copy and paste on the author's page) . Also when you use {{db-notenglish}} you need to include a link to the article you believe this to be a copy of, otherwise people just have to change the tag to {{notenglish}} and send it for translation. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same about notifying authors. Also, when the author is a newbie who has never had a Welcome template, as with the author of Rebecca smith: an upcoming star just now, it is useful to add one before the speedy notice - it makes it less WP:BITEy, and gives useful links so the newbie can learn to do better. {{firstarticle}} is a useful one (which has one oddity, it adds your signature automatically, unlike most of the others). Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. The True Politics Party--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. Hyper Panda--SPhilbrickT 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Coins of Madagascar

Hello Sopher99, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Coins of Madagascar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: -db Neitehr mentioned in the tag nor obvious from what other article this woudl be a duplicate. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

I noticed you don't use edit summaries much, it would be helpful to other editors if you did so, particularly when making significant edits such as adding speedy deletion tags. Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ill; try. Sopher99 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

• You know all news is propaganda right? Propaganda model
• With that said, so as long as the information is reliable and the description posted in the current events section is neutral, it will stay. If its unreliable than fine, delete it, if not it will stay with all the other bias sources.
• Oh and NATO did invade Afghanistan and the Taliban do have a right to rule within their own nation...would it not be bias to 'be neutral' and call the agressor and the defender both merely belligerents. Passionless (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Despite numerous reminders, you are still not notifying users when you tag their pages for speedy deletion.I have just added a notice to User:Jaredespindola's page re Jaje challenge, a page that you CSD tagged. It is discourteous not to notify users that you have tagged a page -- apart from anything else, it deprives them of their right to contest the tag. Also, you tagged the page as lacking context, despite the fact that it clearly describes a drinking contest -- it may not be encyclopedic (in fact, I'm sure it's not) but it's not lacking context. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sopher99. another reminder from me too. Gerry Gregan needed deletion, but it is important that editors are told why their articles are deleted. Otherwise articles just disappear and the authors either get annoyed or repeat the same mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD

I would like to ask you to please stop making speedy deletion nominations until you have a better understanding of the criteria. For example, you nominated Snow Skimming as both a test page and a blatant hoax. [1] How it could possibly be both of those at once is difficult to figure. Test pages are when someone is literally just testing to see if they can really edit Wikipedia or testing some particular feature. Speedy deletion as a hoax, as it says right on the tag, is only for hoaxes so obvious that they qualify as vandalism. This is a new, relatively unknown sport that probably is not notable enough for a Wikipedia article, but there is no reason to believe it was a hoax. And you nominated Lake dolloff elementary school as an A7, when the very tag you placed on the page explicitly exempts schools, and your edit summary indicates that this is not even the actual rationale you were using anyway. [2] Please either take the time to read and understand the criteria, or stop making speedy deletion nominations. I would also note that you are still failing to notify users when nominating, if you turn on WP:TWINKLE it can automate this for you, along with showing all the criteria when nominating. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to Dan deutsch. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. You need to place a notice on the original editor's talk page when you nominate an article for speedy deletion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would if you guys didn't somehow instantaneously do yourself right after i applied deletion. Sopher99 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New page patrolling

When patrolling new pages, please check the "What links here" page to see if any other articles link to the article you're patrolling. If there are less than 3 links (from actual articles, not user talk pages, redirects, or pages in the Wikipedia namespace), then the article is considered an orphan and should be marked as such with {{orphan}}. I noticed you patrolled Elvis Marley, which has zero links, and you didn't mark it. It also appears I'm not the first person to post a message on your talk page regarding things you missed while patrolling new pages. NPP is about more than clamoring to be the first person to click the "Mark as patrolled" button as quickly as possible after an article is created. For instance, on 12-25-2010, you patrolled about 100 articles (many of them the same minute they were created), but only made about 10 edits. This indicates to me that you're either only patrolling uncontroversial articles, or you're not giving them enough attention. I'd like to second the previous requests you've had for slowing down while patrolling new pages. If you're unable to do that, then please don't patrol new articles. SnottyWong ^converse 15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been reviewing some of the other articles that you patrolled lately, and I'd like to request that you stop patrolling new pages until you demonstrate that you understand what to look for when patrolling new articles, how to tag new articles appropriately for cleanup, how to nominate inappropriate articles for deletion correctly, etc. You are marking a lot of articles as patrolled when they either have major problems that need to be fixed (or tagged for others to fix), or the articles are obviously inappropriate and need to be speedied or nominated for deletion. Once you mark them as patrolled, chances are no one is going to look at them for a long time and they will be lost. Your patrolling efforts are definitely appreciated, but if you're going to rush through it and not actually address any of the problems with the articles, then you are doing more harm than good. SnottyWong ^express 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, in this edit of Recent changes for mobile numbers in Peru, you added an {{unreferenced}} tag and marked the page as patrolled. You neglected to see that the article had not been added to any categories (and therefore should have added {{uncategorized}}), and that no other articles linked to it ({{orphan}}). This may have been because the article was only 2 minutes old at the point you patrolled it, which is another issue altogether. The biggest issue is that "Recent changes for mobile numbers in Peru" is obviously not an encyclopedic topic and shouldn't remain as a standalone article. It should have either been redirected to Telephone numbers in Peru or brought to AFD. Your patrol log is full of similar examples. SnottyWong ^speak 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've resumed your new page patrolling. I checked a random article that you patrolled, Direct Materials Cost, and found a wealth of tasks left undone by you yet again. The article has no lead, and should be tagged with {{Lead missing}}. The article has a big redlink template at the very top which should be deleted, how could you have possibly missed that? The article has no incoming links from other articles and should be tagged with {{orphan}}. The title of the article doesn't conform to WP:MOSTITLE and should be moved to Direct materials cost, although it appears another version of the article already exists at the lowercase title, which is an even bigger problem that should have been dealt with. The article is largely a how-to manual on estimating direct material costs, and should probably be nominated for deletion. These are only some of the things you should have done to this article as part of new page patrolling, but since you just casually glanced at it and marked it as patrolled, the article will just be lying around Wikipedia until someone happens to stumble upon it and nominate it for deletion a few years from now. This is unacceptable. You've been warned repeatedly by other users above, and I think I gave you a crystal clear explanation of the deficiencies of your patrolling about a week ago. You were unresponsive to my comments, waited a few days, and quietly resumed patrolling. I'm going to give you one more warning. Either start patrolling articles correctly (e.g. do the required work), or stop patrolling articles entirely. I'm watching your patrol log, and if you continue patrolling articles in the manner you have been, I'm going to start a thread on WP:ANI about your actions. Please don't take this as a threat; I'm trying to help you but you're being unresponsive. If you have any questions about new page patrolling, feel free to ask me. I'd much rather see you start patrolling pages correctly instead of seeing you stop patrolling. SnottyWong ^confabulate 14:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I've started a thread to discuss your actions at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Problematic patroller. SnottyWong ^yak 14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of MMORPGs by popularity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of MMORPGs by popularity. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games#Statistics table. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games#Statistics table - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

tunisia protests

could you provide a source so i can have a "note" to explain context(Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

couldn't find any exactly, and it is actually not an anniversary of the revolution, just an important date of it, when the plice chose to support the people. I am not from Egyptian or of Arabic decent so i wouldn't know much in terms of such history. Remove the "why" though, as it is from the sources. Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages

Hi Sopher. This is just to let you know that there is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol#Problematic patroller that concerns the way you patrol new pages. If there is anything about Wikipedia that you do not fully understand (especially New Page Patrol or creating new articles), please do not hesitate to ask me, or any other experienced user, for advice. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Sopher99 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jasmine Revolution for deletion

The article Jasmine Revolution is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.   Cs32en Talk to me  08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Huthaifa al-Batawi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huthaifa al-Batawi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Huthaifa al-Batawi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Link

I just added the source into the article a few minutes ago. Read it. [3] Quoting Violence has claimed the lives of 1,297 civilians and 340 security force members in Syria since the unrest erupted mid-March, according to the latest toll by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released Tuesday.. EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, actualy they do show the bodies. Every time a soldier dies State TV covers his funeral after he is taken from the military hospital in Damascus. And I personaly do not see anything wrong with shooting deserters. Every military in the world (even the US and UK militaries) has the right to shoot deserters/defectors on sight. That's been the standard military policie for centuries. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They can shoot deserters, but what we are talking about are those who refuse to shoot at protesters. If they even shoot in the air, they themselves get shot. I was not referring to deserters. The deserters are those who fear the Syrian army itself but have the chance to escape. I was referring to shooting people who refuse to shoot, which America has not done in the 21 or 20th century Sopher99 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah your right, I forgot. The US military doesn't need to shoot their soldiers for refusing to shoot protesters...because they do shoot protesters when they are ordered to, for example the Kent State shootings. And those that did disobey orders to shoot at the enemy in Vietnam were put on the main frontlines so they were usualy the first ones to bite the dust. In any case, an officer has the right to shoot any soldier who disobeys an order while in the field where there is no military court. Othervise there would be a total breakdown in military discipline. That's the reality of the world. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, i know about the Kentstate massacre and the My Lai Massacre, and no officer in at least Europe and NA can shoot a disobeying soldier, especially if not on a frontline. I don't understand why you are trying to defend the army lieutenants captain and captains of Syria. You seem to have a personal bias for believing hardcore into Syria's propaganda. I mean being skeptical and rational/factual is one thing, but you seem diplomatic about this. Sopher99 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I do have a reason to have more faith in the Syrians than what the US and Western Europe say because I am from Serbia and the US and Europe accused us of being canibals while there was a war going on here in the Balkans so I am no stranger to western propaganda against one of it's enemies. However, I am not a radical nationalist and am a resonable person and so I do belive that most of those the Syrian military is fighting are unarmed protesters against Assad's rule. However, again I do not see anything bad in them killing those that would try and erase the rule of law and order. What would the US do if there were riots in the middle of New York? In any case, I do belive in objective editing on Wikipedia and reporting and editing from a neutral position on what is realy happening. And that's what I have been doing. For example, I have had a lot of problems fighting with both pro- and anti- Gaddafi editors over at the Libyan articles while trying to make the articles include factual information. I can set asside my own oppinion on the matter and simply edit based on what factual and objective information is provide. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We did have riots from the 60's through 80's, and in 90's Los Angeles. But army never came, and police did not shoot to kill (but they did beat people). It is true however that protesters are calling for the 100% downfall of the government, and that if they don't stop the protesting by force, they are guaranteed eventual collapse, so it is a damned if you damned if you don't situation. Also Serbian nationalism has nothing to do with Shiite Alawite Totalitarianism, especially because the Serbians are not Shias, Alawites (sp?), or totalitarian-ists, and Israel has refused to recognize kosovo.Sopher99 (talk)

I don't just doubt Syria's propaganda, but saleh's and khalifa's as well. Saleh claims "millions" of people are with him, when in reality only 10,000 paid demonstrators show up. He then claims civil war is imminent do to "tribes willing to succeed" further BS, then claims he has some sort of constitutional authority when he invented it and doesn't even follow it, and so on. Khalifa is a prick who thinks that everything from doctors to soda machines are against him and are part of some sort of conspiracy. In case you didn't know both are pro american dictators. Had there not been media attention both countries would have unleash forces to intentionally kill, had refusers, had shot dead refusers, and I would have reported on both. The only real shame is that no once seems to care about the mercenaries who killed 400,000 people in Darfur and left another 400,000 homeless. Shouldn't people be calling for Bashir to step down. Malaysia has a chance to arrest him this weekend. Sopher99 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, at least we agree on something. :) Yeah, Saleh and Khalifa are pro-american dictators and that's why I belive 0 percent of what those two are saying. But, because they are pro-American they are not threatening them with sanctions or a bombing campaign. And as far as Bashir goes....Sudan has no strategic or any other significance to the West or anyone else so they don't simply care. That's the world we live in. EkoGraf (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Weapons depot

First of please don't remove sourced information, which is against Wikipedia policie, 2nd, the article, from the highly reliable New York times, confirmed that the rebs only got boxes of ammo and spare parts, 3rd, momentum mentioned was from the base attack only. Your youtube video, shows rebs carrying of boxes and from just one bunker at that, I don't see any weapons (except those they carried with themselves into the base), if anything the video reinforces the New York times article even more that only ammo boxes and surface-to-air launcher parts were taken. There is a difference between a weapon/rifle (which they claymed to had taken)and ammo/bullet (which they did take). The previous day they claimed that they took a huge number of arms, but both what the New York times says and Al Jazeera video shows is that they captured a couple of tanks and ammo boxes. As far as momentum goes it was talking about the momentum from the fighting at the base. It is not so uncomon for the rebels to try and make a small gain into a big gain for morale boosting purposes. And so next time I would pelase urge you not to remove sourced information based on a reliable source and discuss first if you have a problem with the text. Thank you. :) EkoGraf (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey in the Libyan Civil War

I wanted to talk with you about this. You said "POV, criticism of NTC unnecessary, implying russia and Turkey are not full allies when we don't even know about their friendship state period. we have not said how close their relation is"... I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to... "friendship state period"? What do you mean by that?

As for not full allies, not full allies of whom, the West or the rebels? Neither are really true (okay, Turkey is part of NATO, but Russia is certainly not an ally of either). Care to explain your concerns? --Yalens (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

yes. By adding "but they still criticize, you are being bias, not because that is not true, but you are trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the article. THe foreign minister never said "we want Gaddafi to go, but we are still criticizing the rebels and the west", Then that would be significant in the lead. Otherwise you yourself are trying to establish space and uneasiness between the NTC and Turkey and such, which belongs in the subsections.

To put it simply, Turkey and Russia would never say "Here is our report: We recognize the NTC as a legitimate interlocutor, and Gaddafi has no place in the future of Libya. But we are still criticizing the NTC". That would never happen, so stop putting it in the article like that. Also NATO's relation with any other countries does not belong in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, Turkey and Russia has never critiqued the NTC, only NATO, which is not the NTC. They only say "political solution, not military", which even the USA and Europe says. Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. You have no consensus to make this change and you have to discuss it on Talk:National Transitional Council. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sopher, you need to assume WP:Good faith with regard to my edits: I don't have any political agenda with my edits. As for NATO's relations, you are right, it doesn't belong in the article- which is why it has never been in the article. Furthermore, it is also true that both Russia and Turkey have at various times indirectly or directly criticized the rebels- Russia's state run media (Voice of Russia and RT), for an example of indirect, is particularly critical of the rebels, with overly heavy reporting on the alleged abuse of the sub-Saharan migrant minority. In general, Russia's declaration that Gaddafi had to go came rather late, and if htey really think he should go, why is it that they still have diplomatic relations with him (and send chess champions to play with him, for some unknown reason...). There are, of course, distinguishable divisions in Russia, with Putin being firmly anti-Western and perhaps there is the influence of his previously cozy relations with Gaddafi (who he called his best ally in Africa at one point, and not to mention that in fact much of Gaddafi's weaponry came from Russia in a chunk in Jan. 2010); Medvedev meanwhile wants better relations with the West, so he occasionally tries to move Russia in a supportive direction- most notably when he chastised Putin in public for calling NATO's efforts a medieval crusade. Turkey meanwhile is fuzzy in a different way. On one hand the rebels have a clear dislike for Erdogan was the winner of the Gaddafi prize, then stalled NATO action and then tried to abort aid to the rebels, an anti-Turkish/Erdogan chanting gathering to convene in Benghazi at one point, and considerable anti-Turkish sentiment among Libyans (keep in mind that this link I gave you is from a Turkish news outlet). On the other, as the conflict has progressed, Turkey has taken a more pro-NTC stance, though this is likely due to the elections after which Erdogan stated that he wanted to work with the opposition, which is dominated by the CHP (which is pro-rebel and pro-Western). In both cases, anyhow, there is reason to suspect that the sudden switches in hte views of the two countries' governments are due to external pressures (the West and Medvedev's desire for better relations with it in Russia, the CHP in Turkey). In any case, even if I wanted to, I would not need to try to create uneasiness between Benghazi and Moscow or Ankara. In any case, as Kudzu said, you have no consensus on your side, so you need to bring it up at the talk page first. --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare

Hi there - why did you find it necessary to undo my correction of SH's year of birth? That seemed a little 'defensive'. I was going to add his full date of birth and perhaps continue to work on the article, but if I do, will you continue to bat off my edits? All best, R reineke (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not do that, check again.Sopher99 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 Hours for Edit Warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:43, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising

Ugh, please do. It appears a pro-Assad editor got into the cookie jar. I caught him/her trying to replace the methods of demonstrations in the infobox with "Sectarianism"; I didn't even notice the whitewashing in the intro, I've been so busy with the international reactions articles. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Syrian uprising

i think the lead should be shortened. Or otherwise i might consider reverting it to my version. Pass a Method talk 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

from Kevorkmail

Dear friend, this is the media war which we are talking about... Being 100% Syrian-Armenian living in Syria for more than 25 years, I can tell you the truth rather than this western media reporters and other Arab channels.... Bashar Assad is not committing massacres, he is trying to maintain our internal and national secuity against those armed groups which are backed by the US and other western countries... on the other hand those so called peaceful demonstrators are being rejected and suppresed by the local population of the cities themselves, same like when it happend so many times in different streets in Aleppo and Damascus. --Kevorkmail (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For your information, president Ahmad al-Khatib was brough to power by Hafez al-Assad himself after the revolution, so there was no such a feeling.--Kevorkmail (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Waived / injured NFL

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Waived / injured NFL to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria insurgents

First of, this is not the first time we are hearing of this since the government claimed on dozens of occasions to have killed insurgent elements. 2nd it comes from an official government source and deserves to be mentioned in the infobox. Excluding it and including only UN or opposition claimed figures of people killed is a non-neutral position. Wikipedia needs to keep a neutral position and that demands that we also include government claims, no matter how much we maybe don't belive in them. If we would remove the govenment's claim of the number of dead we would than have to remove the opposition's claimed number of dead. One more thing, the infobox already includes on the opposition protesters side Anti-regime militants and the Free Syrian Army which are insurgent groups against the government. In any case, the claim/number is properly sourced so please don't remove sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please don't make things up now. You and I both very well know that the 700 people killed the government is claiming to be insurgents are among those that the UN and opposition are claiming to be civilians. The UN and opposition do not take in "insurgent casualties" as you said because they don't belive there are any insurgents and hardly even admit security forces casualties, even though the Obama administration has acknowledged there are anti-government armed elements in Syria and insurgent elements themselves have recently started appearing on TV. They always say the security forces are killing only exclusivly civilian protesters. One more thing, remember the 3RR rule, you reverted 2 times already, not counting yesterday. One more time and you will be in violation of 3RR. Friendly reminder. EkoGraf (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria

Sorry, but I'm on the other side of this dispute. These are people whom the Syrian government and opposition agrees are dead, but whom the government claims were armed terrorists or insurgents or whatever their favorite term is these days, and whom the oppositions claims were either protesters, army defectors, or bystanders. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have separated the two claims entirely, until the situation becomes clearer. It is the only way to avoid confusion. We also can't avoid the fact that the Syrian government claims 1400 people were killed only. I7laseral (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The government obviously doesn't admitt any civilian casualties and regards those classified as civilians by the opposition and the UN as insurgents. Besides, the coloumn in the infobox for the opposition includes both protesters and armed insurgent elements, so in that regards they are again one and the same thing - anti-Government side in the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep the two claims separated for now. We don't no veracity of either claims. I7laseral (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Background

After the 1970 Revolution, President Hafez al-Assad led Syria for nearly 30 years, banning all opposition at every level. In 1982, at the height of a six-year Islamist insurgency throughout the country, Assad conducted a scorched earth policy against the town of Hama to quell an uprising by the Sunni Islamist community, including the Muslim Brotherhood and others. This became known as the Hama massacre, which left tens of thousands dead.

During the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, after 9 months of primarily peaceful protests, with destruction of government property also taking place in March the opposition began to take up arms to overthrow the government. Soldiers from the Syrian army defected and united under one guerilla organization, the Free Syrian Army, led by Colonel Riad al-Asaad.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 7,000 people, including 1,800–2,800 armed combatants, have been killed in total, many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 300 children have been killed by security forces as well. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

Armed insurgents

What do you call this? The Telegraph

The free Syrian army as well as protesters defending themselves. Saying "extremists" are part of this is like saying extremists are part of the Egyptian revolution or the Iraqi protests. (Beduiuns attacked police as well during the Egyptian revolution) Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article in the link well and do not try to make assumptions based on your own thoughts and preferences. Discuss in the page and do not involve yourself in an edit warring--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the article. We have no Verification. Only Verification of the Free Syrian army. Sopher99 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sopher99! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Iraq war end....again XD

Please read the Iraq war talk page carefully. Also, read [4] closely what Obama said. He said and I quote After nine years, the war will be over in the next few days "not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. He didn't say the war has ended, he said it will be over in the next few days. He ment when the last of the troops leave Iraq. As for the rest of the conflicting points, like I said, read the talk page of the main article. In any case, you haven't provided a source the war has ended, again in fact most sources quote Obama as saying the war will end. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Concessions in 2011 Syrian uprising

Dear Sopher99, actually concessions do belong in the infobox. See for example 2011 Bahraini uprising and 2011 Saudi Arabian protests. There's a simple reason why they're not in the infobox of 2011 Libyan civil war: Gaddafi didn't actually give any concessions to the rebels in his country. According to him, the rebels were "terrorists" and "rats", remember? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria suicide bombings

Iraq suicide bombings happen as a result of the war there, don't know the point of mentioning them at this time. Listen, you misunderstood me completely Sopher99. My point is, I wasn't supporting to add al-Qaeda as one of the beligerents. I was just supporting to add suicide attacks in the infobox under the category Characteristics. I'm not for adding Al Qaeda as a beligerent cause there are too many unknowns at this stage who did it. But, as you said, it could have been done by the FSA or even the government itself. Per that logic, since they are the beligerents of this conflict than suicide bombings should be added under characteristics. I'm not for adding al-Qaeda as a beligerent until it is properly investigated and confirmed if it was realy them. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but please refrain from calling someone irresponsible. Left same message at the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Sopher99,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Syria

To save me re-writing it, I addressed the matter here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Put simply - international conflict is sensitive material, the only way to exercise NPOV is to use terms accepted by all sides of a conflict. In other words, if a source can be found that Syria claims to be a dictatorship, that is fine, but then dictatorship and republic are a contardiction in terms. No matter what we personally think, a claim of dictatorship is a tacit but automatic denial of it being a republic. Anything else is original research. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a chancellor, Stalin was a secretary of a party, Mussolini was a prime minister, and Mao was a chairman. I guess dictators never existed? Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Go on their articles and delcare them dictators. If it lasts 24 hours, I will personally go on a spree myself beginning with Syria, that I promise you. Fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about causes of the uprising, dictatorship is one of them. I'll let it be for now, considering the yemeni and egyptian revolution pages do not cite dictatorship. Sopher99 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Mussolini's title was duce, his status as PM marked only the first two years of his long reign. That's by the by. Thanks for your cooperation. I'm a fair editor though and I do see your point. I am all right with dictatorship in a cautious sense. As we are discussing what the rebels view it to be, we need to establish that. I just didn't want to see the term used so liberally, or as if we are using the official language on sanction. Do you know a good way around it? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't you think Aljazeera is a bit of a propaganda source? Avinza (talk) 13:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria deaths

We update per the source that is provided (currently http://syrianshuhada.com/). That is the basic Wikipedia rule. You put 8,284 but didn't provide any source for it. You left the previous source that said 8,079. You are bassicly editing without a source provided. That's a big Wikipedia no-no. Please provide sources or stop making changes if you are not going to do that. Also, tell me why would the LCC override http://syrianshuhada.com/? In essence they are both opposition-affiliated sites that are putting out numbers that have not been confirmed at all by independent observers or media. We write all that is reported. In that case if you want to put forward the LCCSs numbers, than make a new table which is based on their numbers. The current table is sourced per http://syrianshuhada.com/. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me with the exact page on the LCCs site that shows their statistical numbers per province that you have been reading and I will personaly make another table for the article. Ok?

Syria protest section

You wrote, "Protests and armed clashes: ok but atleast put it in chronological order) (undo) " in comment. First,Thank you first for not getting into edit battle. Let's talk on the Talk page of that article. At issue with chronology is keeping the Al Qaeda related material together, A, B, C, D where B&C are Al Qaeda related but Dhappened before C..see Talk page of Syria uprising for possible split off into another Al Qaeda subsection.

Hi

You might be interested in commenting at User_talk:ChronicalUsual#Syrian_military_operations_2011-2012. I closed the Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Syria_civil_war deletion discussion as a consensus to merge 2011–2012 Syrian uprising and 2011-2012 Syrian civil war articles, as consensus was against having two articles. I see now that you and him have recreated it under various names, I'd like to discuss that. henrik•talk 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote

I commented on it. Jeancey (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Thanks for the heads up on the vote. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note on your talk page to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising. While I do agree with you that the article does not belong on Wikipedia, there is no specific criterion in the criteria for speedy deletion that justifies the article's speedy deletion. As such, this should go through Articles for Deletion. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--FavorLaw (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Wikipedia. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --FavorLaw (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Wikipedia strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FavorLaw (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

As far as Baba Amr goes, what I have seen there hasn't been any big organised attack on it by the military. Only limited raids into the district with constant non-stop shelling. It's preaty much impossible for a force of 200-300 FSA to repulse a reported 10,000 soldiers. If the military did make a major push into it it would most likely take it but suffer a lot of casualties due to the close-quarters combat, so I can determin based on that that the Army's strategy is to pound the district with constant artillery, to soften it up in other words, and eventualy they will roll into it, by that point most of the FSA and protest groups will be decimated by the shelling since the strikes will continue for a while more. No matter how much brave or fanatical the FSA are they are simply outgunned there, in Misrata was a totaly different situation, there the rebels had constant reinforcements and weapons supplies coming by sea thanks to NATO and Qatar, here the FSA is cut-off compleatly. As far as the numbers of dead go, when we have definite numbers that are sources we will use tham until than we work with what we have. I added some new numbers today that came out of the UN. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I get that, I figured as much, there have already been some journalists and analysts who have noted that a large number of insurgents (non-defectors) are being reported as killed civilians and not combatants. EkoGraf (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at all of the estimates and, in my opinion, I think that the SOHR number is the most realistic one of them all. It's mid-way between the government and the LCC number. Also, when the shuhada number of FSA killed and the UN number of government killed is combined it's very close to the overall combatant number reported by SOHR. Sidenote, I think the LCC and shuhada are inflating the numbers by 1,000-2,000. Again, my personal opinion, but that's how it looks to me. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, that's my opinion. And the very thing you pointed out to, that the LCC is highly connected to the opposition and the insurgent networks, makes me vary of them cause they are not a neutral organisation. Saying that it's not wise to compare to the Syrian government (which I also think is undercounting the deaths) can be said the same about the LCC (which is I think inflating the deaths). SOHR has so far in my eyes presented realistic numbers and held a degree of neutraility, counting both the government and opposition losses, which the opposition has not been doing. Again, this is wholy my personal opinion, but I should warn from believing exclusivly what the oposition says about the number of deaths just like I'm also reserved toward what the government says. Prime example is what the oposition in Libya did, where they claimed 50,000 were killed in the war with the fall of Tripoli, only later to revise the number down to 25,000. By half. EkoGraf (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Three users reported by User:Izidorscats (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of Hamza

Hi, I changed back your edit to the cause of death field in the infobox. I thought 'alleged torture' was not descriptive enough, doesn't mention the government's position, and focuses on the world 'alleged' which is generally to be avoided per WP:WTA. I'm happy to discuss this with you further if you'd like. Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Please see this edit and its summary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to remove that. Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian page

I will try to think up of something. Maybe something like the Libyan war casualties page. EkoGraf (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But emphasis on combatant deaths only. We already have a box for civilian. Civilian casualties too messy, ambiguous and widespread. Sopher99 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise I would support that, but due to the little info and focus there is on the combatant deaths the article would be too small in my opinion, so I think the article should cover all the deaths in the conflict. At the least it would cut-down the main article even more in size. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't support it then, because the only proper way to do it would be using the LCC info (the LCC records civilian and defector deaths for each province every day), but the problem is they have been recording for about 320-340 days now. I think the death toll box that we have is good enough. I only suggested this so we wouldn't have to list all the combatant deaths in the refs just to prove the current combatant death toll. Sopher99 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the link to the LCC tables for civis and defectors in each province day-by-day? I tried to find it but the part of their site that says statistics doesn't open for me. I tried but it's always blank. Also, I don't think it would be neutral if we focused on the LCC's numbers only. Which I think are a bit inflated cause they are a bit higher than the SOHR, VDC and UN numbers. Not to mention LCC doesn't count government fatalities while SOHR, VDC and the UN do. EkoGraf (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

LCC's numbers are obviously inflated and incredibly biased, unlike SOHR's content, so I ask you to refrain from deleting SOHR posted information (I dont understand why you are insistent on including LCC content anyway?)Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of sourced information

Your baseless claim that Kurds suddenly joined the uprising in large numbers is unsourced, untrue and the sentence is completely POV. The information I posted is sourced, they are simple facts (nothing POV about it) and very signigicant and important. Do not delete this information again, and if you want to add something yourself, please make sure you frame it in a neutral way, and have atleast sources to back it up.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not write those sentences. I will however re-add and source them. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

By 2012, many Kurds began uprising against the Syrian regime. Several cities with large Kurdish populations, such as Qamishli and Al-Hasakah, began witnessing large-scale protests against the Syrian government, which responded with tanks and fired upon the protesters.

If there were such large numbers of Kurdish protesters which were met by tank fire than even the LCC would record a significant jump in deaths in those provinces....which they didn't. Not to mention the international media hasn't caught wind of this. So I'm not sure that info is reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it means "which responded by using tanks AND firing into the crowds (with guns)." Sopher99 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd stuff going on at Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising

Hi Sopher99, I'm contacting you because you seem to be one of the major contributors on that talk page. I noticed an edit by an IP that claimed to be "archiving" the contents, however, the IP had only 2 edits, so I attempted to revert on suspicion of vandalism. However, the page seems to not want to revert because apparently there's a link on Wikipedia's spam list apparently (oddly, it's a google link that is listed). I only came across it because the article is on my watchlist, but since you've actually contributed a fair amount to the talk page, I thought you might want to handle it. I successfully reverted the IP's other edit, which was also appeared to be blanking under the guise of archiving (oddly enough, this other edit was on an archive page, as well). Again, just thought I might let someone that is actually involved in the talk page know that something seems to be up. Happy editing,--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer

Hi Sopher99, I just answered you on my talk page. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising‎". Thank you. --Rafy talk 22:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverting today

Ooops, sorry Sopher about today, my bad, for some reason it looked to me like you were the one who inserted the 3,000-7,500 figure so I wanted to revert it back to 1,100. But I instead reintroduced the incorrect figure of 3,000-7,500. Sorry sorry, my mistake. My mind is playing tricks on me. XD EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

its ok. :) Sopher99 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at [[User talk:Jacob102699 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)|User talk:Jacob102699 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at [[User talk:Jacob102699 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)|User talk:Jacob102699 (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2012 (UTC)]].
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Weird

My edit messed up the lead again. I tried to revert but it messed it up more. What's the deal? Also, you can revert this back because your computer isn't jacked like mine obviously is. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Original lede for safe keeping

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal violent conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring, a wave of upheaval throughout the Arab World. Public demonstrations across Syria began on 26 January 2011 and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of his government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath Party rule.

Since spring 2011, the Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged, though the unrest continued. According to witnesses, soldiers, who refused to open fire on civilians, were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Since early autumn 2011, civilians and army defectors began forming fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian Army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion; however, the civilian component of the armed opposition lacked an organized leadership.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, though neither faction in the conflict has described sectarianism as playing a major role. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the leading government figures are Alawites, affiliated with the Shia Islam. As a result, the opposition is winning support from the Sunni Muslim states, whereas the regime is publically supported by the Shia dominated Iran and the Lebanese Hizbullah.

According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 10,100–13,000 people have been killed, primarily protesters but also including 3,755–4,290 armed combatants. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. According to the Syrian government, 7,245–7,800 people, including 2,650–3,180 members of the security forces, more than 1,115 insurgents and up to 3,500 civilians, have been killed in fighting with what they characterize as "armed terrorist groups". To escape the violence, tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled the country to the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. The total official UN numbers of Syrian refugees reached 42,000 at the time, while unofficial number stood at as many as 130,000.

UNICEF reported that over 500 children have been killed, Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. Human Rights Watch accused the government and Shabiha of using civilians as human shields when they advanced on opposition held-areas. Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well, including torture, kidnapping, unlawful detention and execution of civilians, Shabiha and soldiers. HRW also expressed concern at the kidnapping of Iranian nationals. The UN Commission of Inquiry has also documented abuses of this nature in its February 2012 report, which also includes documentation that indicates rebel forces have been responsible for displacement of civilians.

The Arab League, US, EU states, GCC states, and other countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia have avoided condemning the regime or applying sanctions, saying that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been ruled out by most countries. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis, but sent an observer mission in December 2011, as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution of the crisis. The latest attempts to resolve the crisis has been made through the appointment of Kofi Annan, as a special envoy to resolve the Syrian crisis in the Middle East.

Good

Good, we got the article back in place. That was just weird. Do you think wikimedia technical people should be contacted about this? Jacob102699 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its just your computer,

Put what you were going to do on this talk page, to see if it happen here. Sopher99 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Another One

I think we have another sockpuppet of ChronicalUsual on our hands named User:Brigade93. Just look at the name in the first place. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just contacted User:Salvio giuliano about it. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

State ownership = propaganda?

Before you go ahead and delete the Voice of Russia reference again on the grounds that its state ownership makes it a 'propaganda medium', please stop and think who owns Al Jazeera, a channel whose stories are used abundantly as references in the Syrian uprising article. Thanks. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Al ajazeera is owned by the Qatari Media Corperation, and is an independent channel, particularly Al Jazeera English. Sopher99 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? As the article Al Jazeera says, the channel is "owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation". And they're not doing much to live up to the claim of being independent either, as evidenced by e.g. Al Jazeera reporter resigns over "biased" Syria coverage. So how exactly is Al Jazeera any different from the equally state-owned Voice of Russia? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That was an al jazeera arabic reporter. The reporter did not resign because of bias, but because of sympathy for the Syrian government, "I used to support the revolution but then I realized it could lead to civil war" Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is realizing that the uprising could lead to civil war a show of sympathy for the Syrian government? Anyway, the fact still stands that while Al Jazeera and Voice of Russia are both state-owned, both through state-owned companies (QMC and VGTRK, respectively), you regard the latter as a "propaganda medium" due to its government ownership and the former as an "independent channel" despite being government-owned as well. Please elaborate. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera English is a perfectly reliable western source that even uses Reuters a lot. Voice of Russia is owned by the Russian government which unlike Qatar, doesn't have freedom of press. AJE is also based in UK and US too which most sources from those places are reliable. Al Arabiya may not be reliable, but AJE is. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Sopher99's work on the Timeline but I do agree with TaalVerbeteraar (talk). We should allow Voice of Russia as an RS without making judgements about it. Charles04 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

2 more

I put 2 more sockpuppets on the case page for ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Syrian uprising (2011–present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual

I have moved the cases that you put in the archive to an active case. Please follow the instructions on the main SPI page to file a case, we won't see it in the archive. Thanks, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Klavisoni

This guy is causing major trouble as a sock of CU and we need to get him blocked. It re-iterates how much we need protection. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The case has been moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual Sopher99 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with this SPI report: that guy was running a ridiculous number of socks. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the Damascuss bombings

Listen Sopher, I don't know why you are trying to dampen the opinions of the military analysts, Middle East experts or even the UN secretary general on this matter. Like I told you, their professional, and I might add, neutral opinions outweigh both yours and mine. The claims by both the government and the opposition are only worth mentioning but since they are both the warring parties their claims can not be taken lightly thus it is more advisable that we look to the neutral experts and diplomats, who at this point are mostly talking about foreign militants and less and less about the government or the FSA. Even the two different al-Nusra claims can not be taken seriously given they are a warring party too. An expert could even ask why did it take them three days to grab a laptop and deny something they say is a lie. There's always a possibility they did claim the attack, but after seeing the outcry tried to distance themselves. Anyway thats conjecture and we should focus on the opinions of international expert bodies. As for that sentance about the UN general. I really have know idea from where you are thinking that Ban Ki Mun didn't hear about the militant denial and the FSA and SNC claims (which were actually given the same day as the bombings, not just in the Guardian article) which have been in the news for almost a week now. I would say that at least at one point he picked up a newspaper or one of his advisors told him. Please those are all personal opinions which don't count. The reality is what is being reported. And we stick to that. Going to sleep now, hope to work with you in the future, good job so far, keep it up, bye! EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway seems its resolved now. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

re-inserted original research

You appear to have re-inserted original research into an article. We do not insert content for a claim for which there is no reliable source. Anirban Bandyopadhyay does not appear to say he falsified Tegmark's conclusion. Note that the Burden is on you as the restorer to source this correctly and deal with the issues of the text you restored, see WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I've opened a talk page discussion on the issue, the article was Quantum Mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

source

Can you give a source for this edit? [5] I've opened a discussion on the talk page if you wouldn't mind commenting there. Khazar2 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Moves

So the guy who moved the Syrian uprising page, I went back and looked through his contributions, and in the past month alone he has moved at least 9 pages against consensus and conventions that later had to be moved back, including the War on Terror, the Houla Massacre, and a page about a doctor. Is there any way to go about removing his ability to move pages? I kinda wanna nip this in the bud. Thanks in advance! Jeancey (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone started an ANI about it. Jeancey (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHR content

Can you please stop deleting my SOHR content in favour of the LCC content that you include on this article. Can you reply back please because it is getting quite frustrating, sorry. Or we could agree to include both sources.Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK then, lets use both, but we both have to agree not to delete any of each others' content, agreed?Jafar Saeed (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Syrian massacre/execution

If this doesn't constitute a massacre, then surely it constitutes at least some kind of recognition. What are your ideas for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Syria

I can carve the article down if I'm allowed to delete all the individual incidents mentioned. Is it OK to do that? Fanzine999 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think i carved it down properly, i was only referring to shortening the support for government section which added 15k bytes in the last day. Please don't add anymore to the section. Sopher99 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonado91 is being very disruptive. He keeps trying to delete negative material about Russia; I told him I would report if he did it again, so now he's undone 8k of shortening that I'd done, seemingly just out of spite. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You know...

I have a slight suspicion User:Clarificationgiven is a person we've encountered before. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chronicalusual? I don't think so. I have seen complaints that he could be User:Justicejayant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Justicejayant . Not sure what to make of it. Sopher99 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit encountering Sopher99, but not Kudzu1 before this month. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is likely. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Change

Keep it 'Disputed' because it's disputed by such sources/organisations, not mainly by us in talk page. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to decline that for now. Many sources dispute other sources on wikipedia. We don't put "disputed" followed by a list of references. What you can do is go to the mercenaries section of the page and edit in how amnesty and such disputed it (if its not already there). Don't just put "this has been disputed by" and end it there - recite the quote from article which sums up why its disputed (such as "investigators on the ground in tripoli did not see such and such") Sopher99 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Reported : Disputed" will be a good option. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Syrian Uprising! Fanzine999 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! Sopher99 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

Please stop deleting my edit on 8 July news. You cannot decide whether or not it deserves to be put on the page. Remind you that it is a BBC news.Egeymi (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can decide if it has notability. Mind you we do not put every bbc news story in the portal. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Houla massacre

I have no intention of edit-warring. I just would like to see the available RS information reflected as much as possible in the article. So please if you decide to edit, don't just revert - unless you can prove it is not RS - but rather add or move if you think it necessary. I realise this is an emotional and controversial subject, but this is exactly why the article should be as non-partisan and solid as possible.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Tremseh

Going to sleep, late over here where I am. Keep updating the Tremseh article if more info comes in. Keep up the good work! Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing Eko. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the opposition, 150 of them WERE packed in one single location, the mosque. So if that was true both of those activists would have a minimum figure of 150, not something like 74 as that activist said. Our personal opinion if its a bad choice of words doesn't count, we maintain an NPOV and stick to what the sources say and this one specificly says they were backing away from the earlier reports. If new information comes to light that contradicts this we will change it. P.S. Added one more source about activists now saying that the toll was less than the reported 200 but higher than 100. EkoGraf (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Foreign jihadists

Sopher you totaly missed out on the discussion on the talk page. It was decided that Al-Qaeda and the other jihadist groups were not operating as part of the Syrian opposition and are fighting on their own. The FSA themselves have said they don't want to have anything to do with the foreigner mujahedeen. So it was decided to separate them as a separate entity in the conflict. Read the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the <break>. We have put the Foreign jihadists in bold as the overall Syrian opposition is in bold, two separate entities, two separate headings. Under the Syrian opposition heading are the FSA, SLA and SRF. Under the Foreign jihadists heading are Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah (FSA kicked out Fatah after that money and emirat incident). EkoGraf (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary if you just put it in bold without the break, it looks like the article is trying to emphasize foreign jihadists. ie " There is Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army, FOREIGN JIHADISTS, and Al nusra." Thats what it makes it look like without the break. I am just telling you what readers will think, not what wikipedia users already know. Sopher99 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not emphasize that at all. Under the Syrian opposition bold heading are FSA, SLA and SRF. Under the Foreing jihadist bold heading are the Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah. Two SEPARATE bold headings. Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah are not under the Opposition heading they are in the separate Foreign jihadist heading. EkoGraf (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said - it makes it look like it emphasizes it to the readers - people who don't know at first what it all means. I see no harm in putting one break if it helps the quality of the infobox. I am just telling you that I was confused at first, and I am sure many other readers will be confused. Sopher99 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How can it look like they are supporting the jihadists when it plainly says Military support for the opposition from? Just like we put on the opposite side Military support for the government from, due to them not sending support for the pro-Assad Kurds. And I don't see how it makes it look like when the jihadists are listed totally separately from the opposition. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break its too hot. -.- EkoGraf (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't read the entire sentence Eko - only like half do.

On another note, can we please put a break, I mean what harm would it do? It would help distinguish ( I could not distinguish it at first, and I don't think that I am the only one who will have that problem). Sopher99 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By that principle we would have to put a break in between the Syrian government and Hezbollah. The jihadists are not fighting under the banner of the opposition and are not directly alligned with them. However, they are coordinating their fighting with them to a certain degree so they are keeping in touch, though at a low level. Besides, you have the example of the infobox in the Iraq war article, where you have on the insurgent side listed Saddam Loyalists, Al-Qaeda, Mahdi army, etc. None of them were directly alligned and some even clashed amongst themselves, but we didn't separate them with a break. EkoGraf (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that the opposition is against them is not totally true. The way you said it sounds like they are in conflict with them, which is not the case, they just don't want to work with them, but are both against Assad. Case in point, Iraq war insurgents. Anyway, for now, I don't have a problem with your compromise solution. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of references

I noticed you removed some of the references saying that it "has already been determined ot be not reliable". With reference to your claim, please clarify:

• who determined it and when
• provide a supporting reference

Regards, C1010 (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It was always knoe that way. Russia today is State controlled. It is literally a propaganda network, deliberately anti-western, and follows the Syrian government's claim of "foreign conspiracy" and "only fighting drugged salifists".

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-550936

I replaced the references that use Russia today with Washington post ones which still backed up what was being said in the wiki article. Sopher99 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:AVOID and Wikipedia is not censored for information on Wikipedia policies. I believe you are in violation of the above Wikipedia polices and thus I intend to revert your edit. Following your logic, references to BBC, for example, should be removed as well, as both BBC and RT are funded through their respective governments. Regards, C1010 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No Russia today is not just funded by the state, but State controlled. It is unreliable, not independent. You are in violation of NPOV if you put RT back in. Sopher99 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, specifically, how RT is not a reliable source as per WP:RS and why other state funded/controlled news agencies, for example, BBC (British Broadcasting Company) or VOA (Voice of America) should nevertheless be viewed as reliable sources as per WP:RS. Regards, C1010 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One - I don't encourage VOA to be used, most people don't know its American government controlled, and so the lack of knowledge is why some wikipedians use it. If you see it being used as ref, I encourage you to replace it.

Two - BBC is state funded, but not State controlled. Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded. Russia Today is not an independent media, while BBC is.

Three - I have a total right to replace sources with more reliable ones. Sopher99 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you still failed to explain, specifically, how RT is not a reliable source as per WP:RS but VOA and BBC are. All of them are funded through their respective states and all of them are controlled through funding. Present proof, not just your biased opinion, if you want to argue otherwise. You are also mistaken if you think you have "total right" to censor Wikipedia articles by removing the sources you personally don't like. It is censorship and is in violation of Wikipedia is not censored and WP:NPOV. Regards, C1010 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One - I don't encourage VOA to be used, most people don't know its American government controlled, and so the lack of knowledge is why some wikipedians use it. If you see it being used as ref, I encourage you to replace it.

Two - BBC is state funded, but not State controlled. - Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded. - Russia Today is not an independent media, while BBC is.

Three - I have a total right to replace sources with more reliable ones. Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-550936

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-host-tv-talk-show/story?id=15438718#.UAQ8p45TM04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47007046/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/anonymous-gets-facts-wrong-netflix-boycott/#.UAQ8zI5TM04 (see 8th paragraph)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks Here is a bit of evidence I was able to retrieve in under five minutes. Sopher99 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you just keep restating your opinions without citing any relevant clauses from WP:RS nor your own links. Hard to see what your links prove besides the pot calling the kettle black. I feel I have given enough effort to resolve the dispute and further discussion would be a waste of time. I will have to revert your edit for violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and Wikipedia is not censored. Regards, C1010 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again i'm not stating opinions, you are. I even gave you sources Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on RT wether it stays or not, but wouldn't have a problem if it stays. We just state in the article what source was used and let the reader form his own opinion on wether the statement is true or not based on RT's background. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what the big deal is. Why can't we just replace the RT articles with the Washington post which say the same thing in this specific case? I already replaced the articles with the Washington post. Besides We don't need two references for these. Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me ether way. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The big deal is that you are censoring the sources based on your personal bias and in violation of Wikipedia polices. You are not even pretending to be consistent: you removed RT but left BBC and SANA links, though all of them are state-funded news agencies. By the way, I did not remove any sources, as I think the readers will benefit from having access to multiple viewpoints. C1010 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, I have asked you many times before what it is that you base your claim on that "Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded", whilst you regard other equally state-funded media (such as Al Jazeera and the BBC) as "state funded, but not State controlled". I haven't yet seen you giving an answer to that simple question. In the discussion above, you merely re-state your position without providing any arguments for this claim. The articles you linked merely repeat the Western claim that it is "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet" without providing any evidence for this allegation. Simply maintaining an anti-American editorial tone doesn't proof that a news outlet is Kremlin-controlled; contrary to American belief, many people don't need payment or brainwashing to be anti-American. Please provide some real evidence for your claim. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

While what might be seen as US State Department spin is not taken down, Wikipedia allows people to censor comments about RT. The BBC, being state-funded, (and highly likely to be State-controlled) is to be trusted. RT, being state-funded and controlled, is a "propaganda outlet". Clearly, this is breaking Wikipedia rules on balance and fairness, and yet little action is ever taken against such comments. 81.141.87.238 (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Damascus bombing move proposal

Hi, could you voice your opinion on this matter Talk:18_July_2012_Damascus_suicide_bombing. I don´t want to get into another edit war with that "editor" and consensus about it should be easily made. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Civil war

Cool, we wait until an admin moves it. EkoGraf (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mujahedeen

He clearly says a quarter of THE 300 rebel groups. That means all of them. And current estimates are that there are 40,000-60,000 rebels. A quarter from that would be 10,000-15,000. Farouq is has 10,000-15,000 because they are the biggest. EkoGraf (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

About the syrian civil war map

edit the map if it is incorrect but don't delete it,this was done in the libyan civil war article

We already have a map. You can replace the map we already have with your new map. Please don't put it in the infobox though. Sopher99 (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Hi Sopher, I notice you've been reverting a lot of edits to Battle of Aleppo (2012) in the past 24 hours. (e.g. [6], [7], [8], [9]) Please review WP:3RR; you should take a break from reverting and take your concerns to the article talk page instead. I don't intend to take this to AN/I yet, but somebody else might, and they'd be well within their rights. Thanks, though, for your attention to this article! Cheers, Khazar2 (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Sopher99, you've been reported at WP:AN3#User:Sopher99 reported by User:122.179.147.58 (Result: ) for warring at

• Libyan civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs),
• 2011 military intervention in Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
• Syrian Civil War (2011–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).

You may respond to the edit warring complaint if you wish. Actually I don't see very many reverts on those three articles, but I see you have edited at least nine times on 30 July at Battle of Aleppo (2012). If you will promise to wait for consensus before making any controversial changes, this complaint might be closed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:54, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Rebel control

Listen up, I will leave the kurdish claim of two districts separately as you wish. But I will remove the 70 percent claim because it is highly unreliastic. Even more due to another rebel commander today claiming that they control the southern and eastern arcs of the city, but are still trying to advance on the city center, and made no mention of the northern and western arcs. That implies in itself no more than 50 percent control, maybe even around 40 if they don't control the city center. Not to mention that each district in which there is fighting has been named and they make up only up to 50 percent of the city. EkoGraf (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the map, and my personal estimate is in line with what the rebel commander said today that they control the southern and eastern arc of the city. And it is also in line with SOHR reports of where the fighting has been going on. Look at the map [10]. The rebels control Salahadin, Sikari, Saif al-Dawla, Fardous, Jamiliya, Qadi Askar, Sakhur, Hananu and Haidariya (south and east). Fighting is ongoing in the central part of the city in the Old City and Maysaloun. And the tanks have massed in New Aleppo and Hamdaniya (west). The northern and half the western part of the city haven't been touched (thus still government controlled). EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Its a compromise solution to just say southern and eastern parts instead of percents, and it is in line with the BBC and SOHR reports on where the clashes are happening. It is in any case better to quote a rebel commander himself than a journalist (of an agency that really hasn't been neutral during the Arab spring) who most likely didn't tour the whole city to make a quess estimate. EkoGraf (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Rebels/insurgents do use checkpoints in territories they control. Sources on this can be found anywhere. And obviously they do control territory. And how do you know that most rebel-held districts don't have rebels in the streets? How are they rebel-held than? EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I am thinking about it and first thing that comes to mind about controlling that large an area is - checkpoints. Also, its not a territory of 4 million but rather 2 since its obvious at least around half the city is rebel-held not the whole city. EkoGraf (talk) 14:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I looked over the article and it didn't say percents because the article has been updated since the version in which the same commander that said south and east arcs also said it represented 35-40 percent. I am adding the original version of the article as a source [11] and I am quoting the article for you. Since the government's assault this weekend, the rebels "already repelled three offensives" against Salaheddin, Oqaidi said, adding that they control "between 35 to 40 per cent of Aleppo." Again note same commander who said in the same interview they controlled the south and east. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The general is all the way in Turkey, while the commander is in Aleppo itself. More sources have cited the 50 percent figure, and according to SOHR and other news media reports on in which districts the fighting is taking place it shows an area that is only half of Aleppo. Also, please stop ignoring and trying to remove quotes from Aleppo battlefield commanders who are in the field who have been giving lower figures (like the 35-45 percent one, than now the 50 percent one) and trying to push higher figures which are unrealistic given what SOHR, the BBC and others have reported on where the fighting is taking place and their maps. As far as the Kurds and the SLA goes, they have only claimed (which we phrased in the infobox) to control those districts, but that has not been independently confirmed. And again, comments from generals in Turkey have been proven to be highly unreliable in the past. Remember the top FSA commander's statement back in February that the Syrian Army was going to collapse in 1 month? I think that says it all. Also, the commander from two days ago that stated they controlled 35-45 percent was the TOP Aleppo commander, Abdel Jabbar al-Oqaidi, and you still tried to remove his statement. Please, I understand you are against Assad (which you have shown in your comments) and wish for him to be gone as soon as possible, but to edit on Wikipedia our personal views need to be kept aside so we can add information that is objective for our readers. EkoGraf (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

AN/I

See here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the reason behind your revert? Do you believe it is right to confirm Nusrah as a combatant but not ahrar alsham? Kavas (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth is I would like to get rid of the alleged, but only if we get rid of the alleged for iran and hezbollah. I am nearly at the limit for the 3rv on this issue - so you can remove the alleged for all them please. Its just that another user is forcing the hezbollah part to say alleged until they admit it- so likewise that logic was applied to the rest of them. Nusra admitted its role. Sopher99 (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I asked a question in the Talk page of the timeline of the Syrian civil war

As you are the one who reversed my edit, I believe you have to give your opinion on this matter, because it clearly violates the NPOV rule. Talk:Timeline_of_the_2011–2012_Syrian_Civil_War_(from_May_2012)#LCC_as_source.--Andres arg (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

SOHR rebel toll

An editor has expressed reservation at my attempt to combine SOHR-only day-to-day numbers of rebels killed into a unified death toll and wants to remove the full toll on the basis that it is OR if the full toll itself was not cited. I have stated that I agree with him if the figures were coming from different organisations, but in this case it is coming from one organisation with its own constant methodology. I have proposed that the toll be removed temporarily until the discussion is resolved and we include other editors. Your opinion would be appreciated. Discussion here Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 12:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Responded to your proposition on the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian CW

Thanks for your notification about my wrong movement. I'm new in Wiki! Is possible to correct my mistake @Sopher99? Irvi Hyka (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

New Aleppo section

First, please refrain from using words like BS. For the last four days the rebels haven't captured any new districts. They have also been repelled from the TV station district, military airport and even parts of Salahadine (per the rebels themselves). If you didn't like the title I put before, than I have put a new one. Stalemate. When there are changes on the ground we will open up a new phase/section. EkoGraf (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

BS stands for Boorish Silliness and you dam well know it. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Boorish Silliness is certainly correct about your remark - for we all know what BS stands for. And it should not have a place on this site. 81.141.87.238 (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo

I noticed that you often removed the analysis of journalists about the mood of the fighters. I believe that it is an important point of view as it make the page more human and that it help us to paint the situation in a full picture. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Its not a full picture of anything, and the goal is not to make the page human, but neutral. Sopher99 (talk) 21:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

You are again removing useful information. These stats provide additional information which helps to understand the picture. With that information, we know that a lot of fighters are coming from Al Bab, we understand the demography of the rebels better. By the way, you made around 10 revets on this page alone in one day, so it is time to talk a little before removing my sourced content everytime. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

US support and 10 prisoners killed

The source says and I quote Obama's order, approved earlier this year and known as an intelligence "finding," broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad. The CIA is a purely military intelligence and even possibly arms and money providing agency. What you are constantly pointing to, the humanitarian and non-lethal aid, is the function of just one agency, the State department. You are ignoring the function of the CIA. As for the 10 prisoners. It is not up to us to speculate what those loose links were. They were still part of the overall opposition movement. Every military has a civilian component that provides some basic services for the troops but they are still regarded part of the military. For instance the Iraq war, the US military on its fatalities list has the names of a dozen civilians that were part of the Army's civilian department. EkoGraf (talk) 14:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

How is helping them organize, or get other countries to gather weapons humanitarian and non-lethal military aid? The aid you are talking about is the duty exclusivly of one agency, the State department (per source), but the CIA has also been engaged to support them. You going to tell me the CIA is there to provide humanitarian aid? If you re-add it again I won't remove it due to the 3RR rule. But that will not be the end of the discussion because what you are putting are the actions of just one US agency, not all of them. EkoGraf (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

About the Kurds now. I never wrote the Kurds were the YPG, since it was not specified what group it was, what I did say which was previously reported to be held by a Kurdish militia sympathetic to the opposition. Did you see me saying anywhere in that sentence that it was the YPG. And my basis for them being sympathetic to the opposition is not original research since the source says it itself. Quoting it for you. Hachem al-Haji, one activist in Aleppo, said the rebels moved into the area because local Kurds, after initially supporting the government along with other minorities, are growing more supportive of the opposition And the whole point of that new york times article was the confliction about the reported loyalty of those Kurds, which you are trying to remove from the sentence. Also, fair warning, if you revert me again that would be a violation of 3RR. EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The previous report on the YPG capturing the two northern districts was talking about the neighborhoods in which the Kurds are the dominant ones. And this source now said the action took place in the northern part of the city where the Kurds are the dominant ones. What does that tell you? How many Kurdish districts in the north of the city with militias in them do you think there are??? In any case, I didn't violate the OR rule because I never said it was the YPG. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to quote the source directly, and by the way i only reverted that paragraph 2 times, not 3. Sopher99 (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, read what I said on your talk page. I never said that you reverted 3 times. I said that if you revert AGAIN it will be a 3rd time and violation of 3RR. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The 3RR is broken when you revert 4 times within 24 hours. Check it yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Rewording more for sake of compromise to more fit the source narative. The way you quoted it can be considered a violation of the copy-paste rule due to the wording being too similar to the source, it needs to be in your own words. Hope the new wording is satisfying. EkoGraf (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds

First, your source can't even be compared on the reliability scale with the new york times. Second, as a compromise I only cited a local kurdish militia as being on the side of the government I did not name them per our consensus of a few days ago. Also, it has been more than 12 hours, per your request, and it is evident that Salahadine has fallen. So please, do not remove sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not say they were not reliable, I said that they can't be compared to the new york times, in the sense the times is by all standards more reliable. Also, your comment that the times may have made a mistake and was vague is frankly your personal POV and possibly OR. If a source is reliable we include the info. So please stop removing information cited by reliable sources based on your personal POV that there is an off-chance the information is wrong for which you haven't provided evidence (on which Wikipedia inssists). EkoGraf (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

LA times

Ok this time it wasn't me hehehe, I have given up on fighting you. This time it's Daniel who re-added the warning about the news not being reported by others. So edit war with him a little. I added the updated guardian live blog by the way, not 18 hours old mind you. Hehe. EkoGraf (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus Christ what is up this guy's obsession. Sopher99 (talk) 18:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehehe. EkoGraf (talk) 18:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Al Jazeera and AFP sources never said the FSA recaptured the district, they only said fighting was ongoing, and in parts of the district not the whole one. And the Army is not the only one that claimed the capture, multiple FSA commanders and frontline rebel grunts themselves confirmed the capture. So please stick to the sources, I get it you like the possibility of the military loosing Salahadine again but you need to keep a level of neutrality. You are ignoring your own request on the 12 hour mark. Please stick to it or I will not be able to trust you to honor future compromises. For now only the LA times relayed the supposed rebel recapture. And the Al Jazeera report on continuing fighting had been first published this afternoon. Except the LA times, no other reports of the recapture. EkoGraf (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian

Yup. ;) EkoGraf (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Separate article

I'm not sure. Maybe. Fearing possible unnecessary content forking. Ask EllsworthSK too. If he also agrees on a separate article ok than. We will move the material to there. Let me know what he says. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Daily mail

Sopher...you are aware you just reverted my own deletion of the Daily mail source, on the argument it needs to be deleted...right? Hahaha. EkoGraf (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC) =( fixed it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

Sopher I'm trying to fix the prose of the article. Where is the problem? --Wustenfuchs 21:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You deleted the prison incidents. Sopher99 (talk) 21:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did, because I had in plan to add all of those things in a special section... we can call it "Atrocities" or whatever. Now I'm trying to stick to the battle in order to improve the quality of the article. --Wustenfuchs 21:14, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't need a section for that. Just stick to the timeline. I7laseral (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protect

Can you get these pages (Damascus battle, timeline ect) protected. Too much vandalism, particularly by ips. I7laseral (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo page already protected. Why not the others? I7laseral (talk) 21:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

You'll need to consult an admin for that. I only helped get an admin to protect the page, I didn't add the template myself. Sopher99 (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Jazeera claim

I'm ok with mentioning the claim for now. However, what happened to your 12-hour time limit for confirmation? So don't remove the information from the infobox until than. Second, the LA times report was found to be incorrect at the time so do not reinsert incorrect information again please. Third, my personal observation, that same Al Jazeera reporter said or better yet confirmed on August 8 that the rebels controlled the whole of Salahadine, while just an hour later an FSA commander confirmed they had lost 5 streets and by the next morning they retreated from it. Also, except Al Jazeera I don't see anybody else reporting on the news for now so I have reservations that it isn't maybe a new LA times incident. So wait please until full confirmation on such a big of a story. What we do know is that since the government capture of Salahadine roaming bands of rebels have been conducting hit-and-run attacks against the military in small pockets of resistance. And that source didn't say they stopped them from capturing Salahadine, he said they stopped them from capturing a new area of Salahadine. So as far as we know he could have ment an area where one of those guerrilla groups might be. And he didn't say he was in Salahadine itself but in the area of Salahadine, Saif al-Dawla and Shaar. So please wait until there is more confirmation. EkoGraf (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

-If they tried to take over a new area of salaheddine, then we can't write in the infobox that salaheddine was retaken

- This is different than the LA times blog. LA times did not go to salaheddine themselves, AL jazeera did.

- It has been 12 hours and 30 minutes since the story was posted.

Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Can we compromise at Syrian army captures "most of" ? Sopher99 (talk) 13:54, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

And I'm telling you, nobody else has reported on the story and that guy wasn't in Salahadine itself but rather in that general area, and his reliability is not that great considering his 8 August claim which was proven to be false (when he indeed did say that he was in the district itself). And yes we can compromise on that, I was just starting to propose that same thing when you edit conflicted me. EkoGraf (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Changed the fall thing. EkoGraf (talk) 14:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem. EkoGraf (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Maher

What are you vandalizing the Maher page? Are you just following me? --DanielUmel (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

No- I read the guardian update, and I wasn't vandalizing anything. Sopher99 (talk)

SLA strength

Ya, I didn't insert that one, was someone else. Was thinking of removing it alltogether due to the fact their claimed number of 32,000 was almost the same size as the whole of the FSA and we know for a fact that the SLA is much smaller. Thanks for removing it instead of me. EkoGraf (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Your welcome. Sopher99 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Size.

Will do. I've been looking at the history page, and it currently stands about about 180kB, but before all this happened it was at 210kB, so about 30kB is missing at the moment. Still no idea *what* it was, but I'll continue looking. Jeancey (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian districts

The way you wrote it its almost a copy-paste of the source. That is not allowed per wikipedia policy. And excluding the fact they claimed the military recaptured the three districts, but leaving the mention the rebels captured them before, is non-neutral. Writing the paragraph in a more compromising way. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Move

Don't move a page I just created without any notice nor talk.

And I am still bringing new information --DanielUmel (talk) 09:54, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"A counter-insurgency or counterinsurgency[1] (COIN) operation involves actions taken by the recognized government of a nation to contain or quell an insurgency taken up against it"

And you have no right from moving a page like that, without discussing. By the way you have filled a speedy deletion, so you can't ask the page to be renamed since you ask for its deletion --DanielUmel (talk) 11:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

You can't move a page without talk it is opposed --DanielUmel (talk) 11:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Our content-forking friend

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Thought you might be interested, as you were the one who originally warned User:Oxycut to knock it off. -Kudzu1 (talk) 02:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Important

Here is a page that can make you learn something

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters --DanielUmel (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Important

Here is a page that can make you learn something

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuters --DanielUmel (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Re: Syria

WP:SNOW isn't policy, and it's not by any means a licence to blank entire discussions outright. The "Kurds" section is a bit more borderline. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence in Lede

I'm removing the sentence you just added, mainly because the info is covered later in the article, and adding it to the lede is just going to start another dispute. I think simply stating that both have been accused of HR violations is neutral enough, and the actual violations involved and described well enough later in the article. Jeancey (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Reporting

1. "Give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated."
2. "Cover an event or subject as a journalist or a reporter."

--Wüstenfuchs 20:18, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

ChronicalUsual

Wow. Very keen eye! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice job helping to catch the main sock master! People like you keep Wikipedia awesome. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks :) Sopher99 (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Timeline of the Syrian civil war (May–August 2012), is considered bad practice, even if you meant it well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You removed two comments by DanielUmel Safety Cap (talk) 20:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are also accused in engagement in edit warring and your edits in several articles prove this fact. If you continue your behaviour, an administrator will be informed about your actions.--Zyzzzzzy (talk) 13:48, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Page Curation newsletter

Hey Sopher99. I'm dropping you a note because you used to (or still do!) patrol new pages. This is just to let you know that we've deployed and developed Page Curation, which augments and supersedes Special:NewPages - there are a lot of interesting new features :). There's some help documentation here if you want to familiarise yourself with the system and start using it. If you find any bugs or have requests for new features, let us know here. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 12:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Voice of Russia

Ok, I'll try to prevent the edit warring. You do have sources claiming it's unreliable, it's not your own oppinion, right? --Wüstenfuchs 13:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

24 September 2012

There is a discussion here that involves you. Thank you. --Wüstenfuchs 13:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

SOHR

I know you and I differ on a lot of points, but we both agree SOHR reports need to be used so we have a more precise location of clashes in the city, a precise number of people that have been killed in the fighting and what the overall situation is. A user has tried to remove all SOHR Facebook sources and is arguing for their removal. I have argued against it. Your position on the issue at the talk page would be appreciated. EkoGraf (talk) 16:08, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)

Please see the Battle of Damascus (2012). the battle is clearly ongoing as numerous sources make clear (see the article and the article talk page for the sources), but User:EkoGraf is insisting the battle is over, simply because the regime claimed it was over. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I am not insisting. Multiple sources have been provided, including a few that are not coming from the regime. And it is not just me, several other editors have also edited the article in a way that the battle is over. The article Battle of Damascus (2012) covers the rebel offensive back from July, which ultimately failed to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus. That was a highly notable event which deserved its own article. The rebel operational name of the battle Damascus volcano was also agreed to after a discussion on the talk page. We already have an article on the current fighting, it is called Rif Dimashq offensive (which covers fighting in and around Damascus). If we try and reopen an old battle than it would be simply content forking, which is not according to Wikipedia rules. It has already been pointed out in the result section of the Battle of Damascus (2012) that the fighting later continued with the offensive. Your sources point to rebel attacks and clashes, which were happening long before the July Battle of Damascus, nothing in the sources about further rebel attempts to capture the metropolitan area of Damascus, which was the stated aim of their operation Damascus Volcano from July. EkoGraf (talk) 13:54, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Maarrat al-Nu'man

Just created it Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

the user daniel umel has returned and made a new account

the blocked user daniel umel has made a new account called User:Dimitrish81 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 17:51, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

"Friday of..."

Please do not add "Friday of..." names to dates in Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012). They do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. 203.9.185.137 (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 02:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:51, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:04, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Do you know where exactly the Christian neighborhoods are? FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Financial times

The info is in there, I wrote almost word-for-word, because I knew you insist on us being precise per the sources in these kinds of situations. The quote is One Aleppo resident reported that the regime was fighting fiercely to take the neighbourhoods back however, and there were indications that the rebels had been forced out of some areas by late afternoon. I just checked the article again and that whole paragraph is still in there, so I don't know why you didn't see it. If you don't believe me than google the whole sentence I just quoted for you and you will get the article. As for reliability, the Financial Times is a highly reliable sources. Quoting the Wikipedia article on the newspaper The Financial Times (FT) is one of the world's leading business news and information organisations. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Please stop removing info that is properly sourced. The part you removed there were early indications that the rebels had been forced back out of some areas by late afternoon is word-for-word from the source. EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Hardly anyone can access that info and its very vague. I'll stop removing the FT source but I am removing that part of the summary. Sopher99 (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

If you remove the summary there is no point in the source than. Please stop trying to remove info just because you obviously don't like it. The information is properly sourced and fulfills Wikipedia verifibility.

P.S. I checked the anonymous user's claim. He was right. Google him, Joshua Landis indeed is a political analyst who is famous for running a blog on Syria (his blog is mentioned in the Guardian source). There is a Wikipedia entry about him. His google image fits the one in the Guardian source. He is not a reporter on the ground and in fact the Guardian source doesn't even describe him as such. EkoGraf (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know who Joshua Landis is. I have been hearing non stop about his non-interventionalism for 6 months. Sopher99 (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well I didn't know who he was, I don't track un-official blogs, which can be unreliable. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Syria

No problem... Still, I don't consider it problematic. --Wüstenfuchs 20:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

And also to make a note... "Syrian army" should be writen only once in one paragraph... if mentioned after it should be writen "the army", why would one constantly write "Syrian army"... the text would sound bad. --Wüstenfuchs 20:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it assumes familiarity (even if its obvious). Imagine if a wikipedia paragraph said "President Obama was very concerned about ... the president went on to declare... the president added... the president decided to take action regarding..." It would make it sound like hes your president even though hes not, and even though you know hes not. In the same way for wikipedia only we repeat "Syrian" in Syrian army, as to not make it sound like its the readers army, even if they know its not. Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some insight into this discussion?

The debate at the Talk:Syrian civil war#Third row for Kurds section is getting heated. Can you shine some light on this issue?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:35, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Avinza, a sock?

It looks like this guy is new: [12]. Rather suspicious don't you think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:57, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Damascus (November 2012).
Message added 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on this FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria position

Since you inquired about my views on Syria, I'll give you this.

I have never found it defensible to be “pro-Bashar”, since I don’t follow men, but ideologies.

Syria needs 100% secularism, and foreign backing by religious fundamentalists on either side is completely at odds with this.

A strong secular unity group free of Muslim Brotherhood and Ba’ath members is needed if Syria is to continue existing. FunkMonk (talk) 10:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Which is strange because Tunisia is now 50% Moderate Islamist, Egypt is now 50% moderate islamist, Libya is now 17% moderate islamist, and Iran is 100% Radical salfist, and yet all 4 countries are doing better than Syria both now AND pre-civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 13:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

First, what is a "moderate Islamist"? Second, by all accounts, the "revolutionised" countries (Iran is not "Salafist", or was hit by these uprisings, and has oil) are all worse off now than they were before. Compare them to themselves, not to Syria, anything else is disingenuous. Syria has always been a sanctioned pariah state due to its problems with Israel (Libya was too, but had oil), the others (Tunisia, Egypt) are tourist magnets, which accounts for their economy. On top of this, those countries are 100% Sunni, apart from Egypt, yet I wouldn't say the Copts are having a good time. FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Anyhow, the point of a viable government being free of the MB is because, like the Ba'ath, they are too divisive. They have committed atrocities against minorities in the past. Having former warlords in the government will just turn Syria into what Lebanon is today, which is basically shit. FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

A moderate Islamist is anyone Islamist willing to call himself a moderate. For example, the freedom and Justice party of Egypt are passive, particularly against the Al nour party, which self-describes themselves as radical. Moderate islamists don't really act on their beliefs (for example Egypt has yet to enact Islamist laws other than banning porn sites. They even betrayed their 50 year creed of fighting Israel.)

All 4 countries have higher GDPs (economies), GDP per capital (quality of lfe) and Human Development Indexes (Education and Health) than Syria now and before the conflict. Syria was the second poorest country next to Yemen in the middle east. Now it is the poorest country in the Middle east.

Perhaps the most pathetic thing is that Iraq had a higher quality of life and economy than Syria.

But to adress the Elephant in the room.

The Assad forces killed over 40,000 people (of which 7,500 were rebel fighters.)

Congratulations. Assad killed more arabs than Israel killed in the Past 30 years, and exceeded the death toll of the 1972 September massacre of 30,000 Palestinians by Jordan (great resistance by the way from a secular country).

If Jordan of all countries is going to commit a mass genocide of Palestinians on its territory, don't even get me started on Syria. (though you already did). Sopher99 (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Nope. "Moderates" are whoever the West thinks they can control. And yet again, you can't compare Syria (a country with no proper resources and which is under sanctions) with countries that were either huge tourist resorts for westerners or had oil, that's disingenuous. As for the tired "Assad killed 40.000 people" argument, nope, fighters and civilians have been killed on both sides, at least a third killed are government soldiers, and "rebel" fighters have often been counted as "civilians". So that is disingenuous, not to say false, too. But well, congratulations with falling in the Qatari propaganda-trap head first, and white-knighting on behalf of Gulf-controlled forces instead of the few moderate secularists there are around to save Syria. Neither Bashar or the MB are good for Syria. Tipping the balance in favour of either is a huge mistake. But right now, westerners like yourself have been blinded into supporting crazies keen on beheading everyone who doesn't support them. FunkMonk (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

FAZ account in Houla

Hi Sopher, I've added back the FAZ/BM account to the lead, where it now occupies less than a sentence. Narratives from either the Syrian regime or opposition are by definition non-neutral; coverage from respectable sources like the FAZ, BBC, etc. deserve greater respect, whichever account they may support. Also, I respect your contributions to Syria-related material, and your personal commitments in the ongoing struggle; nevertheless I think you can edit wikipedia neutrally without betraying your principles as you see them. -Darouet (talk) 19:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

SOHR citations

Please stop adding citations to the main page of SOHR as you did here [13]. The Observatory makes many posts per day, so it is imperative that you link to the exact post that you found the information in—otherwise it is lacking in verifiability.

I have commented out the instances of its use in the article as it stands; you can still see them on the edit page, but not the actual article. The next time you add such a bare citation again, however, I will revert it on sight. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

al-Khatib

I replaced his view on women equality in his policial views section... I made a wrong edit summary in the article though. --Wüstenfuchs 22:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thats okay. Lets keep the lede the way it is now. Sopher99 (talk) 22:56, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

al-Khatib - religious views

I thought it might be easier to discuss this here. Although the "Political and religious views" section refers to critiques of Israel, there's a difference between disagreeing with Israel and it's policies, and posting articles attacking Jews as a people. Similarly, although he may have said he likes Qaradawi, there's a difference between saying you listen to a guy who might have made comments perceived as sectarian and making those comments yourself. Considering the fact that the sectarian section currently only states how anti-sectarian he is, in the interest of balance, I feel it would be best for the article to make mention of his previous sectarian comments.

MrPenguin20 (talk) 04:31, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to sectarianism within Syria - but whatever, i'll just combine the sections. Sopher99 (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Box

It wasn't a problem at all. I like to make things orderly and more simple. --Wüstenfuchs 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012

Please comment about this user: WP:ANI#User:Deonis 2012.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Title change?

Can you comment on this? Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive#New name -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edits

No, we will not model this page as you say.

First of all, stop removing infos you simply don't like. Informations like, who's their ally, are realy relevant, and It's not you to judge what is necessary, and what is not. You are not the only editor of this article and moreover, you are violating WP:OWN. --Wüstenfuchs 20:00, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Its not "What I don't like". You should stop assuming that especially after I gave you the reasoning in the edit summaries. The allies and enemies are not standard for this class of articles. 209.243.38.11 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Oops, edited while logged out. Happens occasionally when I reopen my browser between edits. Sopher99 (talk) 20:03, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what is described in the WP:I don't like it. You "good" explanations were like "it's not needed", "everytthing could be exaggerated" etc. That is a very bad argument. And what is this, "the allies and enemies are not standard for this class of articles", really? According to whom? You? I would like to know what makes you think that way? It's bad for al-Tawhid's reputation? That's not a good argument. There is place for allies and enemies in this article, especially because it's made a space for this category in the infobox, so please... --Wüstenfuchs 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, the criteria of which I am talking about refers to undue weight. Second if you are so adamant about putting in allies and enemies, and ideology, put it in a paragraph in a section, not infobox. No tawheeed leaders attending the meeting so I removed that factually inaccurate sentence. 1 or two battalion leaders attended. Not the leaders of the brigade. Sopher99 (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

It's not undue wieght at all. What is undue weight here? Their alliance with 10,000 people-sized unit that is all over the media? Leave it out. And, no, I'll add this in the infobox, as there is a place for it in the infobox. I can add this to both places if I wish. Second, yes, leaders, nobody said their names, but leaders of battalios are, nevertheless, leaders within the brigade, or I'm wrong. Salehi perhaps didn't attended, but that doesn't mean anything. However, you'll need a source that he didn't participated in the first announcment, he participated in the second one which makes his pariticipation in the first announcmet logical. --Wüstenfuchs 20:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no place for it in the infobox, I keep telling you. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Really? Then how it was possible for me to add those infos in the infobox in the first place? Tell you whant, I ain't hypocritical and I will not make an exemption for the al-Tawhid Brigade. You made no good argument so far. --Wüstenfuchs 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

What is so diffuclt to understand here. Al Tahweed is a military brigade. A military combatant. Not a gang, not a cartel, not a syndicate. Sopher99 (talk) 20:27, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This is what we are supposed to use. {{Infobox military unit Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No Sopher, no... They aren't a military unit, they are rebels. Do you understand the difference between a rebel and a soldier? The Syrian civil war is about that. --Wüstenfuchs 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

They are a brigade of the Free Syrian Army. They are Insurgents. Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

They are... but the difference between an army and them is that they have an ideology, they are volunteers, on the other hand a member of some army/military can be a fascist or a communist but he is obligated to serve in it, that is, he is a conscript. This is a difference between military and rebels, the latter one are volunteers with an ideology. --Wüstenfuchs 20:35, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, are you joking? FSA are rebels not a military... --Wüstenfuchs 06:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

To the contrary, they are a military and they are recognized by 8 European and Arab states because The SNC recognizes them as Syria's legitimate army. Sopher99 (talk) 06:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, what is this? It's not so. They recognied the SNC as a legitimate representative or sole l. r. if you wish. They weren't even recognised as a government for god's sake. Find me a one source where any country recognised them as an army of Syrian people. That's simply laughable. If those 8 countries recognised them, what about other 180 countries? They are irrelevant? Logics Sopher, logics. The FSA is nothing but an armed group. --Wüstenfuchs 06:13, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I think I can sum up my response in two links.

Izz ad-Din al-Qassam Brigades

Peshmerga

Granted Ideology is there. Okay, we keep that. But allies and enemies we don't Sopher99 (talk) 06:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Laughable Sopher, those aren't even WP:GA. Nevertheless, the Peshmerga is a military of the Kurdish autonomous region in Iraq, so... And those Palestinians are a wing of a political party, so... again, the same thing. --Wüstenfuchs 06:19, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Their military wing is not recognized. Peshmerga is not recognized at all, nor is their Kurdish autonomous region recognized. My point is that allies and enemies on the infobox are arbitary and pointless, and is a clear attempt by you to say "look, they love al nusra!", why not say they love every other brigade. Sopher99 (talk) 06:23, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Hamas' military wing is recognised by Hamas, and Hamas is a recognised political party in the State of Palestine, which is an observer member of the UN. Second, Kurdish autonomous region is in Iraq, recognised by Iraq. So you remove this info as you don't like it? I told you earlier, such things aren't allowed at WP. --Wüstenfuchs 06:27, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I can have fun making chains too. The FSA is recognized by the SNC, which is recognized by all of Europe, America, and the arab league (save Algeira and Lebanon) as at the very minimum a legitimate party in the conflict. Your particular contributions to that article are arbitrary and pointless (ie putting info that does not belong on that page), so obviously no editor would logicaly like them. Its late at night where I live, I'm ceasing this conversation until tomorrow. You can go talk to Guest on the talkpage. Sopher99 (talk)

Laughable, again. They are recognised as a representative, while the SoP is recognised as a country. --Wüstenfuchs 06:39, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

SOP is recognized by most countries, and only a portion recognize it as a political party, The EU states and America recognize it as a "terrorist" group. Sopher99 (talk) 13:09, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the case, it doesn't mean that they don't have allies, and it doesn't mean they do, and it doesn't mean you can't add them. The article about them is not WP:GA and can not serve as a model for future articles. --Wüstenfuchs 13:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from September 2012)

Likewise youeve had a history of warring on syria/arabspring articles (and could be headung to a topic ban), you dont OWN the articles and your IDONTLIKE it definition (as i , ironically, said before reading this) is not appropriate. You dont determine thedefinition of "timeline" and the right of quotes vs. LCC gospel facts cited here.(Lihaas (talk) 19:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Watch this [14]. The rebels have apparently surrounded the academy in Aleppo, but I can't quite decipher their exact locations. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Deonis

I've reported him to Commons AN. Please comment here: [15]. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

POV

You have got plenty of pov warnings on the Syria issue and again are heading towards a tpic ban. Minor arming? Where do you suspect the heavy weapons and artillery come from. There is not shortage of sources saying who did th e"minor warming"

Futher this deceptive edit summary doesnt deal with the content. There is NO mention fo minor or major aming its simply stating what is cited as fact on the main civil war apage and you are removing your own edit. No problems adding imilitary siege and that was my removal ad my bad

this is directly relevant as in the source listed, pelase see that and not your own synthesis(Lihaas (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

Where is the assertion of "local activists" in the source"? This is ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!!(Lihaas (talk) 21:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)).

December 2012

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you [16]. -- Director (talk) 01:30, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Re: Palestinians

Interesting, but a meaningless statistic as far as I'm concerned. How many were killed by the rebels? How many were killed by govt troops? How many were killed as non-participatory bystanders? Do you have any other sources other than the lone one used in the article? Because that dates back to the Battle of Damascus (2012) this past summer (where I've now added them) and really can't be considered current enough for the main infobox. Their participation is A) largely under the auspices of the FSA, B) geographically restricted to a single city, and C) dated to a half year ago. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

SOHR rebel fatality number

Since SOHR gave a definite figure of rebels killed in the conflict for the first time last month, 10,000 by November 22, I think we should now remove all those different figures from different sources and only present this overall number in the casualties article. What do you think? One of the reasons I am thinking of doing this is because we have no idea how long this war will continue, it may well continue for at least another year, thus the casualties article would become too large. And the only reason we were presenting all those different figures was because we were trying to sum up a definite number of rebels killed, since nobody else was providing the figure. Of course we will leave the day-by-day figures in table format after November 22, the day the 10,000 figure was released. We would also make a note of how many, of those 10,000, have been confirmed as ether foreign jihadists or Kurdish PYD. EkoGraf (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I saw you told Lothar that 750 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict began. Do you have a source on this? I would very much like to read it and see if I can use it. EkoGraf (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Homs

Again you haven't provided a source for Hamidiya. The independent was clear in stating its just Old City which is around maybe 10 percent of Homs, which I wouldn't call main part. Per the Wikipedia article about Old Homs itself its an area no larger than 1.2 square kilometres. A siege of the city as a whole no longer exists. Still, I am putting neutral wording for the sake of compromise, by not calling it a Syrian Army victory outright, but stating they have recaptured most of the city, except Old Homs. If you can find sources that confirm the rebels are still holding other areas that would be another matter. But for now even SOHR has not reported any major street fighting or shelling in Homs city for the last month and a half, at best only sporadic fire, and those only in the Old Homs area. P.S. I have reorganised the casualties article per our talk. EkoGraf (talk) 17:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

First, I don't see Old City marked on that map. Second, read [17]. Old city is only the neighborhoods of Bab Tadmur, Bab al-Dreib and Bab Hud, an area of 1.2 square kilometres. That is certainly not a quarter of the city. Khaldiyah, Bayada and Karm al-Zaytoun that you keep talking about, and which ARE marked on the map, are NOT part of the Old City. If you need proof of this, I again refer you to the Wikipedia article on Homs's old city and the city's overall subdivisions. Old city is wedged in between all of those large ones (Khaldiyah, Bayada and Karm al-Zaytoun) and its a separate district/area. A siege of the city no longer exists, the rest of the city is calm and the only clashes are the occasional rocket fire from both sides on the edges of Old City. Even SOHR is not reporting any clashes anymore. EkoGraf (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Tawhid Brigade

Insted of contanious reverting, you should use the talk page, so we can avoid edit warring. --Wüstenfuchs 16:40, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Tawhid

Please, revert your edit, otheriwise you could be reported. I suggested you that we resolve this at the talk page, but you constantly add your own version of the article... few seconds or days won't kill anyone.

--Wüstenfuchs 14:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I only count 2 reverts, and 1 edit of me adding a commander. Sopher99 (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Two reverts are also edit warring as you refused to solve the problem at the talk page. "An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." (Wikipedia:Edit warring) --Wüstenfuchs 15:00, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be "tic-tac" report, as after 13 strait days of guest's revision, you changed it on the 23 Dec despite the talkpage's discussion. Sopher99 (talk) 15:04, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The disucssion ended on 8 December (see it yourself), then you started to repeat the same problems we resolved. --Wüstenfuchs 15:11, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to add the other FSA brigades in as allies. Since they are "loose" in the FSA. Sopher99 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

It is understandible they are allies, as they are part of the same group, no matter of its quality in organisation. When they join they agree to cooperate, no matter what ideology they have. --Wüstenfuchs 15:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

If it is understandable they are part of the FSA, then ideology does not belong in the box, especially when they have no official ideology. I added back the allies, with an expansion. Sopher99 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qaeda also doesn't have an official ideology. Major sources describe it as jihadist. And why ideology doesn't belogs to the infobox? Is there explanation at the FSA article that FSA is islamist formation? --Wüstenfuchs 15:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Maraat al-Numan

I tired removing the info about the alleged Syrian army capture of the city at the Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man article, since there's no consensus here (Talk:Syrian civil war#Maarrat al-Nu'man) to change the status. However, Genoj' keeps reverting me. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war‎

I assume you are aware of WP:3RR Darkness Shines (talk) 17:11, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I am, but I was reverting vandalism. An IP placing info thats not in source , like the POV pushing "Mainstream media" is vandalism. Sopher99 (talk) 17:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

This diff does not show that the IP is doing this out of good faith. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sopher99&diff=527713844&oldid=527632747 Sopher99 (talk) 17:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Those edits are not vandalism, just POV pushing, no exemptions from that The IP has now hit 4RR so best to just report it to the EW board. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The users on the noticeboard will think I am making a tic tac report, as in they will say "why shouldn't we ban you too". It would be best if you could report the ip. Also please revert his revert to your edit. Sopher99 (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Already reported, also do not ask editors to male edits or reverts for you, it is a violation of WP:CANVASS. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. But do I have the right of way though to revert the POV addition he made, or will it still count as edit warring? Sopher99 (talk) 17:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

No, or you will also have violated 3RR. You are already on 3, you are not the only editor of that page, it will be corrected soon enough. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Certain IPs

In case you hadn't noticed already, these Ukrainian 92.113... are Deonis 2012, who seems to be incapable of understanding what an indefinite block means. If you see them adding anything, just revert them on sight. The folks at SPI can't do much since the IPs are dynamic, but if they get too annoying, we can apply for protection on pages that he frequents. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring

Editing controversial topic areas can be very frustrating. However, you should be careful not to be sucked into an edit war even if you consider your edits completely justified. Use AN3 sooner, or see what other editors think first. After all, if your edits reflect the consensus position, someone else will support your position sooner or later. Ankh.Morpork 20:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So few editors come to it. Is there a place I can go to to request a user to revert the reverts MalesKnowBest does despite the discussion? Sopher99 (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Opening a thread on the talk page discussing the edit in question is the best way to draw attention to it. Ankh.Morpork 21:43, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Any comment on this?

I mentioned something to Lothar that I would like your opinion on as well :) You can find it here. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Called it. :) I still think he is a sock of someone. CU could have moved for all we know. But at the very least, he is NOT acting like a two week old account, and he kept using "we" in reference to past discussions. He said something along the lines of "we were told then to knock it off." Just my opinion though. He'll be back when the ban expires in 3 days or so. We'll have to see what happens then. Jeancey (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo (2012)

You really need to be more careful with the reverts, your on three or four in the last 24hrs. Do not revert again today please. Darkness Shines (talk) 23:55, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links

While you've been busy sparring with him on the talkpage, 93.135 (Deonis, I suspect) has been busy adding and re-adding SANA and now SyriaNews to the external links section while removing AJE. I'm at 3RR already there; it'd be good if you could take care of that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

He has to be reported. I borderline broke the three revert rule when I reverted him even after changing the al jazeera source. The admins on the edit war notification page will think I am "tic-tac"ing him. So I will not take the chances. I did warn him on his talkpage though. Sopher99 (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not sure if WP:AN/EW will be able to do anything, seeing as how the warning was only given after the last revert. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:49, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

If you have the ip addresses of the 93s 135s it can confirm ip sock puppetry. If he is confirmed to be deonis his reverts can be freely reverted Sopher99 (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AN/EW Sopher99 (talk) 23:39, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Hi, I'm Lgcsmasamiya. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, William S. Halstead, and have un-reviewed it again. If you've got any questions, please ask me on my talk page. Thanks, Lgcsmasamiya —Preceding undated comment added 22:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Please don't edit war. The map has serious OR problems, as shown by the edit war on the map itself. It is not in good enough shape to be included in the article. Once the map is fixed, we can put it back. — kwami (talk) 02:56, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo dispute

The description of ground to a halt refers to the same offensive in which the bases were took. You can not just say they took the bases but leave out the fact the opposition offensive stalled after that. You are reporting only half the story than. If you want to remove the mention that their advance ground to a halt than you would need to remove the mention of the capture of the bases because all of it happened in the context of the same offensive. I agree there are two sides in the battle and that not all advances by either sides are reported. However, here we are talking about a more notable advance than the lesser ones which deserves its own mention. Also, here we are talking in the context of one same rebel offensive which started, they advanced, they took the bases, they attempted to advance further, but were halted. Everything is properly sourced and everything is exactly per the source. P.S. I sumarrized the refs on the casualties because frankly its not possible to know anymore how many rebels, soldiers and civilians exactly died, so this is a best rounded estimate based on all of SOHR's reports. EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"After the rebels’ initial successes in early December, the war within the city has ground to a halt." Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok, fine with me. EkoGraf (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who

This be? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

An account created in September. Hes not ChronicalUsual or MAB otherwise he would have shown up on the checkuser. I don't see any similar editing style either. I think its just a standard editor. Sopher99 (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war

I'm just wondering, how do you judge which sources are reliable and which are not? Your persisting removal of my additions to the article shows that you must have some criteria. Could you please state them clearly? Emesik (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Globalresearch is not a reliable site for information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_1#globalresearch.ca

Second of all this is about the Syrian civil war, not about Turkey-Syria. Undue weight. Sopher99 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This particular piece of information comes not only from Globalresearch (which still seems to be less biased than the Syrian sources you used to cite on daily basis), but it originates from government-owned SANA itself. However, I did not state that Turkish forces stole the goods, but that there are allegations of doing so, expressed in official letters to the UN.

As it comes to the civil war, we both know very well that many external forces are involved in it, and ­– probably – Turks are the most committed ones. This war is not going on in a hermetic environment and cannot be described without mentioning external factors. Emesik (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello

Just it done, snackbar guy. --MaherHero (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

My talk page

Hello Sopher.

I understand the thing about CU's puppets, but please don't remove content from my talk page. I'm aware of your good intentions, but I need to be aware of messages I recieve... You know you get a notification when you recieve one, and it confuses when you see no message on your talk page after that. I responded on his message, and I don't see anything that would offend me in any way, which is another reason why not to remove messages.

Cheers!

--Wüstenfuchs 13:09, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011–present Libyan factional fighting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011–present Libyan factional fighting is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–present Libyan factional fighting until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. EllsworthSK (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 14:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

DRN thread

A thread on the issues at Talk:Syrian civil war has been posted on the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard. -- Director (talk) 14:22, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Sock?

I don't know about the DRN volunteer. It looks like the account for Eng.Badara was created on 18 Feb, 2 days after DIREKTOR started the DRN thread. It looks like both users have edited on articles about Sri Lanka. Eng.Bandara's arguments in the DRN are similar to those of DIREKTOR's. I am suspecting we might have a sock here, but I'm not sure. What do you think? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Deonis sock

FYI, I've taken the "Don Jovany" account to SPI, as it looks obvious that this is just Deonis trying pathetically to avoid detection again.

PS: Archive your talkpage! :P ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Confirmed. According to the checkusers, he's been IP-hopping again, so keep an eye out. 95.133.79.58 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:59, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Sopher99 (talk) 20:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Could you take a look at this

Hey! An editor made an extremely controversial edit to the Libyan civil war article, and I reverted it and asked him to take it to the talk page in the edit summary. He reverted me again, so I repeated myself, this time on his talk page, he reverted me again, and now I can't revert him without risking a 3RR with the edit. Could you take a look at it and see if I am actually justified in reverting it, or am I just crazy? You can find the edit in question here. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

warning

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Baboon43 (talk) 17:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Baboon43 (talk) 18:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising

Can you please take a look at these and tell me what you think?

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/12/2011-year-of-dupe.html

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/syrian-war-prequel.html#uds-search-results

http://www.globalresearch.ca/lebanon-bombing-impetus-for-us-nato-planned-sectarian-war/5308982

I am SYrian and believe you are misrepresenting the conflict. Would appreciate any cooperation for the sake of knowledge and impartiality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheWatcherInternational1776 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care if you are Syrian. The families of the 70,000 people assad killed are also Syrian. So are the 200,000 people Assad detained. I have been following the situation in Syria since March fifteenth, 2011. You can't fool me. Sopher99 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to fool you. I'm just curious but what "70,000" killed by Assad?" Even Reuters recently had a FSA commander admit that 75% of Aleppo stands with Assad but attempted to muddy the water on the reasons why (see:http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/08/us-syria-crisis-rebels-idUSBRE9070VV20130108). BBC recently admitted that the people want Assad to stay but attempted to spin and distort the facts (See:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-21472272). What you are citing is propaganda and distortion by special interests. Don't forget the multiple cases of photoshopping by the opposition (see:http://worldmathaba.net/items/1674-syria-a-photoshopped-revolution) Quite frankly, I consider BBC and Al Jazeera to be fringe due to their compromised interests and the open documentation of facts by people like Seymour Hersh who showed that the west was attempting to subvert Syria with sectarian extremists through their proxies in Saudi Arabia as documented in his extensive "The Redirection" referenced by the above post by TOny Cartalucci. These people even ADMIT they were faking a case against Syria in 2005 which is where this all started, not 2011 as the media portrays. See here (link:http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2012/05/might-makes-right-says-financier-of.html) but don't dismiss it simply because the information is conveyed on a "blog". Check the sources. Even the U.S. government subsidizes blogs directly or indirectly for its interests like the "New Mandala Blog" of Austrailia National University written by "academic" wonk Andrew Walker featuring corporate-subsidized talking points of people like lobbyist Robert Amsterdam of the corporate-financier think-tank Chatham House that has defended the western proxy Thaksin Shinawatra in Thailand. Those are the fringe people and their networks of global subversion and deceit as well(see:http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/03/naming-names-your-real-government.html) Reality is not cut and dry in authority and facts. You are entitled to your opinion but at least be academically honest and look at the other side of the evidence. The media is lying. Also, never forget that "appealing to authority" is classfied as a logical fallacy. Best regards, TheWatcherInternational1776 (talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Sopher99. You have new messages at ItsZippy's talk page.
Message added 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Syria

Sorry, I know I am a Johnny-come-lately to this article. I was just trying to avoid propagating what - as far as I can see - is something of a mistake resulting from media laziness. Though if there are any good sources indicating that there were demonstrations in Deraa on 15 March, I would be very happy to admit error. ComhairleContaeThirnanOg (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Casualties

Did major clean-up on the casualties, SOHR finally gave their figure of exclusivly rebel killed, separately from the regular normal civilians. Minus the foreign guys, which it estimated in the hundreds dead last month, which I would interpret at at least 300. EkoGraf (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

good work. Sopher99 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

March 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. -- Director (talk) 18:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Please see my comments here. As a result of your edit warning, I am warning you that you may be subject to discretionary sanctions under the terms of ARBPIA if you continue to edit in a manner inconsistent with expected standards of behavior. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 22:56, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Nice work over on my user talk. I have lifted the protection. Perhaps you would like to be the one to implement the proposed compromise? ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 15:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

sure. Sopher99 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Aha!

Knew it! :) Are you going to revert yourself over at the Syria article, Mr. Pro-Rebel Partisan, or am I going to start copy-pasting all those essays you wrote me about adding non-consensus edits? I'll do it, you know. I could not care less whether you think its "controversial" or not, that's not the point here (even though it certainly is), the point is that there is no WP:CONSENSUS for it. Unless you do revert yourself (which isn't gonna happen), I hope I never read the word "consensus" in any of your posts over at the Syrian war article. -- Director (talk) 12:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Okay. but given the "criteria" for legitimacy everyone thinks is a UN recognition, if or when the UN general assembly removes syria, I am changing the box. Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The point is legality. If the UN says the green flag is (also) legal, then there may be a basis for some kind of compromise version. This way its just no contest. -- Director (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

daraa campaign

i made the article,but i need help here Alhanuty (talk) 15:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karachi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Metro (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:41, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Vandalism"

Why did you undo what I added on User:Alhaunty page?? Also you are vandalizing the talk page of the Syrian civil war by adding false claims on everything.EthanKP (talk · contribs) You are a jerk,and what you wrote was inappropriate, and i will report you if you do that again .Alhanuty (talk) 18:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

1RR rules

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ErBabas (talk • contribs) 18:47, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Let me be clear here. This article is not your property and I will not tolerate destruction of my work, and — especially — of valuable content. Your biased view of the conflict is no secret here, as you have expressed it clearly on the talk page.

As an experienced author you should know already how Wikipedia works. Especially, you should be aware that destroying someone's else work is not a good thing. If you don't agree with the content, please make a constructive edit and refrain from reverting. This is the last time I'm asking you to respect good manners. If it doesn't work, I will follow procedures to block your account. --Emesik (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Well don't destroy whole paragraphs. Can't you just put in your statement without removing the actual longstanding content? Sopher99 (talk) 19:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I moved it to a separate section below and left only important details in the lede. You should read before reverting. --Emesik (talk) 20:05, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

ANEW

Please read my latest comments at ANEW. If you agree to my offer not to edit the article for 7 days, I will not block you. You must respond there or here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, granted that its semi-protected against sock puppets, and that the lead (which is the topic of the debate) is not altered while discussion is ongoing. Sopher99 (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get to set conditions. You must agree unconditionally.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay then. Agreed. Please lower it to semi-protected though. Sopher99 (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

If you believe the article needs to be semi-protected, you can file a request at WP:RFPP. My assumption is it would be rejected as there has been insufficient recent disruption by non-auto-confirmed accounts, but I haven't examined it in detail, and another admin may feel differently.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

What about blatant vandalism such as [18] , or confirmed sock puppetry. Can I revert then? Sopher99 (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

There are enough editors watching that article (313) that I don't think you have to worry about vandalism being reverted, and it's unlikely that a confirmed sock puppet would edit the article. Just step away from the article for a week and do something else.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It will be very difficult for me to go through with appealing for semi protection when Tollybolly's request for full protection remains unanswered and on the request for protection page despite the temporary enforcement. Sopher99 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I've declined Tollybolly's report at RFPP.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man

I have been thinking for some time that the article Battle of Maarrat al-Nu'man should be broken up. Because the battle for the town itself ended a long time ago. What followed, after the rebels captured the town, has been the continuing siege of the Wadi Deif base. So I have been thinking of breaking up the article and creating something called Siege of Wadi Deif. However, I cant figure out at which point in time I should make the break so I wanted to ask you for help. Should the break point be - October 10/11, when the military made a counter-attack to recapture the town but failed, quickly followed up by the first rebel attacks on the base; October 12/13 - when the first reinforcements were being sent out to reinforce the base; October 25/26, when the military reinforcement column managed to link up with the base after 10 days of continuing fighting along the highway to reach it since October 13, leading to a stalemate phase of the siege; November 14, when the military had secured most villages along the highway south of Marrat al-Nu'man but had not managed to enter the town itself and at that point in fact had abandoned attempts to retake it? I cann't decide. EkoGraf (talk) 21:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Future has suggested October 10/11, when the first attacks on the base started. EkoGraf (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. I pretty much indifferent. Sopher99 (talk) 21:53, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of ancient history, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Constantine II (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:37, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Reverted. EkoGraf (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Deonis IPs

In addition to the usual 95.133... IP range, keep an eye out for 37.54... now as well. [19] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

PS archive your talkpage! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm

Just some advice, you should think about getting a job for change. --Childeric III (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

This coming from the guy who spends countless hours creating socks to vandalize in the name of "exposing terrorism"? Sopher99 (talk) 12:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I spend very little time on Wikipedia compared to your daily flow of pro rebels propaganda. Every time of the day, each day in the year. Your have been jobless for more than two years now? --Childeric III (talk) 13:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I am a University student. Sopher99 (talk) 13:01, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision,

you have been temporarily blocked from editing. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:24, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

List of massacres

I created a new article here List of massacres during the Syrian civil war. Check it out. EkoGraf (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Qusayr

You made an edit in the article recently. About rebels allegedly recapturing two towns, per their commanders claims. You used as a source a story from now.mmedia.me. But that story was not picked up by any other credible media, not even SOHR mentioned the alleged recapture and where is proof of that site's reliability? I haven't even ever heared of NOW until you inserted the source. So I figured it would be fair to balance the other sides claims as well and not just the rebels. That is the basis of neutrality is it not? EkoGraf (talk) 03:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Massacre list

I put Jabal Zawiya massacre of FSA army soldiers just a few minutes ago. Tremseh was later concluded to be a battle and not a massacre per the reliable sources and after extensive discussion among editors over the naming at the time. More rebel fighters were killed than civilians, and in actual combat and not by execution. Even in the days after the alleged massacre at Tremseh the opposition itself stated on several occasions that they weren't even sure if a massacre occurred. So not including that one. As for all the others, I will add them in the coming days, I will update the article. Or you can do it, be my guest. :) EkoGraf (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I know about all the others but don't remember Souran, Khan Sheikhoun and Mhelia. If you got sources than great. EkoGraf (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Jordan

For now I am neutral on the point of Israel because of the notability and the massiveness of their airstrikes. However, ONE non-notable direct border clash in more than two years of conflict does not make Jordan a full-blown enemy of the Assad government. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

As for Turkey, for now, I will not fight you, but I am sceptical of moving them to a more notable position in the anti-Assad grouping since just a few days ago rebels clashed with Turkish border police killing one of them. But again, I will not fight you, we see what the future holds.EkoGraf (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Southern town capture

That report by SOHR that fighting is ongoing in the town is from four hours ago, earlier in the day. The new report, that has been confirmed by the rebel commander in charge of defending the town, is from later in the day. EkoGraf (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Totally untrue. "Tue May 7, 2013 11:46pm EDT" http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/08/us-syria-crisis-town-idUSBRE94703H20130508 Sopher99 (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Rewritten based on all available sources. Hope its balanced now. EkoGraf (talk) 17:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

With the Debka source I was trying to put forth a compromise version that would end your and Chronicals/Deoniss edit war. One source says fighting ongoing, other one says battle over and Army in control. Both points of view. And the link on the discussion on Debka you put forth actually tells me that opinion is split on the reliability of Debka, not that a final conclusion is by editors that it is unreliable. EkoGraf (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Syrian civil war

The correct course of action is to file a SPI case. Please stop the edit warring. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 21:51, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Base retreat

The article was updated since I provided it as a source so the content has been changed. Here is the original version of the article [20] from this morning via cbc news. Quoting it for you. The rebels stormed the base, which lies near the border with Turkey, and captured parts of it on Sunday but were later forced to retreat in the face of regime's superior air power.. Hope that clears it up. EkoGraf (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

I have reported the ip 95.133.37.1 for sockpuppetry,I suspect that he is Chronical usual Alhanuty (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Canibal

We don't put individual incidents Sopher but we DO put them if they are notable enough. You may feel bad about it but the ones you just listed are non-notable, nevermind how harsh that might sound. I could have put in the main war article the news about that rebel barbecuing the head of a government soldier but I didn't because that news was also not notable. The world thinks the canibal rebel is notable news, not just because of the savagery but because this could potentially damage the rebels credibility and their financial support from the West, just like the BBC source stated. And please don't remove what the BBC reporter stated, he clearly states that it was potentially the most savage video yet. This is exclusively a matter of notability and potential political repercussions. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I will leave the Baniyas massacre because it was highly notable, but the burying of the journalist and tanks running over people was at the time non-notable due to the larger and more notable killings being committed at the time. EkoGraf (talk) 22:52, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Synth?

The source says it has started. Quoting two sentence for you from the source Syrian rebels including the al Qaeda-linked Nusra Front have counter-attacked east of Damascus and The bloc of brigades was agreed only for the current battle. Operative words being have counter-attacked and current battle. And there is no reason for the removal of the CBS news article which also confirms the start of the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 04:03, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Two articles

What do you think of the idea to separate part of the information in the Qusayr offensive article into a separate one? My idea is to close the Qusayr offensive article, because in essence the aim of the offensive was to capture the countryside and villages around Qusayr, so they could ultimately attack the city itself. They have already done that, they have secured for the most part the countryside. We than create an article which covers the battle for the city itself. I am putting this idea forward because the current battle that started yesterday is I think notable enough to have its own article. What you think? EkoGraf (talk) 14:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Listen Sopher the NOW source says most of the 58 killed were civilians while everybody else, including SOHR which you like so much, say only 4 were civilians and 56 were rebels. That makes the writer of the article unreliable. As for the SOHR post, its contradictory with itself. SOHR has made other posts during the day reporting on fighting in other parts of the city not just only in the western part. The wording in that one sentence may as well have been bad english on the part of the writer which has happened already and I am trying to put compromising wording. Also you are constantly mass-reverting my other edits to the styly of the article and I would politely ask you to stop. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Sopher your own SOHR source says of potential fighting INSIDE the city itself. Quoting and some conflicting reports say inside. The BBC, Al Jazeera, and the rebel fighters and opposition activists themselves are reporting fighting INSIDE the city. You saying everyone is wrong beside SOHR? And SOHR being contradictory with itself in the same post? EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You know me Sopher that I am always for trusting SOHR wether it reports on government or rebel failures and victories. However, in this one case/post SOHR is not making a lot of sense. EkoGraf (talk) 17:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

OK, your last revert I don't understand at all. What is your problem this time? I am really starting to not get your behavior today. I only rearranged chronologicaly the conflicting claims. The conflicting claims of May 19 in one paragraph and the conflicting claims of May 20 into the other. Since you insisted to separate the FSA spokesman's claim to be separate time-vise from the others. Than all the conflicting claims need to be like that. EkoGraf (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Simple - some claims were made in the morning, some at the afternoon, some at night. This is a fluid battle. It has to be as chronological as possible because things change fast. Sopher99 (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

That's simply going into too much detail. You want to be precise to the exact second? This is an internet encyclopidia not a forum for conflicting claims. The al-Jazeera reporter claim was made today, the same day as the FSA spokesman claim. So all claims for a day go into the same paragraph. May 19 with May 19, May 20 with May 20. So please stop with your edit warring. 2 activists and an FSA spokesman say they repelled the advance; 2 activists, a reporter and the military say they advanced. The warring is all for nothing anyway because in 2 days when it becomes clearer who was telling the truth and who was lying we are going to remove the untrue claims. EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am urging you to stop edit warring! This could have been all avoided if you didn;t want to highlight that FSA spokesman with his own personal paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hezbollah source

Actually I was the one myself who added that link as a source for a sentence in the article, but that source doesn't say they reversed the Hezbollah gains, that is those 2/3 of the city they went through. But I did not include in the results section that 2/3 claim. For the same reason you stated, because of the possibility they reversed their gains. As far as the 40-60 percent goes, those are reports by the rebels themselves, not the government. I didn't include the government claim because its unreliable. So, 40-60 is confirmed by rebel sources, one of them actually being the Qusayr opposition media center, the main rebel propaganda arm in Qusayr. EkoGraf (talk) 15:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

First time I'm seeing you Sopher not wanting to acknowledge rebel claims. But since they are actually confirming possible Army advances than that makes sense. This has pushed me to balance out the results section than. Now both opposition and government claims are in the results section. Opposition 40-60 and government 80. Both say, according to.... EkoGraf (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your behavior says you do not trust what the opposition sources are saying about how much of the city they lost. Why do no claims belong in the conclusion section at this point? We put many many claims in the conclusion sections before, even before there was any confirmation. If my memory is correct you yourself constantly put rebel claims, from doubious sources, within an hour after they were made before there was a period of a few days to pass. It has been a few days since the 40-60 percent claims were made and most sources even today are saying that most of the city is under Army control. So why is this different from all the other cases? EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, the battle is fluid and I don't believe we should be putting conclusion bulletins in yet. Sopher99 (talk) 16:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You didn't read your own source Sopher, the source says they repulsed the Army attack on the city via that specific neighborhoud (Hamdiyeh), not that they repulsed them back to it from the rest of the city. At the start of the battle it was confirmed by both the rebels and the government that the Army attacked via several directions, not just one. EkoGraf (talk) 16:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Abdel Halim Gnome, a member of Syria’s revolutionary military council, meanwhile reported 150 deaths from within Hezbollah ranks. “The regime’s army, backed by Hezbollah, have been unable to break into Qusayr,” he said in a statement on Friday. “The FSA has repelled a third attempt to break the city from the direction of Hamidieh [an outlying neighbourhood].” Media sources embedded with pro-regime forces have announced Bashar al-Assad loyalists “made progress” in the Hamidieh neighbourhood. Opposition spokesmen have denied the reports, posting pictures and videos to support their claim.

Yes, from the direction of Hamidieh. ONE direction. It was confirmed at the start of the battle they attacked the city from multiple directions, not just one. EkoGraf (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

You are missing a critical point. have been unable to break into Qusayr Sopher99 (talk) 16:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

As far as that point goes that is just ONE CLAIM by ONE REBEL, which has not been reported by other more reliable sources. Three opposition sources, including the Qusayr rebel media center, and Al Jazeera have reported that the Army has control of at least close to half the city. This in itself is contradictory to what that major claimed because that would mean the Army HAS been able to break into Qusayr. Which makes his whole claim questionable. Guess he didn't coordinate with the Qusayr media center. :P EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have worded the following sentence in the paragraph for the sixth day. It was also reported, according to pro-government sources, that Army forces were advancing in the outlying district of Hamdiyeh, in an attempt to cut the opposition forces' last supply line into al-Qusayr.[44] Opposition sources denied this with an FSA major claiming the attack on the city via Hamdiyeh was repulsed.[45] using two sources, including yours. As for the results section goes, you are extremely wrong on that point, but I'm not that stubborn that I will edit war with you indefinitely so I removed it all, like you requested, hope you satisfied now. EkoGraf (talk) 16:31, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of al-Qusayr (2013) 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.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Timeline of the Syrian civil war (from May 2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Qusayr (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 15:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Incidentally

You too have reverted twice [21][22]. The second revert being a restoration of material just removed by User:Mikrobølgeovn in this edit. I thought I'd extend you the same courtesy as you did me just now. Best regards -- Director (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Untrue. Mikro was removing the who thing. I was simply changing the "restored" context. Keep in mind Mikro can provide testimony. Sopher99 (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

True, I'm afraid. Its not a matter of "testimony". You added text, he removed it, and you subsequently restored it. I'm sure you two generally agree, but that doesn't matter at all: its a revert, as I'm sure others would tell you as well. -- Director (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

P.s. I am unsure whether your introduction of blatantly inaccurate notes is deliberate or mistaken. Regardless, Israel is not added because of "border clashes", nor were the "air strikes" solely against "weapons shipments". Israel claims the Hezbollah is their ultimate target, and that may or may not be true, but it is not "weapons shipments" alone that were bombed. -- Director (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

a effective proof

read this telegraph article,this an undisputed proof that the opposition fighters control al least 80% of qusayr city.Alhanuty (talk) 19:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10085052/Syria-rebels-cling-on-to-Qusayr.html

See a complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

Please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:DIREKTOR reported by User:FutureTrillionaire (Result: ). I have proposed that you be blocked if you will not make an appropriate assurance about your future edits at Syrian Civil War. See the noticeboard for details. The edit of yours which concerned me was this one. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization

I have noticed that some news sources say Syrian Army, some say Syrian army. So its a fifty-fifty thing. But, at least per my logic, it is more correct to write Syrian Army since the original name is Syrian Arab Army. EkoGraf (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Quoting it again for you

Source says, Hezbollah and Syrian government forces have seized most of the strategically important town of Qusayr near the Lebanese border, fighters on both sides of the conflict said Wednesday. And this quote A fighter for Hezbollah, the Lebanese group that’s sent troops to Syria to join Assad loyalist forces, said the group had cleared rebels from most of Qusayr. A spokesman for one of the main rebel groups in the area confirmed the assertion. I think the article was preaty clear. EkoGraf (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

You twisted the order of the sentences from the source and left out other parts. The article says he confirmed the assertion by the Hezbollah source that they have captured most of the city. You only wrote he confirmed the assertion but left out what the assertion is. The spokesman both confirmed the capture of the air base and the Hezbollah source's assertion that they control most of the city. Those are two different things. EkoGraf (talk) 10:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Use of SOHR at Damascus offensive (2013)

Could use your help, on an issue that we both agree on. Please check out my talk page under the section SOHR and "Facebook" and this guy's page User talk:HCPUNXKID. He is trying to remove SOHR as a source at Damascus offensive (2013). At first his complaint was because its Facebook. I explained to him that it was agreed by consensus two years ago to use it because its the official English version page of SOHR and they were the only ones who were posting and their info was being used by reliable media. He did not want to acknowledge that. For sake of compromise I than replaced the Facebook SOHR source with the main SOHR site, which has nothing to do with Facebook. He than removed that as well without any explanation, and his personal attacks against me I really don't understand. He said that if Russia Today or Press TV were using it I wouldn't regard SOHR as reliable because I'm a hypocrit who regards those other news sites as unreliable. I explained to him that in my personal opinion those news sites should also be used for sake of neutrality but that the decision of the Wikipedia community is they are not reliable so I am sticking with that. He than said I was contradicting myself. Like I said, I really don't understand him. EkoGraf (talk) 13:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

That user has now taken up the issue at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. He is trying to exclude SOHR as a source from Wikipedia. Me and Lothar are trying to argue with him but he is too conservative and has started accusing and insulting. EkoGraf (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Surrounded, not surrounded

The statement by the BBC is actually contradictory to the reality of how reinforcements managed to arrive. Rebels and opposition activists themselves have ALL stated that they managed to get the fighters into the city AFTER breaking Army lines. That means the city, until that moment, WAS surrounded. The way the BBC put it it seemed that the earlier assertions the city was surrounded were incorrect, which is not the case. EkoGraf (talk) 14:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syrian civil war may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Damascus offensive (2013), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 13:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Timeline of the Syrian civil war

Hi. Please stop restoring material from rebel group sources. Or we discuss your edit pattern on the incidence newsboard. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Capitalization of "civil war"

Hey, can you comment on this?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Stop misrepresenting sources

Firstly, the material you wish to add would be more appropriate here since that template is about the wider civil war.. Secondly you use low-quality sources. Thirdly, you misrepresent sources: If it says Azadi, you should write Azadi. Pass a Method talk 14:08, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit does not comply with template guidelines stating "major groups" or "improving reader understanding". Pass a Method talk 14:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't edit war please. Pass a Method talk 14:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

But it does. The Azadi group back in March had thousands of fighters, the Orsam.org source says they are the most effect anti-assad group. They are the PYD's biggest rival too. Sopher99 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Syrian Civil War Infobox and accusation of edit warring by Pass a Method

Sopher99, I've added my input to Pass a Method's report of your account for edit warring. I urge you to engage in discussion with the other editors so we can come to a consensus as to whether or not USA should be listed as supporting a belligerent on Talk:Syrian_civil_war. Please do not revert my edits without furthering the discussion. DavidBrooksPokorny (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

When reverting...

please be a bit more careful. With this revert you removed the Authority Control template I added. --bender235 (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Pass a Method talk 12:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion 2

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Please see WP:AN3#User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: ) where Pass a Method has now put together a better case than before that you are edit warring. It is reasonable to think that Template:Syrian civil war infobox is under the ARBPIA WP:1RR restriction just like the main Syrian civil war article. The template now has a common talk page with Syrian civil war, and Talk:Syrian civil war has an {{ARBPIA}} notice on it. Your recent edits seem to be at risk of violating WP:1RR. My guess that others face the same risk. Your response is invited. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013 (continued)

Hello, I'm Wtwilson3. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Burma because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Siege of Homs, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Pass a Method talk 14:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please format properly

Almost all your references are improperly cited. Please make an effort to cite properly instead of forcing others to clean up after you. Pass a Method talk 16:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating the 1RR restriction on the page Syrian civil war,

you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 12:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

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).

Sopher99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

• This is an appeal strictly to the administer who administered the block I did not believe citations alone counted as content - but clearly from the response, they are. I additionally held that other users edit summaries as testimonies as to what portion of my edition was a revert. Subsequently, I added content that was previously deleted under the (false) pretense that it wasn't a factor in the revert. In summary I was being lenient with my interpretation of wikipedia policy. A mistake which I agree in full to change. Now I an aware that content, regardless of its components, usage, and relation to other wiki policies is still weighted the same as any other content, and its reverts treated the same. Additionally I recognize that I could have utilized a variety of negotiating tools made available to users - most notably the talkpage. I blame straight-out laziness for my lack of its use in that instance. I also agree in full to change that habit. Sopher99 (talk) 12:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

If this was the first instance of edit warring, I'd be more willing to unblock you; as it is, you've been blocked for edit warring twice before, the last one not three months ago. From the amount of time you've spent editing contentious articles like this one, you should really know by now to treat articles under arbitration remedies with a lot of care. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

---

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.

I'm happy to unblock you given your above statement about how the edit warring was essentially due to a misunderstanding and will not recur, but "administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped." Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also left a note for the blocking admin. Reaper Eternal (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Note there is a block review request open at AN.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 20:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

ANEW comment

"Retracting. An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". That is one great edit summary.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modesto Rodas Alvarado, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honduran (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:16, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Show your opinion in the article rif dimshq offensive July 2013

EcoGrak is keeping reverting my article,even tho I brought two source that proves the need to keep the article

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/commentaryanalysis/the-southern-front

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/opposition-advances-damascus

Please can you show your opinion on it ,in the talkpage of rif dimashq offensive march 2013- Alhanuty (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I revert you for the following reasons:
1 - The reliability of understandingwar.org has not been verified.
2 - The story in question posted on understandingwar.org is actually citing other sources for its claim of a major rebel offensive. Namely, the sources which your source quotes for the offensive are these [23][24], none of which is permissible on Wikipedia. Claim made by someone based on a youtube video? The videos are not even in English but Arabic and at least one of them seems to be a rebel/activist made video.
3 - The NOW media source is a known pro-Syrian opposition news website. The news they report is almost exclusively about Syria and not neutral. They have had a few news reports about events outside of Syria, some about Lebanon and Yemen and so, but most of those again were in some way Syria-related.
4 - Not one report by AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph or even CNN has reported or mentioned a major rebel offensive. In fact, they have done the opposite, they have reported on continuing Army offensive operations. So reliable sources are contradicting your sources, which can be called less-reliable at best. Even if it did maybe occur, the lack of news on it via reliable sources makes it non-notable per Wikipedia standards and not worth an article being created for it.
5 - If we did make a new article based on your two sources we would be in breach of several Wikipedia policies/rules. Namely: the one about use of youtube as a source (primary or otherwise), second that an article would be created for a non-notable event and three the creation of an article with the major lack of reliable and verified sources. EkoGraf (talk) 00:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Latakia

That thing about the outskirts was reported earlier in the day, the new SOHR report/post was made just under two hours ago and it clearly says several villages were captured. I even now added an LA times article in which an opposition activist acknowledges the rebel loss of a few villages. EkoGraf (talk) 01:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Libyan civil war

Hi, with this edit you somehow managed to replace every occurrence of the string "troll" or "demon" in the article with "*****". I guess this wasn't intentional and you have some sort of troll-filter but can you please take more care in reviewing your edit before saving. Thanks. NtheP (talk) 11:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. USchick (talk) 19:58, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2013 Ghouta attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. USchick (talk) 23:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey USchick. Can you show me the diff where I am edit warring? thanks Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

According to policy WP:3RR you are way past the 3 revert rule. Please review the policy if you're not familiar. You're being just as disruptive as the other person. USchick (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The person is addressing you on the talk page repeatedly and you're ignoring it. Why? USchick (talk) 00:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? You mean you? I am not ignoring you. I am also not reverting anyone for the next 24 hours on the page.Sopher99 (talk) 00:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

You're ignoring my attempt to collaborate and you're also ignoring the other 2 people complaining about your repeated reverts. USchick (talk) 00:44, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't see anyone complain about me. I did see people complaining about ips. How do you want me to collaborate? I don't even see my edits conflicting with yours. Sopher99 (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if I caused a problem Sopher99 (talk) 00:49, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

• The whole reason for the 3R rule is to stop people simply reverting and counter reverting (even if one or the other is in the right), because dialogue (IPs have talk pages too) is the method of resolving differences of opinion and not turning the page history into a battlefield. I'm not going to block anyone here (even bearing in mind that Sopher is or was under a 1R sanction already), but please consider first discussion, and if that doesn't work, try WP:DRN, and in extreme cases, take the issue to WP:AN/I if admin action is required. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Whisperback

Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 02:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

SOHR update

Yeah, I saw it, I just made the update to both the casualties article and to the infobox in the last half hour. EkoGraf (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey you seemed to know a lot of about the civil war

Hey you seemed to be pretty clued up on the civil war in Syria. I'd really like to hear more from your point of view over here at the forum where it tends to be a hot topic debate at the moment. We could really appreciate you're side of the debate here.

http://checkhookboxing.com/forumdisplay.php?9-The-Lounge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.43.79.150 (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A forum where every other person on the Syria issue is spewing Russia today and Alex Jones nonsense in the name of "fighting mainstream media"? No thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

On wikipedia I can contribute to the knowledge of tens of thousands, and hundreds of thousands over time - with the forum its only dozens, especially as so many will be resistant to my views. Sopher99 (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Counting reverts

two reverts? Surely not. You made two edits, I reverted them in one edit. If that counts as two reverts, then the door is open to split 1 big edits into dozens or hundreds of edits, and leave editors only able to revert a tiny part per day! That's a recipe for madness. Podiaebba (talk) 14:35, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 2013 Ghouta attacks 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:

• is-more-credible/ Which Syrian Chemical Attack Account Is More Credible?]</ref><ref>[[Press TV]]), 1 September 2013, [http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/30/321260/syria-militants-use-

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources

In this edit you are misrepresenting sources. It does not say all the Arab league opposes Assad. Pass a Method talk 05:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Raul's Razor

Hey Sopher - I'm sure you've seen this, but I thought I'd post a link to #14 of Raul's Laws - maybe you already appreciate it as much as I do, but what the heck, I thought I'd mention it. -Darouet (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Good job on this [25]. -Darouet (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Unacceptable behaviour

• You removed a sourced content and said "subscription needed for the site."[26] First of all, there's no rule that restrict us about citing such sources. Secondly, the content was just from the title of the report, which means the content can be verified without subscription.
• You massively use the term "POV-pushing" while removing valid contents with reliable sources.[27][28][29][30][31]
• You refer to the policy WP:RS when removing sourced contents, even though the sources are in fact reliable for those claims.[32][33] That is to say, PressTV is a RS to report what an Iranian official or a Syrian commander has said. I've already told you about this in edit summaries, but you continue doing this: regarding this news, RT is a reliable source, and in fact the best source for this news, because the guy has been directly interviewed by RT. In fact, there may be an NPOV issue, not a reliability one, but in this case you should discuss it, not simply removing it. Again I've already asked you in edit summaries to use talk page in these cases, instead of simply removing it.
• These edits are obvious violation of WP:OR: [34][35]
• Other removal of valid content without any good reason: [36][37][38][39][40]
• The fact that you provide random reasons in edit summaries while removing a certain content suggests that you are actually using these rules to implement your POV, this is some sort of WP:Wikilawyering. Example: First you say Global Research is not RS[41] (not a good reason; the interview is in fact with RT). Then you try to implement your POV by adding OR: [42][43] Then you commented the content (in fact, removed it) and say this is "violation of WP:NPOV, not to mention Rusasia today is not a reliable source"[44] (invalid reason; already explained). Again you removed it but this time by referring to WP:FRINGE.[45]
• Another similar behaviour: I added a content with RS. First you make a strange edit here by calling Ray McGovern a "conspiracy theorist" and Russia Today "propaganda network" in the article, and adding other original researches, and forced me to revert your edit, and then immediately remove the content altogether (based on another random reason), and since the article is under WP:1RR, I can't revert you. Again you misused rules.

OVERALL JUDGEMENT: You tend to remove valid contents in some particular subjects without any good reason, this is vandalism. You use and refer to different policies and rules, while you in fact don't care about the actual purpose and spirit of these rules, this is some sort of WP:Wikilawyering. If you don't stop this unacceptable behaviour, I'll bring this up at WP:ANI. --Z 15:15, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Z your bringing WP:FRINGE stuff into the current events and I feel its best to point out its WP:Fringe. But regarding the Original research, your right and I forgot about that point. I agree that I went over-the-top and I agree to revise my editing process there. Sopher99 (talk) 15:41, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

moved down

Why did you move this down ?

Because the mujahideen are not defined by being Sunni. It also happens to be that all the mujahideen in Syria are arabs. So why not put "arab militants", or why not label the government militias as shia militants? The fact in terms is that those groups define themselves and are defined by media as jihadists, the official term being mujahideen. Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

It should also be known that a small potation of the "other militants" are in fact sunni militants who classify their militias sole purpose as being groups which "fight for the sunni identity" i.e. awakening militias, ansar al sunna ect. So putting sunni militants in the "others" section is also politically correct. Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The terms "mujahideen" is misleading because Shia Islamists would also self-identify as mujahideen. So Mujahideen are fighting mujahideen? Wr might as well put "humans" fighting "humans". Or "Earthlings" fighting "earthlings". We need to cite what differentiates the opposing sides. Pass a Method talk 17:46, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you have a media source that mentions Hezbollah or houthis referring to themselves a mujahideen? Sopher99 (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, [46], [47]. I could easily find hundreds more such sources. Now if you woudn't mind please revert yourself. Pass a Method talk 05:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hezbollah members killed in Syria are consistently described by the party as having "fulfilled their Jihadist duties", thus they are considered Mujahids. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

• I think its misleading when you downplay the Sunni element of the opposition. Sunnism is the key defining feature of the jihadists and you are burying that under the carpet. There are multiple videos online of the rebel jihadists asking others whether they are Sunni, and sources mentioning it. Why are you trying to bury key information under the carpet? Pass a Method talk 20:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

They are not fighting because they are sunni. They are fighting because they are islamists. With alawite militias roaming around syria, of course they are sometimes going to ask whether other people are Sunni. Sopher99 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, i bet you don't speak Arabic, do you? I personally speak Arabic quite fluently. Im asking because i want to know whether you'll understand if i link to some videos with sectarian language. Pass a Method talk 20:17, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

All 200,000 rebels, 2,000,000 refugees, 6,000,000 internally displaced, and the hundreds of thousands of relatives of the 100,000 killed thus far also speak arabic.

I already know sectarian is language is occasionally used. I don't understand why a conflict with sectarian undertones won't have usage of sectarian rhetoric. Sopher99 (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Seems like Sopher didn't see the video of Sunni Islamists asking random unarmed truck drivers whether they were Sunnis or Alawites, and executing them after discovering they were the latter FunkMonk (talk) 20:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Same thing happens to Sunnis all the time - just in a much larger scale. Sopher99 (talk) 20:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Show me a single video where Alawites kill Sunnis because they are Sunnis. You can't. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I can. Its called going to youtube and searching "Alawite kills sunni" One of the first videos that pop up. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL9abWs9aYE Sopher99 (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Yet again, you can't. There are tonnes of videos where Sunni Islamists kill unarmed Alawites simply because they are Alawites, and say so specifically. No such thing in that video, or any others. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Really - because the video depicts a shabiha mocking the old man for being a Sunni, and then killing him. Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You're making things up now. His sect is never mentioned. You seem to misunderstanmd what sectarianism means. Killing someone because he is in an armed group that happens to be Sunni isn't sectarian. Killing him because he belongs to a certain sect is. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You did not answer my question. I asked you whether you personally speak Arabiac. Pass a Method talk 20:36, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't, he's an American with no ties to the Middle East. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

My location and language matter little. All the victims of the Syrian civil war speak arabic. I don't need to speak cambodian to understand the cambodian genocide, nor do I need to speak Armenian or Turkish to understand the Armenian genocide. Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I am not arguing against the fact that alawites are being killed. What I am pointing out is that Sunnis are killed by alawites on a much for frequent basis - which is saying something because the alawites are smaller in population. The reason behind this is a several decades old militia, the shabiha.

I am not blaming an ethinicity, I am blaming a regime. Saddam Husseins was all "anti-terrorist" while in power, but in reality had actually preserved several terror groups to cause havoc to the population in the event of his fall. Same with assad. Sopher99 (talk) 20:41, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Half of those killed are Alawites, your very own SOHR admits this. So you're again spreading misinformation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you speak no Arabic, and I speak fluent Arabic, why do you feel you can lecture me on specifics of social language or scope of linguistics and structure being used? Pass a Method talk 20:53, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You are talking about one specific video, and even if you had hundreds it wouldn't matter. As I said I am not denying sectarian language is being used, I am just saying there are tens of thousands of islamist militants and only a few hundred have sectarian purposes. Your knowledge of arabic aids you with a few videos but not an analysis of the Syrian civil war Sopher99 (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Since you are always consistent I have some tasks for you please. Please remove "sunni factions" and "shia factions" from the infobox in Civil war in Iraq. Then remove "Shia groups" from headings in Lebanese Civil War. Then remove "Sufi groups" from Somali Civil War infobox. Whie you're at it, go to Thirty Years' War and remove "protestant states" and "Catholic states" from the infobox. Then go to The Troubles and remove all mention of the words "protestant" or "catholic" from the lede. When you're done i want you to pat yourself on the head for being the most intelligent constructive empathetic person on wikipedia. Can you do that for me please? Thanks in advance. Before i foget, don't forget to whitewash other historical sectarian battles such as Battle of Siffin etc. Pass a Method talk 21:38, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Those wars were exclusively sectarian. This war only a small fraction are out with sectarian goals. Its like claiming the Gulf war was about communism vs capitalism , just because People's Mujahedin of Iran may have been slightly involved. Sopher99 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree for FSA it is not sectarian. But for the jihadis the war is 100% sectarian. Even the Qatar based aljazeera admits that. If you try to refute my above statement, i will simply ignore all your future comments by dismissing you as ignorant + arrogant. 21:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The SIF, which includes ahrar sham is not sectarian, and least only an extrme minority. Al nusra uses sectarian language, but they are not fighting because they are sectarian, but because they want an islamic state.

So either I conform to your views or I am stupid and arrogant? Interesting. I patiently await for your death so I can disagree with your current beliefs without having to be stupid. But for now I apparently have to comply with your opinions to maintain my intellectual credibility. Sopher99 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

No. I'm merely astonished that you have zero knowledge of Arabic language, negligible knowledge of Isamic politics/history, negligible knowledge of madhabs, negligible knowledge of concurrent fatwas, negligible knowledge of Kutub al-Sittah, negligible knowledge of geo-politics in the middle east, and yet you edit like you own the place. What happened to a little humility? Pass a Method talk 22:23, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

I do however know a great deal more than others about the Syrian civil war. You can go on and on about the background history of the islamists beliefs, give every single verse and every single quote from every islamic scholar in history, but that doesn't change what is happening on the ground and it doesn't change the fact that all groups are made of individuals each with his or her own methods and causes for action. Sopher99 (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Intelligence quotient

I have two questions.

• Firstly, what is your I.Q. score?

" Secondly, if your IQ is above 50, why would you call Christians and other non-Muslims "jihadists" as you did in this edit? Pass a Method talk 21:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

it has about the same reasonability as defining a whole faction as "Sunni offensive jihadists" Sopher99 (talk) 00:23, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Not so fast

1RR is still in force for Ghouta chemical attacks. You are deleting sections without discussion. You're being disruptive. Please self-revert and discuss first. Thanks. USchick (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

1RR

You have violated 1RR reverting me here and then again here without any mention of what is POV poshing incidentally. Take it talk instead fio warring. Not to mention the BLIND revert of muchking the references as in this last line!

Incidentally instead of bullying people with falsities you could explian your edit. I did not revert ANY content. Please point out what was reverted???

1. first edit added content
2. Next 2 edits in a row were BOLD changes in trying to work a better meaning.
3. Next was a BOLD restructuing without removing any content.(Lihaas (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2013 (UTC)).

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ghouta_chemical_attacks&diff=573812769&oldid=573812570 I had to revert to get to a position where I could revert the edit I wanted to. I then self-reverted that particular edit. Sopher99 (talk) 18:54, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Daraa crossing border check

It is under rebel control per Reuters,and revert aqribat as contested I doubt that Assad has full control over it.Alhanuty (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

FSA temporary truce offer and OPCW ceasefire rejection.

Hi Sopher99, I wanted to give you a heads up re undoing your removal of section header for the subject. Arguably, FSA temporary truce offer and OPCW ceasefire rejection are not territorial changes(as per "/" comments, but I could not think of another place to put it outside of making an entirely new section - which I did not feel was warranted at this level of development. However, it is definitely not a mundane or even 'significant' territorial change, but something qualitatively more significant - so it deserves at least a subsection. (Plus, previous ceasefire efforts are in a subsection as well.) ViewObjective (talk) 00:19, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Templating authors of pages that meet CSD

Hey thanks for your work with page patrolling. I noticed you marked What happens when fair housing becomes unfair? for speedy deletion but did not notify the author, just thought I'd make a friendly note that it would be helpful if you did, this guy apparently didn't know what he did wrong. You don't use Twinkle to aid your patrolling? I highly recommend it, it's makes patrolling incredibly easier (e.g. it will notify the author for you). Thanks again — MusikAnimal ^talk 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bryant Clark American Professional Football Player, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:29, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Burma

The edit summary in my last revert comes across as sarcastic and I apologize for that. But, the larger point is worth thinking about. You might want to consider crafting a version and testing it out on the talk page rather than attempting to add clauses to the text that is already there. The current version is not ideal, but that's the consensus for now and you need to work to change that. Once again, apologies for the sarcasm. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thats okay. Sopher99 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Current events news sources

I don't want to be the complainer, but can you possibly give me an adequate reason why you twice removed the Russia Today news link on today's current events post concerning the Volgograd bombing? I get it, BBC and Reuters (especially) are preferred (maybe) - but we have stuff like "The Express" being cited further down, and it strikes me that not only is Russia Today a global and already well-respected news network, but they are also the best source in English for this - something evident through their timely updates on the attack today, and in general in similar events. Thanks in advance! Skycycle (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply put Russia Today is not a reliable source even if it is for Russian news. Try Interfax or the Mowscowtimes for better russian newsites. Sopher99 (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, how did you reach that conclusion? Is there a list of reliable Russian-news sources somewhere that I'm missing, or is it a personal view? Because as far as I've seen, Russia Today is not only widely cited and already known in media circles, but their stories are often linked to major news agencies - not to mention the great way they have covered recent important events in Russia and the region (Chelyabinsk meteor, Lokomotiv hockey team air crash, etc.) So care to explain? Skycycle (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes. RT is a state funded - but more importantly state controlled - propaganda newsite. They are not neutral with issues regarding elections, nalvany, syria, iran, and global news in general - especially when it comes to news about America. RT is a loony fringe site which is only "neutral" when it can't find any practical ground to skew their reporting, such as news about an earthquake.

But don't take my word for it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/arts/television/18heym.html?_r=0

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/controversial-propaganda-using-stalin-to-boost-russia-abroad-a-518259.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/tv-radio/from-russia-with-news-1869324.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/18/russia-today-propaganda-ad-blitz

http://www.spiegel.de/international/business/putin-fights-war-of-images-and-propaganda-with-russia-today-channel-a-916162.html

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2010/07/russia_today_goes_mad

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/russian-backed-propaganda-networks-claim-obama-is-a-cia-agent/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/05/29/7_clips_larry_king_should_have_watched_before_joining_russia_today

Sopher99 (talk) 20:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I was going to begin a new section but thankfully i found this argument already so here it goes:

1. Who do you think you are to decide which sources are reliable and which ones aren't? RT is no conspiracy theory website neither is Press TV. They also didn't "make up" those news nor did they show any sign of bias in the sourced contents you replace or even remove. No one is going to blame you when you remove texts that link to apocalyptic websites but RT and Press TV are totally different and they have millions of followers.

2. You usually replace the links you personally dislike with other "more appropriate" ones but in this case [48] (apart from the creepy edit you made to the Egyptian incident which comes in the 3rd point), you simply removed the whole text. So the other question is, what the hell is wrong with you?

3. About that creepy edit you made in the Egyptian incident..

Repeat that again and i'm reporting you. That's a warning. Unless it was just an innocent mistake (which i really hope it was).

4. Out of curiosity, would you do the same you did to RT and Press TV sources with Al Jazeera links? Another state-funded broadcaster.. I guess not..

5. Finally, i you have issues concerning the Syrian civil war, that's none of our business but it's not our problem either. So you better discuss controversial edits before removing stuff you don't like or stuff that counters your personal propaganda and before adding stuff that suits your taste. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't decide anything. It is an objective observation that Russia today and press tv are propaganda websites. I never said anything about conspiracies. Al jazeera? They are not state controlled unlike russia today and press tv.

I got really confused when you said "Egyptian incident", and so I checked the edit. Yeah it was a simple mouse highlighting and backspace mistake. Honestly what would anyone have to gain by deleting HALF a reuters source? Sopher99 (talk) 23:49, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Its actually quite amusing you bring up al jazeera - ironically I have in fact removed Al jazeera sources many times.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=572429880&oldid=572429133

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syrian_civil_war&diff=572425065&oldid=572392549

A few months ago I removed about 18 al jazeera sources, but I can't find the diffs to show you because it exceeds 500 edits ago.

Sopher99 (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion asked on problems in ‘Syrian civil war’

Esteemed Wikipedia colleague: a discussion has been started at Talk:Syrian civil war#Section 2 (Events): five chronology-problems, concerning problems in section 2 of Syrian civil war. I invite you to give us your opinions on suggestions brought forward in that discussion, for as far as those suggestions don’t leave you indifferent. Corriebertus (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

1 revert rule

You made two reverts on the Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. In another attempt, i will report you directly. AOnline (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

... so did you... Sopher99 (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the map after providing NEW source. And i think you have enough capacity to know that it's not revert. Don't act like you don't know anything about rules again please. AOnline (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Reported to administrators board

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

al qaeda

since you are involved in a dispute with me and DylanLacey, please discuss the subjcet at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Al-Qaeda#al_nusra_front_direct_or_indirect_affiliate Ionchari (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sources.

Sopher no hard fillings but on the revert on the town of Sanamyan I actually posted the source for Kirnaz and here is a source that specifies that Sanamayan was captured by government sources so please use appropriate sources before you threaten me with a ban which you need to get because your flooding the map with stupid changes and everyone has to fix problems you create.

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130207/syria-regime-retakes-town-damascus-clashes-rage-0

http://www.voanews.com/content/activists-say-battle-in-syria-killed-50/1639454.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

And about your source on Kirnaz:

You think it might have been reported by SOHR which is a pro opp source and they shell the town every day.

Syrian regime forces, backed by members of the regime-loyalist Shabbiha militia, carried out executions targeting local civilians in the village of Al-Sheikh Hadeid, after pulling out of the nearby town of Karnaz in the Hama countryside. Maher Hamwi, a local field activist, said regime forces used knives and shot civilians randomly. They also buried the bodies immediately "to prevent activists from documenting them", according to Hamwi. Al-Sheikh Hadeid is a small village near the town of Karnaz, northwest of the city of Hama. The village has been subject to violent shelling by regime forces on daily basis, driving most of its inhabitants out of it to seek refuge in nearby areas.

Also no specified as did the rebels enter the town or not as Army many times leaves the defense of the town on pro-regime militias while Army units pull out to be redeployed to other sectors.Source does not give specification who controls the town so it can not be used(again I will quote my self "There is no mentioning of rebels taking or entering the town")Daki122 (talk) 20:51, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

syrian civil war map.,hama eastern ghouta aleppo

alot of messups has occured in the last period,we editors need to fix the map,i suggest to put all cities from qaysa till otaybah contested until further news come out and for aleppo the rbeels has launched a counter offensive on khanasser,hama is gov.controlled.and who the hell has putted yabrud contested,this is becoming insane,sopher99,i think this is happening becuase of the usage of may unneutral sites,and the mistakes made by the journalist in the neutral sources.Alhanuty (talk) 16:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

what happened to the map, did the cities go down.Alhanuty (talk) 23:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Suspicions over editor Daki

I believe that Daki is a sockpuppet of giatharodaki.because they use the same tactics.Alhanuty (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Reported to administrators board

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.95.134.193.238 (talk) 14:23, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring report

See here. AOnline (talk) 16:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Block and topic ban

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and violation of 1RR, as you did at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Additionally, because you have previously edit warred in this area, and have been officially notified that sanctions apply to this page, you are topic banned from all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks (until 17:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)). —Darkwind (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

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

Sopher99 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

While I understand that I reverted in two edits - I was told specifically by an administrator who commonly deals with blocks that such did not violate the 1 revert rule so long as the edits are consecutive. Please see this page, where administrator User:Bbb23 explained to me how reverts are counted. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive227#User:Ahmadac_reported_by_User:Sopher99_.28Result:_No_violation.29 A block and topic ban can't be justified in this case when the administrators elaborately informed me that my actions are fine and have intentionally declined to ban other users for the same actions. So I stress that I was blatantly informed by another administrator that such method of reverting does not break the rules. You can see it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive227#User:Ahmadac_reported_by_User:Sopher99_.28Result:_No_violation.29 Sopher99 (talk) 11:53 am, Today (UTC−8)

Accept reason:

As per my comments below (initial review by Kuru (t c) who invited me to comment here). —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) the difference is you reverted two different users (2 reverts), while they reverted 2 consecutive edits by you (1 revert, like for example rollbacking multiple edits by one user). --Mdann52talk to me! 20:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) So, that actually counts as two reverts, not one. 1RR states that you should only make one revert, per day, of any kind, from any user. Epicgenius (talk) 21:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The comments above are exactly why I treated this as two reverts and not one. Yes, you did them sequentially, but you reverted two different users' additions. However, I can see your point -- it would probably have only been seen as one revert if you'd done them at the same time by hand instead of relying on the undo function, so it does look unfair.

I'll go ahead and unblock you, but the topic ban stands unless you choose to appeal it at WP:AN and the community agrees to shorten or overturn it. Reports against you were filed by no fewer than three separate editors, twice at WP:ANEW and one at WP:ANI -- this provides a clue that your behavior in this topic area has been less than exemplary, even before we look at your actual edits. You have already been blocked three times this year (counting this one) for edit warring in controversial topics, which further contributes to the sense that you are not at your best when working with this kind of contentious material. After a quick scan, you appear to be the single most complained-about editor on Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war -- something needs to change in your interaction pattern with other editors in this topic area, unless the community decides otherwise. —Darkwind (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

• I'm going to belatedly jump in here because Sopher mentions my name (I haven't been as active on Wikipedia lately). Any editor may revert as many other editors as they like as long the reverts are consecutive. The rule is clear: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."--Bbb23 (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What about continous POV vandalism, other instances of even clearer 1RR violations, and disrespectful comments on other WP contributors? Did the admins check the multitude of complaints against this user from various WP contributors in the topic specific talk page? I still believe this user has to be blocked from this topic theme, as he is not contributing constructively, rather vandalising the topic. This is demonstrated by being the most reverted contributor of this topic. His two consecutive reverts were for edits made by different users. 1RR has no real effect if a user is able to consecutively revert in a few minutes N referenced edits from various editors, spamming the article history page with no new sources or citations. Just my view, being reflected by many other WP contributors. Ref. talk page and edit comments. RegardsAriskar (talk) 15:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

If said user is topic banned, it seems non-mainspace is fair game? The ban is still active..(Lihaas (talk) 22:46, 16 December 2013 (UTC)).

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Lihaas (talk) 17:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Template syrian civil war template box

Hanibal911 is bringing source that rebel forces are way lesser than they are,he is saying that ISIS is just 3,000 forces after a reliable source said it was 22,500 and other such as nusra and ahead alrasul.Alhanuty (talk) 18:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

you're a liar

[49](→‎External links: youtube not a source)

Sources: TV news air footage, documentary films!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

<.ref >official source</ref >+(< ref>TV news air footage</ref> + English subtitles). This YouTube? - you are very fun --Rqasd (talk) 11:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for eastern ghouta

Check this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Neutral_Proposal_for_the_eastern_Ghouta Alhanuty (talk) 02:28, 27 December 2013 (UTC).

Al-Naqqarin

Al-Naqqarin contested. confirmation from a reliable source.The Daily StarHanibal911 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't see naqqarin mentioned. Suppoprtkurds is a reliable source too. Sopher99 (talk) 15:02, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

You were right by changing Al-Naqqarin on contested.http://www.titanherald.com/2013/12/30/syrian-troops-kills-73-rebels-in-separate-clashes/ Hanibal911 (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Khanasser

Photo from your source for 26 August.http://abcnews.go.com/International/syria-crisis-live-updates-us-prepares-strike-syria/story?id=20112310 Hanibal911 (talk) 17:30, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Sayyidah Zaynab

Your source does not mention the ongoing clashes in Sayyidah Zaynab.IndependentHanibal911 (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Hannibal911 is using unreliable

He is using unreliable sources such as xish,which is controlled by the Chinese government and it is pro-Assad,and used in an edit in the map,can you revert him,I already did.but he reverted.Alhanuty (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

EA WorldView

EA WorldView is pro-opposition source and may not be reliable or neutral source. http://eaworldview.com/about/contact/ Hanibal911 (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Your source EA WorldView supports this news resource Syrian Support Group Hanibal911 (talk) 19:55, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

An Nabk

An Nabk city was captured 10 December The Daily Star why you use the source As Safir dated 18 October to change it on contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

source says 27/12/2013. Sopher99 (talk) 00:20, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It is clearly written that:This article was first published in Arabic on 10/18/2013. And stop using outdated or opposition article. Here is source The Arab Chronicle that you used is not neutral or reliable he is based on opposition amateur video. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Eastern Ghouta

Sopher 99 I beg you, let's wait for more evidence about the fighting in Eastern Ghouta and will not use opposition sources and blogs. But I agree with you that Deir Salman and Al-Baharieh contested. Here confirmation from the pro government sources. Islamic Invitation TurkeyFars News — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanibal911 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Listen all I know is that dozens of reliable sources confirmed an eastern ghouta offensive - and each failled to provide the names of the towns and villages - except for the rebels and activists who provided the names for us. The map is a month overdue for change. Sopher99 (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I was wrong using Al Watan and YouTube. But I used the pro opposition [50] and pro government [51] sources and got compromise solution. I think it will be more correct. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This source [52] notes Deir Salman under control army. Map for 21 December shows it under army control. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

But I changed Deir al Safir on under control opposition. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Khan Shaykun

http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921011000707

STOP misusing sources.The source clearly says they targeted rebels near the Northen farms which are in its countryside not inside the actual town please self revert and stop misusing sources as the source clearly does not suggest that the fighting is inside the town.Daki122 (talk) 16:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=35.449344&lon=36.658856&z=16&m=b&search=Syria Sopher99 (talk) 16:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dude does are housing objects not farms farms are stationed around the town as you can see there are a lot of fields around it.Daki122 (talk) 16:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You could change Khan Shaykhun on under control army. Fars News not reliable source. Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

According to BBC,Reuters Al-Nusra & ISIL are at war with FSA.

According to BBC,Reuters Al-Nusra & ISIL are not allies of FSA. read Al-Nusra Front. please answer or revert your own edit. ThankYou. SpidErxD (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually they are - they do operations with eahcother all the time.

Thats doesn't matter whether they ar enot anyway - because the FSA and the Islamic front declared war on ISIS. Ie ISIS is an enemy of the Syrian opposition. Sopher99 (talk) 13:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

NDF

I am considering that we should remove both the Shabiha and Jaysh al-Sha'bi from the infobox because I have come to be of the strong belief that both organisations have been merged into the NDF. A year ago when the NDF just showed up we got conflicting reports saying that these two were part of the NDF, that they were merging into the NDF or were even totally separate from them. However, since than we have almost had no mention of the two organisations and the pro-government militias have generally been referred to as the NDF by SOHR and others. Would you agree with this? EkoGraf (talk) 16:34, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No because not all Shabiha have been incorparated into the NDF. The Shabiha is just meant to be a thug force while the NDF is an attempt to organize shabiha militias to be actually useful for the syrian government against rebels. Sopher99 (talk) 16:59, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says not all Shabiha have been incorporated into the NDF? And I remind that Shabiha activity has been reported little to none at all in the last year. I talked to Future about this also, and he agrees with me. Although he also thinks that even as a former player in the war they should be mentioned. So I proposed that we put both the Shabiha and Jaysh al-Sha'bi in brackets and small font beside the NDF (as notable subgroups of the NDF). This would be in line with sources calling the NDF an umbrella group. Even SOHR when reporting on the daily death tolls calls all dead Syrian pro-government militiamen NDF members (no mention of Shabiha). EkoGraf (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Template:Syrian Civil War infobox page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo area

Sopher, here's confirmation of information from more than reliable source. Syrian army, along with pro-regime militias, captured Naqareen and four other adjacent areas.The Wall Street Journal Hanibal911 (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sopher I recommend you instead to outdated map from BBC better to use these maps [53] [54] and add villages north of Sheykh Nagar. And if you want I can help you do it. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess we can add what both maps agree on. I wouldn't add frontline villages though, and they are too volatile. We can add villages well behind lines of control. Sopher99 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I added villages Shamir, Marran and Al Maqbalah. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

What you think is it worth add village Haylan near Sheikh Najjar Industrial city and mark it under rebel control. Using these maps pro opposition pro government Hanibal911 (talk) 21:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

pro opposition source

Sopher we use pro opposition sources only in clashes Rebels vs ISIS and no more. Let's not use these sources in clashes Rebels vs Syrian troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ashrafiat Sahnaya,

Carefully read your sources. Your sources say about events that were in Ashrafiat Sahnaya in August.Daily News or Arutz Shewa 7 Hanibal911 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

arab chronicle map

Sopher you may understand what we use opposition sources in clashes Syrian rebels vs ISIS and no more. But in clashes Syrian troops vs Syrian rebels this source is not correct because this source clearly supports Syrian rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Miskin

Sopher on map already have city Sheikh Miskin he marked as contested. But even map of Arab chronicle confirms that in city there are clashes. Map Hanibal911 (talk) 18:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

This map displays information for 5 December but maybe you can use this data. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The article speaks about Masyaf and its villages!! these villages are known to be under control of syrian army — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barcaxx1980 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Deir ez zor

Can you add towns on the western countryside of deir ez zor and euphurates,and also, add towns between tel kocher and tal hamis.Alhanuty (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--HCPUNXKID 23:03, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

support for a block / ban

Sopher I wanted to retract of my support for a block / ban but your friend Alhanuty became threaten me and I now doubt whether I should do it. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:51, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Raqqa

Sopher I see you support the rebels in their fight against militants ISIS. I a few days ago came across on information about the clashes rebels against ISIS inside the city Raqqa. If you are interested in this information I will try to find these sources. I just do not save them. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Clashes in Junction neighborhood on the west of the city of Raqqa.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are the data from the pro opposition source but i think we can use him information in the conflict between the Syrian rebels and ISIS militants. Fresh round of fierce clashes erupted today between several Free Syrian Army (FSA) battalions and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) near Al-Sabahiyyah checkpoint, in the city of Al-Raqqa. Al-Raqqa-based sources also reported to Syria Newsdesk that, since yesterday, numerous ISIL checkpoints have been targeted by the FSA.Syria Newsdesk Hanibal911 (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Here are the coordinates al-Sibahiyah where there were clashes between rebels against ISIS militants. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Who you think you are?

Stop asking me to remove that alleged 50 towns (I doubt that they are 50) in Hama and DO IT YOURSELF IF YOU WANT AND CAN PROVE THAT THEY ARE UNSOURCED. WHO YOU THINK YOU ARE TO GIVE ORDERS TO OTHER USERS?. And you shouldnt talk about adding towns with YouTube videos, you know how many towns have been added based on pro-opp tv's like Al-Gad, Al-Jazeera, Orient TV, etc... Want them removed? Not to talk about the ones added with lousy activist videos, not journalistic ones...I WILL REVERT YOUR VANDALISM 'TILL IS NECESSARY, GET IT STRAIGHT.--HCPUNXKID 16:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I did try to remove them, only to reverted by Barcaxx.

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

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

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

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

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594565249&oldid=594553337

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594364987&oldid=594364103

Above is the list of all villages added without a source. Count them yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, then talk to BarcaXX in his talk page to make him see that no-one can add unsourced content or taken from Twitter to the map. I repeat, why should I have to do it instead of you? Also, he's not the only one breaking WP rules by using Twitter as a source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=prev&oldid=594580088 --HCPUNXKID 18:10, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Ah, and while the four first links you put above are unsourced or based on Twitter (and for that reason not acceptable), the three last are sourced and acceptable, from Al Jazeera and OTV Lebanese tv channel.--HCPUNXKID 18:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If you read the sources (translated to english) none of those villages are named in the source, just the fact rif masyaf is controlled by the regime. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

How can you be so hypocrite and false? Its you who started f*ck*ng up the map adding unsourced towns, and its you who refused to remove them and even want to force me to do edits that you can perfectly do by yourself. I twice told you that you can remove BarcaXX unsourced edits, but you simply shut up as if you havent hear it, showing your widely-known bad faith. Its you who started using general maps to add specific towns not shown on that maps, so dont try to look innocent, you are the one to blame, so face it...--HCPUNXKID 22:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

If I am too remove my towns and villages I will do so simultaneously as I remove Barcaxx's. Likewise I expect you to remove my villages simultaneously as you remove Barcaxx's. Otherwise I would take it your just out to get me and don't really have any concerns about the wikipedia policy itself. Sopher99 (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor Governorate

This source confirms that Jabhat al-Nusra controls the road which links the city Deir ez-Zor with city Markadah in the province Hasakah. I think you just might add the cities that are on the road which links the city Deir ez-Zor with city Markadah in the province Hasakah thereby we can end the conflict in the editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

What I am really concerned though about is Aonline revert of My removal of Barcaxx's towns. Can you please revert him? I'm completely fine with HCPUNX's removal of my towns, so long as Barcaxx's unsourced towns are removed too. But Aonline reverts my attempts. Sopher99 (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I may help you add villages or to help find sources but no more. I do not want to participate in the editors war. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

In this situation, there and your a serious mistake as a more experienced editor you not tried to explain Barcaxx1980 that he is not entirely correct adds the towns and villages. But instead you started adding towns and villages using as source only Wikimapia also you threatened him if he would use for editing of pro government sources you also will use pro opposition sources. Just needed to talk with Barcaxx1980 but you chose to act differently. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Re:Syria map

As usual, u are trying to manipulate again, showing your well-known bad faith. Part of the towns you included in your revert are sourced (OTV Lebanon documentary), as I told you earlier (you dont listen when people talk to you? It seems so, due to your edit history of ignoring other editors advices or WP rules & guidelines), but you try to put them into the whole and if it works, it works...So dont play the victim role, what goes around comes around, you had the opportunity of being civilized and settle the dispute self-reverting, but you preferred edit-warring, so dont cry now...--HCPUNXKID 17:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Check my edits again, and see If deleted any town with those two (illegitimate) sources. Sopher99 (talk) 17:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

If these villages don't get removed, I will assume you really are fine with me adding more villages, and I will continue tonight. Trust me, there are ALOT of dots that can be added. Like hundreds. Sopher99 (talk) 17:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Shopher99, you are boring and we had enough from you .. STOP!!

Shopher99, your approach is wrong, you can't win the war on ground by changing the map. please calm down and try to be perspective. It is better to look for sources instead of just destroying the map. We have gave you sources from the opposition admit that they have no control west of Homs (only 2 villages) and you know that very well because you are familiar with the situation. you clearly support FSA and this makes you biased, while we want to draw the map as it is. There is big difference between drawing a map as it is on reality and drawing a map as you wish it to be.

Stop drawing what you wish, and start looking for reality. Otherwise you wikipedia is not suitable for you.

Barcaxx1980 —Preceding undated comment added 18:13, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources for editing

You probably forgot that we do not use pro opposition sources to display rebel advances. But you use pro opposition sources Syrian Observer and SOHR. After all, you yourself have insisted many times that we not use pro government sources to display the achievements of the army but it also means that we do not use pro sources of opposition to display of the rebels advances. And as I already told that instead of what would just delete the cities and villages that are added Barcaxx1980 you may just talk with the Barcaxx1980 and explain to him that he is not entirely correct them added. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

You guys have been using SOHR for like the past week. SOHR reports both rebel and regime gains equally, so I don't recognize SOHR as a source that has bias towards the rebels even if the managers may hate the regime.

I won't use SOHR so long as no one else uses sohr.

Regarding Barcaxx neither you or HCPUNX got through to him. And he regards me as a pro rebel editor with bias, and outright refuses to recognize he doesn't have proper sourcing for those villages. I am done with him.

Let me emphasize that everyone else seems to be a hypocrite - only reversing my towns but not reversing his.

Let me further emphasize that I am Okay with keeping both of our towns or deleting both of our towns. but it has to BOTH of ours, not just mine. Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I see you now add a city using a map from a particular source, and I personally think it's right. And about the source of SOHR you know that many reliable sources acknowledged SOHR as pro opposition source Reuters. And will be more correct if we dont use SANA, Al Manar, Al Mayaden, Fars News and other sources of government to display the army advances but also we do not use SOHR, Syrian Observer, Ea World and other pro opposition sources to display the rebel advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Sopher99, Finally

Thanks man, you finally added twons of Daraa with sources. This is good news. The same map you use clarifies what is already mentioned in many other sources. FSA has only two villages west of Homs, so please stop deleting my villages. They are true if this is what you are looking for. (in this source http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/foreign-affairs-defense/syrias-second-front/map-syrias-shifting-battle-lines/)

--Barcaxx1980 (talk) 00:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to delete your towns, and I don't want mine deleted either.

all I have been saying is that if my villages get deleted for lacking sources, then like-wise yours should too. If my towns and villages stay, like-wise yours should too, and vica versa. Sopher99 (talk) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Idleb, FSA and ISIS

Dear Soper99, please just add another source and it will be fine. Believe me I am from Syria and I know these websites such as Aks Alseer, they were under control of some intelligence system before this civil war and there were divided in two aks alseer websites after the war, and now each one is like a unprofessional website. I think this very important information in Idleb, where FSA has its power, must be mentioned in other reliable sources. If you will insist to add this information, I will not stop you. Do what you think is right here. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 23 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Ahrar ash-Sham page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 01:08, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Source

Sopher enough we not use the pro opposition source to display opposition advances since they are biased. We can use the information SOHR if this information confirmed in by more reliable sources. I hope for your understanding of this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

The thing is is that SOHR reports regime and rebels advances equally. If we all promise not to use sohr - facebook or its mainsite - I will self-revert. Sopher99 (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Sopher we should not use data received directly from the SOHR site to display the achievements rebels if these data not confirmed another reliable source because SOHR is opposition source. And you should know that many reliable sources recognize the fact that SOHR is the pro opposition source. We also do not use the information obtained immediately from government sources to display achievements of the army although these sources also sometimes said about successes of the rebels. We can use the SOHR in conflict of the opposition fighters vs ISIS militants and also in conflict of the Kurds vs ISIS. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nawa

Can you please put back nawa as rebel controlled,I have brought a source confirming that nawa is rebel-controlled,but an editor has putted it back as government controlled,can you revert it please,Alhanuty (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

done. Sopher99 (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo map

Sopher here you can see all the data on the basis of which editor Tourbillon edit the map of Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

March 2014

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• libyan-weapons.html|title=In Turnabout, Syria Rebels Get Libyan Weapons|date=21 June 2013}}</ref> > By July 2013, the Syrian government was in control of approximately 30-40% of the country's

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dalton House, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colonial (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: 1 revert rule

Ok, I've added it again, lets see how much it lasts...--HCPUNXKID 17:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading the discussion text, I assume that you added the tag exclusively because of the change of status in Hanano neighbourhood. Am I wrong?.--HCPUNXKID 17:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Khalidya, saif al dawla, parts of sheikh saed, the "whole surrounding" of aleppo citadel. Sopher99 (talk) 18:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of sourced content

this is vandalism, just so you know. --Z 05:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Syria: direct

Why is it not reliable in this instance? Syria: direct is a highly pro-opposition news source similar to Syrian newsdesk. So yes, when they report on rebel advances they are unreliable. However, as we already decided, when an opposition news source makes reports on events that are more favorable to the other side we than use them as a source. Like when you use SANA when they report/admit fighting in towns that are otherwise reported by other sources as firmly held by the government. In this case Syria: direct reported, based on interviews with FSA commanders, that those towns are government-held and that a stalemate has ensued. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Al-Ra'i

Do you think we can use opposition source to display success rebels in clashes vs ISIS. Because Syria Newsdesk said that ISIL withdrew from village Al Rai. And I ask you not ipolzovat SOHR pro opposition source in the fight rebels vs army. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Interview request

Hi Sopher99,

I'm a PhD student and long-time Wikipedian studying breaking news articles on Wikipedia (you can find more about me and my work on my user page). I'm working on a new paper about the Egyptian Revolution of 2011 article and would love to talk to you in general about your wiki work and about sources and references in particular. We're testing out a new methodology for visualizing a user's sources over time and will show you some network diagrams of all the sources and the ones you added in particular as a way to discuss source practice.

Do you think you could spare 30 minutes over Skype next week - preferably Wednesday or Thursday? I'm in Oxford (GMT). Let me know when is good? You can email me from my user page.

Looking forward to chatting! --hfordsa (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo map

Your basis for the revert OF HCPUNXKID'S changes was totally contrary to the sources. Read the sources! The one about the AL-Ma'amel area [55] says confirmed reports that regime forces and its allied have taken over the area and the one about Aziza [56] says the regular forces regained control of the areas of the bathroom (miss-translation maybe) and the village of Aziza after violent clashes with Nusra Front fighters and several Islamic battalions. Be careful when accusing someone of vandalism in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Al Harra

Sopher your source only said that the rebels fired of heavy machine guns the regime checkpoint in the eastern part of Al-Harra but was not reports about clashes in the city also no reports of human losses. And also passed two weeks since the publication of this report but more was not no reports which could confirm that in the city there are clashes. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Mesherfeh

Sopher you remember that we do not use pro rebel sources to display success rebels. And also your soureces only say that the rebels on mountain ridge shelling the Assad-forces in village Al-Mesherfeh. But I also agree that not correct to use the source of Syrian documents to display the army advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Post-civil war violence in Libya

Can you please look at the article. User:EkoGraf keeps using a bias fringe source from Mathaba News Agency to claim that some kind of coordinated "Green Resistance" exists (it doesn't). The other sources he is using don't use that term either. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.231 (talk) 12:32, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Your recent editing history at Resurrection of Jesus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Theroadislong (talk) 16:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, STOP. You're already over the limit ([57], [58], [59] and [60] in the last 24 hours). José Luiz ^talk 01:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Resurrection of Jesus. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Resurrection of Jesus, you may be blocked from editing. You're continuing to edit war over this right after getting out of a block for edit warring? Really? After it's been explained that the phrasing you're going for doesn't make sense in English, is countered by reliable sources, and is even countered by half of the sources you cited, you're going to continue edit warring over this? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Al-Zabadani

Opposition fighters in the Syrian town of Zabadani have surrendered after intense fighting with regime troops, losing their last stronghold along Lebanon's border. Rebels did not deny losing the town, located 30 kilometers northwest of Damascus. Opposition activists say the armed men had no other choice but to surrender. This data confirmed by reliable sources.Al JazeeraThe AustralianThe Times Hanibal911 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Tal Al-Jabiyah

Sopher you must be stop not correctly edit the map because in your source does not mention the village of Al-Jabiyah also other sources only said that clashes on the hill Tal Al-Jabiyah south of the village Al-Jabiyah.herThe Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend you undo your last editing, or simply to add on map the object which is mentioned in the source and return the village Al-Jabiyah former status. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Al Samra

Why you use to edit the village Al Samra outdated map of the from pro government source of the although there is an updated version this map which confirms takeover. Hanibal911 (talk) 04:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Inkhil

Sopher I self revert my editing but you were wrong when you noted the city of Inkhil the under rebel control because that the source syrian perspective not said that the city is under rebel control. So I recommend that you re-mark it as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

1 revert rule

You broke the 1RR rule at 00:36, 2 May 2014. I would not want notify administrators about your actions considering that you are an experienced editor and I hope that you yourself fix your bug. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Tal Malah

SOHR later also said that the rebels were just trying to capture the village of Tal Malah but does not say that they captured her.source Hanibal911 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Syrian Civil War may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s and 2 "{}"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:

• (For a more detailed map, see [[Template:Syrian civil war detailed map|here]])}}]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahl al-Sham

Could you please upload an image of the organization's logo so that it can be added to the battle of Aleppo article? A perfect one can be found here:https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/440852277016788992/8o7GnsUR.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.108 (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 Latakia Offensive

Please keep an eye on this article as an anonyonous user keep adding on whole section which is basically fringe proaganda. Also Wikipedia user Ekograf keeps inserting WP:Undue and inflamitory POV statements into the introduction. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.120.240 (talk) 06:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Ill try Sopher99 (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Crystal ball, as you claimed, does not apply in this case. Crystal ball applies when you make an unverifiable prediction. The source in this case does not make a prediction but states a fact of a past event. Also, if Reuters is something, than its a verifiable and reliable source. In addition, Crystal ball applies when its a matter of editors who insert their own opinions or analyses. This is the opinion and analysis of Reuters. To continue, your claim that the manner in which it is used on the article unfairly pushes a view is incorrect. The sentence states EXACTLY what the source says. So there is no personal POV on an editor's part involved in this edit. Everything is appropriately per the source. So I would ask once again that you do not remove sourced information or its source. IF offensive operations re-start by both sides in the near future, we will reopen the article, but if not and there are no more major combat operations conducted in the near future, the article is closed. EkoGraf (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War topic ban

The following sanction now applies to you:

Topic ban from editing Syrian Civil War articles and associated talk pages, broadly construed, for three months

You have been sanctioned due to continued edit warring on Syrian Civil War articles and filing edit warring reports against other users when you have also edit-warred.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the community sanctions authorised for this topic area. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions for that decision. Please read the banning policy to insure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period by way of enforcement of this sanction, and you may also be subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here except to the administrators' noticeboard rather than the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page) before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if any of the above is unclear to you.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

LibDutch = ChronicalUsual Sockpuppet?

I think it is likely. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/LibDutch

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/XxReflectionxX

IPinvestigates (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC)