User talk:Editor abcdef/Archive 2

Syrian Civil War ref "NBC statement September 23"

Looks like a change of yours moved a block from somewhere into Syrian Civil War, but missed out on a ref called "NBC statement September 23", resulting in a Cite error: The named reference NBC_statement_September_23 was invoked but never defined (see the help page) complaint in the references section. Batternut (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wadi Barada

No need. The siege lasts from 2013. Wadi Barada on the offensive began on 23 December. An article on the siege of Wadi Barada should be expanded and put the most important events between 19 November 2013 and 23 December 2016. A special section to be on the offensive, which runs from 23 December. This is my proposal.--Baba Mica (talk) 00:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Wadi Barada isn't that significant though, so if there are two separate articles both would be short and low on sources. This is why I suggested a merger. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Info

[1] seems now to be active as [2]. 2003:77:4F19:280:D599:CAC8:CB23:F4B6 (talk) 11:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Palmyra offensive (2016–17)

An editor isn't accepting any of the sources that have been provided at the article that the ISIL attack on the T4 air-base has been repelled and that currently there is a new SAA-initited offensive. He's reverted several editors. I am trying to discuss the issue with him at the article's talk page and your input would be appreciated since you have been involved in editing the article. EkoGraf (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Deir ez-Zor siege article

Should we have an article on ISIL's Deir ez-Zor siege (since July 14, 2014, when they expelled all of the remaining rebels)? And if so, could you maybe make a starter one? EkoGraf (talk) 19:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I think so. It's an important battle in the war and an article on the siege will provide an overview to the clashes that occurred as part of it. I'll be working on it, if you've not already done so. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

What the hell was that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamza_Division_%28Aleppo%29&type=revision&diff=765357844&oldid=764180781 Beshogur (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Salih Muslim Muhammad

Dear Editor abcdef, in general I appreciate your edits (in particular your strong adherence to NPOV), however at [3] you have been fooled by "4world2read" [4] / "Human like you" [5] / IP 213.74.186.109 [6] / Constellation2023 [7]. As 213.74.186.109 this user is well known to you [8], [9]. At [10] this user now included material he was trying to include for months by edit warring, he even has copied the comment "violations of WP:BLP, WP:POV and WP:UNDUE" of the last revert of user:2A1ZA to his edit summary, in addition lying about support for this edit at the talk page. Please have a look at the talk page of the article and please revert the article to the version of user:2A1ZA of 3 Feb. 2003:77:4F28:1447:E065:9528:EE0E:5D4 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Your assistance please...

Can you explain where the discussion that preceded this edit took place? Geo Swan (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

What edit? Can you point out the said edit? Either this or you might have called the wrong person. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:54, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Editor abcdef, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Schwede66 09:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sultan Murad Division

You have a choice: you revert yourself, or I block you for violating the code of conduct on an article governed by discretionary sanctions; scroll up on this talk page if you forgot what that was all about. The sources are indeed lousy, and your edit summary ("stop edit warring") doesn't make any sense since I only made one revert. I'd rather you revert yourself since a DS block comes with paperwork, and I've placed enough blocks tonight. Do not doubt that I will not hesitate to block you (or your opponent in those articles). Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:20, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Last chance. If you don't understand how you broke 1R, you are not competent to edit in a contentious field. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism (i.e. deleting an entire well-cited section) is an accepted part of the 1RR. Reinstating them and siding with the vandal is, however, not. Also please stop your threats and intimidation. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't vandalism; your saying "vandalism" doesn't make it so. And bluelinking "threats" looks silly. Thank you NeilN. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

February 2017

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. 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 request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Breaking WP:1RR on Sultan Murad Division --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you NeilN. Are you reverting? The edit warrior should not get an advantage. Drmies (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• @Drmies: Yes, done, with a note saying any other edit may undo. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Seriously, you didn't even notify me as required of your one-sided submission to the notice board which you immediately deleted. I know you're busy @NeilN: but couldn't there be at least a fair discussion there? And finally, participating in the edit war yourself isn't a good way of resolving it. Editor abcdef (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• Discussion can come after the self-revert which you were given ample opportunity to do. Instead, you chose to characterize the edits as vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

First of all, the process of the block was very one-sided. I did not formally receive a notice of my report at WP:AN as required until after it was deleted. The only notification I received was a mention of my username (explicitly stated in red text as not sufficient at the top of WP:AN) and a threat (clearly discouraged at WP:INTIMIDATION). Because the report was deleted literally under a minute, there was no chance for any fair discussion or opposition. Secondly, reverting vandalism is permitted under the 1RR. Obviously, there's a debate on whether emptying a well-cited section without any explanation would be considered vandalism. Even the sources themselves were disputed by @Drmies:. However, Amnesty International and the Syrian Network for Human Rights are clearly neutral and reliable sources cited by most prominent news agencies. Even if sources like al-Masdar News are not reliable sources, users like @Drmies: could have only deleted text which cites it instead of emptying the entire section. Finally, there needs to be a free and fair discussion on whether the actions of @Ebong abd:, deleting entire sections, would be considered obvious vandalism. It's important to note that administrators' informal opinions do not override other users. It'll be great if the article Sultan Murad Division is protected and I'm unblocked. There are two resolutions to edit warring, one is protecting the affected article, and the other is blocking the participating users. I hope more focus will be on the actions instead of the people. Seriously, I am not a robot. At least reduce the block to 12 hours since I will not participate in edit warring on the article again. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:15, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:13, 26 February 2017 (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.

Note I wasn't working off the WP:AN report but followed the activities on Drmies talk page to here. Clear cut WP:1RR violation and doubling down by calling Drmies edit vandalism. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:33, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• I went to notify the editor and saw the editor had already been blocked. Editor's arguments are varieties of "it's the other guy's fault". You don't go around calling other editors vandals (their opponent may be disruptive but that's not the same)--though I think they used that word to preemptively stave this kind of thing off. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Off for an hour or so. No issue with unblocking if editor agrees to not edit article for 72 hours. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I just restored the deleted content on Sultan Murad Division. I didn't know before looking at this page that there was such a heavy conflict going on. I have no relation to 'Editor abcdef' whatsoever, but I know him for his edits and his strict adherence to NPOV. I restored the content and started a discussion of the talk page because to me the section looks well-sourced and I think it shouldn't be deleted without discussion. Blanking of a whole section of sourced material without any explanation, as user 'Ebong abd' did, is indeed usually considered as vandalism and I think both User:Drmies and User:NeilN made mistakes in this case (I'm not so experienced but this really seems wrong). 217.83.240.220 (talk) 20:21, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Not quite correct. Please read WP:NOTVAND. "Even factually correct material may not belong on Wikipedia, and removing such content when it is not in line with Wikipedia's standards may not be vandalism." There's a difference between POV/potentially disruptive editing and vandalism (which is a malicious edit). And Drmies's edit summary had a pretty concise explanation for the removal. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:36, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I think the edit of user 'Ebong abd' is classified as "Blanking, illegitimate" in WP:VANDTYPES: "Removing encyclopedic content without any reason" (here it is not the case that "the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself" and no explanation is provided). The edit of user User:Drmies looks to me like lack of WP:COMPETENCE for this specific topic - if one doesn't allow sources of this kind one would have to delete much of wikipedia's articles about similar topics (and just writing "shoddy sourcing" is not really giving much explanation, I would expect an explanation about which of the many sources are not reliable for which reason). Anyway, I don't think that the edit of User:Drmies changes the edit of user 'Ebong abd' from vandalism into non-vandalism. 217.83.240.220 (talk) 21:49, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Bluntly speaking, your self-stated inexperience in these matters is causing you to make incorrect statements. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I still see some inconsistencies and fundamental questions underlying this issue. Can you please clarify:

1) Is "removing encyclopedic content", when it is not the case that "the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself" and no explanation is provided, generically considered as vandalism ("Blanking, illegitimate" in WP:VANDTYPES)? In such a case does one need additional proof to consider it 'vandalism' or does one need additional proof to consider it 'not vandalism'?

2) If an edit itself constitutes 'vandalism', can it later become 'not vandalism', e.g. if someone later adds an explanation which is not readily apparent? (If yes, this would lead to many further problems, e.g. 2x vandalism, 2x revert, then an explanation which transforms the 'vandalism' into 'not vandalism' - has now the reverting editor violated 1RR?) 217.83.250.117 (talk) 12:14, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Editor abcdef should not have reverted a second time when it was even more obvious the removal was not vandalism. Period. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, I agree that 'Editor abcdef' shouldn't have made the second revert, however, this does not address the above questions and concerns, and doesn't explain why the edit of 'Ebong abd' should not be considered vandalism. I do not want to waste your time but I really think that some clarification would be helpful here. 217.83.249.133 (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Because that automatically assumes bad faith. There's a reason why we have the uw-delete series of warning templates {which Editor abcdef correctly used), starting with "I noticed that you recently removed some content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks." Nothing about vandalism. Which is proper as there was no edit summary like "for lulz!". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:40, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, this makes sense - one problematic edit does not allow to assume bad faith. But there was this problematic edit by 'Ebong abd' before. Also probably problematic edits here (now deleted). Possibly after these edits one could already assume some bad faith? If not, when is it allowed to assume bad faith? Does one has to go up the whole series of warnings? 217.83.249.133 (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Is it that hard to just protect the article? This block is preventing me from editing my own user page and my own sandbox, from constructively editing unrelated articles, and from constructively participating in talk page discussions. This is a blatant violation of WP:BLOCKNOTPUNITIVE, WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, and WP:BLOCKNO. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:15, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Look at it from another angle: protecting the article would have prevented other users from improving it. Why should everyone suffer just so that you could avoid responsibility? That would be a blatant violation of WP:PREFER, WP:EW, WP:1RR, WP:NOT and WP:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG!. Max Semenik (talk) 02:59, 27 February 2017 (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.

Ok... I'm actually speechless. I've seen other neutral and diligent editors being blocked in the last time by overly aggressive admins, but this one's really the cherry on the cake. But nevermind, I didn't come to discuss, I already know that it's just a waste of time.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:36, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

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).

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

---

Request reason:

48 hours is over. I have no idea why this is extended to March 1 when it should be been lifted today and right now. Editor abcdef (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You're not blocked.

Clearing an autoblock

Due to the nature of the block applied we need additional information before we can decide whether to unblock you. It is very likely that you are not personally blocked. If you are prevented from editing, it may be because you are autoblocked or blocked because of your IP address. Without further details there is nothing further we can do to review or lift your block. Please follow these instructions:

1. If you have a Wikipedia account, please ensure that you are logged in.
   Your account name will be visible in the top right of this page if you are.
   If it isn't, try bypassing your web browser's cache.
2. Try to edit the Sandbox.
3. If you are still blocked, copy the {{unblock-auto|...}} code generated for you under the "IP blocked?" section. This is usually hidden within the "What do I do now?" section. If so, just click the "[show]" link to the right hand side to show this text.
4. Paste the code at the bottom of your user talk page and click save.

If you are not blocked from editing the sandbox then the autoblock on your IP address has already expired and you can resume editing. Max Semenik (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2017 (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.

You're not blocked. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:10, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

127.0.0.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

---

Block message:

Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Editor abcdef". The reason given for Editor abcdef's block is: "Edit warring".

• Blocking administrator: NeilN (talk • blocks)

---

Accept reason: Sorry, this kind of hiccup sometimes happens. I have removed the autoblock. Huon (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2017 Syrian mosque airstrike

On 22 March 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2017 Syrian mosque airstrike, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Mhhossein ^talk 11:51, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madaya. 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) 10:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Free Syrian Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rastan. 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) 09:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lions of the East Army, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Al-Qaim. 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) 09:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited April 2017 Turkish airstrikes in Syria and Iraq, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin. 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) 10:06, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Kurdish National Council

added a link pointing to Afrin

Levant Front

added a link pointing to Afrin

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

State-sponsored Terrorism Entry Changes, May 12

Apparently you reverted all changes I've made since you think they are not neutral. But can you specifically tell which ones are not? So that I can work on them. Because even the most basic ones are reverted and since almost all citations are from news websites, how do you weigh neutrality between news websites? If I know how you review them, I could do a better job.

Best regards

"who insisted on civil rule of law instead of Sharia". I mean, seriously? Both the al-Nusra Front and Ahrar al-Sham implement Sharia in the territory that they control. Also, the article at al-Nusra Front clearly states that it is still al-Qaeda. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War Infobox

I noticed you reverted my edit because I removed too much content. What portions of the article do you suggest we remove?

currently the page is nearing 400kb even though "the readable prose size is only 137kb". I hope you agree with the notice at the top of the page (and several sections) that the page is too long and that something needs to be done. This page is unreadable on mobile and is very difficult to follow on desktop, shortening long sections, including the infobox, will help make this article easier to read. thx Crewcamel (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Western Nineveh offensive (2017)

I restructured, rewrote and retitled that unsourced OR article since except Baba Mica everyone else was in agreement over this (six of us). Check it out to see if you think there are elements that need expanding. EkoGraf (talk) 17:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Raqqa campaing 2012 - 2013

Blogspot and Youtube are not reliable sources. You are deliberately trying to add unreliable sources and spread misinformation. If you continue your disruptive editing style, you will be reported. Ferakp (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Maskanah Plains offensive and Raqqa campaign (2016-present)

I deleted phase six. Syrian Arab Army from June 6 to participate actively in the Raqqa campaign (2016–present).--Baba Mica (talk) 01:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Maskanah Plains offensive is the past.--Baba Mica (talk) 01:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

He wiped phase six. Maskanah Plains offensive is the past. End of story.--Baba Mica (talk) 01:24, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

It is necessary to open a new member. Maybe called Maskanah-Tabqa offensive. Perhaps a better title Central Syria offensive. It depends on which side tigers move in. My first suggestion is if there is an escalation of the Syrian Arab Army and the SDF.the coming days. My second suggestion is if tigers forces focus on fighting ISIL south of Raqqa and Tabqa. It is then central Syria. It is necessary to open the article Al SOON cloth offensive because the city does not belong Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present) in contrast to the city Arak. Al-Sukhnah was much further north. These are my suggestions for the coming days. --Baba Mica (talk) 01:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Jabhat al-Nusra presence in Darayya

some 20% fighters were Al-Nusra, also Ajnad al-Sham was the strongest faction there not FSA. https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/top-rebel-commander-killed-in-darayya-amid-syrian-army-advance/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GroundlessAir (talk • contribs) 13:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

rv in American-led intevention in Syria

[11] This content is obviously related to the American-led intervention in Syria article, it is about aftermath of the events covered in that artcile. --Z 11:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present)

Hey Editor, what do you think, should we maybe change the title of the article from offensive to campaign? Seems to me the operation is basically made up of several offensive on multiple axes. It would also be in line with the title of the previous rebel campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree. As you said, there has been multiple coordinated offensives there. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

5th Corps (Syrian rebel group) = "Gathering of Rebels in Southern Idlib"?

What makes you sure these two groups are the same? The list of constituents of the "Gathering" given here only mentions three of the five 5th Corps members. Bulbajer (talk) 04:47, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

They were not the same. However, the Gathering can be described as the successor of the 5th Corps, minus the 101st Division. According to this article, the 5th Corps no longer existed by November 2014 (it used the word "former" when describing the corps). I'll revise the article to reflect on this. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Desert campaign (August 2017)

Perhaps there is currently no campaign, but it is certainly a military offensive by insurgents who have fiercely attacked the Syrian army, and they have gained territorial expansion after the terrible defeats in May, June and July. Can you rename the Syrian Desert campaign (August 2017) instead of the word of the campaign Syrian Desert offensive (August 2017). Although it seems to me that in a matter of weeks, if the front blasts here really need the CAMPAIGN term again. But by then who knows what will be. The Syrian Arab Army has more serious losses now than it was bombarded by the US and Norway in May and June.--Baba Mica (talk) 10:23, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

You're predicting the future too far. Of course there may be an offensive by the rebels in area the future, but this isn't the place to talk about this. As of now, it's just sporadic clashes and shelling. None of them constitute an offensive, much less a campaign. You will also need to discuss this to other involved users such as @GroundlessAir:, @EkoGraf:, @Applodion:, and @MonsterHunter32:. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:57, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Agree with everything Editor abcdef said. That article deserves deletion because its in violation of WP policy on predicting the future and WP policy regarding notability. Best course of action would be to merge into an aftermath section of the previous campaign. As far as I can see, per the ONE source cited, the rebels announced an offensive, but none actually materialized. EkoGraf (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

What was verifiable I merged into the aftermath section of the previous campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Delete the first version

Delete the first version Syrian Desert campaign (August 2017).--Baba Mica (talk) 10:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

turkish occupation

why did you revert me on the turkish occupation of northern syria.Alhanuty (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Move of Rojava/DFNS Cantons to Regions

Hi! I'm proposing that the pages for the cantons of Rojava/DFNS be moved as they have been renamed into regions by the administration of the DFNS. Since you've been active in editing DFNS-related pages I thought you'd be interested in taking part in the votes on the talk pages; Talk:Cantons of Rojava, Talk:Jazira Canton, Talk:Kobanî Canton and Talk:Afrin Canton. AntonSamuel (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Syrian opposition and SDF

I've seen an image created by yourself named File:Foreign support to the Syrian opposition.png, which describes support to various factions of the Syrian Civil War. However, i believe it is wrong to call them all "Syrian opposition", and especially so in regard to the Syrian Democratic Forces, which in fact are mostly in conflict with Syrian opposition, while partially cooperating with the Ba'athist Syrian Republic. Syrian opposition conglomerate of factions and related military units are partially affiliated with some Islamist factions, but are certainly not including the North Syrian Federation and affiliated Syrian Democratic Forces.GreyShark (dibra) 07:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

That's quite old. Feel feel to remove it. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, will nominate for deletion.GreyShark (dibra) 09:18, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

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

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

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

An issue requiring attention

Please see this. 73.70.174.150 (talk) 20:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Salvation Government

SSG does use the Independence flag, please do some search before you edit, https://www.eqtsad.net/news/article/18405 3bdulelah (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for

mentioning you in that EW report on ANI: that was but a mere conjecture on my part, but the situation in the relevant article remains bad. Please take part in this thread: Talk:List of United States attacks on the Syrian government during the Syrian Civil War.Axxxion (talk) 20:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Bias on your part re: Dawronoye Page

I have made repeated attempts to contribute information on Dawronoye but have been met with intense resistance despite citing numerous verified journalists and official government accounts.

I have recently been told to "discuss and come to a consensus" before making edits, when that is preposterous objection - if you check the Talk page, you will see my last comment from 13th February left unanswered by other contributors. It is now 19th February. Given that nobody has challenged me or my sources except you this is a gross abuse of power over the information related to this page. I have made every attempt to engage in civil discourse with the other contributors but to no avail. There is little public understanding of how complex this group is - in fact, there is clearly a stubborn resistance against any attempt to depict it - something which is in the public interest. The information presented on this page as it is was very one-sided, and as such, I felt that there needed to be a more balanced view which presents as much information as possible to fill in any blanks - again, with as much objectivity as possible. There seems to be the feeling that Assyrians cannot by definition be Kurdish nationalists (I don't know why you have created this rule - you have done it all by yourself), when anyone who knows these groups and issues knows this is patently false. Franso Hariri was a prominent Assyrian who was also a Kurdish Nationalist in action and in memory - as described in a remembrance post on the anniversary of his death: http://www.basnews.com/index.php/en/news/kurdistan/416149

I am a relatively new user to wikipedia, but this cabal like approach is terribly off-putting. TheodorLewin (talk) 13:22, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Syrian Liberation Front merger vs. coalition

Hi,

We've had a bit of a dispute on whether the new Syrian Liberation Front is a merger or a coalition. This article [12] states that the SLF is a merger, so I take that to mean that Ahrar and Zenki no longer exist and are now part of the SLF. I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

We'll have to wait and see if the two groups still use their names. A merger under a larger group doesn't necessarily mean that both member groups dissolved and no longer exist. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Good point. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:25, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I found a source [13] that indicates that Zenki no longer exists; specifically, "Jabhat Tahrir Souria responded in a statement published Thursday via Telegram accusing HTS of “promoting erroneous and fake news.” “Harakat Nour e-Din a-Zinki no longer exists after the merger under the name Jabhat Tahrir a-Souria,” read the statement. “Any assault on a headquarter or mujahid of JTS, from whatever entity, will be considered an attack on the entire front.”"David O. Johnson (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Restoring edits made by a sock puppet

I notice you're restoring edits made by a sock puppet. Do you have any connection to Sneakywarrior (talk · contribs)? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

You're reverting constructive content. Just ban him. Don't blindly revert. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)X

US involvement in ISIS

Hello, I'm Editor abcdef. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Editor abcdef (talk) 07:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Editor abcdef, I don't see anything that conflicts with a neutral point of view. I was merely adding missing info mentioned online and referenced by supposedly credible organizations such as the New York Times. I understand. I don't blame you. Wikipedia has become a partial online "open" encyclopedia and some of its editors might feel obliged to censor uncomfortable information. Good luck censoring the internet. :) (No need to respond. Really.) HEICOgel (talk) 08:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northern Democratic Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Revert on Turkish military operation in Afrin

I think you're mistaken. That's not my edit. Beshogur (talk) 11:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

That was just a scripted edit summary using Twinkle. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Article - The Battle of Afrin

Please note - you may not be aware, but standard procudedure, if you believe an article needs to be deleted, is to nominate it for the articles for deletion process. Editors aren't simply allowed to delete whole articles themselves without discussion. By all means, if you think the article needs to be deleted, please nominate it for discussion, so all editors can be given the chance to discuss its notability, and ultimately voted on. Please see WP:AFD. In the meantime, I have reinstated the article. It would have also been polite to have notified the creator of the article first, or put something on my talk page. Thank you. Deathlibrarian (talk) 12:18, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't exactly delete the article. I simply redirected it to the Turkish military operation in Afrin, the relevant article for the battle. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting a page and redirecting it to another page, so that the page no longer exists - is a decision that is made as part of the proper AFD process. Editors need to discuss and vote on the process, its not up to one editor to decide if the concept is not notable on its own. The AFD process decides whether an article, should be redirected, merged deleted...or left as it is. Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:10, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Tell Rifaat

your recent changes on Tell Rifaat are inconsistent with this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Syrian%2C_Iraqi%2C_and_Lebanese_insurgencies.png could you check this?108.31.250.33 (talk) 23:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The same problem again, no confirmation for the recent changes on your map..108.31.250.33 (talk) 03:47, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Occupation of Tell Rifaat by Syrian Army

Recent changes on the occupation of Tell Rifaat by Syrian Army on this map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Olive_Branch.svg cannot be verified108.31.250.33 (talk) 04:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC) 108.31.250.33 (talk) 04:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:Editor abcdef should read the article Shahba Canton.

It says, Shahba Canton is in greenish yellow (Tel Rifaat Area) and bright yellow (Manbij area) is administred by Shahba's government.

108.31.250.33 (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Afrin District - Misleading black-border color

Black-border color between the yellow and green regions is misleading. Since the Black-border color is used for February 2nd, 2018 on Operation Olive Branch map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Olive_Branch.svg This color should be redefined.108.31.250.33 (talk) 22:56, 18 March 2018 (UTC) Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Operation_Olive_Branch.svg 108.31.250.33 (talk) 23:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Warnings on my talk page

Dear Editor abcdef, I didn't know I was being disruptive, especially when I spent time and energy into editing. I definitely did not add my own POV as you suggested. I was merely doing my research online and adding info with reliable sources. Could you please clarify where I might have done wrong? HEICOgel (talk) 04:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If I do not get an answer soon, I will have to take the initiative to revert your changes. I would like to be on the same page with you though. HEICOgel (talk) 11:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Descendants of Saladin Brigade, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Equal rights (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jaysh al-Islam, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Douma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

List of armed groups in the Syrian Civil War

I didn't remove that citation.[14] Charles Essie (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

ISIL presence in Syria...? Sources?

The detailed map indeed suggests presence of ISIL near Abu Kamal. The problem now is: what is the source for such 'information'? The first of those 'pockets' that I clicked on, Al-Baghuz Fawqani, already gives contradicting information: ISIL purportedly defeated there in last May... --Corriebertus (talk) 17:50, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It's the Hajin pocket in the southeast. It's harder to see when you're not viewing the full version of the SVG map. Also see Deir ez-Zor offensive (September 2017–present) and its maps. Editor abcdef (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, Hajin is still ISIL possession, but as I showed you, other elements of the detailed map are outdated, and that causes problems, because every reader should be able to quickly check what is the basis for allegations, for example the allegations on the 'simple' map on top of article Syrian Civil War. --Corriebertus (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

File:Osama Hilali.png

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Editor abcdef. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)