Talk:Battle of the Shaer gas field (2016)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the Shaer gas field (2016) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Syria Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Middle East

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion not met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Middle Eastern military history task force

WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS

The article Battle of the Shaer gas field (2016), along with other pages relating to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:

Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.

Remedy instructions and exemptions

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any restrictions (excluding 1RR/reverting violations) and other conduct issues should be reported to the administrators' incidents noticeboard. Violations of revert restrictions should be reported to the administrators' edit warring noticeboard.
Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.

With respect to any reverting restrictions:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Result

In First Battle of the Shaer gas field & Second Battle of the Shaer gas field ISIL captured the gas field but SAA recaptured it within weeks. This time ISIL captured the gas field and hold it now for over a month. So why is EkoGraf keep changing the result to "Indecisive". I'm not surprised because that what he did in most battles the regime lost to rebels and the last thing he did is merging many pages into one! we respect your opinion but this is an encyclopedia so please discus before changing 3bdulelah (talk) 20:50, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. I am highly offended at your suggestion I am biased in my editing towards any anti-government forces and that I base my edits on a pro-government stance. This is not in line with Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith from fellow editors and WP: Civil.
2. You said lessen to other's opinions, while in fact no other opinions were voiced about the result, except for mine. You changed the result, without stating an opinion, as well as Mehmedsons who also did not state an opinion (and at the time was only a day-old account with only 4 edits). Reminding of what I stated in the edit summary. ISIL was repelled in 3 out of 4 areas they assaulted as part of this continues offensive/operation. So its basically more of a success for the SAA (Partial Army victory?). However, it would be best to note it as indecisive. This article encompasses the whole ISIL offensive which went farther than the Shaer gas field and is not relegated just to the events at the field. If it were, the article would be in violation of Wikipedia's policy on notability and undue weight and would be deleted or merged.
3. In regard to your request for a vote I would ask you to read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY.
4. Per Wikipedia policy, when something is a matter of dispute the status quo is upheld until the matter is resolved through discussion. In other words, the version that existed before the dispute started, which was indecisive, remains.
5. I merged three Nusra-led offensives south of Aleppo into an article on the Nusra-led campaign south of Aleppo which started in April, since they were launching a new offensive every few weeks and we were creating articles for each and every one of those. Wikipedia policy requires us to merge as much small content as possible into overarching articles when the subjects are obviously related. We previously had the article on the pro-government campaign south of Aleppo (which consisted of multiple operations) encompassing the whole period during which it lasted (which was three months). I asked one editor if he thought it was ok, he did not voice an objection and other editors are editing the new article now normally. EkoGraf (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why are you talking about ISIS offensive on T4 airbase, This is a very different offensive that has nothing to do with this article. everyone says that ISIS won this battle except you and pro SAA sources. 3bdulelah (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Updates: ISIL is now back in control of Huwaysas and Tal Sawwan close to Shaer gas field 3bdulelah (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the overall offensive that started at the Shaer gas field but than expanded to other areas nearby and continued on to the air base. The gas field was only one part of the offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please EkoGraf stop this editing war, you are the only one who think that SAA was not defeated in this battle and you keep changing other editors edits, I told you even Huwaysas was recaptured by ISIS and they even advanced further and captured Tal Sawwan. My dear friend please admit that SAA lost this battle. I won't edit it now until you replay and I hope you change it your self if you are convinced now. Regards 3bdulelah (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3bdulelah, first, I have not stated anywhere that I think the SAA was not defeated nor have I made such an edit in the result section. Second, Huwaysas was recaptured by ISIL almost a month after the battle/offensive ended. Even Mehmedsons has noted this to the IP editor who has made other POV edits at other articles and has been reverted by a lot of others constantly. The result of a new battle does not retroactively change the outcome of a previous one that had ended for a month, and merging two different battles into one isn't the right way. Third, and I repeat this for the hundredth time, in this particular offensive, ISIL achieved only 3 out of 4 objectives. They were repelled at al-Mahr, Huwaysas and the T4 airbase, and managed to capture only Shaer. It was not a victory for the SAA because they lost Shaer, but it most certainly was not a victory for ISIL as well since they only achieved 1/4 of their objectives. PS, Tal Sawwa was recaptured a few days ago again by the SAA. EkoGraf (talk) 03:30, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf so you still want to include attacks that has nothing to do with this offensive to it? I thought after I left the Article about battle of al-Dumayer were rebel defeated ISIS in the city and you refused that we talk about this in the article that you won't do it again in other articles but looks like I was mistaken. we need to end this, so as a Compromise it can be only a Partial victory for ISIL (not a complete one) or lets have a vote and I will respect the result. 3bdulelah (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

3bdulelah First, again, the ISIL offensive continued from Shaer into other nearby areas such as al-Mahr, Huwaysas and the T4 airbase. It did not stop at Shaer. Second, in regards to a vote I remind, again, WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Third, the subject of the Dumayr offensive article was about the ISIL offensive against government-held territory around Dumayr. A battle between the rebels and ISIL in Dumayr city had been ongoing for a year before that offensive and was separate to the ISIL offensive against government forces. EkoGraf (talk) 04:52, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]