User talk:8fra0

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

villages in Hasakah

You add on the map two villages (Tall Barud, Heb Thorns) on based only pro government source buy we cant use only pro government source to show success of army.here So that we need confirmation from neutral source. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes the names of cities or villages of the in some sources different from name on the map this can be seen in a lot of sources. And village Sabah located at a distance of four kilometers to east of the city Tell Brak. Also a few days ago SOHR reported about clashes between the army and the ISIS near the town Tell Brak. But now I cant find this message but as soon as I find him then I provide this message. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok, these are the coordinates you gave earlier: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.661190&lon=41.103888&z=14&m=b

There is a hill called Tell As Sadaikh, I don't think that it's the same Sabah taken by SAA, but if you have more sources you can revert the edit.

As Sabakh it is a village.here You can see this village on the map.here here And if you dont know the Wikimapia is not quite accurate map. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notification

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs) 07:13, 22 November 2014‎

Edit warring

This is a single purpose account with a history that now stretches over a quarter of a a year, please read WP:SOCK#NOTIFY and consider its implications.

You have been warned by user:Callanecc of the restrictions on the pages such as Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map. You have not broken the 1RR rule in terms of time:

but you have broken in when considering the interaction between edits, as you have not discussed the changes which you reverted on the talk page. I will not take any administrative action this time but be aware of the wording in WP:3RR "Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a ~~fourth~~ [second] time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as an edit-warring violation." next time follow the guidance in WP:BRD. I suggest you start immediately and explain the reasons for your reverts on the talk page of the article before you make another edit to that page and give other editors time to reply before making any more changes to the article. -- PBS (talk) 09:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Albu Ghanem

8fra0 check my edit when i add albu ghanem there were clashes there here,today i added another source to that the town is contested and clashe are still taking place.here.So i need you to change it back how it was.Lindi29 (talk) 18:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This source does not state that albu Ghanem is contested, sorry: http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/albu-ghanem-tribe-gives-government-5-hours-provide-weapons-threatens-withdraw-battle/

January 2015

Hello, I'm Mlpearc. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 16:57, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the 4 newly added villages in Kirkuk Region on Iraq Insurgency Detailed map.

Before you change something without source, you need to discuss it with other users on the talk page. The 4 villages were added at the request of other users for more dots in the Kirkuk Region. There is no information as to who is in controle of what village. Lack of information or source does not mean that ISIS is in controle of all 4 villages. In lack of information the best option is to follow the consensus that has already been accepted on the other map, which I know is not a source. But there is no other choice as we cannot simply make all of them yellow or black because we want it to be so. You are free to add more black dots under the border on the 2011 Iraqi Insurgency map that has already been accepted by a majority. If you disagree go to talk page, express your oppinion and wait for others to vote Mozad655 (talk) 01:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

al-Baghdadi

Hi you changed the label of al-Baghdadi back to contested based on this twitter comment. But that source does not say that al-Baghdadi is NOT already taken by ISIS. It only confirms what this very trustworthy CNN-source says, which is that al-Baghdadi has been completely overtaken by ISIS. What the source is implying is that the millitary air-base OUTSIDE al-Baghdadi has yet to be captured. I hope you will change it back. Mozad655 (talk) 13:38, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mozad655 I would wait to change al-Baghdadi back because last sources are claiming that clashes are still going on: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/world/2015-02/14/c_133996093.htm

Khan Mamid and Hamadun

You have added these villages as under jointly control Kurds and rebel on based pro opposition source.here Although we can not use the pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebels. But other source just reported that YPG earlier today reached to the strategic highway Aleppo-Hasakah and captured village Khan-Mamed south of Kobani.jack Shahine Hanibal911 (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So maybe Khan-Mamed under control by YPG but Hamadun under jointly control between Kurds and rebels. What do you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911I suppose that most villages in the deep south Kobane countryside are controlled jointly by Kurds and FSA brigades, especially those inhabited by arab people, but it's very difficult to state exactly which ones. I think also that the villages north of Hamadun are no more controlled by IS, but I don't know if we can edit them already. --8fra0 (talk) 10:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here another pro opposition source reported that after fierce clashes with ISIS militants, the YPG and the Peshmerga advances towards the city of Tel Abyad in Raqqa province and retook Baghdik the first village near Tel Abyad after forcing ISIS out of the village.ARA News So maybe we hurried marked as the under control by Kurds and rebels are still some other villages in Raqqa province. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right Hanibal911. Like it was in the western part near Jarabulus, I think that the map shows an exaggerated YPG advance in the east; I think that some villages marked as YPG/FSA held in western Raqqa are still in IS hands, like Bi'r Abash, Bi'r Arab and so on. Let's monitor further developments and sources 8fra0 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Why you revert two editings on based Kurdish source which not confirm this action.here You marked under control by rebels Rityan and Zimrin. If in the situation with the village Zimrin I agree with you because this village was marked as challenged only on the basis of the pro-government source but we cant use pro-government sources for display a success the army. But Rityan was marked under control by army on based the reliable source. So in the future dont need do this. It is vandalism! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 something strange has happened to the map while I was editing the villages around Kobane, I didn't edit either Zimrin or Rityan!

You edited 3 towns on Iraqi template map.

Buddy you did not add any source that said the three towns have been captured by ISIS. No media has reported that any towns were captured by ISIS. Your source just says airstrikes, not capture. Airstrikes can happen mid battle and peshmerga commanders have been quoted as saying that isis was so close that they could throw grenades at them. Mozad655 (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kobnae

You should revert your edit. The source is 2 days old and can be used because those villages were not changed today or yesterday.DuckZz (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish and their allies advanced in Raqqa province

Many source reported that Kurdish and their allies advanced in Raqqa province and captured many villages. So maybe we can use this map here here to display situation in this area. Because they captured many villages but on map we dont showed this . Hanibal911 (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 I think that those map are still showing a bit exaggerated kurdish advance in the east, the last official YPG report tells about clashes in Zurzuri, so I think that we could mix the two sources and edit zurzuri contested, leaving the eastern villages IS held, what do you think? https://twitter.com/Kobane_YPG/status/569135861851402241 --8fra0 (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to find further sources for the villages south-east like Shash, Mutayn, Darb Hassan... --8fra0 (talk) 20:17, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I Agree with you about Zurzuri. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added villages near Tel Hamis in YPG hands

8fra0 those villages that you added with that source it isn't reliable it is biased beacause there were reports from twitter kurds.So you need to change it back.Thank You Lindi29 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 Even SOHR reported about it http://syriahr.com/en/2015/02/peshmerga-forces-kill-8-people-al-hasakah-and-is-whip-a-man-100-lashes/ , the kurdish source only adds the exact names of the villages --8fra0 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind SOHR and Elijah Magnier confirmed it.here.Lindi29 (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Triuf

8fra0 you edited (added) this village with a biased source can you provide a reliable source and if you have any other reliable source then provide, if you dont have any tehn change it back also add and edit with reliable sources not with biased one in the article.Thank You Lindi29 (talk) 12:47, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ezidipress even if it is not completely neutral has proved to be very reliable in the past months for Sinjar, showing day by day first the IS occupation, then the peshmerga advance. Triuf lays in the road junction leading to the towns in north Sinjar near the Syrian border held by peshmerga and confirmed by SOHR --8fra0 (talk) 13:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

8fra0 Ezidipress writes only biased articles and writes only for ezidi interests,we need more sources just with one biased source we cant add places or change them,so for now you have to change it back beacause no other reliable source confrims that.Lindi29 (talk) 14:29, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What you are saying is not true and if you don't believe, then check by yourself the Ezidipress news of last summer during the IS advance in Shingal, you'll see that Ezidipress has not once published a single fake or fabricated news. The most important thing in fact is that the news are not fabricated, also in Kobane the editors of the map are using kurdish sources to show YPG advance and nobody complains about that when the info provided are true. --8fra0 (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please take care to avoid inserting links to disambiguation pages at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Please be more careful to avoid making links to disambiguation pages in complex modules as you did with this edit, adding a link to the disambiguation page, Rabia. It is particularly important to avoid making this kind of mistake in modules, since these links are generally fixed by disambiguators who may not be familiar with the coding used to make modules work, and will have a difficult time implementing the fix. If the article does not exist, create a redlink to the title where the article should exist if created. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tal Khanzir

ISIS has taken Tal Khanzir via https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/NewsReports/564956-syria-kurds-under-fire.Alhanuty (talk) 15:59, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the last SOHR report talks about clashes there. http://syriahr.com/en/2015/03/clashes-continue-between-is-and-ypg-around-al-hasakah-countryisde/ . The report you are talking about is older. --8fra0 (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But original report from SOHR just said that clashes renewed between YPG and ISIS in the vicinity al-Manajir and Tal Khanzir SOHR So for now we dont have confirmation from neutral sources that the clashes still continued in village of Tal Khanzir and that this village still contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Manajir

Why you revert my editing because I used source which dated 21 March and he more newer than your source which you use.here You look at the date over there clearly indicated that this map dated 21 March 2015. Just the date indicated not to the left to the right but vice versa. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know how is a date written. How are you so sure that the (amateur) editor of the map that you are using is: 1 - a reliable editor 2 - an editor which is aware of the changings happened around Manajir in the last week? His last map is identical to his one week old map, so most likely he hasn't any source from the area.

Tal Tamer

Why did you changed Tal Tamer back to yellow? When you rv you have to do that with a source,if you dont have a source which tells that it kurd held than changed but I put it besieged in one side you put it back to yellow,you rv that editor ok he rv without a source but you didn't rv to previous fact which it was beseiged in the SS side so you need to fix your mistake.Lindi29 (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 What are you talking about? Tal Tamer was changed WITHOUT any source, I just reverted the editing. --8fra0 (talk) 00:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look the diffs and you will see.Lindi29 (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rawiyah

Rawiyah under YPG control via this source http://www.alaraby.co.uk/politics/2015/5/27/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%A3%D9%87%D9%85-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%82%D9%84-%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%A9 Alhanuty (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty ANHA is the "official" YPG press agency, hardly it is spreading false news. Here you can find an updated map which IMHO is the most reliable (you have to add Dehma in YPG control): https://twitter.com/_paulo34/status/603699885637050369 Yesterday one more kurdish source stated that YPG were pushing IS towards the Turkish border. --8fra0 (talk) 12:55, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gire Ebubaker and tal tawkal anf Qarajah are YPG-held.Alhanuty (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:25, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Edit warring without discussing

Please do not continue to edit war without constructive dialogue. This is seen as gaming the system (search for the bullet point titled Borderlining) and it a blockable offense. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GS/SCW block

To enforce community authorised sanctions, and for violating WP:1RR on the page Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map, as described at WP:GS/SCW,

you have been blocked from editing for 24 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. 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. Bbb23 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).