User talk:Duzz123

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) 20:31, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources!

Listen you break the rule of editing! Because according to the rules of editing you must specify the source which can confirm of your editings. So you must provide the source which can confirm your editing, or it will be considered as vandalism. And your changes on the card will be removed. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What edit you mean exactly ?

Here's you made editing without identifying the source which can confirm it. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you added Mazraat without specifying the source which could confirm this action. But you simply provide a link to mikroblog in Twitter and more nor any evidence. But you have to provide a link or source confirming your edit. You are required to provide when you edit source confirming your editing or else remove it. Otherwise, your actions will be considered as vandalism and I will be forced to notify administrators about your actions. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 07:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also this the pro opposition source and he may not be used to display the progress of the rebels. But even this source does not confirm your edit. So you need revert your unconfirmed changes on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find him neutral, because he works for Al Jazeera. He wrote about their presence in Mazrat but I'll remove it.

But when you are add the village Mazrat you not provide the link to the source in which it is said that she was under rebel control. You can do it or else remove this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Because earlier pro opposition source clearly showed that village Mazraat Amud under control by YPG and village Mazraat Saghir under control a Islamic State. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to you small request! When you edit on the basis of data from the talk page here you would not be able to do it like thishere Just in order to there were not extra questions. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

al-Karim

SOHR clear said that clashes taking place between regime forces and Islamic battalions near the villages of al-Karim and Qaber Fedda west of Hama, accompanied by regime's bombardment. Warplanes went in air strikes around Bet Hwes and Bet al-Ras bridge village west of Hama, reports that regime forces took control on al-Karim village.SOHR So correct your mistake! Hanibal911 (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the mistake because the data from the SOHR is more reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problemDuckZz (talk) 11:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem because everyone can mistakes. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Khan Arnabah

Hey you need carefully read the source! Because SOHR just said that violent clashes in the vicinity of Khan Arnabah and not said about clashes inside city.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Until we get more data I put green circle on south of the city. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should read it carefully. It says "vicinity of Baath city", that means the area around Medina Baath, and the "town of Khan Arbanah", that means the town itself. But I guess your're right, either rebels take it or not, it won't be contested for a longer time.

Bombing

You probably have not read the discussion on the talk page in which we decided not to edit only on the basis of a single report about the bombardment. Also you put a villages of Ma'er Kebbeh and Lahaya from the government control to the control by rebels based only one messages about bombing.here But source not said that this villages now under rebel control. You need fix your mistake and noted those villages as contested. Otherwise, your actions will be considered as vandalism. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I belive those villages are too small, 2 barrel bombs can completely destroy them. Bombing them probably means rebels do control then, that wouldn't be the case for a bigger town. I haven't read the discussion. If you think I'm wrong you can revert the edits no problem, I'm not gonna revert them again after you did, as I hate being the guy ho vandalises this map.DuckZz (talk) 14:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

South Aleppo

The Lebanese source reported that villages al-Jaara, Tat, and Aqriba near defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo are still under the control of the army.Al-Ahed News So at the moment dont need mark them under rebel control because we need to wait until the situation becomes clearer. Because on the moment we only have data from the pro opposition source in twitter which said that this villages controlled by rebels. Let's try to find more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Menagh Air Base

Menagh Air Base in Aleppo province under control of Al Nusra.Al Monitor So why you marked this base under control by rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought grey airbase means nobody controls it.

Kafr Nabudah

I'm sorry but your source Al Jazeera has not confirmed that militants from the Front Al Nusra left a town of Kafr Nabudah. So that either you provide a source that clearly says that Front Al Nusra left a town of Kafr Nabudah or again you need noted him under control by Al Nusra. Regards Hanibal911 (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LoL but it says "JAN left the frontline in west Hama and control most of south Idlib towns". I don't understand what the problem is ? I thought Al Jazeera is a neutral source.

I'm sorry but the entire report doesn't mention WEST Hama. ChrissCh94 (talk) 22:47, 9 December 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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidiyah

I will look into your sources/arguments/cases here and here tomorrow if I can. Cheers for bringing it up - I'm among the guilty parties who made all of the recent rebel advances in Idlib grey. If it's more accurate to change some to green or shared control icons I'd like to rectify the error. Sorry for the headache. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid (talk) Don't worry. I know what is happening there and I will edit everything to be just fine. Well unless Hanibal reverts the edits again lol, he will probably do that. DuckZz (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid (talk) Can you change Al Dahrooj, Hamidiyah and Al-Nasih to green. These sources are definitely confirming that. Step News Syria Mubashar Al Jazeera

Videos from Islamic front channel Al Dahrooj

The only trusted source mentioning Al Nusra for these areas is SOHR, and they use their name next to Ahrar Al Sham, Sham legion. That only means they participated in small numbers, because their main offensive was Wadi Daif and the checkpoints around. There are dozens of other pro-rebel videos and pictures confirming that. DuckZz (talk) 09:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here data from sources which confirm that Al Dahrooj, Hamidiyah and Al-Nasih under control by Al Nusra.

Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases.Daily Mail Al-Nusra Front, in coordination with rebel groups of Jund al-Aqsa and Ahrar al-Sham, seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif army baseAl Jazeera Al Nusra Front and other Islamist groups have seized two major army bases in Syria's northwestern province of Idlib, rebel activists said. After two days of heavy fighting, the groups - including Jund Al-Aqsa and Ahrar Al-Sham - took control of the bases Monday in Wadi Deif and Al-Hamidiyeh, about 22 miles south of Idlib near the town of Maaret Al-Numan.Los Angeles Times Agency France Press Fighters from the al-Qaida-linked Nusra Front and other Islamist groups have seized two strategic army bases Charles Lister of the Brookings Doha Center said the gains highlighted the rise of the jihadists in the province. "The nature of the operations has served to underline the renewed prominence of more Islamically minded forces in Idlib, with Jabhat al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham having played the dominant role in practically capturing the facilities.Voice of America Rebel fighters linked to al Qaeda have taken control of two key military bases in north Syria, striking an important victory over government forces. Islamists now control most of Idlib province.Deutsche Welle
Jabht al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have also took control al-Naseh checkpoint.SOHR
Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions took control al-Dahroj checkpoint.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with DuckZz on this one - when SOHR says "and Islamic battalions", that means Ahrar al-Sham or the Islamic Front. Either way, that's clear evidence that JAN does not completely govern these sites, so they can't be marked as grey. Same logic we're using in Daraa - JAN is there, but do not have sole control anywhere, so nothing is marked as grey. Grey is ONLY for sites 100% JAN controlled. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Reliable source clear said that Al Qaeda affiliate Al-Nusra Front seized Hamidiyeh and Wadi al-Deif bases. Within hours of their Wadi al-Deif victory, Al-Nusra and the two other Islamist rebel groups (Jund al Aqsa and Anhar al Sham) also took over Hamidiyeh, taking 15 soldiers prisoner, said the Observatory.Daily Mail And Anhar al Sham now allied with Al Nusra.Naharnet They also previously helped Al Nusra in their fight against the moderate rebels.here So that Hamidiyeh base need again mark under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But, the grey is for 100% JAN-held places. Yes, Jund al Aqsa is part of JAN, but Ahrar al Sham is certainly not. For the last 3 years we've marked places of joint-control in green.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:52, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know where we can access the JAN-published map mentioned here?

Boredwhytekid here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kafr Nabl

I remember that we discussed the situation in the city Kafr Nabl. So here another confirmation from the pro opposition source that city controlled by Al Nusra.TahrirSy TahrirSy Hanibal911 (talk) 11:50, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see, too bad. DuckZz (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hamra

We recognized that SOHR pro opposition sources and we agree edit the city or village under rebel control or as contested only if SOHR clearly says that in a city or village collision or under rebel control.here And pro opposition sources clear showed that this area under control by army.here here here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harjalah

It seems to me that the village Harjalah not contested between rebels and ISIS. Most likely this village under rebel control because there is no more nor any evidence that ISIS still presence in the village. Pro opposition source deSyracuse showed that this village under control by rebels here but in this situation we cant use this data. Maybe you have some other confirmation of this information. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid You can express your opinion on this issue! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know offhand, but will look for information Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It should stay contested, not just because we have no information, but we know that this area is really important for IS members if they really want to advance any further. We can change it to green as soon as they retreat to Dabiq or rebels start a new offensive and capture towns like Ehtimilat, Aktarin, Dabiq ... DuckZz (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade 82

You are wrong in the city just located the headquarter of Brigade 82. But the itself base is located outside the city.Brigade 82 Hanibal911 (talk) 16:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Engineering Battalion

Sorry guy but you provide as source broken link but you need to specify a working link. You can provide a working link to the source based on which you have edited this military base under control by rebels. Do not misunderstand me, I believe that your edit justified but you are provide broken link. My advice to you in the future if you use as source of reference to the Arabic source of better specify it on the talk page. And when editing just put a link to discussion in which you indicated its source. Can you send me the link to the source and I self revert my editing.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to Al Jazeera, "rebels took batalion 60 army base in Suhaylija area". They also said that Government forces are sheling Sheik Miskin with missiles and airstrikes and that rebels are clashing with regime army in the vicinity of the electric station. That means there are no clashes inside the town of Sheik Miskin. DuckZz (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Jazeera not confirmed that rebels captured Engineering Battalion. Al Jazeera only said that Syrian armed opposition forces announced the control of the "Battalion 60" of the forces of order in the Asheilah area northwest of the city of Daraa. So that source not confirm this data it is only publish statement from rebels. So need more data. So we need more data. And SOHR npt trported that rebels captured this military base. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, you can help me in this discussion explain the editor 8fra0 that we cant use Kurdish source to display success of Kurds. Because this violates the rules of editing.Qarah Halinj Hanibal911 (talk) 11:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Nevermind then. But i think Sheik Miskin should be changed because the SAA has retreated to a point. Clashes may be erupting but in the vicinity, certainly not inside the town. And they are bombing the city. DuckZz (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebels said that the capture of the base Brigade 82 had helped them overrun most of Sheikh Miskeen, which they have attacked several times in last few months, but failed to seize. The town is one of the main army supply routes to the city of Deraa, that was mainly in regime hands.The Daily Star And Archicivilians it is biased anti-government source and we cant use data from this source in this issue for display success of rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here, reporter in Sheik Miskin said that rebels took control over bases around the city and took control of the city itself. It doesn't look like it's contested. DuckZz (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal,especially after the fall of the 82th brigade,the city can't no longer be contested,Hannibal stop this nonsense,of keeping rebel-held town contested,and even if you claim that they control the majority,that has to be reflected as rebel-held,not contested.Alhanuty (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also here pro opposition source here here which showed that rebels only try to storm the base of Engineering Battalion 60th in Al-Suhayliyah. So that it clearly confirm that the base is still under the control of the Army. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Fu'ah

Source which you are provide not said about clashes near Al-Fu'ah.SOHR So you need remove unjustified semi circle to north east from Al-Fu'ah.here You used the wrong source.here Because under this link here located this source here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused. Check again the facebook post. You posted a source that talks about Hama but when i open the post, it talks about Al Foah, maybe it's because the browser you use ? I'm using Mozilla Firefox. DuckZz (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's just a mistake in Facebook! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Sa'an

We add semicircle if we have several reports about clashes near village or town. Also SOHR some times make mistakes in their reports. He reported about clashes inside the city of Talbishe but later reported that the fighting on its outskirts, and so repeatedly. He also said about clashes near the village of al- Sa’en in the eastern countryside of Hama. but village al- Sa,en located in the eastern countryside of Homs but in the eastern countryside of Hama located village As Sa'an. So let's wait more data. We have previously agreed add semicircles if the report about clashes repeated within a few days. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can give your opinion about this issue.here This is a more important question. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jadah

You not correctly noted village Jadah because you source just said that ISIS retreated from this village but not said that village under control by moderate rebels.here Also here another pro opposition source reported that joint forces YPG and Peshmerga seized control of the village of Jaada in southwestern Kobane, near the Qara Qozak Bridge, after an air strike launched by the U.S.-led coalition’s warplanes on a checkpoint of the Islamic State group (IS/ISIS) near the bridge.ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Well I actually had an Kurdish source for this, posted on the talk page of chriss (he knows arabic really good) and he translated it. But now the site is broken, don't know why, so i found this pro-opposition source...

Your source says joint forces, and forces backed by FSA groups, and then kurdish fources YPG and Pesmerga. So i belive the best thing would be to put a yellow icon in the middle of Jadah just like in other similiar villages with joint control. DuckZz (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Hanibal911 (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 21:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New color for Al Nusra

Why you marked Menagh Air Base under control by moderate rebels because this Air Base was marked under the control of Al Nusra on based data from reliable source. But maybe you just make mistake when updating the icons for Al Nusra? Hanibal911 (talk) 08:49, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why you marked Kafr Shalaya from red to grey? But I correct this. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Don't know, i changed every grey.svg to blue.svg. I know i have asked this before but why is Minakh actually grey, as it doesn't make sense. DuckZz (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Morek tank battailon

Why you add green semicircle to north from Morek tank battalion. Because SOHR not said that clashes near this object? SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR said that regime forces droped barrel bombs on Morek. That's probably a mistake and they mean "Morek area" and not the town itself. They also said that clashes were present since monts, again they don't mean the town itself but the area around. So i guess they said it good, since there are some videos from this month showing rebels destroying some SAA tanks north of Morek. DuckZz (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But original report just said that helicopters dropped barrel bombs on areas in the towns of Kafr Zita and Al-Lataminah around the town of Mork and farmland controlled by the forces of order and witness surroundings clashes since several months between supported by the National Defense Forces by regime forces, and fighters of the Brigades and Islamic fighters Front Nasra (al-Qaeda in the Levant) from another party. But not said that they dropped barrel bombs on the tanks batallion or that clashes near this batallion.SOHR So SOHR clearly said that helicopters bombed the some towns near the town of Morek and area near farmland which under control of Syrian troops. So that Syrian helicopters not bombed the town of Morek or Morek tanks batallion. As I have said earlier, some reports from SOHR when translating highly distorted. So you need remove green semicircle near this object. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:58, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish and their allies (rebels and Peshmerga) 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 [1]here to display situation in this area. Because they captured many villages but on map we dont showed this. What are you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know from where that guy gets his info but I'm following bigger pro-kurdish channels on twitter and their reports are almost the same as on our map. Our map is perfectly up to date, no need to make mistakes based on some guys map we don't even know how reliable he is. DuckZz (talk) 12:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Agreed. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Darat Iza

Source [2] clearly says Hazzm abandoned/retreated from the town. Last sentence in the paragraph. EkoGraf (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Arabic SOHR says that Hazm fighters in Darat Iza said that they withdrew from those areas and then it says from where exactly "Regiment 46, Kafr Nuran etc..", it means that they "said it after they arived in Darat Iza", that's how i read it in Arabic and here it looks the same in English. You can read the places above from where they withdrew and then SOHR mentions Darat Iza, from where the rebels said from where they withdrew ? DuckZz (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Serghaya

Source not said that Ak Nusra controlled Serghaa source just said that Al Nusra is believed to be deployed in the rugged mountainous terrain straddling the border between the Tufail promontory and Arsal, 30 kilometers to the north. Syrian rebel factions control Zabadani, at the southern end of Qalamoun, and they also have access to Serghaya and Maaraboun, the latter a Sunni border village inside Lebanon, 15 kilometers north of Zabadani. But not said that they controlled this town. Also many surce earlier confirmed that the town of Serghaya under control by Syrian troops not Hezbollah.here Al Monitor As Safir Al Arabiya Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes I'm not talking about JAN but rebels in general. I posted a trusted source, from today. Your sources are too old, from last year. I'm not sure how well you understand English but when it says "They have acces to" it means that those locations are under their control, it is said like that, mostly because those "villages" are too small, and this "acces to" is used often for mountains/roads etc, sometimes for villages too. It also describes the nearest anti-rebel (in this case Hezbolah) positions, and they are on the Lebanons side, obviously because Serghaya is near the border. DuckZz (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, this means that they are present in the area of this town and no more. Need more clear evidence that the city is under rebel control. Also here new pro opposition maphere which also showed as the map from Archicivilians that this area where located this town under control Syrian troops and Hezbollah. So as I said need more clear data. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have repeatedly discussed this issue and found that the town under control of the army but the Al Nusra controlled the village of Ain Hawr and Al Nusra/rebels position in the mountain area to east from Serghaya. So let's wait for more data which can clearly said that the insurgents or Al Nusra control this town. Also this source early said that Syrian troops captured the towns of Kafr Shams and Kafr Nasij but later it became clear that the source was wrong so let's not rush to edit. Let's better we wait more evidences. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here this source The Daily Star reported that the Syrian troops and Hezbollah fighters retook the villages of Deir al-Adas, Kfar Nasej and Kfar Shams which lie roughly midway between Damascus and Deraa.The Daily Star But it turned out to be erroneous statement so let's wait for other confirmations about Serghaya. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deir ez Zor

I seen some reports in which said that rebel troops and their allied tribes operated in the town of Abu Kamal and some small villages in Deir ez Zor province. But they essentially of the opposition springs. Maybe you have data about this from neutral sources. If you're interested, I can provide you those reports from the pro opposition sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Hilal

You can fix your mistake about village of Sheikh Hilal because SOHR just said that clashes near village of Sheikh Hilal.SOHR So no clashes inside this village. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what SOHR said, and we consider SOHR as neutral right ? So in this case, we have a neutral and a heavily pro-government source. This pro-government source said that the Syrian army is about to take the village, which means its still under ISIS control, but i marked it as contested just for the sake of being fair, don't understand where's the problem. It's like when we use Arcivilians for Regime gains.

SOHR only says that clashes are near the village which also could mean that IS controls the village but the SAA army is clashing with the near it, and that what the pro-regime source is confirming. DuckZz (talk) 19:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here another pro-regime page listed over 40 dead soldiers while clashing with IS in this village. DuckZz (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Source just publishes list of names of soldiers which killed but not said that clashes was inside this village. Also pro opposition source said that later ISIS retreated toward town of Uqayribat Syria News Desk Hanibal911 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also SOHR said that to 63 increased the number of soldiers in regime forces and allied militiamen who were killed in time ISIS attack on their checkpoints and bastions in al-Shekh Hilal area near al-Sa’n in the eastern countryside of Hama in an attempt by IS to cut the road between Khanaser and al-Salamia.SOHR So that SOHR clearly indicated that attack was against checkpoints in area the village of Shekh Hilal near of al-Sa’an. So that there were no clashes in itself village. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also another one pro opposition source confirmed that the Regime forces regain today morning over checkpoints that located near Al-Shiekh Hilal village in Aleppo-Slemeih highway in Hamah eastern countryside after fierce clashes with ISIS.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib

It is Al Nursi captured most of the city and this confirmed many reliable sources. So you need again mark him as under jointly control.The Washington Times The Daily Star Deutsche Welle The Huffington Post Hanibal911 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Everyone is using either SOHR (older) or Al Nusra sources (they said the thing about capturing the town). The town is just too big to mark it under joint control, as that would be logical if only Al Nusra and one more group were involved. There were 8 groups involved, 7 of which are not Al Nusra. Even Al Nusra channels on youtube/twitter were showing Islamic front members in the city. While we know that JAN was involved, its still ridiculous to mark it as joint control as 80% of the town has not seen JAN members, 40 videos are showing exactly that.

Here latest SOHR source clearly marks JAN as last group. And rebels & islamic batalions have more groups. You see my point ? If there were only JAN & Ahrar Sham, i would put the town under joint control right away. DuckZz (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And you have dozens of statements from inside the town, everyone says the same "Islamic front groups liberated the town, we thank Al Nusra and Faylaq Sham (FSA)". There were no statements by JAN, while they're retweeting those videos from IF, clearly OK with that DuckZz (talk) 18:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::: Here more rliable sourcesclear said Al Nusra seized control of large parts of the northwestern city of Idlib from government forces. The Nusra Front is leading a group of ultra-conservative rebels in a major offensive that began earlier this week to take Idlib, near the border with Turkey. If the city falls, it would be the second provincial capital and major urban center lost by President Bashar Assad’s forces in the four-year-old conflict.The Washington Times Deutsche Welle The Huffington Post So you'll excuse me but the city should be marked under joint control. You know that in the Idlib province Al Nusra it is a leading force in fights against Syrian troops. Also Al Nusra previously defeated moderate rebels in Idlib. So that mark it under joint control. Also many rebels cvideo showed that rebels and Al Nusra in cooperation captured city. So when you marked city of Idlib as under control of moderate rebels you misrepresenting the real situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about moderate rebels, but Islamic Front. And i know that the "FSA" is not controling the Idlib town but Islamic Front. We have the same situation as in Marat Numan offensive where IF groups were a dominant force supported with Al Nusra. Al Nusra already has their stronghols in Idlib, and according to IF statements from today, Idlib will be their capital stronghold.

I am only asking you to read from this part. Al Nusra did not make any statement from inside the town, they are retweeting the statements from Islamic front groups, and in those statements they clearly say "Jaish Islam etc etc took control etc etc supported by Al Nusra & Faylaq Sham". This is the same situation we had in Hamidiyah where IF made their statements, and Al Nusra not, because they were a supporting force. DuckZz (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your opinion & sources, but i think you are wrong this time. You have to understand that in this situation every source will write the same, according to them, the entire Syria is Al Qaeda and nothing else, here and there some rebels, they don't even know what IF is, or even that it exist. DuckZz (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nusra and its allies seized the city of Idlib. After five days of fighting, "Al-Nusra Front and its allies have captured all of Idlib.Naharnet The Daily Star Deutsche Welle Daily Mail 24 News Al Arabiya The Independent France 24 Gulf Times Al Joumhouria Ynet News So all these sources clearly indicate that the decisive role is played by Al Nusra Front. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First link uses SOHR as a source. And SOHR wrote something else 2 hours ago
Second link the same
Third link is doesn't work
Fourth link the same as first two
Fift again the same

Actually all the rest links the same.

You see, this confirms what i said. Every link wrote the same, and every link used the same source, so you could only send me 1 link. They used SOHR, a source from the early morning, and you can read what SOHR wrote 3 hours ago. Pretty clear to me. DuckZz (talk) 18:42, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here pro opposition source confirm that Al Nusra and their allies from Jund al Aqsa jointly with a moderate rebels (Sham Legion, Islamic Front) jointly captured city of Idlib.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 18:53, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1) Map shows the entire city under government control. Not the situation inside the city
2) I see 9 groups vs 4 flags ? Joint control means 50/50 or at least 60/40 but not 70/30 or 80/20
3) Jund Al Aqsa is an independent group, working with Al Nusra the same as Islamic front, both are cooperating, they don't fight each other, the same as Islamic Front. But they aren't a subb group for JAN, like for ex. Ahrar Sham is in the Islamic Front.
4)JAN published that 2000 of their fighters were involved. Islamic front published a number of 3000 for their number. Add another 1000 for other rebel groups like Faylaq Sham, FSA, Jund Al Aqsa and you get the number for 70/30, 80/20 control
5) The Same user for the maš, archivilian, said that it's stupid to say that JAN took control of the town. DuckZz (talk) 19:04, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Head SOHR reported that the Islamic factions and Al Nusra take over control of the city Idlib.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 They wrote the "too long didn't read" version for the video above. Now look at the video. Skip to 2:19,

the girl asks "Did the Free Syrian Army capture it alone ?"
SOHR "Ermmm more groups, Ahrar Sham, Islamic Front, Jund Aqsa, Al Nusra, Islamic Front groups, Free army groups, free army cooperated like in Bosra Sham etc ..."

Do you have anything else to post or ? I think you should revert your edit DuckZz (talk) 19:13, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib jointly captured the moderate rebels and Al Nusra and this is confirmed by many sources. So if you do not like this fact we cant mark him under control only moderate rebels only on based your doubts. This fact confirm pro opposition sources, neutral sources and also pro government sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are spining your own words. Pro-opposition sources are posting the opposite thing, claiming that IF has the major presence. Government sources can't be used, and neutral sources are all using SOHR as a source, and the same SOHR says this in the latest statement, the same was said in the video statement. And this is against the rules to put a joint control for a city that has 70/30 to 80/20 JAN presence, it's just against the rules. DuckZz (talk) 19:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also later other the pro opposition source reported that regime‬ forces ‪control the village AL-Zyara in Al-Ghab in Hama‬.Qasion News Hanibal911 (talk) 20:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR

We use only original report from SOHR because the reports translated into English distort the data and their data not correspond to data in original reports. Also in original report SOHR just said about clashes in mountain area and not said that rebels advanced in this area.SOHR Therefore, we use only the original data from the reports in Arabic. Read this discussion here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 I'm not really good in arabic but it says something like "Casulties among government forces and first party (rebels) have had open ground (which means they advances a bit)". And it says clashes in areas around Falita. How is this not enough for a semicircle ? I mean, according to our current map, it looks like rebels/Jan are not present in this area at all, and i can't see the reason why ISIS has a presence icon here, beacause they are on the lebanese side. DuckZz (talk) 10:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clashes in mountain area overlooking on village of Falita have been going on for a long time sometimes rebels advanced but sometimes Syrian troops advanced so not need put semicircle because no clashes in vicinity the village of Falita only in moutns. But I agree with you that there is no reason for black mark in this area most likely in this area near the border with Leban position of Al Nusra or rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here source said that rebels entered to Syria in area of Qalamoun from Lebanon and after clashes against Hezbollah they captured hill al-Mesh with overlooking on Flita.The Daily Star I put to map this hill. So that as I said clashes in mountain area not in the vicinity village of Falita. So for now not need add semicircle. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original report confirmed your edit when you add green semicircle near of Rashidiyah but I ask you used only original reports from SOHR because we not use translated reports for editing on the map. We agreed with this. Because as I said earlier translated reports extremely not accurate and contain too many errors and inaccuracies so that in the future I ask you used for edit only original reports. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:04, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read both arabic and english articles, but the arabic link is too long when posting here DuckZz (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know that the references to the original reports are too long but you can provide these references to differently and here another way to specify a links to these reports like I do this. You can just provide a link to the original report and the one who wants to read this report it can easily do so. Here is an example: here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo

Your source just said that clashes in the town of Rashadiyah but not said that clashes also in the town of Ar Rubayl why you marked the town of Ar Rubayl as contested.here I fixed this! Be careful when editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Because it's not logical that only Rashdiyah is contested. Look at the wikimap and the road to Rashadiyah. Ar Rubayl is either contested or rebel held. We marked a semicircle there because SOHR said that clashes are near Rashidiyah (Rubayl ?), and now they are in Rashidiyah itself, that could mean that rebels captured Rubayl, it's a really small village, not really something to write about. But do what you think it's best.

By the way, revert your last edit for north Aleppo and Zahra area. The map you used as a source is made by a pro-regime follower, and is used by pro-government users like petrolucem DuckZz (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib

You earlier said me that we cant use the pro government maps for change status villages who were under control by rebels. And that we cant on based the progovernment maps mark these villages as under control of Al Nusra. But then we probably we not should use these maps in situation when we mark as under control by rebels villages which previously under control by JAN. What you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 19:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 This is an interesting thing. The point is, Petrolucem is not just pro-government (that's not the problem) but he wants to show areas that are under Al Nusra control even thought they aren't. For example in Daraa province. According to him, Al Nusra controls 50% of the rebel areas, which is ridiculous and crazy because JAN themself said that they have no more than 2 000 soldiers in both Daraa and Quneitra province, while rebels have at least 38 000 (self claim). Another example is when rebels capture a smaller town, they post like 20 videos showing various rebel groups with FSA flags, statements etc. No videos, pictures, or twitter sources (JAN twitter channels) showing their members, and we know that they like to post pictures of their soldiers on the ground.

Petrolucem is using propaganda for his followers, most of them want to see Al Nusra, ISIL flags, because they want that "Syrian Army vs terrorists scenario". Can we use his map for changes in favor for rebels ? Yes, but carefully, as you can see i only changed few villages that have "Islamic front" presence near them, and everything that's a bit further away, with no flags on it, i leave it to JAN held. DuckZz (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont need remove villages! But I agree with you when you removed some checkpoints. Also we can removed some checkpoints near Idlib becasue this area under control by rebels and Al Nusra and they lost their importance on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 I have already merged 3 checkpoints into 1 in Idlib. Also removed some 2 checkpoints around the town. That's enough because now it looks OK. Now the same thing must be donne to Jisr Shugur, because SAA withdrew. I will leave the important locations (Sugar factory, Hospital etc) and remove the "no name checkpoints". Also the village was removed because it was located above the factory, so nobody could see the factory because of the circle above it. The factory is big and more important than a small village, we already have enough of them. DuckZz (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Let us not remove some objects because this will cause a lot of unjustified edits. So that let everything remains as it is. And SOHR said that clashes continued in the vicinity of the city from the south-west.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to remove anything that's near the frontline with SAA (South Jisr). The only thing that i want to remove are for example 2 checkpoints, one on another, you can't see one because the 2nd is above it. You won't even notice it. DuckZz (talk) 11:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZzWhy you marked Halfaya National Hospital naer Halfaya in Hama as under control by rebels but rebels captured Natinal Hoslital in Jusr al Shugur. Correct this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry! I fixed this. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR was wrong these villages (az Ziyarah and Ishtabraq) still control troops this confirmed pro opposition source.Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cédric Labrousse) Also he confirmed that the village of Qarqur still regime-held contrary to some amateurs reports and clashes still to east from Sirmaniyah and to north of Furayqah.Syrian Rebellion Observatory(Cédric Labrousse) SOHR sometimes publish mistaken data. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Ok for Istabraq, we will wait for other sources. But i'm pretty sure about Ziyarah. This reporter clearly says that he's in captured Ziyarah village. And this videos shows rebels inside Tamniyah checkpoint, and it's not possible to enter this checkpoint without to control the village first. Some other videos1 videos2. What do you think ? DuckZz (talk) 20:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But probably troops recaptured this village or videos were filmed elsewhere. Also we cant check when these videos were filmed. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also pro government TV chanel Al Mayadeen reported that troops launch counterattack in this area. Or maybe rebels retreated after airstrikes as this was yesterday with Tall Hakma. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quneitra

Firstly we use only original reports and secondly translated report here and original report here just said that rebelscaptured Quneitra border crossing and town Quneitra after clashes against ISIS allies. But not said that they captured village Qahtaniyah. So that you need fix your mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pro opposition source confirm that the village of Qahtnaiyah still controlled of allies of ISIS. Source said that the tanks of Israil Defence Force shelling the village of Qahtaniya . This is giving support to FSA/JN in their assault against Jaish al Jihad.here Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Nusra

I marked this two vilages as under JAN becasue previously some pro opposition and reliable source confirmed that area of Jabal al Zawia in Idlib province under control by Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also this was indicated in this article.al-Nusra Front–SRF/Hazzm Movement conflict Hanibal911 (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Nothing where these villages are mentioned. It's not like we didn't put this area under JAN control, especially the bigger towns. As for now, there's no text that mentions these specific villages at all. DuckZz (talk) 21:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! But why you remove villages which I add in Latakia and marked as under control by rebels. If you just might remove two villages which I marked as under control by JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just reverted the edit, didn't see other things you did. DuckZz (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dumayr

Pro opposition source clear showed that city under truce and under jointly control between rebels and troops.here and pro government source not said that the city of Dumayr under control by rebels. Source just said that rebels restore their supply line to Dumayr which is as we know partialy controlled by rebels. So that we need more clear confirmation who is control this city. And many other sources many times confirm that city under jointly control. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 We don't use his biased maps, if you wan't to post pro-rebel maps, then use arcivilians or agadesyaruce. We only know that Dumayr is under truce while we have no sources saying anything more. I belive SAA has no presence inside the town and this Al masdar source is saying that Dumayr is a supply area for Rebels, and that wouldn't be possible if government forces have presence inside the town, especially because of weapons and such. But whateverDuckZz (talk) 20:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just suggest you jointly to monitor the situation in this city. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And pro opposition source @deSyracuse also showed that Dumay under truce but notsaid that city under control by rebels. So we have to leave it unchanged.here See the description for the map in right corner. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasw al Albawi

You should carefully read your sources. SOHR said about the village of Jinn al Albawi and this village for now marked under control of ISIS.SOHR SOHR not said that village Hasw al Albawi under control of ISIS. Please be careful when editing the map. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 17:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's written wrong on this map. Now i found it with a slightly different name ... DuckZz (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why reverting?

I just wanted to help. I already know Abu Serre is controlled by YPG and Jabhat al-Akrad (i.e yellow).

But here is Abu Serre: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.481452&lon=38.721415&z=18&m=b
and here is Khirbet Nahit: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.493203&lon=38.735969&z=17&m=b

The problem is you are marking Abu Serra as Khirbat Nahit. I already know both villages are under YPG control. So instead of reverting, try to assume good faith and try to communicate at the first hand. The reason I added Korek, the Kurdish name of Abu Heyya, is to AVOID confussion. NOT create problem. Personally I never heard of Abu Hayya, only of Korek, in Kurdish media. So here too, you removed good material, and did a unconstructive edit. Again I know from Abu serre to Korek is under YPG control: http://eldorar.com/node/76695 Roboskiye (talk) 22:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roboskiye Abu Serre was add on the map using sources which said that Khirbat Nahit was captured. They couldn't locate Khirbat so they thought it's this village, but it was a kurdish name, translating to Arabic mean Khirbat, so i removed Abu Serre and aded Khirbat Nahit. We tend not to use kurdish names because wikimapia is our map source, and only arabic names are located there. DuckZz (talk) 23:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Khirbet Nahit and Abuserra are the same? From my understanding Abu Serre is located on the highway in proximity of a hill.

All locations on wikipedia use local names, Kurdish names are important because they help not get confused. There are many villages with same Arabic name but with different Kurdish names.

My conclusion/Suggestion: Firsly, correct position of Khirbet Nahit to: lat = "36.493", long = "38.735" You can for the moment just ignore Abuserre. Secondly, Local name of Abu Heyya is important as it is valid for all other place-names on wiki. Roboskiye (talk) 23:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zahr al Mafraq

Why did you remove this hill? It's not the time to remove it beacause that area in not captured yet there are still the rebels and the regime fighting.Lindi29 (talk) 14:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 You're probably right. DuckZz (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There still fighting there and need to show the presence of the rebels in that hill,and are shelling Nahayla town,also there are reports that around al-mastomah camp(vanguard camp) clashes are taking part.SOHR.Lindi29 (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz can you re add the hill.Lindi29 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 Just revert my edit

Al Nusra in Dara

According to the spokesman of the Free Syrian Army at the moment Al Nursa in Dara province it is only a small handful of fighters and nothing more because their numbers has diminished in recent weeks from 3,000 to no more than 700 fighters.The Times of Israel they located in the Tell al-Jabiyeh northwest of city of Nawa. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:13, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 But then you should remove the joint icon from Tell al-Hisr or Nawa because he said only Al-Jabiyeh. DuckZz (talk) 13:22, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably you are right. Because for now Al Nusra it is just not a big rebel group and we can't further mark such big city as Nawa as under jointly control. So we can mark a city of Nawa under control only by rebels. Probably soon the remaining fighters Al Nusra will leave the province or join to other groups. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I think we can put Nawa as under control of the moderate rebels because Al Nusra lost their power and for now have too small strength in Dara province and they can't be on par with other rebel groups and their number is not sufficient for that would mark a major city as Nawa under joint control between rebels/JAN. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tall Salmu near Abu Dihur Airbase

Tall Salmu it is not a small hill it is a village. See maphere Hanibal911 (talk) 08:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not Kurdish source!

This source not a Kurdish this a Turkish source.Orta Doğu Haber #TR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Looks like from Turkey, but it still can be a kurd. Doesn't matter because SOHR confirmed my edits. DuckZz (talk) 18:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sakman

On our map the village of Al Sakman marked as under control of YPG. But Syrian TV reported that the Syrian troops, YPG and NDF repelled the ISIS attack on village Al-Sekman south of Tell Brak.here So that probably we can marked this village as under jointly control as we have done this previously with village of Al Zaide and with some other villages in Raqqa. What you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what you can say about this? We use opposition sources to show that some villages under join control because YPG/FSA jointly fights against ISIS in Raqqa, Hasakah and Aleppo so maybe we can according to data from the pro-government TV channel marked Al Sakman as under jointly control Syrian troops and YPG. Because Syrian troops and YPG also jointly fight against ISIS in Hasakah province. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you want. I'm not active in government-kurdish relations on the map. Joint control is not really a problem in Hasaka or Qamisli area, because nobody really cares about that. Do what you think it should be the best option. DuckZz (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello, Duzz123. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I thank for your efforts of stopping vandalism at the Syria War Map page. We all need to keep it reliable. Damirgraffiti \|☺What's Up?☺ 20:28, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations DuckZz.Alhanuty (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

June 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating 1RR community sanctions, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To explain:
- Edit 1 Revert 1
- Edit 2 Revert 2

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:41, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre This must be a joke

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Duzz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I did not made those edits, i reverted them because a) no source at all b) rebel/uknown map used for rebel advances, and i even got a "Vandalism medal" for that, so it clearly doesn't make sense at all DuckZz (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Block expired. It was in no way a joke. Please read the messages on your talk page which make it clear that edit warring isn't acceptable, even if they other side is "wrong." Unless someone is committing vandalism (which doesn't apply in this case), you may not revert, even if you are sure you're right. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre So what should i do in cases when users make edits that they shouldn't make, ex. "using wrong sources" etc .. I don't know how to report them or something. DuckZz (talk) 22:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please look at WP:DR. If you have a good point, you will usually end up convincing other users on the talk page. If the other guy edit wars anyway, report him for violating 1RR. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can Jack Shahine be used to show Ayn Issa contested?

Jack Shahine says here that Ayn Issa is contested:

https://twitter.com/jackshahine/status/613035128743444481

Can we use him as a source? He is a reliable ground reporter. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating 1RR community sanctions, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion 1 • Reversion 2. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:18, 10 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 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. 04:45, 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. 02:58, 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) 22:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre And what edit do you mean exactly ? DuckZz (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The constant revert warring and name calling while making little to no attempt to discuss the problems civilly. Please don't play dumb, it won't help your cause. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know what i'm doing. I will use my "privilege" in 1 day to revert any edit that's against the rules, or that has nothing to do with the source provided, and i am the last person that should be involved in some discussions. You should block users that enjoy the weakness of this map, and that's tolerance for trolls. DuckZz (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Except that such a privilege does not exist. Please take a look at these clauses of WP:3RR, which also applies to 1RR: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

I have warned other users on that page. But the ends do not justify the means. Just because you believe you're right doesn't mean you can edit war.

You're not in the Middle East on here where whoever has the biggest gun bullies everyone else and where no one else is even allowed to have an opinion different than your own. You're in a place where we use consensus and get along with each other even when we disagree. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:26, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindi29, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 and Qaryataan

SOHR is an agreed reliable source,why is Pbfreespace3 is reverting,report him for this,for Qaryataan,the source is Hassan Hassan,whom is a very reliable journalist and work for multiple respected new agencies,so i think he is reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 17:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty

I didn't report him, only said i would do it, because i knew that he would then make a section on the talk page, what he did. About Qaryataan, we should at least wait for some pictures or videos, or SOHR. The same thing happened with Sukhna town near Palmyra, where we had pictures and videos 48 hours after IS captured it. Also, the same source and many others said that ISIS captured the T4 airport, and we see that they didn't. DuckZz (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alhanuty, I only reverted edits in favor of the rebels based on SOHR, not any by Hassan Hassan. Also, where is the community consensus that SOHR is a reliable source? I don't recall everone agreeing that SOHR can be used in any case no matter what, and editing in favor of rebels seems to be the best example of that. I'm pretty sure SOHR is pro-rebel. Every day, they talk about the evil regime of Assad and all the barrel bomb droppings killing dozens of innocent civilians. Note that I am not denying that that is occuring, I'm just saying that if we want to show these rebel gains, we should use a source other than SOHR. Also, I don't recall anything about Qaryatayn, I think another editor removed that. But, in that case, we shouldn't used a rebel source to show an ISIS gain against the government, as the rebel source is biased against the government. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

there has been a consensus since 2012 and i was there,that SOHR is a reliable source for editing.Alhanuty (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty, Please show me where this consensus is. It also may no longer apply due to more recent decisions. SOHR is pretty pro-rebel, based on the language and terminology. They refer to the Syrian government as the "regime" or "Assad regime", and they often accuse massive numbers of Hezbollah and "Asian" or "foreigner" fighters of fighting for Assad. They constantly report "regime aerial bombardment" and "barrel bombing of civilian areas" killing "innocent civilians". Whether or not that is true is not what is being considered here. The point is SOHR is pro-rebel and cannot be used. Also, if it can be used for rebel gains, then can al-Masdar News and Leith Fadel be used for government gains? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ask editor EkoGrak and he will tell you.Alhanuty (talk) 18:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see a consensus here Alhanuty, :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_37#SOHR_is_becoming_more_biased_and_less_reliable

Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC) that is not a consensus,plus most of them have biased views,SOHR is agreed on to be a reliable source and all news sources describe it as reliable,period.Alhanuty (talk) 18:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC) he has broken the 1RR rule and is ignoring agreed consenscus[reply]

help need

need your help,can you make the edits based on the info in this source.http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/08/regime-forces-and-hezbollah-collapse-in-al-ghab-valley-and-lose-control-on-more-points/.Alhanuty (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Color for ceasefire/truce cities

The color for truce areas on the Damascus map is R: 205, G: 144, B: 201 How about we use this same color for the location dots? Can someone please make this into an SVG file? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The purple color on the .svg map is the same color as the purple icon we use at this moment. It looks lighter on the Damascus map because the red background. But if you still want to change the icon, you can open a discussion on the talk page and ask other editors. DuckZz (talk) 23:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafr Nan

Sorry but this source http://archicivilians.com/2015/06/24/jaysh-al-salam-al-salam-army-new-rebel-formation-of-7-free-syrian-army-groups-syria/ was used when Kafr Nan was changed to sontested https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ASyrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&type=revision&diff=675411508&oldid=675353414 Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing dumb aren't you ? The user who changed this town from green to red was blocked. Then an user changed it to contested, because he thought it was contested before, and not under rebel control. This town should be green but nobody noticed it, and now you changed it to red instead of green, playing dump ? DuckZz (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kafr Nan in Homs under SAA. Which source said that it is under FSA. Abu Minyar al-Gaddafi (talk) 19:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been like that since 2013 and then someone changed it to contested without posting a source, but nobody reverted him, now you did, but in a stupid way instead of changing it back to green you have changed it to red, makes no sense and you are breaking the rules. DuckZz (talk) 19:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC) DuckZz,this new editor is a sockpuppet of Deonis 2012 AKA Hannibal911.Alhanuty (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Sanctions for Rule break of Syria Civil war map.

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.

This is to inform you of the rules you have broken in the Syrian Civil war map recently, the towns of Al Basha, Sh 'arah and At Taff are currently Syrian Arab Army held according to Al masdar 24/08/2015, If you have a source from either SOHR or AL Masdar showing that these towns are in Terrorists control post it, all your reverts have been reverted and will contiue to be until you provide a source for making the edits. Thread carefully ISIS fan boy.SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 15:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyrianObserver2015 (talk • contribs)

August 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Module: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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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).

Duzz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't have a reason but wan't an explanation from the person that made this block. You can see the talk page, 2 users have agreed that i'm right about this, and the user "SyrianObserver2015" who is actually an troll, and blocked too, but that won't help me DuckZz (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Having two editors "agree that you are right" does not give you a free pass to edit war.OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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).

Duzz123 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Well ok, i understand, i broke the rules, but not to harm the map itself but in favor of it. Just to explain the situation and what happened. The user "SyrianObserver2015" was trying to make the map go away from wikipedia by deliberately changing or deleting random locations on the map. For example, he used a source to edit village "xy", but then he edited 10 locations with a similiar name. Another example, he has made 4 edits in a row, not providing a source for any of those, and those locations were picked randomly from the map. Another example is that he reverted 3-4 weeks old edits from other users, and when someone reverted his revert, he would do it again by saying "you have no source for your revert" which doesn't make any sense. He is doing this for like 30 days, he get blocked for 24hours and does it again. I didn't wanted to make 10 reverts per day, because i know only 1 is allowed, so i manually changed his edits back as they were before. I know i broke some rulers but i did not expect to get blocked for 7 days, that's to much in my opinino. DuckZz (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

This is your third block in the last three months for the exact same problem; I don't see any issue with the length the blocking administrator has chosen. Also note that I could not reverse this block even if I wanted to; this type of community sanction can only be reviewed by the community or by the blocking administrator. Kuru (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Email

Hello, Duzz123. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Banned from editing Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Under the authority of the community imposed sanctions for the Syrian Civil War and ISIL you are ~~banned from editing the Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map page for one month (expiring on 00:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC))~~ due to persistent violations of the one revert rule (this [3] [4] being the most recent). If you edit the module during the ban you may be blocked or further restricted. You may appeal this ban on my talk page or to WP:AN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce community authorised sanctions, and for violation of page ban ([5] [6]) on the page Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, as described at WP:GS/SCW,

you have been blocked from editing for ten days. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:41, 11 December 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).

Callanecc (talk As i can't talk on your page. You have told me that I was actually banned because of these 1 2 reverts, which may have been misunderstood. While it's true that this edit is really an revert, on the other hand this edit is a normal edit, 17 hours later, where i provided a good source and has nothing to do with the revert before that. Maybe you can understand what i want to say ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DuckZz (talk • contribs) 01:08, 12 December 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk I still believe that I'm right. Can you answer if the block can be removed or ? DuckZz (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a revert (the first one) of this edit by Sûriyeya (which you identified in your edit summary), you then revert again (which is the second revert, breaching 1RR). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk Maybe I don't understand the rules but I thought that "reverting" means clicking the "undo button" and by that reverting someone's edit, which is the case :here . But i thought that this edit is not considered as a revert, because I'm manually editing something, basically giving a new source? Could this get away with a warning, i wasn't doing it by purpose, again ... .... DuckZz (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first line at Help:Reverting says Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Given you have three blocks in the last six or so months for the same thing I would have expected that you'd have familiarised yourself with the restriction, that you haven't suggests that you need some time away from the page to gain some more experience, though I'm happy to continue discussing. This block, however, was to enforce the page ban which you breached by continuing to edit the module, could you explain that please. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk I understand the reasons for my previous blocks, where I reverted edits (which were against the rules) by purpose, and I knew I was going to get blocked for doing so many reverts, but those editors weren't blocked, and at the end, we all got ... but it was ok. The only thing that was confusing me this time was that I really thought i haven't donne anything against the rules, because i thought that manually editing something isn't a part of the "1 revert per day rule", and now I see that I was wrong. DuckZz (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you edit the page even though you were banned from editing it? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:50, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk I seriously don't know. When I saw that I was banned I posted my first opinion about it here on this talk page, went back to the "Syria war map page" and tried to edit something, and as I could do it, i thought the bann was gonne, or something like that. DuckZz (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay per our discussion I've unblocked you and unbanned you given that it appears to have been a misunderstanding. However if you breach 1RR again there will likely be a long ban or block imposed. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc (talk OK thank you. One more thing I would like to ask. If someone is breaking the rules, can he/she be reported to someone, or should I just wait for someone (like u) to warn him/block him ? DuckZz (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if it's a breach of the one-revert rule you can report them to WP:ANEW, including a link to WP:GS/SCW&ISL and say that 1RR is in effect. If it's something else you can report them to WP:AN or WP:ANI with a link to WP:GS/SCW&ISIL (though you need to make sure they've been notified see WP:GS/SCW&ISIL for info on notifying). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waer

I am not remove Al Waerhere but opp.source said that rebels were evacuated from al-Waer which turned over to government forces) source Sûriyeya (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya No you are wrong. The deal is that few hundred civilians and soldiers leave the district, what they did. While on the other hand, there are still more than 2 500 rebels and over 40 000 civilians inside the district. This is the official agreement and has been reported by SOHR, almost all rebel pages, pro-government Al Masdar, neutral Eliah Magnier etc etc. You can't pick 1 source of out 100 who confirm the opposite, this is basically a simple story, you have an written agreement on paper, signed by the red cross, who also say that rebels will stay inside the district. DuckZz (talk) 17:28, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whis source said that 2,500 rebels still in Al Waer? And here video confirmation confirmed that rebels leave Al Waer.hre here here here here here here Up to 2,000 fighters will leave Waer district in Homs as part of the reconciliation agreement between Syrian government and armed rebels, says Homs governor.Reuters source also Al Waer it is a part of city Homs. Relaible source said that the Homs, the city once known as the "capital of the revolution" will fully return to government control.source source source So I was right. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Rebels Lose Homs After Ceasefire Agreement With Assad.source Sûriyeya (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariameen

Hi, your source [[7]] to edit Marimeen to green is in Arabic and the automatic translation to English is poor. Can you confirm that it specifically states that the village is under unilateral rebel control, as it seems confusing to me that the YPG/ JaT would surrender such a town, especially given its strategical value to the YPG with its proximity to Efrin. This also begs the question if the source is reliable? Regards, Prohibited Area (talk) 22:34, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Prohibited Area No, the thing is that it's not important what source is it, because these 2 documents are signed and official. They are signed by both rebels (Fatah Aleppo) and rebels (Jaish Thuwar) including YPG. It's about what is says in the document and not the source itself. Mariameen will be under local control, including the access of the rebel soldiers from Aleppo, including the civil defense. The YPG has nothing to do with the village, only Rebels from Jaish Thuwar can access it, so it's clearly that this village goes under "lime" control, even thought Jaish Thuwar is part of the SDF, but nobody else from the SDF can access it, so it doesnt make sense to make it joint control as only rebels (and even both are FSA) can go inside. That's about it, it's pretty clear to me. DuckZz (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Duckzz,because it is Jaysh Al-Thuwar that is in the area not the YPG,and the agreement which is confirmed by SOHR statea that the villages will be de-militarized and be run by the free police.User:AlAboud83 (talk) 04:09, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Bruskom ^{talk to me} 19:31, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Homs province

You add town of Damin but in report from SOHR this town not mentioned. So this not correct edit. You broke the rule.

3-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:11, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here name on Arabic (دمينة) for the village Damina which you add according this reporthere but in this report does not mention about this village. So it's not justified editing. And correct nam for this village (تل دمينة) Tall Damina. So do not say that I dont know the Arabic because now I'm right. And as said in the rule #3 "If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed." Sûriyeya (talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Damina because source not said about this village. But I will not dispute your edit about village of Hurayrah(هريرة) because it was a justifiable action. It was confirmed in the sources which you give. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:53, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I was sure, and was using it by purpose. Names which have verbs "Tell or Tall" on maps such as wikimapia etc are misunderstood because that verb is not important when it comes to names, it does not change the meaning of the village and is mostly for standardisation. For example even SOHR sometimes doesn't use the name "Tall/Tell" before the actuall name, like when they say "Abyad town" or "Hara town" in Daraa province. And yes the SOHR source does not say "Damina" but "alDamina". So if you can find some other village in south Hama with that name i would be really glad to know that DuckZz (talk) 19:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR not said that the village Damina under control by rebels or that planes bombed village of Damin. SOHR said that Warplanes believed Russian also attacked places in town of Kafar Nobbouda as well as the two areas of Brigith and al- Daminah in the southern countryside of Hama.SOHR Not said that rebels inside this village or that they control some parts of village Darmin. Western media many times said that the Russian planes many times bombed civilians in the towns and villages which not located on front line or that in these villages not have rebels but they bombed them. So we need more data as we have one report about bombing in area od this village. As said in the rules of editing (rule #3) " If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed"here So that or we start dicussion on talk page or we search more info. I think that can mark the rebel-held village or town if source said that planes bombed rebels in these points. I personaly ask you not rush edit, but search the clear data(not with ambiguous content) before edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Samdaniyah Al-Gharbi

You are was a right! SOHR said rebels retake most part of village.here and pro-SAA source said that the SAA have withdrawn from Samdaniyah Al-Gharbi.here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LTR joins SDF

there are reports that Liwa Thuwar Al-Raqqa has joined SDF,so i am not sure if we should put the green dots,but go ahead.Alhanuty (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty Yes but the area south of Tell Abyad to Ayn Issa is not controled by Thuwar Raqqa but Jaish Ashair group which isn't connected to the SDF, now not even with Thhuwar Raqqa, which is the same as Thuwar Raqqa is now part of SDF. I actually did not wanted to make these edits because it looks weird and it seems like rebels are only present there, which i guess isn't the case. The SDF color as itself is actually against the rules because we're using double standards, as u can see Idlib province is full of Nusra controled villages, but which some are captured by Jaish Fatah, 70% of rebels inside, basically the same as SDF but we use other rule for those editing, i don't know why and that should be changed, but people obviously don't agree with that, and the admin is asleep. DuckZz (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyash (Deir ez Zor)

ISIS not capture town Ayyash they attacked Ayyash and al-Baghiliyah and Baghiliyah district. But for now we only can wait reliable data which can indicated us the exact situation. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:08, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But you are right that the town of Al-Khuraytah ISIS-held. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hirbnafsah

You need return a red semicircle near Hirbnafsah as SOHR just said about the airstrikes on this village bu SOHR also said that the clashes continued between security forces and their allies against factions and Islamic fighter and Al-Nusra in the vicinity of the village of Hirbnafsah.here SOHR not said that the SAA retreated from this village. Also yesterday other source said that the SAA entered in the village and advance inside her.source So as a compromise solution, we need leave red semicircle north of this village. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latakia

I ask you to take part in the discussion.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made a mistake

In this edit, you made a mistake. You typed "locaton dot red" instead of "location dot red". You forgot the "i". Can you please fix this?

Zawr Hanifa

You are wrong. SOHR not said that rebels captured Zawr Hanifa. But Opp. source just said that rebels seize over several checkpoints near the village Zawr Hanifa. here but village remained under control of SAA and later they regain these checpoints from rebels.here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Crediable source

Source Bosno Sinj just some guy from teitter which can't provide data which his published. Also according to rules of Wikipedia the data from most account from Twitter not crediable source. And we can't provide that this activist reliable and not biased so I said on talk page we when we edit and want use data from twitter need also provide reliable source from twitter which can cleared confirm this data. We can't edit map on based assumptions of some activists from Twitter especially if there is no confirmation that it is reliable and neutral expert also ealso if he has not provided any data to support of his words. It is just unknow guy from twitter and nothing more. Sorry Sûriyeya (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also more then a month ago I have seen report from SOHR in which was said about a shelling from rebels the regime position inside Naseriyah. So I ask you not rush edit just on based a data from twitter also especially if there is no longer any other evidence from reliable sources, only the data from Twitter. I hope for understanding on your part. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:25, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya You are wrong. I don't know when you started editing this page, but probably only recent, because we are using him as a source since 2013. In 2014 we had 2 topics about sources from twitter and in both cases he was marked as reliable while we continued the discussions about other persons, but we never had any doubt about him. Since that he was used to edit ISIS, Gov, Rebel and Kurd gains on this map, 500 times already, and it shouldn't stop because you don't agree with that ? If you don't agree, you need to post some arguments like "He was wrong about this things" or "He isn't reliable because of....".

I don't know what other source to post because these 2 villages are not captured by Rebels, but this area stayed the same since 2013, and we obviously made a mistake back then. Here is a map from thomas linge, it shows the towns clearly under Rebel control. I don't know. If you are so sure about SOHR then post it, because I'm 100% sure that Rebels are in control of these 2 areas since like 2012, and of course you won't find any source, how could you. Either believe me (who edits this map since 2013) or not. DuckZz (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas van Ling it is a biased anti-government activist. But he long time on his maps indicated this area as SAA-heldhere here here here I watch his maps for the previous few years, and these maps clear showed that this area has always been under the control of the army. But now without any prove he is marked this area as rebels-held it is a verry funny. And according to rules of Wikipedia a Twitter not a good source. As I have already figured out that you also previously used the card to edit but then adopted a rule prohibiting use a maps for edit so that everything changes. And data from Twitter also too difficult to call reliable. So I ask you not to hurry and to seek information from a reliable source not from Twitter. Bosno just a guy from Twitter and we not hava and crediable confirmation that his a neutral(not biased) activist. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:51, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at a lot of maps (for the period from 2012 to 2015) from opposition sources and on all maps this area has been marked as SAA-held. But maps like Twitter is bad sources so we need confirmation from a reliable source. Also Bosno showed on map that Khan Abu Shamat area in esst Qalamoun now SAA-held but we know it is not true and many other mistakes. This guy bad know situation. So I just ask you to search for more data. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you express your opinion in this debate.here SOHR said that the city of Inkhil contested between ISIS-allies and rebels but I have doubts about this. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hi, we're discussion LightandDark2000 at ANI, do you mind giving your input? Thanks[8] NightShadeAEB (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Khashab

Source Bosno said that it is Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA) recaptured a village of Abu Khashab from ISIS but this source said that the Kurdish-Arab alliance of SDF advance in the oil-rich area between Deir ez-Zor province and Raqqa, northeast Syria and have seized the Rweshid oil field after expelling ISIS from the Abu Khashab district west of the town of Markada in Syria’s northeastern Hasakah province.here I only know that it is a biased anti-SAA source and all but I dont know how we use this source for succes of SDF against ISIS. Maybe SDF retake Abu Khashab or with support of Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA). What you think? Sûriyeya (talk) 08:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) You are playing with me or ? The source is talking about Kobane, not even Hasaka province. And again, some user reverted the Deir Ezzor edit and provided no source. Report him to the admin. DuckZz (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm realy sorry I gave you wrang link also I newer wants a play with you I just made random mistake when give to you link for source. Here is a correct link.here Yesterday, I did as you asked here but unfortunately not all editors want observe a rules of editing.here Maybe need establish punishment for unjustified revert of edits which made according to the rules. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) The link says Abu Khasbah near the Ruwashid oilfield, west of Markadah town. This picture explains it, as you can see, its a different Abu Khashab, while the one in the left top corner was captured last week (acc. to BosnjoSinj). DuckZz (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) Abu Khashab and Muqman are still unchanged, I dont see the logic. DuckZz (talk) 00:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I put on map one of Abu Khashab as SDF-held and Abu Khashab, Mihbash and Bir Sahbu as rebels-held according to sources.here here But Muqman probably only SDF-held becasue Bosno said that the Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA) captured Al Bukman, Mihbash, Abu Kashab, Bir Sahbu but not Muqman. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opp.source Qasioun News said that the SDF captured village Ruwayshid and that the Maliha Oil Field SDF-held.here But I not sure on 100% we can use these data or not. What you think? Sûriyeya (talk) 10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We can't. DuckZz (talk) 11:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Sûriyeya (talk) Also look at this. Remember when I told that Nasiriah town (qalamun) is with Rebels acc. to BosnjoSinj. Now look at the new map from Aga, we can't use maps but he is reliable and you wanted another source besides bosnosinj. I found something else which explains why Nasiriah is with Gov. on our map, this section is from 2013 where users changed both Dumayr and Nasiriah to Gov.held, we know that Dumayr is with Rebels, which means Nasiriah was probably a mistake too, which we never changed. DuckZz (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He create map on based data from Bosno!here He just takes data from twitter and makes the maps. city of Atman near the city Daraa taken SAA but on his map this town still rebels-held and many other mistakes. So for now we have the amateur map. Sorry but it is not enough. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 14:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SvEcHpInXID Yes but look at the other source, from the discussion from 2013, there some users said that both Dumayr & Nasiriah is with Gov. Today, we know that Dumayr is with Rebels, so maybe the users back then also made a mistake for Nasiriah ? DuckZz (talk) 15:05, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you good editor and I see that you good know a situation. So I support you. I only several times do edit on this map but I can edit Nasiriya and hope that other editors not revert me. So I do this if we not have any other oppinions. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For now we not have a crediable data from reliable sources which provide that the village Al-Naseriyah is a under control of rebels. And you SvEcHpInXID do this on based a very questionable data. But I dont want begin a war od edits and for now I'm not revert of this edit but time will tell who was right and who is not. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think that village of Abu Khashab is a SDF-held. SOHR said that clashes took place between ISIS and SDF around the al-Malha oil fields and al-Jowaif station, and around the village of Abu Khashab, and reports of advances for SDF in the area.here SOHR said that it is a SDF advance against ISIS in this area. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I forgot to answer on tradedia wall. No, there are 2 villages with the same name, SOHR is talking about Abu Kashab near the Malha oil fields, taken by SDF yes, but the other village with same name is 20km away from here. DuckZz (talk) 16:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found Abu Khashab hill in Hasakah and one village of Abu Khashab in Deir ez Zor and also I found the Abu Khashab Oil fields in Deir ez Zor. Where is present another village Abu Khashab in Deir ez Zor or Hasakah? Just intresting. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

villages in Deir ez Zor

Source Bosno also reported that the Al Nukhbat brigade(FSA) captured a villages of Al Muyalah & Adas in NW Deir Ezor province.here but I can't find them. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) Please report the user Niele Wiki to the admin because he made 3 edits without providing a source. 1* Here he added the Abu Kashab village west of Markadah. He used a Kurdish source (against the rules), and he pretented that Abu Kashab district and Abu Kashab village are the same, even thought geo.maps show them with 20km seperation. 2* He then hahahahah puts the Abu Kashab district on the correct position but puts a source which shows the Abu Kashab village 20km away from there. 3* He then basically reverts my edit, says bad source is provided, and then puts his own sources which doesn't mention Abu Kashab village at all, but he still removes it, and ads Abu Kashab district, which again can't be added bec. Kurdish sources are used. 4* He then tries to be polite but talks nonsense, it's like he is their commander and not an wikipedia editor. DuckZz (talk) 23:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we need ask admins put for Niele~enwiki ban on edit the articles about Syrian war. But I only can ask about this someone of admins on they talk page but I dont know how do official request for ban or block. Maybe you do this request and I'll support your request about sanctions to him. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) I don't know how to request a ban, you better ask Tradedia on his wall. The user Niele Wiki is either playing dumb or is pushing his POV opinions to a limit. He basically wrote 200 sentences about something which doesn't have anything to do with the areas we are talking about, it's like he think that hes talking with someone else, about something else. I don't have the time to answer all his 100 quetions because we don't talk about the same thing, wouldn't make sense at the end. DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can ask this adminhere which put semi-protection for Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:52, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realy can't understend a such of editors as "NightShadeAEB "! He use maps as a source for edithere but in main rules of editing was noted Copying from maps is strictly prohibited As I see some guys just ignored these rules. So we need do something how you think? Sûriyeya (talk) 19:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) Report him to Tradedia on his wall, both him and the other user. DuckZz (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realy think that Bosno opp. reporter/activist. It casts doubt of its data probably we need use him with restricted.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) In your words. He would be neutral if he said "Gov.jet not downed and rebels not captured the pilot". Show me one 1 thing that was wrong and we will never use him again. DuckZz (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At first, I did not say that Bosno it is a source which is absolutely not crediable and we should not use it. And secondly, he writes that "A good friend told me to take a camera and go to south Aleppo to film something, that was 2 days ago". So if he was in the place with a rebels in area where they shotdown plane this means that Bosno work in area which is under control of rebels. Also if his friend two days ago told him to take a camera and go to south Aleppo to film something. But such information could know a limited number of people. So this means that his friend know that rebels prepare something importent but this information can know only rebels or activists which cooperated with them. So that or Bosno cooperat with rebels or he receives data from the rebel sources. I just want find from where he takes data and nothing more. I did not raise the question use data from Bosno or not! Sûriyeya (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You saw that earlierI on the basis of its data I helped you to edit villages in the Deir Ez Zor province so that partialy I trust him. I assure you that I was not going to raise the issue of banning this source. I just wanted suggest you not to use data from Bosno in conflict between SAA and ISIS as we use source Al Masdar with some restriction (not use to decide if a town is held by Al-Nusra or rebels or joint control between them. Because Al-Masdar has a tendency to exaggerate the role of al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, jihadists, etc.) Sûriyeya (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you that, unlike some other editors I sincerely want cooperate with all the editors and not to conflict. Since the conflicts between editors lead us to war of edits and it does not benefit only one harm. Sûriyeya (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya (talk) Well his twitter info does say that he's mainly or only writing about Rebels, which would make sense that he's with them, only makes him even more credible. When it comes to fight against SAAvsISIS, i don't remember the last time we used him as a source, but even if, i rather trust him than some Al Masdar (Leith Fadel) who lives in America (Masacutetts) and basically invents many things in his article. I never use Al Masdar but i dont revert edits bec. its still not banned from this page. DuckZz (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On this moment I remove semi-circle near Tishrin Pewer Station because SOHR said clashes near this station but we know that this can be on long distation from itself station. SOHR said that clashes in vicinity of the city Al Suknha but in fact clashes on distance around 40km from this city. So as I said in talk page in discusion "Semicirclses" we must put smicircle only in situation when one side stormed itself point(town, village or some other points). Also what we do in situation with villages in Deir ez Zor? I said about this Tradedia so that maybe you also need say him somethg about this issue. Sûriyeya (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also here the data from opposition source about of some villages in Deir ez Zor about which is said Bosno. Bosno said it was Al Nukhbat brigade but source said "Armed forces of “The Syrian Elite”, a new formation under the Ghad al-Souri (Syria’s Tomorrow) movement headed by opposition figure Ahmed al-Jarba, announced they had taken control of villages and areas in the Hassakeh and Deir-ez-Zor countrysides"here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:39, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semicirclses

You must be carfule when you remove semicircles because today I add semicircle near Al Eishere because SAA/allies storm this town. Although later source Al Masdar said that rebels again today repelled assaulthere but you removed semicircle not on based this data but on based discussion in which we agree only put semicircles when a one of sides try storm town,village or some other points. So I ask you be careful when removed semicirclses. Sûriyeya (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Badia cement factory

New report from Al Masdar said SAA take Badia cement factory.here SOHR said that SAA advance and take new points which early taken ISIS.here here and government source said SAA retake Badia cement factory.here So we have more confirmations. Also Bosno partialy opp. source and we should not him against SAA in conflict with ISIS. Sûriyeya (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are wrong. SANA can't be used as a source, I hoppe you are kidding me ? SOHR said only advances, and thats why we changed Abu Shamat and few other checkpoints to SAA. Al Masdar is lying in my opinion because look at the conv. I posted. The SAA reported that SAA captured Badia, user Bosno said that's not true, and the reporter than admited to be wrong. I think this is pretty much clear. DuckZz (talk) 10:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR said SAA advance and take control of several new points was taken ISIS in previous time. And Al Masdar said that SAA take Khan Abu Shamat Base and Badia sement factory. Al Masdar was recognized as a crediable source we only dont use him for show succes Nusra and ISIS agaisnt rebels. But Bosno it just activist from Twitter which we agree not use against SAA in conflich with ISIS. And this activist also said SAA push ISIS from Badia Factory. But only in moment of report from SANA thaey still not entered inside factory but they expelled ISIS from this point. He not said that Badia still ISIS-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Opp.activists from Twitter also said that regime took back Badia cement plant from ISIS.here here Sûriyeya (talk) 13:21, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here the visual confirmation that SAA retake Badia Cement Factory from ISIS.here here here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:55, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Later SOHR clear said that SAA made new advance in Qalmoun the eastern region, and regaining control of Badia cement plant and Safa station, triangle checkpoint(Palmyra - Jordan - Baghdad) and other points in the region and in the vicinity of the Seine/Sayqal Airport area. here here Sûriyeya (talk) 08:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dumayr

Opposition source said about agreement between the Assad regime and ISIS in Dumayr in Eastern Qalmoun and according to this agreement ISIS destroy heavy weapons and withdraw to desert area.here here And Al Masdar said that ISIS leave the town Al Dumayr and SAA and rebels establish truce in town.here So probably need put Al Dumayr in green and put purple circle aroun the town as it was before ISIS attacked rebels inside a town. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya Not a single Rebel or Pro-Rebel source is talking about a truce. You need to understand what a truce really is. According to this same Al Masdar, around 50 villages in Syria have a truce, especially in Hama but we didn't put them in purple but in red because the SAA controls them now, so if you follow this unlogic rule, we then need to make big changes in Hama province. What is happening in Dumayr is a tipical casefire where 1 party controls the town, while other party is in the vicinity but not atacking the city because they will have other problems if they do that. The same examples we can find in towns like Qalad Madiq (north Hama), Wadi Barada walley in Damascus, Khan Shih town south of Damascus, we don't need to discuss why a casefire is also present here, but those reasons are different in every case. Dumayr town was marked with Rebel control before, now as ISIS is gonne nothing changed, and the situation with the Gov. stayed the same, but Al Masdar is again lying and you shouldn't be surprised because the same source said only 5 days ago that SAA captured Badia factory, which was denied by the SAA reporter I posted the source, Al Masdar deleted the article and waits 2 days before it actually happens. So be very careful about these edits. I also discussed with Tradedia about the purple icon and he agreed to remove it if we know that a town is fully under Rebel or SAA control, thats why we ignore the truce towns in Hama province cuz they're with SAA, so don't make me start a new section on the page because the Admin has decided, so you can ignore Masdar. DuckZz (talk) 12:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree with you about Dumayr. But in situation with Badia Factory Al Masdar was right and then pro-SAA reporter not denied this report he just said that on time of report ISIS retreated from Badia but SAA not enter. But many other sources including SOHR confirmed that Badia Cement Factory taken SAA. SOHR said that SAA take Khan Abu Shamat, Badia factory, Sina Factory, Al Safa Station, triangle checkpoint and other points which ISIS take when they attacked in East Qalamoun. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR and Al Masdar clear that SAA retake Knah Abus Shamat, Badia Factory, Al Sini Factory, Al Safa Station, triangle Checpoint, Battalion 559 and some other. So you can't remove them from map. And ISIS forces evacuated to Raqqa and in desert area east of Damascus in area which is still under their control. So your action unjustifed. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SAA provides them a safe passage through these area which is under control of SAA, and no more toward areas in sesert which still ISIS-held. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:45, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Masdar said SAA take Badia cement factory and Khan Abu Shmat base.here Al Masdar said SAA take Battalion 559,Al-Sini Factory,Al-Safa Station.here and SOHR clear said that SAA made new advance in Qalmoun the eastern region, and regaining control of Badia cement plant and Safa station, triangle checkpoint(Palmyra - Jordan - Baghdad) and other points in the region and in the vicinity of the Seine/Sayqal Airport area. here here Sou you can't again remove this points. ISIS evacuated from East Qalamoun. After agreement with government and ISIS, last agree evacuated from city Dumayr and rebels take under control all city. But any data that ISIS retake all points which taken SAA or that SAA retreated from them. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:02, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand English or just didn't read my description in the edit ? All these areas you mentioned and many others were already with Gov. prior to ISIS offensive but we didn't put them on map because this areas is a desert and all these bases and checkpoints are empty, which explains why ISIS captured all of them in only few hours, now SAA regained everything, so why should it stay now ? The area is a desert and needs to be shown like that, some areas should leave currently its too much. I mean, why would anyone be interested that east of Dumayr are located 3 Quaries ? Quaries are just empty rocky hills. DuckZz (talk) 11:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we begin to selectively removed objects this will be wrong actions. If any of objects on the map was taken in the battle and if in battle for these obgects die many fighters then this means it was very important places for both sides. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tall al Kassarat it is a strategic hill overlookin on Damascus-Baghdad road so that need restored him. We can't remove villages,hills or some other points from map without reason. I was agree with you that quarries is not imporrent objects in this place and I agree that Al Sini factory is a part of Badia complex. But not need remove other bjects. So I ask you again put this hill on map. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suddenly it's important ? Why wasn't it important in the last 5 years ? DuckZz (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not edit this map all of this period so that this question not to me. If we will do it then other editors may also start to remove objects on the map without reason, and this can lead to not predictable action. If both sides fight for him this means that hill was importent for them. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:44, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I only ask you in future not remove such objects as hills, factories and military base without ponderable reason. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya

Nobody can remove anything from the map, but all these areas near Dumayr have been added because ISIS captured them, and not because they were always there, no, the only dots that were there prior to ISIS attacks are the 559 base, Badia factory and the safa station. Everything else can be removed because the SAA recaptured everything. We are doing the same thing when Rebels launch atacks in north Hama, capture few checkpoints and we add them, then SAA recaptures everything, we then remove everything cuz the situation is the same as prior to atacks. DuckZz (talk) 15:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So OK! But we leave on the map Badia Factory, Khan Abu Shamat base, Safa station, Battalion 559 and the strategic triangle checkpoint(Al Muthalath). Sûriyeya (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we agree that we nod need remove military bases and other importent plases without sourses but you ignored this and do this again. So stop. You can't do this. You said that nobody can't remove anything from the map but your do this again. All these points(Badia Factory, Khan Abu Shamat base, Safa station, Battalion 559,16th Regiment base,Air Defense Base, strategic triangle checkpoint(Al Muthalath)) should remain on the map because all they strategic points on map. I restored stratedgic points (16th Regiment base,Air Defense Base) but I say you again we can't remove any points from map without source. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya I only did what u said here, to remove everything besides badia, 559, abu shamat, triangle and safa. DuckZz (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz I only mean objects among those who were captured ISIS and which later libirated SAA. But Regiment 16 and Air Defense Base nawer was taken ISIS. I only agreed with you that we can remove two Quarries, Al-Sini factory and Tall al Kassarat hill and nothing more. Perhaps that we are simply misunderstood each other. Sûriyeya (talk) 08:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sûriyeya The 16.regiment was not on our map, and it was not captured by ISIS, so why was it added ? DuckZz (talk) 23:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

help

can you revert Pakan on the module,there was no sources in the first place for his edits that ISIS took Tanf area and Mountains near QalamounAlhanuty (talk) 23:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Keep it civil

First, I would like to remind you of WP:GOODFAITH and WP:CIVIL. Comments like Nice try are really not in line with Wikipedia's policy on civility and assuming good faith from your fellow editors. Second, the article states the strikes were over the village to the north. And even IF the article was talking about strikes inside the village itself, the report was made on the same day the village was captured. Before the village was reported captured, there was fighting, and the news report could very well have been talking about strikes on the village right before it was seized by the SAA. Can you tell us whether the report was talking about strikes before or after the village was supposedly taken? If you have reports talking about strikes on the village AFTER that date than fine. But until than I would politely ask that you cancel your revert. EkoGraf (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) I will be polite on the same day when I see that you're not trying to spin my own words. The SOHR report you're talking about was posted 1 day after Al Masdar published an article about how the village was under their control. SOHR's article again is still the latest source, and it clearly says airstrikes targeting the village, nothing north south or any other direction, and i don't remember that anyone ever wrote something like "airstrikes to the northern side of the village, etc". Next line is "and clashes are continuing in the vicinity" which refers to its southern countryside, where Gov. soldiers are supposed to be. Or do you think, they are in the north, and airstrikes are targeting their own controled village. DuckZz (talk) 22:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]