User talk:I7laseral

Talk page established

Gaddafi says protesters are on Hallucinogenic drugs - http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/24/us-libya-protests-gaddafi-idUSTRE71N4NI20110224

Gaddafi blames alqaeda for protests http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/02/20112254231296453.html

Gaddafi blames al jazeera for the protests http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/20113944216568348.html

King Khalifa of Bahrain says protesters are foreign conspiracy - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42188730/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/bahrain-foiled-foreign-conspiracy-king-says/

Vice President Omar Suleimon of Egypt claims Protesters are part of a foreign conspiracy - http://mostly.biz/544/omar-suleiman-states-egypts-unrest-is-of-foreign-origin-and-conspiracy-of-some-muslim-brothers

Algerian government blames Zionist conspiracy as root of protests - http://www.news24.com/Africa/News/Foreign-Zionists-behind-Algeria-riots-20110915

President Ali Saleh of Yemen blames the protests as a foreign conspiracy by the USA - http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/03/20113191141211328.html

President Ali Saleh of Yemen blames the protests on Al Jazeera

|commander2= Muammar Gaddafi
Muammar Gaddafi's sons:
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi
Khamis al-Gaddafi
Al-Mu'tasim-Billah al-Gaddafi
Al-Saadi al-Gaddafi
Current Generals (outside the immediate Gaddafi family):
Abdullah Senussi
Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr
Massoud Abdelhafid
Mahdi al-Arabi
Khouidli Hamidi
Rafi al-Sharif
Awad Hamza
Bashir Hawadi
Mustafa al-Kharoubi

Syria

On the 2011 Syrian uprising page info-box, the Syrian government's claims to insurgent casualties have recently been added. Some users suggest accepting the insurgent casualties as part of the 2200 - 3105 civilian casualties claims via Un and several rights group, but i argue that it is a separate number entires, as the Syrian government claims 1400 dead not 2600, and they further claim that the 1400 is comprised of only 700 soldiers and 700 insurgents. Thus they are not addressing the 2600 number. When you see the fatality box please relocate as a separate Syrian government claimed number altogether. Thanks. Sopher99 (talk) 16:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

.... Perhaps it is best if we separate the two opposing claims entirely... I7laseral (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria 2011

Can uou explain your edit? And the reason that you called my edit "vandalism"?--Kevorkmail (talk) 14:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

---Just because assad's goverment says something does not mean its true. Anyone trying to enforce assad's propaganda is doing vandalism. I7laseral (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC) ---You have already broken the 3 revert rule. If you continue I will report you. The talk page is the only way to revert it now. I7laseral (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Being pro-Assad does not mean to be a vandal/zionist... and choose your words carefully before making your statements.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Re-read what i said. ENFORCING PROPAGANDA is doing vandalism.I7laseral (talk) 16:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

The added facts were backed with their proper neutral sources.--Kevorkmail (talk) 16:40, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:03, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello I7laseral! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey

History

Main article: Modern history of Syria

Former President Hafez al-Assad (right), and his brother Rifaat al-Assad (left), who personally supervised the Hama massacre.

Syrian democracy was overturned in 1949 when the first coup in the country ended democratic rule, a coup which, according to Joseph Massad, professor of Modern Arab Politics and Intellectual History at Columbia University, was sponsored by the United States CIA a conclusion in agreement with other historians such as Professor Douglas Little, and declassified records. The coup and that "CIA agents Miles Copeland and Stephen Meade..were directly involved in the coup" are described by Professor Irene Gendzier

http://intellit.muskingum.edu/covertaction_folder/casyria.html

February 2012

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

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

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

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

• In other words--it's probably best to talk this out with the user. Edit-warring is edit-warring, even if you're right. A discussion on the quality of those sources on the talk page should be a next step. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Syrian Talk page

I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Syrian National Council, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. __meco (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. __meco (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Lead

Yes the new report has found that children were killed by government forces. However, it did not state that all of the 500 children were killed by government troops. Which is rather logical. Like the original source says, 500 children were killed in Syria in fighting between pro-government and rebel forces, thus in the conflict generally. A number of them has most likely been killed in random street fighting between the military and rebels or possibly, as the UN said, as maybe child soldiers or by the extremist suicide car-bombs or even maybe in random rebel mortar firing. No one can now, that's war. As for the contestment, we are obligated to point out both points of view in the conflict. The UN and opposition made those allegations and the government has denied them. If we remove that sentence than we make an impression the government hasn't denied it and is de-facto admitting guilt. EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Toll

Thanks for the info! :) EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:INDENT

Hi! Do you think you could make an (extra) effort to format your discussion posts according to the above help page? With as much activity as there is currently at Talk:Houla massacre, the discussion very easily becomes cluttered if some extra attention isn't given to this menial aspect of talk page activity. In particular, when responding to another comment add only one colon to preface your comment compared to how many colons were before the other post. There are also some advanced techniques that are also very helpful to ensure readability is preserved, so I hope you will assist in keeping these discussions clutter free! Cheers! __meco (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I will look into the guideline then later today. I7laseral (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Syria Civil war

I would just wait for an admin to close the discussion before going at it with the other editor's POV if both sides here have a truce and an admin closes teh discussion with a final say then we can go from there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Defectors number

About the 85,000 number, I was talking to Alhanuty, not you so no worry. About the 30,000 figure. Putting active FSA members is not what the source says. The source says there are 30,000 defectors who have joined up the fight. The FSA is no longer exclusivly comprised of defectors. There are thousands of civilian volounteer fighters. But we don't know how many civilian volounteers there are. So, we have put 30,000 defectors (which is known) and an unknown number of civilian volounteers. EkoGraf (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

30k defectors who joined the fight ie 30k active FSA members. I think it makes perfect sense to note that. I7laseral (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Found a resolution to the problem. This CNN report [1] says there are 40,000 opposition fighters. We will also note in the strength section that an estimate 30,000 of those are former military. EkoGraf (talk) 16:29, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Concessions

Its debatable on the point if its the least significant or not. Seek consensus before removing a probably important part of the article. Or at the very least don't remove all but shorten it a bit. EkoGraf (talk) 17:58, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present)

Please see this diff which explains why this move request may not have been closed earlier. Dpmuk (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Washington Institute report

It is this one [2]. It is also used in infobox as a source for number of foreign fighters. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army

Are you going to make the changes you said you were in the talk post or not?

AL Arabya and many other sources being used in the article are not appropriate. STOLE MY COOKIES (talk) 14:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

link is above

You removed sourced content, once again --DanielUmel (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Once again stop removing sourced content. Al akbhar is perfectly reliable and quote reuters and afp --DanielUmel (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Skype

May I see this skype video or confrimation? Besides, your comment that the TV agency is unreliable because it's Shia is totaly insulting. Al Jezeera is Sunni, and that proves what? --Wustenfuchs 15:54, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19176531 Fifth paragraph under "tank attack" section

In the same way we don't use the Muslim brotherhood's channels for info we don't use Shia islamists for info. I7laseral (talk) 15:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

You know, it's not Shia islamist TV agency, and moreover, Muslim Brotherhood is an organization, Shia Islam is a secte, like Sunnis. Al Jazeera is Saudi Qatari, very unneutral country involved in the conflict (!) with Sunni rulling clas. --Wustenfuchs 16:20, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

About the news, do they state when he made a contact with them via Skype? No. --Wustenfuchs 16:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously today considering he is responding to TODAY's events I7laseral (talk) 16:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea what you are saying

I really have no idea what you are saying buddy. Where do you see me saying pulling back or even pulling out? I never wrote that anywhere. Stop repeating something that isn't even written. What I did write was withdraw which is according to the cited Guardian source, stop removing sourced information please. EkoGraf (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, everything I am writting is per the source. Quoting it for you. The Guardian's Martin Chulov, who is close to Salahedin said the battle is continuing. In a brief call to our news desk, a few moments ago, he denied government claims that rebels had been driven from the area. EkoGraf (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

What happened to your claim about me writting pulling out or pulling back or whatever you were saying? And what's wrong with the way I wrote the sentence now? EkoGraf (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

First, you broke 3RR a long time ago. Second, the way you wrote it now seems as the commander was the one who made the 15 meter comment and not the reporter based on his sources. I am starting to think, based on that you removed that info earlier, that you just don't like the fact it was reported the rebels made reported retreat. I would suggest cooling of and starting a discussion with me and not starting an edit war. I won't report you for the 3RR just now but if you continue edit warring over something that isn't even a problem we are going to have a problem. EkoGraf (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If you look I spent 3 reverts deleting your content and 2 reverts re-arranging your content. But whatever, I'll stop fighting over something so trivial. I7laseral (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no Tadamon battle

Why are you opposing the term "Tadamon last stand" ? This is very childish, you don't even give an explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

Reverting the rebel death toll of the morning and deleting all the reporters latests information was quite dishonest. --DanielUmel (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is different than yesteday. Rebels admmit that they have completely left the district. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

They left yesterday too, and doesn't they can't come back in. Please wait a few hours. I7laseral (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I will wait a few hours but it is not like yesterday when they immediately issued a denial about them not withdrawing. With the press reports I have, it seems that they withdraw to open new fronts in nearby districts of Seif al-Dawla and Machad. They really don't seem to get back in Salaheddin but let's wait and see. --DanielUmel (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I have put the battle claims reports for today all into one paragraph, while the war crimes report is in a separate paragraph. And the reports on the fighting are all in a chronological order. EkoGraf (talk) 19:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The map shows everywhere there has been fighting and shelling, in the past and in the present ongoing. Not just ongoing as you say. If they captured that place it would be highlighted as havign experienced fighting during the capture or experiencing current shelling since the artillery is hitting all rebel areas. Plus, no sources the rebels even captured this Karm myasser. What the sources are saying is that the rebels from from the south/southwest are trying to link up with those from the northeast but haven't been able to do so because of the government troops still resisting in the Old Town district in the city center at the Citadel. EkoGraf (talk) 23:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

The map you provided shows Hamdaniya under FSA control, while 99.99 percent of all other major reliable news media have stated its Army controlled, and not just that, but also its the main tank staging area for attacks against Salahadine. So I don't think the guardian map is reliable since it has been contradicted by every other major news sources. EkoGraf (talk) 13:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Warnin

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Timeline of the 2011–2012 Syrian Civil War (from May 2012), you may be blocked from editing. DanielUmel (talk) 11:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

That discussion appears to be closed now, but you asked for a link. WP:3RR. That is the policy page.

"Undoing other editors—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert."

Yes. Reverting 4 different editors of different content still counts. --Onorem♠Dil 14:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop trolling

I wrote 90% of the page. And you are coming with a childish game of trying to remove the description. Grow up. --DanielUmel (talk) 20:48, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not trolling, and it doesn't matter what percentage of page a user writes, you write what is the correct usage. I7laseral (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do you remove Canada

It's sourced as Russia is sourced. Alabamaboy1992 (talk) 23:01, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

I have a source saying that the tawhid brigade is islamist. And secondly, stop adding non fighters to the combatant section --DanielUmel (talk) 15:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:NPA

Read it, than WP:VAND good faith edits are not vandalism Facts, not fiction (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

You broke the 3 RR rules in the aleppo battle page

And you broke it in 30 minutes. But I won't report you if you self revert your last revert. --DanielUmel (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ill revert it if you show me the diffs, cause I see you broke it as well. Here is the diffs which show you broke the 3rv rule. I7laseral (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512841333&oldid=512841038
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512883614&oldid=512881723
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512885903&oldid=512885014
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512887812&oldid=512887570
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512889380&oldid=512888268

I have only three reverts. You count an addition of new content as a revert, which is not the case.

Your reverts are clear:

First http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=512887089&oldid=512885903 Second http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512888145&oldid=512887812 Third http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512891214&oldid=512891023 Fourth http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_%282012%29&diff=512891339&oldid=512891214

And in less than 30 minutes. I can only give you the advice of self reverting your last revert --DanielUmel (talk) 13:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually only 1 is the adding of new content. Anyway, I self reverted my last revert. I7laseral (talk) 13:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

SANA - SOHR

SOHR needs to report those casualties? SOHR isn't an official spokesperson of the FSA so they don't need to report anything. How about the reliability of SOHR? They are reliable? --Wüstenfuchs 17:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo city battle map

The new source you provided shows a rebel attack on a military post in New Aleppo, I looked all over the net but haven't been able to find any more sources reporting on fighting in New Aleppo, so we have only one source for that. And the source does not make any mention of Zahraa. Anyway, it should probably be reflected on the map but not in the way it is now. I proposed to Future that what he should probably do is color as contested/unclear the areas between the military research center and the Army base, not the northern areas of Zahraa, no info found for fighting in that area. I hope you would agree to marking the areas between those two government bases as contested/unclear, not the northern parts of Zahraa, as no info for that like I said. EkoGraf (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. In regards to the comments made by the user with the Arabic name spelling on the talk page about the rebels being close to the Army base to hit it with mortars...I told him that would not be necessarily true given for example 82 mm mortars have a range of almost up to 3 kilometers, so they could have well been on the outskirts of the city when they shelled the base. EkoGraf (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

BBC and SOHR assesment

It's not OR, it's written literally per the sources, read them please, and don't make such unfounded accusations. Everything is written per the BBC reporter's account and the director of SOHR who presumably gave an assesment based on reports from his on-the-ground activists. What they said does not contradict anything already said, it only gives an additional point of view of the situation on the ground. The BBC reporter's account is especially important because he has a neutral point of view on the situation. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is or isn't, you need to stop edit warring on this article EkoGraf. So the battle isn't going the way you wish it would? So what? This is Wikipedia where facts matter. You have long ruined the battle of Aleppo article (and many others) with your childish POV and bias. Enough already. One more revert on the battle of Aleppo article today (28 September 2012) and you will be blocked for edit warring, having gone over the 3 revert rule. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

And EkoGraf made his 4th revert here, thereby breaking the 3 revert rule. Time for a long over due block I'd say. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I am trying to provide the assessments of the neutral point of view of the BBC reporter and the assessment of the opposition SOHR director. What is so damaging in that? And the 3RR block counts only if the same edit is reverted 4 times. I reverted only 2 times. Or if you are talking about the cowards POV comment made by the rebel, I reverted that one 3 times and in regards of that part of the article I am going to stop because of the rule. So please don't lecture me and make inflamatory and derogatory comments which are in itself violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility. EkoGraf (talk) 21:46, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)

Please see the Battle of Damascus (2012). the battle is clearly ongoing as numerous sources make clear (see the article and the article talk page for the sources), but User:EkoGraf is insisting the battle is over, simply because the regime claimed it was over. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

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

VANDALISM?

Can uou explain your edit at the Syrian Civil War? Please read WP:IRRELEVANT! Dafranca (talk) 15:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Syrian civil war". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 18:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

--What was your issue with my sniper link? Could nothing be made of that story? How would you describe the current situation in Aleppo? (Cjblair (talk) 14:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC))

Talkback

Hello, I7laseral. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Kurdish area

Latest report from SOHR, after the fighting had ended, says that the district is under Kurdish/PYD control. At the moment there are no reports of ongoing fighting in the area. But still despite this, Future has compromisingly not colored the whole of the district back to Kurdish-held. The southern portion of the Kurdish district is still colored as contested, which is logical. EkoGraf (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some insight into this discussion?

The debate at the Talk:Syrian civil war#Third row for Kurds section is getting heated. Can you shine some light on this issue?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, I7laseral. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come and join the discussion about updating the map. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

MLPFIM episode list

Please see Template:Episode list - the Short Summary field allows for 100-300 word summaries, and since we don't hide spoilers we can include the full details of such articles. --MASEM (t) 16:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

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

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. MASEM (t) 18:13, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Syria

I've reverted your changes to the Syria infobox. These are major changes and have been quite controversial in the past. Before making such drastic changes you need to get consensus on the page. Best! Yazan (talk) 00:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

December 2012

There is currently a discussion on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents that may concern you [3]. -- Director (talk) 01:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)