User talk:KajMetz

February 2014

Your recent editing history at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) 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. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:KajMetz reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: ). Thank you. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

3rr block

Hi Kaj - I've just blocked you for a short period of time, shorter than is customary for a 3rr block. I know that editwarring can be frustrating when you believe you are correct, but even if you are actually correct, WP:3rr is a brightline rule - normally any breach of it results in (at least) a 24 hour block. In the future, please don't editwar, even if you think you are right. Many experienced Wikipedians (including many admins) have received at least one short block, so don't look at this so much as a black mark on your record as a reminder to avoid editwarring in the future. I'm sorry for any frustration this may have caused, and would encourage you to take steps to avert an in-progress edit war in the future, such as approaching an uninvolved admin, posting on an appropriate noticeboard like WP:3rrn or WP:ANI. If you believe my block to be unfair, you may leave an unblock template here that will be reviewed by another uninvolved administrator. Best wishes, Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:44, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 18 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Battle of Aleppo (2012–present). 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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

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. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request reason:

Hi Kevin, thank you for the notice. I didn't know that this rule existed at the time of the editwar. If I knew, I would've never get myself involved in the 'war'. This guy was repeatedly removing and altering content without providing reliable sources and I thought I was doing the best thing to revert his damage done on the article. From now on, I will stay away from editwars and let the admins do their work. Sorry.

Accept reason:

I am unblocking you for two reasons. First, your promise not to edit war again now that you understand the policy, and, second, because the warning of edit warring came after your last revert, which, for a new user, is important. Please be aware that any resumption of edit warring may not only lead to a block but to a longer block. Also, as my warning to you below indicates, all articles related to the Syrian civil war are under a WP:1RR restriction. Bbb23 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note for administrators. Kevin's block was not imposed pursuant to WP:SCWGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 17:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.GreyShark (dibra) 20:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

State of Observatory 45

Seems this is how SOHR's reporting of today's events has unfolded. After State TV reported the recapture, SOHR first reported the Army just made progress in the area, than they reported the attack was blocked, but now they reported the Army has positioned multiple-rocket launchers ON Observatory 45, with fighting continuing near it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commander death

I don't prefer that one over SOHR, I actually trust SOHR more than Arab Chronicle. The point is SOHR keeps a level of neutrality, while Arab Chronicle is highly biased and ultra pro-opposition. It makes sense that SOHR would not report it outright before they managed to confirm it without a doubt. But a site like Arab Chronicle, which has every reason to cover it up for propaganda purposes confirmed his death. So, that's that. EkoGraf (talk) 15:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

al-Jabiyeh

Before you edit the map carefully examine your source and a map of Syria, because your source has confirmed that the rebels captured the hill Tal al-Jabiyah but not the village of Al Jabiyah which lies to the north. Also, if you peruse the source who provided editor Sopher you will see that this source said about areas of the city Aleppo but not about the province of Dara. Hanibal911 (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morek

There have been no reports the Army has launched a large-scale organised assault/offensive against Morek since early May, as well as no reports the rebels have launched a large-scale counter-attack. What has been mostly reported is a clash here a clash there, 10 rebels dead or 10 soldiers dead, 2-3 rebel vehicles destroyed or 2-3 army vehicles destroyed etc. The conflict in Morek is a stalemate and has been a stalemate since early May. We can add that to the results section as well. EkoGraf (talk) 04:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hama offensive

can you incorporate the strategic analysis into the article.Alhanuty (talk) 01:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kaj, excellent work on the 2014 Hama offensive article. I added Wikilinks to several villages mentioned in the article, and created two new articles about two of them. I did not find them on Google or Bing maps. Can you help me with the place names? --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you do better on the Grad missle?--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rahbat Khatab military base

Here pro opposition source said that the Syrian army recaptured the Rahbat Khatab military base in northwest Hama province from FSA-affiliated rebels and Jabhat a-Nusra. The regime captured a string of villages surrounding Rahbat Khatab earlier this week in preparation for storming the rebel launching point for attacks against the airport. Abu Mohamad, a member of the Military Council for Hama, confirmed the loss of Rahbat Khatab on social media. Regime forces backed by fighters from the National Defense took control over Khatab. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1546-new-update-9-9-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 14:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa offensive

Regarding your assertion about a previous new battle claimed on 23 September. They claimed a new battle on 23 September that ended the SAME day. And that one was in Quneitra. And again, the Quneitra offensive, although happening in a sliver of Daraa, was primarily focused on Quneitra (which was its main objective). And the rebels themselves call the new advance a NEW battle. So a NEW article is needed. I will myself create a new article titled Daraa offensive (October 2014–present) and move the new material over there...just after I have eaten, its dinner time. EkoGraf (talk) 16:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quneitra

You are aware that when the rebels always start an offensive they call it the Battle of this and the Battle of that? Guessing for dramatic flare. Its not a matter of terminology here. Its a totally new event. And there are no sources that state this is a new phase of the previous offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A page you started (Daraa offensive (November 2014)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Daraa offensive (November 2014), KajMetz!

Wikipedia editor George.Edward.C just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Good work! I recommend flagging non-English sources using the ar icon template and using the cite web template for a more in-depth citation.

To reply, leave a comment on George.Edward.C's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Shaer gas field

The reliable source clear said that Syrian army retakes al-Shaer gas field So this article completed Al Monitor and if still in this area going clashes you will need to create new article. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 18:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article Second Battle of the Shaer gas field says about Battle of the Shaer gas field but not about battle in the Shaer area. And reliable source yesterday clear said that Syrian army retakes al-Shaer gas field So this article completed Al Monitor. But the Gas or Oil well 107 located near Al Shaer gas field and his grip is irrelevant to battle for Al Shaer gas field. So if you want you can create a new article.Battle for the Shaer area Hanibal911 (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Hanibal. The main battle ended on November 6. What's happening now is ISIL conducting hit-and-run attacks on the outskirts of the field (no organised offensive), temporarily capturing a few wells only to lose them within days once again. EkoGraf (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Freedom and Justice Alliance"

Hi. I'm the creator of the Freedom and Justice Alliance, which you cited in at least one of your new FSA articles - good work on those by the way - and I want to point out that FJA is a fictional organization and NationStates is a create-your-own-nation game site. I appreciate the fact that someone reads my ramblings, though :) 130.64.98.109 (talk) 21:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Idlib

Here SOHR clear said that Ahrar al-Sham and Al Nusra and Jund al-Aqsa seize 17 checkpoints of Syrian troops and their allies in the vicinity of city Idlib and its outskirts.SOHR An alliance of Syrian Islamist rebels including Al-Qaeda's Nusra Front have overrun 17 defense posts around Idlib. The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the violence from Britain, said the Nusra Front, the powerful Ahrar al-Sham movement and the hardline Jund al-Aqsa were advancing, taking a total of 17 army posts on the outskirts.The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 12:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa

Since you update the Syria war battle articles regularly I wanted to let you know I made the Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa article. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Made one more article Hama and Homs offensive (March–April 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 07:37, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent coverage of the Syrian Civil War! It's great to see the level of quality that goes into your articles on the subject. Winner 42 Talk to me! 01:49, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Second Battle of Idlib

Can you help me with this DYK nomination? As I was told, issues must be resolved. --George Ho (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New article

Qalamoun offensive (May 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you beat me to it. I had just finished creating Eastern Homs offensive (May 2015) when I saw you already made an article. :D EkoGraf (talk) 01:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry :) KajMetz (talk)

DYK for Second Battle of Idlib

On 18 May 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Second Battle of Idlib, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Syrian National Coalition announced its relocation to Idlib just two days after the Second Battle of Idlib? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Second Battle of Idlib. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Thanks for your article Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hasakah offensive

Your source is talking about FSA forces on the Kobane front in Aleppo province. This article talks about the campaign/front in Hasakah province (see name of article). Due to 1RR I can not revert you at the moment. However, I would ask that you remove the part about the 500 FSA (which are two provinces away) and the part while Kurds and Syrian rebels on the eastern front of Kobanî announced the start of an offensive towards Tell Abyad. Events in Aleppo and western Raqqah provinces are a separate campaign to the operation taking place in Hasakah province. Also, twitter is generally not accepted as a source by Wikipedia (unless its agreed by all editors) and especially if its an unverifiable source like Jack Shahine. The part you added about the Kurds taking all of the Ras al-Ayn countryside and 30 civilians being killed in the border area between Raqqah and Hasakah based on SOHR reports is welcomed. EkoGraf (talk) 21:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Northwestern Syria offensive

It seems since the capture of Ariha the frontline has gone quiet. Also, reports rebels are shifting manpower to Aleppo due to the ISIS offensive there. If no more territorial changes happen in the next five days I will close it as a rebel victory. If more changes occur after that we will reopen the article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Hasakah city offensive

New article Al-Hasakah city offensive (May–June 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Brigade 52 offensive

Just to give you a heads up. If more information does not come out about the attack on Brigade 52 or the battle does not become more notable, I will merge the article with the main one on the war since only three sentences do not really make up a real article let alone a qualitative one. EkoGraf (talk) 17:35, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to change the name to Daraa and As-Suwayda offensive (June 2015–present) since it has spread to that province as well? EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :)

KajMetz (talk)

You added the Al-Daher Hawks Brigade unit in the campaignbox but the source you based your edit on is actually talking about fighting at the Abu Al-Dhuhour airbase in Idlib province, not the one in Suwayda. Could you revert yourself please? EkoGraf (talk) 21:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Quneitra offensive

Read source more carefully [1]. The points they are trying to recapture were lost several days ago. Which is four or five days AFTER the SAA counter-offensive recaptured the one and only area reported seized at Hadar. EkoGraf (talk) 02:30, 27 June 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. 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zabadani

Created Battle of Zabadani (2015). EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re HAMA 2015

FYI you made a mistake wrt "vandalism", those sources are unusable, as per RSN....pro tip, if you read edit summaries you can often tell whether something wasn't done as vandalism, even if the edit was mistaken, which it wasn't in this case 78.144.221.190 (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Arab Coalition

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Syrian Arab Coalition, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Syrian Democratic Forces. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 13:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Al-Sanadid Forces

An article that you have been involved in editing—Al-Sanadid Forces —has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uprising or massacre?

Talk:1982_Hama_Islamic_uprising#Requested_move_27_October_2015 Gizmocorot (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar offensive

Could you create an article on that? I haven't got the time right now, but it's certainly missing … Thx! —Nightstallion 15:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pinakes (manga artist) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pinakes (manga artist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinakes (manga artist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Sword of al-Sham Brigades for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Sword of al-Sham Brigades is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sword of al-Sham Brigades until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ladsgroup^overleg 16:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:41, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of April 2015 Qalamoun incident for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article April 2015 Qalamoun incident is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/April 2015 Qalamoun incident until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Longhornsg (talk) 02:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]