User talk:LightandDark2000/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

This is my second talk page archive, and the first archive detailing some archived discussions after I got a user account. Not all conversations are included, due to my own personal preferences, my wish to avoid dredging up past negative sentiments, and security reasons. The discussions here span from June 2012 to January 2018. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:33, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

September 2012

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 10:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to List of California hurricanes may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:00, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I just did a check, none of the remaining three "unpaired brackets" are actually causing any issues (at least at this time), which means that this issue is fully resolved by now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. LightandDark2000, thanks for creating List of Yu-Gi-Oh! Arc-V episodes!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Reviewed. Issues found.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:05, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

IPhonehurricane95

Have you considered filing a WP:LTA in this user? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Would that actually work? At this point, I believe that the only solution would be a 5-10 year Global Block on this vandal's IP Range. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It would at least help get more eyes to the situation. I highly doubt that it will change the abuse but...Hell In A Bucket (talk) 02:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

If I can't provoke a response to his vandalism and persistent socking, then it wouldn't do much good at all. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Cross Fight B-Daman eS is B-Daman Fireblast?

Hi, I'm TheUpdates. LightandDark2000, I'm the one who created and manages the page for Cross Fight B-Daman eS! & You posted on the talk page saying if the name is changed well I found some resources but I'm not sure if it's "real" but it does to me. If you think is real do you think you can change the name of Cross Fight B-Daman eS to B-Daman Fireblast? Please and thank you. I would change it myself but not sure if this is proof is real or not and I don't know how to change it lol. Here's the website where I found it -> http://kidscreen.com/2013/11/18/m4e-picks-up-b-daman-crossfire-series/ TheUpdates (talk) 11:52, 26 March 2014(UTC)

The source seems to be legitimate, but the problem is that the site talks about the German Dubbed version, so the actual English Dub title may be different. The other options are already stated on the article's talk page, but at this time, I think that Fireblast is the more likely title. Once I dig up more information, if the name seems to be legit for the English Dub, then I will be conducting the renaming. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. :) LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:33, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I looked into it, and it seems that the other names are unlikely to be used. B-Daman Crossfire eS was dropped from the website that mentioned it, so Fireblast appears to be the most likely candidate, despite it being from a German site. Like other pages, we can always rename the article again if the English Dub decides to give this series a completely different name. That being said, I'm going to conduct the merge right now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The merge has just been completed, for both the main article and the corresponding episode listing. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Rules Concerning Sockpuppetry Investigation Activites

Listed below are the rules concerning SPI activites, provided by DoRD (talk). These rules apply to non-administrator users​:

1. Do not tag accounts as sockpuppets or confirmed sockpuppets. Leave it to the blocking admin, or Checkuser.
2. Do not report already-blocked sockpuppets - you may only report new, unblocked sockpuppets.
3. Do not edit archived cases. Ever. For any reason.
4. Do not continue to request rangeblocks when you have been told that they are not possible. A Checkuser will place one if/when a Rangeblock is deemed possible and effective.
5. Do not create or request the creation of sockpuppet categories.
6. Do not alter tags or merge SPI-related pages, even if it has been requested by another user. In other words, do not alter any SPI-related page outside of active sock reports, even if you think that there has been a mistake. If you believe that a change is necessary, consult an admin and leave it to them. If you think that there has been an obvious error, take the matter to an admin and wait for their explicit permission; if declined, drop the matter altogether. Do not revert any edits or make any changes unless there is obvious, blatant vandalism.

Failure to comply with these rules may result in sanctions or the loss of editing privileges, through a block. Drafted by: LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

RE:‎TC Article intro spacing

Its the only way to avoid so much white spacing so early in the year, especially since there are no Seasonal Forecasts for the NIO and so few systems.Jason Rees (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A word of advice

Hi,

As I'm sure you're aware, edits on Wikipedia go live as soon as they're entered. Both of your edits to Linda 97 introduced grammatical errors which I've had to correct (the old version was fine IMO, but that's a different story). Please try to use the preview button whenever possible to ensure accuracy in your editing. Thanks. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I wasn't aware of that. I'll be sure to double-check from now on. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! vandal

I have blocked the ranges 2602:304:cecf:62e0::/64 and 2602:304:cecf:62e0::/64 for 6 months. That covers all the IP addresses for which I have been able to find any involvement, including all the ones that you listed in the sockpuppet investigation in January. If you know of any other IP addresses involved (either in the past or in the future) not covered by the range blocks, please let me know. Also, feel welcome to contact me if the trouble starts up again after the block ends. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, thanks. Hopefully he'll decide to stop messing around after this but if it continues, I'll let you know. LightandDark2000 (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You have the right to really dislike one's grammar, and even point it out to them, but...

...you have no reason to be so insulting about it. Have you not noticed that some of these editors are foreigners (of English-speaking countries, or to English, it doesn't matter how you interpret the word)? No other language Wikipedia is quite like this one, so it draws in editors from other languages too. Dustin (talk) 11:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

There is more to this which I meant to say, but I do not have time to continue, so please do not respond to this until after I come back and make another modification to this section later today. Dustin (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I realize that, but it really exasperates me when no one bothers to fix it ('cause there are many users who view the page), or when the editor in question knows the right wording but decides to slack off and leave it a mess (which happens, sometimes). Yes, I realize that some of them are from foreign countries, but the quality of the article could have been a lot better (like they were 2 years ago), and the lack of dedication to TC articles recently is extremely aggravating . LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:42, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

It is actually typhoon/typhoon season articles which lack dedication, especially articles like "Timeline of the 2014 Pacific typhoon season, which is low-grade compared to the relevant timelines for the Central and East Pacific and the North Atlantic. After some brief analysis, a couple of these situations in which I carried some concern may have actually been non-grammar issues, and so I realize that I might have been a bit too hard in terms of bringing up the topic. Also, sorry for forgetting about this thread for days until now; I really shouldn't have done that. Thank you for your concern as an editor, and I hope that you will consider trying to fix the typhoon articles as I (not super-frequently) have tried to do a few times. Bad grammar and unsourced material together dominate, so these are significant issues of concern. Dustin (talk) 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, you shouldn't feel inclined to give a very thorough response, or much of a response at all, for that matter, but have you even seen my reply? Dustin (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello? You have been recently editing, but I still don't know if you have seen this. Please just say "yes" or "no" at least. Dustin (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I just want to conclude this and know that you have received my response, but you continue to (I assume) ignore my comments, as there is almost no way in which you could actually not notice three different comments on this page. Perhaps that is the question now; why will you not say anything? Dustin (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Busy right now (as I have been), sorry. I have only been able to briefly glance over these comments. But yes, I agree with what you have said above, but I have also noticed somewhat of a laxity in the editing activities in the Pacific hurricane season articles since 2013. That definitely upsets me, since I am not always there to record new events or update data on the storms. Terrible grammar (when it happens) only makes it worse. I only hope that more people will help out on this articles more often, so that we won't have so many maintenance tags and outdated sections. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I still think that the Pacific typhoon season is much worse off than the hurricane season to its east. There is almost no good guideline, the typhoon season timelines are too inconsistent, there is not enough of a way to tell whether it may be better to use the Joint Typhoon Warning Center or the Japan Meteorological Agency in some places (while the JMA is official, the JTWC is just as or more reliable in many areas), etc. The typhoon season articles are where the bad grammar and whatnot are. I wish there could be an actual "Western Pacific Typhoon Center" in place of the JTWC (similar to the Central Pacific Hurricane Center and the once-existing Eastern Pacific Hurricane Center with the San Francisco WFO), but sadly, that is not the case, so it is harder to get all the right information out there, as the JMA isn't as good of an RSMC as the United States has (i.e. the National Hurricane Center) in terms of information and everything else minus the warnings. The Pacific typhoon season articles, especially the timelines, are the areas with the most room for improvement, and if you have any ideas, you may share them here or at WT:WPTC. Sorry if I seemed impatient, but I just saw you going on with your editing, and I didn't like seeing no reply... In any case, thank you for the response. Dustin (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

General sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and ISIL

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. PBS (talk) 17:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Help covering the December 2014 California storm article

Hello, I saw your great contributions to October 2009 North American storm complex and I was wondering if you could help expand December 2014 West Coast storm. --DarTar (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I've renamed it to December 2014 North American winter storm, for conventional purposes and other reasons. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Now it has been renamed again to December 2014 North American storm complex, as per the discussion on the articles talk page. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:46, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Splitting up December 2014 North American storm complex

Assuming that it really was absorbed by another system, should not there be a separate second article created? Also, I am considering creating a new section in the main winter article for what looks to be a New Year's storm. At the very least, I think that it would be better to start there rather than create a separate article. Dustin (talk) 18:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that we need to create a second article for the storm that absorbed it over Crimea, because that new storm didn't make any notable impacts. However, as for the new winter storm in the US that you mentioned (which I assume is the one named Winter Storm Frona), please do create a new article. Remember that the article we're discussing right now started out really small. Just be bold and create a new article for the new winter storm in question (over the US), and then we can all jump in and expand it. Besides, one article can hardly hold all of the information for two notable storms. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The storm hasn't done anything. Please start a section at 2014–15 North American winter first, not an article. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate how useful a main winter article can be, and this is the best way to go; trust me. The section could be named something like "Late-December – Early-January storm complex", "December – January storm complex" or something other than "storm complex" if better. Dustin (talk) 02:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Me? I really don't have much info on Frona at the moment. If you want though, I could try to scrape something up, but it will be limited in scope. I still think that it should get a separate article, because 1.) It is causing abnormally cold temperatures in California (including Winter Storm Warnings for the mountains in San Diego County), and when you add it up with the system's association with the late December 2014 cold wave, it becomes something rather notable; 2.) the 2 systems are not related, the only connection is that they both occurred in December 2014, and even then, the new system definitely going to extend into January 2015. I believe that this warrants a new article. However, if Frona doesn't end up doing anything significant, then I guess that we could leave it with a separate section in the December 2014 storm article. In any case, I understand the point of your argument. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If we never make use of the main winter article for purposes such as these (and to prevent what would initially be nothing more than stubs), then people will come forward in the future with the intent of either getting the article deleted or preventing future centralized winter articles in the future. I am not saying there cannot be an article at some point; I am just saying that we should at least start out with a section, and then, once the section is long enough, split off information into a new article. Dustin (talk)

(edit conflict) Well, now that I read your new suggestion (after navigating a heck of a lot of edit conflicts sparked by 3 simultaneous additions), I believe that is probably is best for me to start with a section at 2014–15 North American winter. Like I said, I don't have a lot at the moment, but a section should do for now. And... it will avoid all of these reckless random deletion nominations, like you said above, which is exactly what we want to avoid. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wilayat Algeria (ISIL)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wilayat Algeria (ISIL), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a re-post of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've already responded on the corresponding discussion page. Quite honestly though, there's not much more I can do at this point. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

In February 2017, the deleted article was effectively reborn as Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant – Algeria Province (or ISIL in Algeria). How ironic. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:12, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect...

...I think you may be erroneously equating Marxism–Leninism (and other ideologies of states dominated by a Communist Party) with communism. Many or most Marxist–Leninists (like the Soviets) were communists, but it would be a blanket statement to say that all communists are/were like the Soviets. Communism as many imagine it doesn't really exist beyond the local scale. On the national scale, it would be nigh impossible in our present-day world to have an actual communist country (at least in the definition where the workers rather than the government own the means of production and where the state itself is absent). I just thought I would say that based on your red & yellow userbox. Some people compare communism and Nazism, but in reality, what a lot of those people are thinking of is Stalinism and Marxism–Leninism rather than communism. In any case I just brought it up because there are some people such as Marxists who might take offense (although I cannot be sure). Not me, but others. In any case, I just thought I would bring it up. Regards, Dustin (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Al-Hasakah offensive

Could you possibly start an article about the YPG Tall Hamis-Tall Brak offensive? I would do it but am at the moment short on time. I will expand it afterwords. I also asked Hanibal911. EkoGraf (talk) 19:03, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

So, we won't expand on the Syrian Kurdish-Islamist conflict Article.Alhanuty (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

We would only summarize the offensive in Syrian Kurdish-Islamist conflict article, but the detailed description would be in the offensive article. EkoGraf (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Uh... I don't have too much information at the moment. But I could try. It won't be very detailed, though. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, such an article should be called the Al-Hasakah offensive, due to the reach and the goals of this particular Kurdish offensive. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

But hey, feel free to start the article yourself. I wouldn't mind jumping in and adding some info/improvements if you do. LightandDark2000 (talk) 18:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Done Al-Hasakah offensive (February–March 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I added the info I had (and expanded the article while I was at it, by the way). But thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Fourteen Infallibles

May I ask you to help us in copy-editing this article. Thanks.Salman mahdi (talk) 07:00, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have too much experience in the subject and I don't have many resources at my disposal for a large-scale copy-editing of the article. I could try to improve the grammar and maybe the flow of the article, but I won't be able to do much more than that. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, perhaps that be enough.--Salman mahdi (talk) 07:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Sinjar massacre

I have rewritten a lot of the Sinjar massacre so its more encyclopedic in nature and not speculative (this narrative, that narrative). Let me know what you think. EkoGraf (talk) 18:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I think that it's nice. There are probably a few information gaps that still need to be filled, but I think that those can be resolved in time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Nubl and Al-Zahraa

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)

Hey, thanks! Those strategic areas have been besieged for so long, and yet no one seemed willing to create an article for that event. It's about time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No problem. :) EkoGraf (talk) 07:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Interesting. I found references to that conflict in some of deSyracuse's maps and in some of the Syrian Civil War articles here, but it is nice to see that there is finally an article for it. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:34, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

May I ask you something?

Thank you for the map about Libya. Do you have a map about Sinai insurgency? Is the Islamic State occupying some rural areas or cities in Sinai Peninsula? --햄방이 (talk) 16:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Wilayat Sinai branch of ISIL most likely occupies pockets of territory in northern and eastern Sinai. Unfortunately, I don't have a map for territorial control in the Sinai. If I do come across one, though, I will post a link to it so that other users can generate a map with it. However, if you want to search for such a map on the web, you are more than welcome to. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to a map I generated detailing Wilayat Sinai's territorial control in the Sinai Peninsula, if you are still interested. And you can also view the Detailed map of the Sinai insurgency, the source module from which the map image is derived. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarrin and new Palmyra offensive article

Like I said, continuing clashes don't constitute an ongoing battle for the town. And its been more than two weeks, not one. PS Created a new article Eastern Homs offensive (May 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 01:10, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmmm, seems Kaj did the same thing Battle of Palmyra (2015). Going to redirect my article to his. EkoGraf (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

One problem: if you merge the two articles, it will be about the entire offensive, not just the localized battle. I highly recommend that you merge both articles into Palmyra offensive (May 2015), after the name of the region being assaulted (which is more specific, by the way). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:14, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I can do the redirecting/renaming myself. If you don't want to do it, just give me 20-30 minutes to finish up this latest editing campaign I'm working on right now. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I just redirected my article and merged the info but I also think Kaj did not do a proper job with the name. He also talked about Sukhnak and other places, and not just Tadmur. It would be better to say 2015 Tadmur offensive because like you said Battle of... implies only a battle for that specific town. And Palmyra is the ruins, not the town which ISIL wants captured. EkoGraf (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? Then why is the town labeled "Palmyra" in the ISIL battle map? I also find it interesting that a bunch of med sources still refer to the place as "Palmyra." Perhaps when we have finished merging and sorting this out, I will also create a redirect link for readers who are more familiar with the names of the ruins. By the way I strongly suggest merging the two articles, since they are hardly different in context, and because the battle for Tadmur/Palmyra is only a small part of the larger offensive. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:33, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

See? Tadmur (Tadmur is a city in central Syria...); Palmyra (Palmyra was an ancient Semitic city...). Seems they prefer to call it Palmyra, but Tadmur is the official name of the present-day city. PS New name you moved to looks good. EkoGraf (talk) 01:41, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. It's strange, though, how most of the media reports I've seen refer to it as "Palmyra." I guess this means that I have a little renaming work to do in the ISIL battle map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Palmyra offensive (May 2015) - Linked the article for ease of access. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Palmyra offensive (May 2015)

On 21 May 2015, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Palmyra offensive (May 2015), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

New Khabur Valley offensive article

Al-Hasakah offensive (May 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 17:03, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Oh, nice. Thanks! Might I suggest that we add some more info about the YPG trimming of the M4 Highway and the recapturing of other villages in the region? We might also want to include some of this in the "Aftermath" section of the first Al-Hasakah offensive article. Also, the events leading up to this offensive should be filled in the the "Aftermath" section of the earlier Al-Hasakah offensive article as well, because I find the time gap in the events recorded somewhat disturbing. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Saeed Alaee's interpretation of the offensive is incorrect and not based on sources. It is not the same offensive. The Kurds themselves said [1] the aim of the offensive was to liberate Mount Kezwan, a main stronghold of ISIS, the strategic region of Alya, and villages near river Xabur which is ALL in the Tell Tamer area. Events further in the western part of Hasakah are a separate operation. Linking the two (which are separate by hundreds of miles) without sources is OR. He said the offensive started from Ras al-Ayn but did not provide a source. If operations near Ras al-Ayn expand we will create a new article. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the source you keep asking for. Although each of the Associated Press and SOHR reports were more than enough to justify my edits. Oh and I'm reporting you for violating the 1RR restriction which the Hasakah offensive page is subject to. Saeed alaee (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Saeed alaee That source indeed connects the two and as far as I'm concerned the matter is resolved and we could have finished at that. However, you could have provided it before running to an admin to get me blocked, which was not in the spirit of WP: GOODFAITH and I was not at all aware this article was under the 1RR policy. Proper Wiki editorial fellowship would have been to give me fair warning, which you did not. As for SOHR and AP, nether linked the two operations as being the one and the same, despite what you say. EkoGraf (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I did not "run to an admin" to make him say that I was right and the page should be edited according to my "interpretations" of the offensive. I reported you because of a violation of the 1RR from your part. Simple as that. And I just provided you with that source because I just found that source. Why else would I not provide such a source? And both the SOHR and the AP reports said that the operation started on May 6th, SOHR then said it lasted for 22 days and AP said 221 villages, last of which Mabrukah, have been capture by the YPG in the last 3 weeks which makes the final day the May 28th. I thought the conclusion that the offensive on May 6th was definitely not over on May 21st was quite obvious. Regards. Saeed alaee (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I really don't have much to say, other than the fact that after reading through the Kurdish sources, it appears that this appears to be a single, long, multi-stage offensive. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 It's your fault because you didn't wanted to read my sources when i made the edit. Here, a reporter talks with a FSA commander about recent develompents along the Turkey border and the village of Tell Xenzir. Here you have a pro-opposition source with clear pictures. There's also a SOHR sources talking about this but i don't have time searching through their page ... because this is more than enough, and we also have the pro-government map that i posted in my last edit 2 minutes ago. DuckZz (talk) 13:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Nothing was my fault. I couldn't find the revision in the last 50 edits logged, and I had difficulty when I went beyond that. Besides, like I said earlier, I didn't change the color this time. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Read the source more carefully. They said the balance sheet for the 532 dead is for the first 15 days of the operation by 21 May. Not 26 or 27 May. While you had the Kurdish fighter who made a contradictory statement that by 21 May 250 died. So both figures need to be presented since they are both for up to 21 May. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The 100 and 30 reported killed are actually both the same incident. See sources. SOHR is calling the place Nis Tal, Kurds Nustel. And both say they were killed while trying to evacuate. So that's 30-100. When taking into account the 20 killed by the Kurds that's a total of 50-120. EkoGraf (talk) 17:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Al-Hasakah city offensive

Should we create an article for the Al-Hasakah city offensive (May–June 2015)? EkoGraf (talk) 20:03, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But it should be titled Battle of Al-Hasakah (May–June 2015), since ISIL was said to have briefly overrun some of the checkpoints near the city's outskirts, and due to the fact that ISIL was shelling parts of the city proper. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe but they haven't entered the city itself yet. Battle of... would be proper if they managed to enter the city. EkoGraf (talk) 01:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS militants at the gates of Hasakah - ISIL is about the enter the city, and mortar fire and shelling is crossing over into the urban parts of the city. Might as well rename the article-to-be. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That they are at the gates of the city (they are still half a kilometer away) does not put them inside it. Also, we can not speculate if they will enter the city or not which would not be in accordance to WP: NOTCRYSTALBALL. In any case, I will wait to see if their assault on Hasakah keeps up for another day. If it does, I will create an article. EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Done Al-Hasakah city offensive (May–June 2015). EkoGraf (talk) 19:51, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:03, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Benghazi

Could you maybe start an article for the Battle of Benghazi (2014-present) during the current Libyan civil war? I will expand and update it after. Pressed for time atm to start it. EkoGraf (talk) 07:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

That battle is long. It began last October. See Benghazi for some of the information. After I finish my work on the Northern Syria offensive maps (and some of the articles), I will turn my attention to this battle, provided that an article for that event has not yet been created by then. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it is. I'm amazed somebody has not created an article on it already. EkoGraf (talk) 03:40, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of which, there are several major battles in these arenas that have no articles so far. As of this writing, they include: Battle of Ajdabiya (March 2015–present), Battle of Sinjar (2014–15) (ongoing since Dec. 2014), etc. I'm kind of surprised that those important battles do not have an article yet, but it appears that articles tend to be created only when battles attract major media attention, or when they become potential turning-point events. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen any RS (reliable sources) for Ajdabija (no news at all actually). As for Sinjar (in Iraq), there isn't any real ongoing battle for the city, only a static frontline running through it with no real attempts by ether side to advance. And yes per WP policy an event needs to be notable enough to warrant an article. EkoGraf (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Benghazi (2014–2017) - Added link to article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the east Sinjar frontline

Where do you think the frontline east of Sinjar is? It is not clearly denoted on this wiki map. This other map is not as detailed as it could be, but gives a general idea of the front line: http://imgix.scout.com/155/1551843.jpg?w=600&fit=max

I just wonder if we should add more villages to show the frontline here. Since there were ISIS attacks on Tel Ashor, I assumed ISIS had a significant presence south of there. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

The frontline there actually hasn't really shifted since early April 2015 (and it's still close to a flat line in appearance). Adding a few more villages may not do much other than clutter up the map, which will only be removed once that area is no longer an active frontline. Any major town or contested village should be added, but the rest should be left out, as most of the action is only taking place in Sinjar city itself. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

2013–14 North American winter

Since you were the only other real contributor, I thought I'd tell you… I was saddened by the poor state of the 2013–14 North American winter storms article, and looking at the 2014–15 North American winter article's superior state, I decided to switch the article over from the older (and less successful) "winter storms" format to the newer "winter" format. As of late, I've been adding information to the article in an effort to improve it to decent quality (it was a rather significant winter as I'm sure you will agree), and I invite you to tell me your thoughts and/or help improve it (I don't demand anything of you by any means, though). I've been trying to add information from Weather Prediction Center Event Reviews, but I see that there isn't a review for this storm, so if you have any ideas for expanding that section, that would be great. If you don't, it's not a problem. I also plan to eventually start a 2013–14 North American winter#Seasonal summary section and a 2013–14 North American winter#Records section.

I thought I would also notify you that I have moved the December 2013 cold wave details at 2013–14 North American cold wave to 2013–14 North American winter#December cold wave and renamed the article to Early 2014 North American cold wave again. Even now, I see that the article contains some details that are about winter as a whole and not the cold wave (some of them are in the Extended cold section of the article). I see benefit in transferring these details from the Early 2014 North American cold wave article to the 2013–14 North American winter article. I've added some of my thoughts here if you care. Dustin (talk) 00:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you to continue transferring info between those articles, and possibly expanding on the existing information as well. In addition, linking more articles to the 2013-14 winter storms article might help in getting more editing activity. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the response. I forgot to mention that I created {{Infobox winter}} to be used on future North American winter articles (although if necessary, I will modify it to work outside of North America too). I have opted to not include options for "lowest temperature" or "lowest pressure" because there aren't any sources I know of that look at North America as a whole with this kind of thing. As a result, it's a pretty basic infobox, but if you think it could be improved, please tell me. Dustin (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

The infobox sounds great, but you should add those 2 parameters since there are bound to be a strongest storm and coldest temperature. This info can be found by simply searching up reports for the coldest record temperatures, or by simply keeping track of the major winter storms and finding out which one was the most intense (similar to the hurricane seasons). LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:27, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI: Tropical Cyclone Raquel

Raquel is counted as a part of the 2014-15 season and not the 2015-16 season, but deserves a mention on all 4 season articles, though.Jason Rees (talk) 19:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Pro-Daesh POV pushing IP 139.190.18.69

Hi, you were so right in warning that IP user over his vandalism. I came across another disruptive edit and checked his track record, amounting to a full-scale pro-Daesh POV pusher. We need to doublecheck every article the user touched. Do you know what would be the best place to report, even before considering administrative action? Regards, PanchoS (talk) 02:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The only place I know of are WP:ANI (general admin noticeboard) and WP:AVI (for vandalism-specific cases). But at this point, the report would likely result in a block, which we should be aiming for if that terrorist supporter is still running around. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New SDF/KRG color for military bases.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#SDF_Military_Bases

Do you prefer the old bright yellow colour or the new version? Please discuss in linked page above when/if you have time. We may or may not revert to the old colour based on the preferences of editors. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: By late 2016, the new, darker yellow-orange military base color had been reverted and replaced with the original one. This pretty much moots the point of using the new color. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Map Sources

We not use all maps from all sources as a source for edit. Also other source(not a map) confirmed that the town Atarib Al Nusra-held.here

Rules of edit: 2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”here

So you need revert you last editshereherehere as they broke the main rules od edit. Let us abide by the main rules of editing. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to copy from the map. Since it originated from an expert source, I only sought to update the status of Nusra-held villages/towns, where it was clearly delineated in the image. Some of the towns changed are even named in the source. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:45, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

So you can edit only if source clear indicated which villages is under control of Al Nusra. But you only use a map from source but it is strictly prohibited. So you need use source but not just a map from him. Because in rules clear say "Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit" So that or you fix this mistake and use the source (not just a map) or revert your edits. And other source said Atareb is a Nusra-held.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The source clearly indicates that some of the villages in the region are under al-Nusra control (e.g. "Hish"). The problem is that there are very few sources out there that have reported on the area recently, and pro-Assad sources have been deemed unreliable to use in Opposition Vs. Nusra changes, so it's very hard to come by an accurate, recent source for the area in question. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yer you are right! Is very hard find clear data from crediable sources which can cleary indicat which villages is only Al Nusra-held. But I also as you try find such sources. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I know. I'll search up some more sources when I find the time, or if I come across some reports on any changes in the area. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Here source said that the outlet—which closely follows news in rebel-held Kurdish territory—also claimed that a group of fighters from Faylaq al-Sham had infiltrated into the village of Jalmah(Celeme)—near Jindayris(Cindirese)—overnight. No other sources could confirm the report.here So we left this village as YPG-held or as contested? Although source said that no other sources could confirm the report. So that according this data I think this village still YPG-held. What tou think? Sûriyeya (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The article says that the Islamist forces are massing near one of the villages. As for the other village, since the report is unconfirmed/has no corroboration, it should be left under SDF/YPG control. If a newer source reports that the village is contested, then it can be marked as such at that point. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also I can't find YPG-held the village of Halima. Maybe you can help me find him.source Sûriyeya (talk) 11:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't really pinpoint a village with the exact same name. However, I believe that the village called "Celeme" is the village you are looking for. LightandDark2000 (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That village is already on the map, in case you're wondering. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

A form of POV Pushing

Hi, K!lluminati opened a request who is a form of WP:POINT. For that, it is important to launch a request against his actions since December 2015. Also, during my topic ban, he used sabanews, 21 sept (houthi point of view of the 2014-15 Yemeni coup d'état. Also, he claimed that Aden is shared between AQAP/ISIL and Hadi. In reality, there is no military presence of AQAP , these are just the attacks. There are as many attacks as in Sanaa and Saada . We will not also change the green circle of Sanaa. We must put the red for Aden. Could you repair the module ? Regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LightandDark2000. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Al-Furat University

I ask you revert you own change for Al-Furat University because the Faculty of Education in Hasakah University is it a branch of al-Furat University in Deir ez-Zor.link Just need note correct name. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Is it a correct name of Unevrsity whih is controlled Syrian government at Hasakah.Euphrates University Mehmedsons (talk) 14:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It's in the wrong location. You can re-add it, but please make sure that it's in the correct location this time. If you don't get around to it, I'll try fixing the problem in a day or 2. LightandDark2000 (talk) 15:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I found the Euphrates University campus. It's currently under the control of the SDF (with Syrian Government officials operating there, similar to Manbij). I could re-add it, but it would be extremely hard to see on the map, due to cluttering. [2]

2017 Baghdad–Damascus highway offensive rename

I'm thinking we should rename the article since its not focused on the highway alone anymore. Now it includes both the push through Suwayda, and possibly the push from Qaryatayn yesterday and south of Palmyra today is all part of the same op. What do you think? I'm thinking 2017 Southern Syria offensive (since we already have 2015 Southern Syria offensive) or something similar. EkoGraf (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, confirmed now, all part of the same operation [3]. EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We already have a "Southern Syria offensive" article for this year (2017 Southern Syrian Desert campaign). Since they are almost in the same locations, we need to add in the months for the second offensive. (Maybe Southern Syria offensive (May 2017–present) to avoid confusion with the first article.) LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

These are two totally different military operations. The subject of that first article (2017 Southern Syrian Desert campaign) was about the rebel's campaign that ended following the defeat of IS in the Badiya region along the Jordanian border. The subject of the second article (currently titled the highway offensive) is about the Syrian Army's offensive to clear out both the rebels and IS from the Badiya region along the Jordanian border, the Tanf border checkpoint, the Eastern Qalamoun mountains and areas south of Palmyra. I have talked to Editor abcdef and he has proposed that we rename the highway offensive to Southern Syrian Desert offensive (May 2017–present), so its differentiated from the rebel's campaign that took place earlier in the year. EkoGraf (talk) 03:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I was suggesting. The operational areas of both offensives almost overlap entirely, though, with the exception of the areas stretching from the Al-Tanf Border Crossing to the Deir ez-Zor Desert (for now). LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Western Nineveh offensive (2017)

I restructured, rewrote and retitled that unsourced OR article since except Baba Mica everyone else was in agreement over this (six of us). Check it out to see if you think there are elements that need expanding. EkoGraf (talk) 17:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why not rename it to Nineveh campaign (2016–17), or Nineveh offensive (2017)? The Iraqi Gov. has repeatedly stated their intent to recapture all of the Nineveh Province from ISIL, and it looks like this may be the beginning of that attempt to do so. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Archived SPIs

Please don't edit archived SPIs. If you need to submit a new report, follow the instructions in the "How to open an investigation" box on the main SPI page; archived cases should never be unarchived to add a new report.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't unarchive it. I copied the old message, deleted everything in it pertaining to the previous case, and then filled in the blanks with new information for the current case. I often use this method to speed up my filing of SPI cases, especially if they involve multiple sock accounts. I'm not sure what caused my edit to look like this, but I didn't try to undo any archiving. LightandDark2000 (talk) 22:41, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Syrian Desert offensive (May–July 2017)

Hey Light, what do you think, should we maybe change the title of the article from offensive to campaign? Seems to me the operation is basically made up of several offensive on multiple axes. It would also be in line with the title of the previous rebel campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Sure. The operation seems to be a campaign anyhow. LightandDark2000 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Battle of Mosul (2016–17)

On 9 July 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Battle of Mosul (2016–17), which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Mosul battle end date

See talk for the article. Personally and logically I agree with you, but I am trying to find a compromise with those that to implement the July 10th date. EkoGraf (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Facts should be facts. A whole multitude of sources indicate that the battle reached at least July 17 (including local sources), so the date should remain. Personally, if in 2 weeks or so I find a new source stating that the battle finally ended (with all militants cleared) at an even later date, I will change it to that new date. An article of this scale and importance should prioritize accuracy over piece-meal compromises for editors who haven't seen all the facts. LightandDark2000 (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Then I would ask that you join in more on the discussion at the talk page, otherwise they will just keep reverting the date to July 10. Because Wikipedia requires us to find compromise in these situations. I've been called out by a few of them for trying to keep the battle open the past week. In any case, I'm fine for now with the date. As for the casualties, I have attempted a compromise edit. We should avoid the daily reports for July because they don't all come from the same unified source, unlike the other ones. So we should stick with the overall figures claimed and note which periods are missing. EkoGraf (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

I've already put in my input regarding the dates. As for the casualties figures, it's essentially the same (or nearly identical) format to the Raqqa campaign casualties citations, so the format should be okay. I know that the last source grouping looks a bit cumbersome, but it's better than having nothing at all for the July casualties. Also, the author of those casualties counts listed those sources for her articles continuously, so they are reliable enough to be used. Until a July 2017 cumulative casualty count is released for Mosul (if ever, which would come in August 2017), we should retain the current citation grouping. It's not worth depriving readers of important information just because the citations for it all somewhat scattered or ugly-looking. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:27, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

There's a problem there with what you just said. In the Raqqa campaign casualties citations, its the same source providing the figures, the SDF. Here its not the same source giving out the figures but a multitude of different ones. So we are going into the realm of WP: Original Research here. Antiwar.com itself is not the source for the figures, its citing it just as we are citing other sources for other info. So its basically a tertiary source, see WP:AEIS. Tertiary sources are used for broad summaries of topics or evaluating due weight. PS You also lumped in the figure provided by the Iraqi author/government advisor into the figures cited by Iraqi commanders. He's not a commander. So please do not merge these two, its missleading. EkoGraf (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Found an Iraqi commander's claim for IS fatalities during the battle for Old Mosul up to July 10th [4]. Previously we had the figure for Old Mosul up to the end of June. So we now have an overall figure for that. I also attempted a compromise and left the remaining antiwar citations for the period after July 10th. I unified it with those other overall figures into one citation. I also read through all of the antiwar sources and find this may be the best solution. In some places there was overlapping, double-counting and even figures provided by antiwar that were not in the sources they cited. Let me know if this is satisfactory in light of the new overall figure that's surfaced. Cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Found and added figure for up to January. EkoGraf (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

JoetheMoe25 re-added the non-neutral Centcom claim, reverted the date of July 18th to July 10th and even removed without explanation one of the sources on ISIL deaths and its figure. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Please, you take over. I'm done. I cann't continue discussing semantics on what a battle is with those two. Its energy-consuming. I'll just focus polishing the note for the date and updating the casualties. As for whether the main date is July 10th or 18th, its between you all now. I'll just make a few short comments here and there in the discussion as it goes on. EkoGraf (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Merged the adviser's claim with the others. EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

JoetheMoe25 reverted you again regarding the date. I reverted him but he will soon probably revert me as well. MonsterHunter32 also continuing to argue on the talk page for the July 10th date and that the battle is over. StuRat and XavierGreen also tried talking to him but to no avail. EkoGraf (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

You said when an overall toll appears for July we will replace the daily ones. Well, an overall toll for both June and July has appeared and I see no reason to revert my edit back to those daily older ones. I'll go step by step with you through the sources I have cited. First, the Iraqi military gave the toll of 3,400 killed up to the end of January [5]. Second, the Iraqi military cited 3,320 dead between February and early May,[6] as well as 5,622 between February and late May[7]. Considering it could be questionable that they killed 2,300 militants in just two weeks (propaganda?), it would be best to cite both figures as this 3,320–5,622 killed (Feb.–May 2017). Third, 1,800 were claimed killed in the first 16 days of the battle for the Old City until mid-June[8]. In mid-July 1,000 were claimed to had been killed in the battle for the Old City [9] (which was launched at the start of June). So this makes at least 1,000–1,800 killed (June–July 2017). For after 10 July I left the daily antiwar tolls. EkoGraf (talk) 22:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's finally been changed back (to July 20), by an IP editor, surprisingly. I will continue to monitor the page, to ensure that it remains accurate, and that no one else screws up the dates. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

UTC time

BTW we always use UTC time because tropical cyclones often travel through multiple different time zones. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

June 2011 North American winter storm

I noticed that one of your sandboxes is User:LightandDark2000/June 2011 North American winter storm, which might lie within the scope of another article I have been on-and-off working on since April 2016. That other article aside, why is this a winter storm? I tried to look it up and could not find sources documenting the event. Master of Time (talk) 23:20, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Turns out I was off by a year on the draft I was talking about, which is for the 2011–12 North American winter. I did create a different draft at Draft:2010–11 North American winter that I mostly intended to work on after finishing the 2011–12 article (it is in mainspace now), though. The main part of what I said still stands; what you wrote doesn't seem to suggest anything about winter-type precipitation. Master of Time (talk) 23:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

It is a winter storm due to the nature/type of the storm, not because of the time of the year. Also, before I can seriously expand the article, I need to dig up more info on the storm and its impacts, both from web sources and from my own memory. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

As for your draft contents, just shift the dates/info appropriately. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Winter season articles

Do you think it would be helpful to have a general article for winters in North America? Even if a short one, one that maybe describes common trends in such winters and/or how ENSO affects it? It's something I was considering, since there is really no "general" article for the series located at Category:North American winters. Thoughts? Master of Time (talk) 03:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to start one. Though if you do, I suggest that you have enough information for it to be somewhat substantial (more than a stub), otherwise there's a good chance someone will put it up for merging or deletion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

A bit hasty?

Hi. Per WP:REFACTOR, you don't remove legit comments like mine from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Incorrigible Troll. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:41, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Eh? I actually ended up copying your statement while setting up the new SPI case. I thought that comments (and contents) from an old SPI shouldn't be directly carried over into a new one. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Though if you want to copy it back over (or add something else to it), I guess that's fine. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I see now you created a copy and then deleted the copy. This is why you need to use better edit summaries than "fix." You were correct to remove the duplicate but the diff certainly didn't portray that clearly. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Re: Eastern Syria campaign

Yeah, perhaps there should be an article on the campaign that starts with the breaking of the Siege of Deir ez-Zor. It would encompass sub-articles such as the newly-created Battle of Deir ez-Zor article that covers the period since the breaking of the siege, its own sub-article on the Euphrates crossing, as well as the Mayadin offensive article. PS Yeah I closed off the Central Syria campaign since Qaryatain was captured. :) EkoGraf (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that it should start after the end of the current Battle of Deir ez-Zor, when the Syrian Army makes their final advance on the last ISIL positions in eastern Syria. Actually, we could start one that begins with the Mayadin offensive (the first major Syrian Army attack after the Central Syria campaign began wrapping up). LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, you should begin cutting out some old discussions on your talk page, or archiving them. Your talk page is becoming extremely long, to the point where it is taking longer to load than some articles. (It is roughly the same size as the Battle of Mosul article, which is saying a lot.) If it gets too long, it could become extremely difficult for you or others to edit it, not to mention that it might cause the page to crash. LightandDark2000 (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! EkoGraf (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@EkoGraf: I think you should go ahead and start the Eastern Syria campaign (2017–present) article. The best I can do right now would be a stub article, and I really don't want to see this article redirected or deleted soon after its creation. I can probably add more to the article next month, if it has been created by then, but I can't carry out any large-scale additions right now that may require extensive research. Things are really heating up right now in the middle Euphrates Valley, and if we wait too long, there may not be enough stimulus left for users to construct a quality article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 05:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Eastern Syria campaign (September–December 2017) - link to the article. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Battle of Marawi

On 23 October 2017, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Battle of Marawi, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. LightandDark2000 🌀 (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2015 in Easter Island

A tag has been placed on Category:2015 in Easter Island requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —swpb^{T go beyond} 15:28, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bionicle Raid on Vulcanus cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bionicle Raid on Vulcanus cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Tai Chi Chasers

Can you fix this? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tai_Chi_Chasers Mike Littlejohn (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

 Done. There was a spate of disruptive editing on the article and then a brief edit war, which resulted in the screwed up formatting that you saw. I reverted the page back to its last good revision, before restoring some legitimate changes made afterward. LightandDark2000 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 North American winter

I created a draft at Draft:2017–18 North American winter which I may move to mainspace at some point in the near future, and I thought you might be interested based on you activity in winter weather-related topics. There's not really much of particular note up to this point, but I thought I'd mention it since the season is sure to ramp up over the next few weeks. Master of Time (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Cool. After some more expansion, it should be reading for relocation to article mainspace. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I have to somehow get around the redirect, but I will try to get the article moved to mainspace in the near-future. Hopefully this season attracts more editors than last season. The 2016–17 article is not as good as the 2015–16 or 2014–15 articles, in my opinion. All that aside, see you around! Master of Time (talk) 06:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Master of Time: Concerning the redirect issue, you could ask an admin to manually conduct that page move once its ready for Wikipedia Mainspace. When you're ready, you could tell me if you want, and then I can ask one of the admins I know to carry out the page move. Unless you have Page Mover rights or the ability to delete articles, I'm not sure if you will be able to bypass the redirect issue on your own. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Other than the "2017 Late October New England Winter Storm" section which doesn't appear to even be a winter storm (largely liquid precipitation and so might need to be removed), the article may already be mainspace-worthy, since there are few if any truly noteworthy weather events up to this point (five days remain until December even begins). Master of Time (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The October 2017 storm qualifies as a winter storm (as a storm type). It was also mentioned as an early season storm, by the way. Honestly, I think that there's enough information out there, not to mention impacts, to start a separate article for the October 2017 nor'easter itself. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win, for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30 November 2017. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:07, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Numa infobox

In response to this, there remains one problem. The infobox is an entirely different format than Catrina's, and right now, the |type= field is basically redundant to the |notes= section. YE ^{Pacific Hurricane} 18:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I am well aware of this. However, when compared to Catarina's infobox, the appearance of the "notes" slot is pretty much identical to the "hurricane season" slot, with the way that Numa's infobox has been formatted. This formatting style has already been used for another article (implemented by the author of that article), which is why I've re-instated its use for Numa. I could create another parameter, but that would be redundant to the modified use for "notes." I could change ...Mediterranean tropical-like cyclones to ...2017–18 Mediterranean tropical-like cyclones to make it more consistent compared to the other Tropical/non-tropical storm infoboxes, and then apply similar changes to Catarina's infobox. LightandDark2000 (talk) 01:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I implemented the proposed changes. Now the "Hurricane Season" parameters for each of the mentioned articles are more similar to those of other tropical cyclone articles, meaning that there shouldn't be any more problems with redundancy. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, LightandDark2000. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Renaming of fire pages

Thanks for all the awesome work you've been doing on the fire pages! One thing to note though, please don't rename fires to include the year unless there are multiple fires by that name with articles on wikipedia. At this point there is not likely to be many completely unique fire names, but unless both have articles on wikipedia (such as Gap Fire) there is no reason to include the year. Also, if you do rename a page, make sure you update {{California wildfires}}. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:31, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I think I've already updated all of the links to the renamed pages. When I rename articles to include the year, I do it when there are 2 or more fires of the same name in other years (such as Rim Fire or Deer Fire), because leaving a general title can become problematic for readers searching for other fires. Unless the said fire was much more notable than the other fires, I tend to include the year in the title. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Totally understable. My experience has always been that whenever two or more things have the same name, you create a WP:DISAMBIG page. The precedent has always been that you don't assume it will confuse other readers (though I really do get where you are coming from). I will say that in some cases you add to a DISAMBIG page even if there is no page for the article, for example see some of the recordings on the ASAP page. But that is when the page already exists. So following that logic, if there were to be ANOTHER Gap Fire, even if it didn't have a page, it would make sense to list it on that disam page. --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:46, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I would typically convert the original page to a disambiguation page, unless of course, the original fire for that year was substantially more significant than the others. I don't think that any pages need to be converted to a disambig yet, except for maybe the Creek Fire page. I won't have time to go through all of the links for another week, but afterward, I'll fix any remaining issues that are left. LightandDark2000 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Events versus "fires"

Hi again! Thanks for all the work you are doing regarding the fires. I know you are a fellow member of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wildfire! I changed your section renaming of "The fires" back to "Events." We use "Events" to describe the section you keep renaming "The fire." Perhaps User:Zackmann08 can chime in here with a bit more rational, but "Events" is more generalizing because the article is already about the fire itself and it is indeed a summary of events taking place with the fire itself and all things it impacts. You can find out a bit more about the structure that the project created here WP:WILDFIRE-STRUCT. It also provides consistency across all articles we've created around wildfires, as we've been using "Events" since the project started. If you'd like to discuss using "The fires" instead of "Events" perhaps it can be discussed on the WikiProject talk page so everyone can chime in. Cheers and thanks again for your ongoing contributions to Wikipedia! Missvain (talk) 05:08, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The guidelines are not strict, in that sense. "Events" is too general, because it can refer to the Aftermath, or even political responses, whereas that section is supposed to focus on the fire (and its history itself). This format is what I have found in use in older wildfire articles and in other natural disaster articles. For example, the section titles that I have seen are: the fire, (storm) systems, timeline, history, etc. Events by itself is just too general. LightandDark2000 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tamara787

Hi, I agree SPI is unfortunately perpetually backlogged, but please don't do that again. Thanks for understanding. Sro23 (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Meh, sorry about that. I really wanted those SPI cases wrapped up and done with before the end of this year. :( LightandDark2000 (talk) 21:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Sorry for the delayed response but I was really busy at work the last week. Thanks for the Christmas card hehehe and I hope you had a nice Christmas and I wish you a happy New Year!!! :) EkoGraf (talk) 15:41, 1 January 2018 (UTC)