User talk:NightsideAEB

Welcome!

Hello, NightShadeAEB, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! DS (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daraa Offensive.

I agree with your idea to add this on the infobox. Check this , SOHR is reporting regular clashes there :https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr --Amedjay (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saraqib

This town under control by Al Nusra and we cant use pro-oppositions sources for displayed success of all rebels. Need confirmation from neutral source that this town under jointly control Al Nusra and moderate rebels.here So that your action not justified and you need provide data from a neutral source which can confirm these your action or again mark the town of Saraqib as under full control of Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not man. Saraqib is the second biggest city in Idlib district, it's been a capital of sorts for the rebels there, especially Ahrar al Sham and Suqur al Sham. They both chased ISIS out of the city in January 2014. Unless you have a source that Nusra now controls the Ahrar/Suqur merger, you cannot just assume it is under Nusra monopoly. There's also Jabhat Thuwwar Saraqeb wa Reefiha, an FSA grpoup, there's no source that they participated in the SRF/Hazzm side, so we can't just assume they no longer exist. Finally, the Syrian Rebellion Observatory has suggested the new Farouq-linked Jaysh al Sunna has a component that is based in Saraqeb. While this alone is not enough to say Nusra doesn't enjoy monopoly, a combination of the three facts leads us to this most probable outcome. I don't think a non-rebel source can tell you who controls Saraqeb without using rebel sources, the reality is that they are the only ones on the ground. I checked your source when you made it Nusra; although Joshua Landis is usually accurate, I think he meant that Jund al Aqsa controls Saraqeb and Binnish in the context of the fight against the SRF and Hazzm. Jund al Aqsa most certainly did not kick out Ahrar and Suqur, and Thuwwar Saraqeb and Jaysh al Sunna have not complained of harassment.

Same goes for Maarat Nuuman btw, Maara has a lot of rebel groups even more so than Saraqeb, especially Suqur al Sham, Faylaq al Sham, Tajamuu Maarat al Nuuman, other such groups that weren't with SRF or Hazzm. Even Binnish I reckon has strong presence of Ahrar al Sham, Faylaq al Sham and Jaysh al Islam, but Binnish is famous as the capital of Nusra since 2012, so it's only natural to conclude Nusra enjoys monopoly there. The big question mark is Sarmin, Nusra always had a presence there, and after Liwa Dawoud left, it seems Suqur al Sham recaptured it. There was also SRF presence but safe to assume it's now gone. I found reports that Ahrar al Sham besieged the city from the outside after Dawoud's betrayal, but no evidence that they are inside. So for now, we can confirm at least Suqur and former Jaysh al Sham leftovers (now they all joined Ahrar al Sham, of course). I think the whole map should have a do-over; I notice someone changed Maarat Misrin to half controlled by Nusra after my previous attempt at an edit a few days ago, but the same person didn't take my edits about Maarat al Nuuman and Saraqeb into the same consideration. The map also doesn't consider Nusra strongholds in Aleppo, which I'll get to later as well. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I notice Ram Hamdan has also been listed under Nusra. Considering that's where Ahrar's leadership was assassinated, I'd consider it unlikely that they enjoy monopoly. SRO, being pro rebel, still told me that Jaysh al Islam has a presence there. And with the activity around Fua and Kafraya, I'd bargain that Faylaq al Sham does too. A lot of things about the map are inaccurate; I'll try to look for acceptable sources to correct them. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:43, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions notification

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

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

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:19, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 04:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Dibshiyah

Dibshiyah. I would do it, but have to go offline. --Hogg 22 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyra surroundings

But after confirmations that the main forces ISIS retreated to the city Sukhna we can't leave as ISIS-held small point Biyarat Muhammad Butman as this just a military checkpoint in orchardse. So that OK I agree that we not need hurry edit other points east of Palmyra area but this point about which I said need marked as SAA-held. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:44, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's why my edit summary said "reasonable evidence" - if it's a small point and everything else was cleared then it's okay, but not if it's a major point that would require a separate mention from the sources NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Tughali

Rule #2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Sources which you use only showed maps but not said that village of Al Tughali was retaken ISIS. Sorry guy if be the sources said that ISIS retake Tughali then we can use these data but sources not said this so it is a violated a rules of edit. So I ask you do revert. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 17:48, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SvEcHpInXID Please don't revert it. Step Agency is a legitimate opposition news source, and Liwa al Hamza is a rebel group itself. These are not random maps made by random Twitter users, these are legitimate sources. And I did not copy the detail of the maps, just the status of a main town. I can go back and search in Arabic for a source that will confirm that Tughali is indeed ISIS held, but that could take me a while. As nobody else is willing to make that effort to reflect accuracy, why keep the map inaccurate? The maps I cited reflect the official positions of both Step Agency and Liwa al Hamza. It is data made into a graphic. NightShadeAEB (talk) 18:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]