User talk:PutItOnAMap

Semicircles

SOHR just said that clashes was during an ISISI attack carried out by the on the area of these oil fields (it was short attack on the checkpoints in these areas and nothing more) we put a semicircles when one of side try to storm or siege some objects. We put red semicircle near near Al Thayyem processing plant in Deir ez Zor because reliable source said that the SAA captured the northen oil wells in the Al Thayyem oil fiedls. Here source said that the SAA finally entered Al-Thayyem Oil Fields and seizing unused wells that are situated at its northern perimeter.here Also we put semicercle when at during an offensive on of the sides in this conflict trying stormed take town, village oil/gas fields or molitary objects as we do this in Aleppo and Homs provinces where SAA trying take some villages or on Homs wher SAA try capture the town of Qaryatayn and long time clashes on the rerimetr of this town. Also we put semicircle when some area besieged as it is in northen part of Homs province when some rebels-held the towns and villages isolated from their main territories which the under their control. In Homs rebels besieged in pocket in northen part when now SAA conducting offensive. We also put semicircles if clashes continued long time on perimeter of the towns,villages and some other points (Army bases or Industrial obgects). But not put if it was jist short attack. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Also we put circle or semicircle when some point totally besieged as the towns Nubl and Zahra in Aleppo because these towns in siege of the rebels from all sides. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the guide, I thought you just put a semicircle around an area when it was coming under fire from one side rather than if it was totally besieged. I'll keep that in mind for when I'm making future edits to the amp. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Az Zarah

You made mistake. Source said about clashes Az Zarah in Hama and I marked this village as contested.here But you made mistake and marked as contested the village al-Zaraa in Aleppo province. Please self-revert this.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I will help you and myself doit. Sûriyeya (talk) 13:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this error. I mixed up the names because they sounded similar and just navigated to 'Zaraa' without actually checking what provine it was in when I edited the map. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

ISIS in Qalamoun

Source said about battle between SAA and ISIS in East Qalamoun.here SOHR said that the ISIS shelled this base here in east Qalamoun. And SAA start battle against ISIS in East Qalamoun. So we need put black icon in this area.here But you marked ISIS presence in west Qalamoun. Correct the your mistake. Khalifa trooper (talk) 11:35, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I will do that. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:36, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Sheikh Najjar Industrial District

Sheikh Najjar Industrial District long time SAA-held. Source only said that SAA advance west toward Sheikh Najjar Industrial District and Aleppo Infantry Academy and that only latter(Academy)ISIS-held.(SAA and allies are now pushing west toward the Sheikh Najjar Industrial District and the Aleppo Infantry Academy and if the latter(Aleppo Infantry Academy) is captured, they will have a gateway to northern Aleppo from the provincial capital.) source Sûriyeya (talk) 13:26, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Latakia

I ask you to take part in the discussion.here Sûriyeya (talk) 12:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For now Kabbani located on map. Why you add another town Kabbani? Thih town located here Kabanah but you add this town in the wrong place. So need fix map. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Here this town on map Kabanah but you put the town once again on the map but in the wrong place. But not worry I correct this your mistake.here Sûriyeya (talk) 15:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Jarajeer

Here source said that the SAA captured the villages of Fawqani, Jabal Al-Tarou, Al-‘Arid Al-Hamra, Kurt Al-Tahtani, and Katf Al-Khani.here But Jabal Al-Tarou it is a mount Tarou not village. Also source said SAA captured the villages of Raweesat Sheikhou and Katf Al-Salat.here But Raweesat Sheikhou it is a hilltop not a village. And again source said SAA and their allies advanced to the villages of Al-Musharifa Fawqa, Al-Musharifa Al-Tahta, Raweesat Al-Maslaanah, and Katf Al-‘Alaanah.here Raweesat Al-Maslaanah it is a hilltop. And Jaroud Jarajeer it is a not village Jarajeer it is a open highlands near the village on the border with Lebanon. Sûriyeya (talk) 11:04, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank's that you mark a Production Facility as ISIS-held becasue I'm forgot do this when do edit earlier.here I only edit coordintes. Sûriyeya (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Jaroud Jarajeer is still contested between primarily Nusra (some rebels, too) and IS, and there is an illegal border crossing there. I'll mark it as contested until one side captures it, at which point I'll change it to a presence icon marked 'Jaroud Jarajeer'. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Good idea buddy! Sûriyeya (talk) 13:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Thank's for help! Sûriyeya (talk) 12:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Civil War and ISIL general sanctions

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Jabal al-Sha'ir

Why you put incorrect coordinates for Jabal al-Sha'ir.Here correct coordinates. (lat = "34.905", long = "37.937") Sûriyeya (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Tal Abu Zayn

Hi,

Regarding this: I don't see this village on Al Masdar map. I think even the author of the article doesn't know where it is. --Hogg 22 (talk) 14:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I assumed that the village in the picture on the article was the one they had fully captured - Tal Abu Zayn. You're right, though; it might just be a blind guess on their part. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

However, I think it's more likely than not that, given that the image of that village which I found on wikimapia was pictured next to an article describing the capture of Tal Abu Zayn, I put the correct coordinates down for that place. Unless and until we have further information on this, we can and should assume that this is correct and leave the village on the map. If nothing else, it illustrates an SAA advance currently occuring for viewers of our map. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Shilala Al Kabeera

PutItOnAMap the source you used for this village is an outdated one,the village was captured by SAA yesterday but was reverted today when Isis captured Khanasser village and Khanasser-Ithriyah Road cut instantly.You have to rv yourselfLists129 (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you sure? Where's the source for that? PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Help me please!!

Hello, you can help me ? This vandal user is at an edit war and always revert my edits. You can report this vandal user ? Kordestani (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'll have a look at what is going on. PutItOnAMap (talk) 22:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Zakiyah crossroad

Zakiyah crossroad taken SAA and located along Ithriyah-Raqqa road but you sources reported about clashes on Sheikh Hilal-Ithriyah road and Khanasser-Aleppo road. So your sources not support your edit. Sûriyeya (talk) 14:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but my source, using labelling (not the pictures themselves, so I don't think I violate the map rule), shows that the crossroads are in a contested (orange) area at the moment due to an IS offensive. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

And welcome back, Sûriyeya!

Thank's for salutation about my return I was sick and spent nearly two weeks in the hospital but I still fell not a good. But today I felt a little better so I was able to partially return to the map editing. And in situation with crossroad maybe you use this map here which was put in article from Al Masdar, but this still amateur map which we can't use on based rules of edit. So if this your source then in this case you are wrang. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Get well soon. :) Okay, I'll revert it. I don't usually use the maps themselves (not the pictures, anyway) but I thought the labelling - text, so to speak, rather than a map - could be used. I thought Masdar was a good source for that, but ok. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Thank's a bro for your desire of my speedy recovery! :) Sûriyeya (talk) 21:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Jabal Jazal

Source Al Masdar not said that Jazal Mountain still contested or ISIS still present in this mountain. Source said that ISIS previously held some hilltops on east of Jabal Jazal(Jazal Mountain) but SAA retake this hilltops so we can't marked this point as the contested this mountain fully under SAA.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

vandalism

Help me revert chages which made of the pro-ISIS vandal without reliable source.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank's buddy! I think that we all must fight against unjustifed editings and editings on based of clear the biased sources. Some pro-ISIS guys try break the our rules of edit and we must stop of these actions. Also probably we need add in rules a small exception on the basis of which the we can reverts all unsustifed edits (without specifying the source and based on biased sources) which are blatant vandalism and this will not be a violation of the rules 1RR. What you think about this idea? Sûriyeya (talk) 18:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we should be able to revert unsourced edits without a source. All we are doing is changing something back to the last sourced edit, which is not a violation of the rules. We should write that in the rules to make it clear to other editors that this is the case. Also, that editor has showed up in the Libya map and made unsourced pro-IS changes there, but oddly he went to the Yemen map and made some unsourced pro-Houthi changes (so they're probably just a troll as it is impossible to be pro-IS and pro-Houthi at the same time). PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protection for Turkish Insurgency

This module is always vandalized by Turks. So you can add an Semi-protection ? Kordestani (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Module:Turkish Insurgency Detailed Map

Hello, this Daily Sabah is an Pro-Turk partizan site. So it is not a reliable source. We can't use Daily Sabah on Pro-Turk offensives against PKK and Kurds. Yes, Al Masdar News, SOHR, ANHA, ANF and Rudaw like this sites are reliable. Please do not use again these sites: Daily Sabah or Today's Zaman, Hürriyet, Yeni akit, Yeni Şafak... Kordestani (talk) 21:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This depends on which version of Zaman you are talking about. 'Zaman' was once a good independent newspaper, but the government has turned it into a propaganda machine. The English-language sister edition, 'Today's Zaman' is critical of the government and a reliable source, I think - for now. It may only be a matter of time before Erodgan clamps down on that, too, but it's free press for the moment. PutItOnAMap (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but they are use 'terrorist' term for PKK militants. This means that it is not reliable source. Kordestani (talk) 14:27, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

They may be anti-PKK, but they are not pro-gov either. I think they are pro-CHP? That makes them reliable as they do not really support either side. The old saying goes that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Terrorism does not always have to indicate deliberate attacks on civilian targets - it could be a term used to imply an attempt to sow fear amongst military targets like the Turkish military. In that way, you could describe certain pro-Kurdish independence militant groups as 'using terrorist attacks' - although this just makes them like many other groups that fought for independence for their people (e.g. the European resistance against the Nazis, or Nelson Mandela - whose group initially sabotaged the Apartheid Government's infrastructure as a tactic, which could arguably be framed as terrorism against the military).

The PKK are a world away from the likes of IS and Al-Qaeda, but I don't think describing them as 'terrorist' invalidates a source - although I do not think they are terrorists at all. PutItOnAMap (talk) 23:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no difference between Pro-government Turks and Anti-government Turks or another one. Because all of them are anti-Kurdish. Kordestani (talk) 14:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a difference because anti-government Turkish sources are 'neutral' - they don't support the government or the PKK. This means they are likely to be a good source, I think. Still, I'll bear what you've said here in mind. Thank you. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I talk about mainly AKP government. Pro-AKP goverment Turks are against all Kurds.. And Anti-AKP government Turks known as Kemalists are against Kurds. Kordestani (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but if a source if both anti-AKP government and anti-PKK, then it is neutral because it supports neither side. Doesn't that make it relaible?

This may be in another country. But can't be in Turkey. Because Pro-AKP government and anti-PKK Turks and anti-AKP government and anti-PKK Turks(Kemalists) are anti Kurdish. It both supports the Turkish army against Kurds. Do you understand ? Kordestani (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so what you are saying is that they are pro-Turkish army. We should keep that in mind. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

You made a mistake

The used source for your edit only mentioned Saba Bayar, and even that name has at least 3 positions in this area, and where are not sure what location does he exactly mean. The source doesn't say anything about those 5 hills which you changed from SAA to ISIS control. This is a POV edit, because how do we know that those hills are with ISIS, maybe Rebels control them ? Or maybe the government. This is only your opinion and we have wintessed that opinions don't really matter when it comes to Syria, where the logic fails and many troops stay behind and use only 1 road for supplies. You also changed Rujm Mamur hill to rebels, again not mentioned.

We need more sources. We will get them soon. DuckZz (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

A big thank you!

Hey,

I just want to thank you for your very active and diligent work on the diverse maps on the middle east! Especially at the Afghanistan module you are doing it more or less all alone. You have my respect!--Ermanarich (talk) 15:56, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. PutItOnAMap (talk) 23:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I've just got another thing: I'd like to help improving the map (and the template/module) for the Southern Sudanese Civil War, but for that I need to know how I get the coordinates to place new settlements on such a map. I know that it all works over the module, but I have no clue how to get these coordinates. Could you help me there?

(Or if not, these are the sources: http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58416, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58112, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58292, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58102, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58025, http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article58263 )--Ermanarich (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Do not rush to edit

I ask you do not rush to edit. You marked villages Al-Bayarat and Jazal as contested but source just said that ISIS has conducted several attacks at(near or in vicinty) these villages. So we can't marked these villages as contested. Also source maybe do mistake about Brigade 550 and he want said that ISIS push south to Brigade 550 becasue source also said that Brigade 550 it is the last military installation before the Al-‘Amariyah District in northern Palmyra.here Also source not said that the Base Brigade 505 is under control of ISIS. But source 25 march clear said that SAA retake Brigade 550 fron ISIS.here So I ask you not rush to edit and search more clear data because if we do rush me can do mistakes. As this was when SOHR said that all ISIS forces retrated from Palmyra to the town of as-Sukhnah and I marked all ISIS position(village Arak some mountains and Hajjar Oil Fields, Mustadira gas Fields and Arak Gas Fields) as SAA-held but in fact SAA postions on distace around 40km from this town. So sometimes source do mistake but we must edit only when we have clear data. So lats whait and see how will development of the situation and also maybe we obtain more clear data. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

We not put as contested villages,towns and some other points(military base,hills,mountains) when sources said about attack (at,near or vicinty) and not put semicircles[]. We only mark as contested when sources said that clashes inside the town, village, base and other points and put semicircles when source said that one of sides attacke a town, village, base and other points.Semicirclses Also according to main rules of edit we can't do edits if we are not sure about what the source is saying. But source earlier clear said Brigade 550 taken SAA and not said that ISIS retake this base or that they hold this base. According to the rules strictly prohibited the free interpretation of the data and edit on the basis of assumptions. So I ask you wait more clear data. Sûriyeya (talk) 15:22, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I am sorry for my mistakes. The two villages were said to be 'attacked' by Masdar, and they made no mention of the attacks having finished. They also said that there was a presence in another village not marked on this map that was still there in the next article I read. As for Base Brigade 505, they said that IS were advancing south of that. Given that they only had positions north of the base, to advance southwards from it, I thought, meant that they would have had to capture it. Evidently, that is not the case. Anyway, thanks for the advice. I'll keep it in mind for next time. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

In report from source which you use was said that clashes ongoing in and around Al-Eis in southern Aleppo as SAA has long-term goals of reaching the besieged towns of Fuah and Kafraya.here But in fact this not means that fow now the town of Al Eis contested. In the several days was a two SAA assault on the Tall Al Eis but rebels/Nusra repell this assault and SAA retreat on outskrits.herehere So for now need again mark a town of Al Eis as jointly control of rebels/nusra and wait more data. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, it said in the article 'with clashes going on in and around Al-Eis' - if the clashes are in the town, surely it is still contested? PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Rebels retake Hawar Killis.here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

That conflicts with the Masdar source, but we should assume that as per the Masdar source, it was captured by IS and later recaptured by rebels. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes! Today ISIS take Hawar Killis as said Al Masdar and some opp. sources but later according SOHR rebels retake Hawar Killis,Jerez and Yahmul.here Sûriyeya (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

So what happened to Harjalah? It's now an IS exclave surrounded by rebel territory. Should we change it back to rebel if we hear no news from the area for three days? PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

pro-opp. activist from Twitter said that rebels retake Harjalahhere but we not have confirmation from crediable sources that rebels retake this village. Sûriyeya (talk) 18:26, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Source not said that Brigade 550 ISIS-held. Source said that Syrian Air Force also targeted the northern Palmyra countryside, where ISIS is currently entrenched at(near) Brigade 550.here When source said that about tareget or clashes at some points this means near not inside. We change the status only when the source is clearly says who controls the object. So plase do self-revert. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:28, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

"The Syrian Air Force also targeted the northern Palmyra countryside, where ISIS is currently entrenched at Brigade 550 near the Al-‘Amariyah District."

I dont think they would write "entrenched at" unless they had taken up defensive positions in the base. I think "at" means "in" in this case. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

No! It was previously decided that when source said "at" we use this as near or vicinety. We not edit objects on map if sources said clashes at and when source said strike at base or village. Source not said that ISIS retake Brigade 550. So I ask you do self-revert. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:41, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I did not see those rules. I will edit accordingly, my apologies. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of editors told me earlier that the reports from SOHR on English sometimes is incorrect. Report from SOHR on Arabic clear said that the rebels targeting regime forces on outskirts of village of Jabahere which the under control of regime forces.here Sûriyeya (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-army-liberates-brigade-550-base-northern-palmyra/ This source shows that when Al Masdar use 'clearly entrenched at' and 'moving south from', this probably indicates control (because this confirms IS controlled base 550 when I edited that in). Maybe we should be more mindful of the fact that news companies can make incorrect claims (like the recapture of brigade 550 and only operate on current reliable sources? PutItOnAMap (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Later SOHR and Al Masdar said that the SAA take Jabal al Mazar.hereherehere and Al Masdar said SAA take Base 550 and ISIS retreat further north towards Jabal Murbat Al-Hassan (Mount Murbat Al-Hassan).here and SOHR said about clashes northeast of the city of Palmyra amid new progress for SAA.here So probably earlier you was right that Base 550 was ISIS held or earlier SAA retreated from this base. But for now we have new confirmation that military base taken SAA. And anti-governmnet source Step News also showed on his map that Base 550 under control of SAA.here Sûriyeya (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we probably don't need to use the new source as it is already marked as SAA-held. But, in future, I propose if there is wording that strongly indicates control by a faction, even if Masdar does not specifically report the change of control to that faction, we change the icon. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree! Sûriyeya (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

We not use Al Masdar against rebels in conflict between ISIS and rebels.here Also you need again marked Kabani as source said that SAA captured the Jabal Zuwayqat and and Point 1112 southwest Kabani. Also source said that SAA turned their attention to the last 5 hills that surround the town of Kabani. Currently, SAA are still storming the outskirts of Kabani, where they need take points 1125 and 1154 before they can enter Kabani.[

https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-surrounds-strategic-town-northeast-latakia/ here] So source clear said that SAA still not entered inside Kabani. Sûriyeya (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I thought the outskirts were part of Kabani (usually, the outskirts are just the outer part), and the SAA was storming them, but I'll change it back. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:59, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

That part of the talk thread doesn't say we can't use Masdar for rebel-IS conflicts, it just says we can't decide whether an area is rebel/Nusra/joint rebel-Nusra controlled. PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that clashes still continued in the vicinity of city Mare` after a violent attack carried out ISIS since midnight yesterday on the city Mare`.here I think just need put black semicircle just east of Mare' because now after you put two semicircles a city looks like in almost under siege of ISIS. So I propose you according to report from SOHR retain the black semicircle east of Mare' but remove other semicircle. Because for now it looks messy. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

The issue was that masdar said it was being attacked from three sides. I could not find a single icon to show this, so I put two together. Is there an icon to show that it is being attacked from the east, north and south? PutItOnAMap (talk) 10:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

SOHR said that clashes still continued in the vicinity of city Mare after a violent attack carried out ISIS since midnight on this city.here and some other sources said that rebels repelled ISIS attack on Mare.herehere So what your think about this? Sûriyeya (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, Masdar said it was attacked, that IS was driven out but kept attacking, and that it was being attacked from 3 sides (presumably not the west, because that is rebel-held territory). Therefore, I thought it would be accurate to put up a besieged from the north, south and east sides icon, hence the custom icon I put up. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

You mast do self-revert because Qaioun News it is a pro-opp. source which we can't use for succes of rebels. But SOHR said that still unconfirmed reports that rebels retake village Hamzat.here Sûriyeya (talk) 10:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought we could use pro-opp sources for pro-opp advances against IS, just as we could use pro-gov sources for pro-gov advances against IS. This is because pro-IS sources rarely concede that they've lost control much anyway. But anyway, if SOHR says it's still not confirmed, I'll change it back. PutItOnAMap (talk) 14:38, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Libya Map Template edits in Misrata

Hello, I saw your edits in the Libya map template about Misrata. These edits are all without any credible source. The only source you mention for your edit is: http://eyeonisisinlibya.com/isis-in-action/action-20-april-2016/ http://eyeonisisinlibya.com/ is a blog that only claiming things but does not prove their claims. As an example the blog claimed in the 20 April report that ISIS pushed Shura Council Jihadists out from the east side of Derna away but hours later ISIS was expelled from the city by Shura Council Jihadists. When you do such big edits you have to have credible and reputable sources. Your changes are therefore non-compliant please find other sources or reverse your edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigles (talk • contribs) 16:15, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. That source is used by experts. And that 20 April report is for the week. That same week, LibyaObserver reported an IS advance in Derna just days before they were expelled from the city. So, it is correct. And you are allowed to add in things without sources - it's changes that aren't allowed. And we know from other sources that the castle and other areas, which one could only reach through the wadi, were controlled by IS - therefore, it stands to reason that they control those settlements, too. PutItOnAMap (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I still doubt that it is a credible source but also if it a credible source it only claims that ISIS attacked these positions and does not talk about the capture of the positions. So capture and attack is completly different. you interpret wrong things from the source.--Bigles (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

No, my original source for Al Shamikh, May 28 and Alforta castle was Al Wasat, which is very reliable. It was probable that IS would have had to go through the Wadi to reach those points, indicating control of everything along it up until that place from IS controlled territory. This new source, which is also reliable because it uses experts, suggests that they have freedom of movement throughout the entire Wadi - and if they do, nobody else does. They also apparently have camps there, indicating control. Anyway, you don't need a source to add in dots - only to change their colour. PutItOnAMap (talk) 20:57, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I've followed this discussion and I'm a bit surprised. Is it really not necessary to bring a source to add in a dot? Because in the module for the Yemeni Civil War map, new dots were removed because they had only an unreliable source.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

According to the rules, it's not necessary. In the Yemeni module, there is gross inaccuracy, use of ridiculously unreliable sources for changes, constant, sometimes incorrect reverts, etc. It is an example of how not to maintain a map such as this. In any case, I used several reliable sources for these edits, and the places added were relatively minor, anyway. PutItOnAMap (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Points

Need sources for all edits! How can prove contol if dot deep in area of enemy. I new editor but I saw the warning that we need the sources for any changes.Լրագրող (talk) 11:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we do need sources for most edits, but if a place is not referred to by any source, and it is within one side's territory or on the frontline, we may mark it in either colour according to our judgement. This is why I did not revert Pakan's edit. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC) And maybe Ракал said about Shaer oil field. no any oil fields near Jazal except Mazrur and this oil field contol the government.Լրագրող (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pakan talked about Loshar. There is currently a massive IS attack in the region, I wouldn't be surprised if they control Loshar for the time being. Wait and see - we're likely to have a source about it soon that will clarify things. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC) He adds nonexistent objects and objects in the wrong place. Why you revert me? He came up with this oil field and added him where he want and you help him. Shame!!!!!!! Լրագրող (talk) 11:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The oilfield might not be on wikimapia but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Many points aren't mapped on wikimapia that exist. Pakan has made a lot of mistakes but I don't think we ought to just revert that edit of his without a source. Now, if he had changed it (rather than adding it) without a source, we would revert, but I don't think it's wise to revert in this situation. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

in coordinates from Rakal Jabal Jazal controlled government but he is add oil field and you ignore this. Very very shame. How ISIS can control oil field in area controlled government. Ok! So we can invent objects and add them to the map? Cool! Nowhere no any informations about Lashour oil field. Very sad! Լրագրող (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I read your rules and I see that Wikimapia can't be a source. for any edits. Shame you man you support vandalism.Լրագրող (talk) 12:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

IS have territory bordering that gov controlled area. Yes, you can invent objects, so long as they actually exist. If the gov takes areas past those borders, we wil change Lashour back to gov-held. Just use common sense when editing, and ask him about this in the talk page.

No, I do not support vandalism, and it's not used as a source. It's just used to add places. Stop being angry, I'm trying to be helpful here. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Here see Լրագրող (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes you help Rakal in vandalism. Nice gob your are the best.:):):)Լրագրող (talk) 12:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Pakan's edit has not broken the rules, or the conventions which we've used to edit this map since before I can remember doing it. I'm not trying to help him vandalise, anyway. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC) How you can prove that Loshar oil field is exists at all axcept claim Rakal. Any facts, data or something eals. If you can't - it is vandalism and the addition of non-existent objects. Maybe let's come up others non-existent oil fields, cities and something else. Because fantasy of Rakal without borders. Լրագրող (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

You talk to him about the existence of Loshar oil field. Once you two have decided amongst yourselves, tell me what your joint verdict is. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC) You are the BEST man! You said Pakal has not broken the rules. You maybe jock? Look on his page he is was blocked for breaking the rules. Also you realy thinlk that his argument for edit Oil field his capture by the Syrian army not ssoobschalos that confirms the control IS - it is good source. On based such source we can add many dots. Լրագրող (talk) 12:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC) He is here for vandalism not for the talks. And you was help's him in this.Լրագրող (talk) 12:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I delet non-existent oil field on based Rakal fantasy and if you again revert, you will support vandalism. I hope that you're not a vandal!Լրագրող (talk) 12:51, 4 May 2016 (UTC) In coordinates from Rakal we have Jabal Jazal but government forces push ISIS from this mountain. Syrian Army expels ISIS from Jabal Jazal in east Homs.[1] This provide that area controlled of government forces not ISIS. And on based this data we need remove not-existent oil field from area controlled by government. Լրագրող (talk) 13:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

As I said before, you'll need to discuss the matter of the eixstence of Loshar oil field with him. Until you work out whether it exists or not, don't go around reverting his edits. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@Լրագրող & PutItOnAMap: There is a clear misunderstanding of the rules here. The rules say: "A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided." This applies to ALL edits, including ADDITIONS OF NEW OBJECTS ON THE MAP. Therefore, the edit adding "Loshar oil field" should be reverted. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. We cannot verify that "Loshar oil field" is ISIS-held, so it should not be added on the map. We do not use "judgement" or "common sense" to add objects, because that would constitute original research. Wikipedia:No original research is allowed. Tradedia^talk 16:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

CAR

Hello PutItOnAMap. I already made this module and this template. This map is about Central African Republic Civil War. This map is currently bare bones, because i am still bored, now bit better. Backstory: I decided to make this first before Azerbaijan and Armenia conflict map because i know CAR civil war map was recommended by Banak in it's userpage earlier at the time i wanted to make Sinai conflict map. I also thinking about that after i created a lot of maps before creating Pakistan, however i decided to create Pakistan map as result of seeing the image of War in Northwest Pakistan map. However after creating this map, as result of boredom and studying in school i decided to take a break for a while in war-map editing and now i'm back creating this war map. --SMB99thx XD (contribs) 06:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Presence icon

I placed my presence icon west of Muqman on a village. I could not find village name on Wikimapia. Daish probably control this village if they can mortar shell SDF town, so perhaps we could change this presence icon to town icon? I wish we knew the name. Coneleir (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

False edit!

Around is it not inside! Mehmedsons (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree, but the title very clearly states that the clashes are taking place inside. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:33, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Clashes are still continuing in the desert between SAA and ISIS in the vicinity of Huwaysis and Mahr Oil Field. Per local source SOHR:link So you need revert! And we marked as disputed only when source make mantion that clashes in or inside and not when in area or around. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:40, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I am aware the clashes are happening around the oil field too, but that does not necesarily mean they aren't happening in the field. Look at what SOHR says: "Continued clashes between regime forces and IS in al-Maher field." http://www.syriahr.com/en/?p=55522

• In*, not just *around.* That means contested, I think. PutItOnAMap (talk) 13:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Is not! Around = near, not inside! Mehmedsons (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Be reasonable! Source make mention that clashes in desert area near this Oil Filed and in the name of article we have only small mistake. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Death toll of militants loyal to the regime by Hama countryside and continuing clashes in the vicinity of oil fields east of Homs (قتلى من المسلحين الموالين للنظام بريف السلمية واشتباكات مستمرة في محيط حقول نفطية بريف حمص الشرقي) It is the real name of artcle! You should not make such mistakes when editing! Mehmedsons (talk) 14:01, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

On the English wiki, we use English-language articles, too. However, if the original Arabic article says otherwise and it was simply a mistranslation, fair enough. PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Af-Pak Insurgency Detailed Map

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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Af-Pak Insurgency Detailed Map, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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. 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. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libyan Air Force, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mi-2 and Mi-14. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Inventory Tables

Please don’t cram detailed information into inventory tables with as you have done on the Libyan Air Force article, the reader should be able to click a Wikilink to see the information on a corresponding page – per WP:WHENTABLE. Furthermore please refrain from using Self-published sources - Thank you FOX 52 (talk) 01:47, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding WP:WHENTABLE, duly noted - I was mostly preserving the comments of editors who'd formerly left those notes in the box, but will do otherwise from now on. Thanks for the correction.

Looking at Self-published sources, Delalande (and his output) is most definitely a reliable source and meets the criteria for being one listed in those rules. He regularly contributes to Air Forces Monthly, Middle East Eye, etc. and is an expert in the field of military aviation. As a group of editors of the Libyan Air Force page, we can discuss this more in the relevant Talk page if there is a disagreement in future. PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

The problem still exist that Delalande's source material is from blogs & twitter, (which are not reliably sources) – You stating “he is a verified expert in this field” doesn’t make it so. You need to provide an article from Air Forces Monthly or some other credible publication. Also if there are discrepancies in the number(s) than a notation at the bottom of the table, will be sufficient – regards FOX 52 (talk) 20:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map

Template:Middle East conflicts detailed map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tradedia^talk 16:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, PutItOnAMap. 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)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endorsements in the 2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Glyn Davies (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

a suggestion

Hi there! I see you've been updating pages like 2020 United States presidential election in Ohio. Thanks for your contributions. Can I suggest that instead of Notetag you use efn? Works the same way; that way they will get transcluded as general footnotes on Statewide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election, and any with efn-ua or simply group=upper-alpha will be processed as "Partisan clients" notes.

Open to discussion; I just want things to be consistent. = paul2520 (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

You can see the before & after here. = paul2520 (talk) 21:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, I can switch. I found efn a little fiddly at first - notes wouldn't show up when the cursor was held over them - but I can get to grips with it. Thanks for the suggestion. PutItOnAMap (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

PutItOnAMap: I'm flexible; whatever is best, so long as it's consistent! = paul2520 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2019 United Kingdom general election, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Ian Davidson and Minister for Children (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guardian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:17, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

January 2020

Hi PutItOnAMap.  I wanted to let you know that political endorsements must meet all three of these criteria:

1. The endorser must have an article or be unquestionably entitled to one
2. This endorsement must be covered by reliable and independent sources
3. Coverage of the endorsement needs to use the word endorse, or other closely related synonym.

This is covered by the consensus at WP:ERFC.

For that reason, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, poker websites, and blogs are not acceptable sources. Also, donating to a campaign or showing up to a campaign rally are not endorsements. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you Please do not use Twitter (or any social media) for endorsements. - MrX 🖋 13:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks - I used the 538 tracker, and mostly forwarded what they deemed accurate. Are you sure they can't count if from a reliable source or the person themselves? - PutItOnAMapPutItOnAMap 🖋 17:14, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign endorsements, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page San Juan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:2020 US Democratic Party Automatic Delegates

When I made the changes that were reverted, I had assumed that in the list, each automatic delegate was in one-and-only-one category in the detail list, and also counted in the same one-and-only-one category in the summary table.

For Biden both the summary table and detail list show 32 representative, 5 senator, 4 DPL, and 3 governor endorsements, but for "DNC member", the summary table shows 9, while the detail list includes the following 10 individuals, none of whom are "Democrats Abroad":

1. Eric Garcetti 2. Kerman Maddox 3. Bob Mulholland 4. Sandy Opstvedt 5. Barry J. Goodman 6. Martha Fuller Clark 7. María Meléndez 8. William Owen 9. Cristobal J. Alex 10. Symone Sanders

So in the summary table Biden has a total of 53 endorsements, but the detail list includes 54 delegates.

Similarly for representatives, the summary totals to "235 (1 listed under 'distinguished party leaders' excluded here ((I assume Speaker Pelosi)) )", but the detail list has 234 representatives (exclusive of Speaker Pelosi) listed.

So, I still don't understand how things are being counted/categorized here. What am I missing?

Thanks, Hald (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

There are 236 reps (232 voting reps + 4 non-voting delegates) in the list. I wrote 235 (1 listed under 'disintguished party leaders') to indicate this just as I wrote 46 senators (2 listed under 'dpls') - sorry about the ambiguity. I should have written 2 listed under 'distinguished party leaders' because Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a representative but listed as a former DNC chair. I've edited the wording to account for this. There are (now) 54 endorsements for Biden - I believe there was an error due to asynchronous edits of the list and template.

Hope that helps! PutItOnAMap (PutItOnAMap) 09:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

American politics discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Delano and San Marcos

List of Kamala Harris 2020 presidential campaign endorsements (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Justin Wilson

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Delaney (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States Senate election in Montana

Hi,

The hypothetical polling on 2020 United States Senate election in Montana shouldn’t be there. It doesn’t make any sense to split up all the Democrats and put them all against Steve Daines in one poll; that’s not something that would ever happen and it’s just a bogus way to do a poll. Smith0124 (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the University of Montana's style of polling in that race is odd, but those records still have value and all of those candidates could still be in the race on election day. It is not unheard of in states without sore loser laws (like Montana's) for candidates who lose primaries to proceed to the general election with another party's nomination/as an independent. Plus, we can infer something about the state of the race at the time the poll was taken from the imperfect topline numbers, which are better than nothing. PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Give me one significant example of a senate race where someone (besides a perennial candidate) loses in a primary and then goes onto the general election. I’ve never seen it happen for a senate race, and this poll assumed every single candidate would do that. Smith0124 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Lisa Murkowsi, Alaska, 2010. PutItOnAMap (talk) 18:57, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I will give you that one, but she was also the incumbent senator and the Republican establishment dumped her. Nobody in this poll is anything like that. Smith0124 (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't dispute that the format is odd, but the data points themselves do indicate levels of support that are worthy of inclusion in the article, I think. That they're in a 'hypothetical candidates' box (I'll change it to 'former candidates') emphasises that it's no longer representative of the current state of the race. Would an extra note be helpful? PutItOnAMap (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

An extra note would be helpful, but I still think the poll itself shouldn’t be there. When there’s five Democrats and one Republican, of course the Republican is going to win by a large margin. That’s why we have primaries. This poll makes it seem like the Republican has/had overwhelming support. Smith0124 (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

The poll is still useful in demonstrating how the support splits between various candidates from the same faction (and the relative strength of factions, notwithstanding some voters who'd only back a particular Democrat) and was deemed worth commissioning by an acceptable pollster. The data point should be included, but we could change the heading from 'former candidates' to 'hypothetical polling with former candidates' if that would help. PutItOnAMap (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You keep repeating that these two polls show “the level of support for each candidate” but that’s impossible to determine when they are all pitted against one Republican and their numbers are inevitably very low. There’s a reason polls aren’t ever conducted like this. If a pollster wants to determine the strength of each Democratic candidate they either make a poll for the primary or put each candidate up one on one against the Republican. Smith0124 (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Date sorting

Thanks for continuing my date sorting in [2]. It has no effect (but doesn't hurt) to set a sort value identical to the actual value. The reason for the sort values is that the date sorting feature cannot handle date ranges. It works on individual dates so I didn't set sort values for those. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For your continued updating of US polls, the most useful part of Wikipedia (as far as I am concerned). Thank you. Rami R 06:39, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Arizona Candidates

If their name isn't on the ballot then they aren't official candidates. If their name is on the ballot, they aren't write ins, simple as that. And Arif withdrew. Smith0124 (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

It's not that simple - see the sec of state's page where official write-in candidates are listed. They still need to qualify; the bar's just a bit lower. [User:PutItOnAMap]] (talk) 05:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes but kept the candidates up. Smith0124 (talk) 04:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2020 United States Senate election in Montana, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steve Bullock (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania

Hey, I just undid your recent edit to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania and I wanted to explain why. It introduced an error message at the bottom of the page that read "Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or templates on this page, but the references will not show without a

template or

template (see the help page)." I couldn't figure out how to fix this so I undid the edit in the hopes that you would be able to figure out the formatting issue and re-add the info. Thank you! Marquardtika (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Inviting you into WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Hi! Long time no see!

When we first met on Wikipedia, we have the same interests on English Wikipedia, and it was on conflict maps. Remember this? I actually did what you have requested.

Since then, i moved on to focus on other countries elections, similar to what you are doing now (but not based in the US). Eventually i'm settling down on editing tropical cyclones and COVID-19 templates, and this is why i'm a member of WikiProject COVID-19 and WikiProject Tropical Cyclones.

While you have been since only focused on U.S. Elections. I sometimes wander to these topics and participate in AfDs. I have joined WP E&R in case i'm going back to these articles again.

However, as a member of WP E&R i'm glad that i could send you an invitation to join WikiProject Elections and Referendums!!

I hope you can sign your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Members.

Thank you, SMB99thx my edits 08:54, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! I've joined and am glad to catch up with a fellow editor. PutItOnAMap (PutItOnAMap) 21:11, 02 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 Montana Attorney General election

Hi, don't you have any polls for this article? AlSmith28 (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding polls sourced to a Google Drive document

Hello PutItOnAMap - I see you have been doing lots of work adding polling data from a wide range of pollsters with respect to the 2020 US elections. Thanks for your work. I note, however, that some of the polls you are posting are sourced to a Google Drive document (specifically, the ones for Trafalgar Group that you are currently adding). Please stop using google drive documents and use only the website or authorized posts of the pollster; anyone can mock up a google drive page, and there are other security issues with using google docs. Thanks for your attention to this. Risker (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022 United States House of Representatives elections in New Hampshire, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Pappas.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 10

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of political parties in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Hamilton.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2020 US Democratic Party Automatic Delegates

Template:2020 US Democratic Party Automatic Delegates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:43, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War. Please ensure that you remove old, contradictory references when updating the page. For example, in this edit, you should have removed the two existing references, since these support the conclusion that the settlement is Russian-occupied, while leaving them in place gives the impression that they support the conclusion that the settlement is contested. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

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) 01:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:47, 28 November 2023 (UTC)