User talk:Saeed alaee

Welcome

Hello Saeed alaee, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Table of contents

Department directory

Need help?

Questions – a guide on where to ask questions
Cheatsheet – quick reference on Wikipedia's mark-up codes
Wikipedia's 5 pillars – an overview of Wikipedia's foundations
The Wikipedia Adventure (a tutorial orienting you with Wikipedia)

Article wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles
The simplified ruleset – a summary of Wikipedia's most important rules
Guide to Wikipedia – a thorough step-by-step guide to Wikipedia

How you can help:

Contributing to Wikipedia – a guide on how you can help

Community portal – Wikipedia's hub of activity

Additional tips...

Please sign your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically insert your "signature" (your username and a date stamp). The or button, on the tool bar above Wikipedia's text editing window, also does this.

If you would like to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.

Saeed alaee, good luck, and have fun. – Aboutmovies (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed alaee, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Saeed alaee! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Dathus (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting comment

You made a comment saying my precious ISIL. Wikipedia has a strict policy on incivility. Calling them my precious ISIL is equivalent to saying I'm a Nazi. It was highly insulting. Not to mention that you accused me of not being neutral (not assuming good faith per WP policy). Several hundred in any language means at least 300. When you add that to the 609 confirmed dead in the ground fighting that's a range from 609 through 909. However we can not simply put just 909 as you said because 300 is still not a defined number but a ranged one. So this IS the neutral position. I wasn't trying to omit the fact that possibly several hundred died in the air-strikes, as you rudely suggested. I simply felt it was redundant. In any case, I made compromising wording in the notes section (as it was before) noting the number includes several hundred dead from air-strikes. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My dearest friend; if I wanted to call you a Nazi, I would have called you a Nazi. I don't think ISIL being precious to certain people can be insulting; if it was insulting to you I present my sincerest apologies. And as to neutrality; I don't think any of us are truly neutral, we always have opinions and tendencies. Best we can do is "try to be" neutral. I'm not neutral; I'm pro-Kurdish, simple as that. And it seems to me you're pro-ISIL; I admit I might be wrong; but I don't think perceiving something like that while admitting you might be wrong is against WP policy. And as to the death toll: if several hundred means "at least" 300 then it should be at least 909 not 609-909. We already know there are 609 documented deaths of ISIL excluding those killed by airstrikes. And we know that there's a 15 October U.S. claim that several hundred of ISIL have been killed by airstrikes(I would have used a SOHR estimate if I could find one). This means we have 609 + at least 300 ISIL deaths. But I think putting 300 is still not okay as it is original research(interpretation of "several hundred") as the U.S claim didn't say "at least 300"; it said "several hundred". And I think we should use U.S. claim's exact wording in this case and wait until new reports are published; preferably by SOHR. SO I'm reverting your edit. Sincerely yours, Saeed alaee (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And again, in your polite way, you once again accused me of possibly being an ISIL supporter (And it seems to me you're pro-ISIL) and thus insulting me again. I'll have you know my father died fighting those kinds of religious fanatic lunatics in Bosnia. So I really take those kinds of comments to heart. As for my neutrality, despite my personal feelings I have always been a neutral editor for the least three years on Wikipedia and you have half a dozen of our fellow editors who can testify to that. But back to the matter at hand. if several hundred means "at least" 300 then it should be at least 909 not 609-909. No, it can not be just 909, because 609 is the confirmed/documented number while the several hundred (at least 300) is an unconfirmed US claim. Thus 609-909. So please, the US claim is still in there I just moved it to the notes section, thus, again, please stop with the edit warring. P.S. I'm leftist (possibly communist) so that makes me highly pro-YPG. Go go Kurds! EkoGraf (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm truly sorry for your loss. And may your father rest in peace. As I am sorry for the thousands of lives taken or wrecked by ISIL and other Islamists. I mean this as I myself as a Kurd in Iran have witnessed people around me losing their dear ones due to intolerance. I said it seemed to me that you were pro-ISIL(that is really not a wrong-doing) and that I realized I might have been wrong and I apologize for the unintended insult. Quite frankly I find the way casualty of ISIL is documented as 609-909 confusing. when you write 609-909 it means that the death toll could be only 609(zero deaths by airstrikes? it does not make sense) and the fact that 909 is mentioned suggests that we are sure that the airstrikes death toll is not more than 300(which we are not) and further more when you write "609-909 ISIL deaths several hundred of which have been taken out by airstrikes" an average reader could interpret "several hundred" in different ways while not knowing that the 909 put there is our assumption that several hundred means 300 and there is a 609 documented death toll for ISIL excluding those killed by airstrikes. These are basically why I find this method of writing down the death toll problematic. And please note it takes at least two persons for a edit warring to take place... Saeed alaee (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put out two different types of wording, one of them a potential compromise wording, while you simply reverted every edit, that is called edit warring. I am going to put out a second compromise wording and I would remind you if you make another full revert you will be eligible for a block because your already reverted me 3 times. However, I think the wording will be satisfactory for you. EkoGraf (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kobane estimate

When you have multiple sources claiming two different estimates its best to put them both. Now you have two saying more than 50 percent (Elijah J. Magnier & Romain Caillet) and one saying even 60 percent (FSA commander). The neutral thing would be to put it at between 50 and 60 (both points of view per WP policy). EkoGraf (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your enthusiasm over this, but please refrain from getting things into my talk page when the article itself has a fully functional talk page. To be honest, this feels like vandalism. And as for the matter, your new source says "more than half"; if your source is not to be used maybe you should edit it out. You removed the 40 percent source; I do not have a problem with that as I did not consider the source very reliable. But what I do have a problem with is utilizing a twitter source. Twitter is a bit controversial, but more importantly in this case, it is not really necessary as more reliable sources could be easily found. I will edit the twitter source out and replace it with an NBC report and I leave it to you to edit the new source out(or present your reasons, in the Kobani's talk page not mine, over why it should not be edited out) Saeed alaee (talk) 18:50, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original US claim of 1,000 dead in air-strikes was made 2 weeks ago and it said most of the deaths happened in Kobani but the number itself was for the whole of Syria [1]. There's also a direct quote in the source I provided you. Besides, its simple logic, the US said just 5 days ago 1,000 militants overall have been killed in the battle for the city. If what WSJ said was true than almost none of the fighters died in conflict with the YPG. 1,000 out of overall 1,000 dead in air-strikes? :D EkoGraf (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted me....again. Read your source. Your source only referred to the US claim of 1,000 dead. It does not say the claim was made on that exact day. I provided you with a source that directly quotes the original claim of 1,000 dead. And do not simply ignore the fact that we have a source from 5 days ago saying per the US 1,000 ISIS have died in the battle overall. Again, logic - 1,000 overall of which 1,000 in air-strikes? That is simply not right. EkoGraf (talk) 18:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with EkoGraf His arguments are logical I read to all data from the sources and came to the conclusion that he is absolutely right. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, like Hanibal911 says, you simply need to read all the data from all the source. I can also refer to SOHR who said just 10 days ago that 1,046 ISIS have died in the air-strikes in the WHOLE of Syria. Kobane is not the only place they target in Syria, a few days ago the US said 30 percent of the Syria air-strikes are against Kobane. Which would mean 70 percent occure in the rest of Syria (which is pretty large). EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911, thanks for your feedback. EkoGraf, sorry I reverted your edit, I didn't know you had left this message here, or I would have talked about it first in here.

Okay, let's get to it:

The Guardian report only talks about the casualties from "mid-November" to 19th of December in both Iraq and Syria(and 30% of all airstrikes in Iraq AND Syria have been around Kobani).

The airstrikes around Kobani started late September, so there were casualties in addition to that of the report. We also have almost two weeks of airstrikes until 30th of December, so "about 1000" until end of December seems a plausible claim(it is also plausible when we consider that U.S. officials claimed over 6oo ISIL had died of airstrikes by 21st of November in Kobani). Furthermore, the WSJ says that about 1000 ISIL have died by airstrikes in Kobani. We can't say "that's not what they meant" unless we have clear evidence that they made a mistake there, which we don't. We have no reason to believe what they said was a reference to the U.S. claim two weeks ago, it could be a reference to a more recent claim by some U.S. officials.

As for SOHR, there's a substantial difference between SOHR reports and U.S. claims, SOHR's 1046 were "documented deaths", while U.S. claims are estimates and are liable to be higher as they don't limit their number with "documented deaths".

And as for the logical incompetence between WSJ's report and that of Vice; if we consider how much each of them is reliable and more widely read and known, we should probably stick with WSJ. If we consider how plausible each of their casualty reports are, still 1000 overall ISIL is quite implausible; 15 weeks of fierce daily clashes(of which we've all been reading) and 428 airstrikes and only 1000 deaths? SOHR alone has "documented" 905 deaths from ground fighting until 7th of December. But WSJ report, given the numbers and my previous arguments, is very plausible. I think Vice has confused the U.S. statements in 19 December, that's why we have that number there, and WSJ on the other hand has probably got it right. Or maybe both of them have got it wrong, we don't know.

I think that's about it, sorry it was long. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to edit it any more and I will leave it to you guys, but I would like to ask LightandDark2000 to also share his feedback(if he'd like to of course) as he too has been following the reports and events about Kobani's siege. Saeed alaee (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New data

SOHR said there were reports of deaths of fighters from Turkey and Iran and we have a source saying three MLKP (turkey) died. Those three with the previously confirmed 503 YPG deaths give 506. The Turkish Kurds were fighting under the YPG banner. As for the other matter. 2,000 is not out-dated. Like I said before, SOHR always works with two sets of numbers. Documented (1,272) and estimated (2,000), which includes the un-documented deaths. So 1,272 is a lower estimate, 2,000 is a higher estimate (which included the air-strikes). Simple. EkoGraf (talk) 00:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Added additional compromise wording. Hope its satisfactory. EkoGraf (talk) 01:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't paid attention to the MLKP before, my bad. Yeah the way it is now is alright. Saeed alaee (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish offensive

It is not the same offensive. The Kurds themselves said [2] 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. And you 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) 16:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sinjar offensive

I agree with you about the result of the offensive. But I added the word partial so to try and compromise with Corriebertus. If you look at his edits and the topics he started at the talk page you will understand what I'm talking about. For example, he does not acknowledge there was a siege of the Yazidis on the mountain and calls all news sources (New York Times, The Independent, etc), that describe it as such, US government propaganda and that they should not be used. As for the result, he thinks it was indecisive. EkoGraf (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Saeed alaee. 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)[reply]