This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per the RS noticeboard these sources can not be used in the way they have been, they are not RS. And no, putting 'rebels claimed' in front of each sentence doesn't help. 92.15.79.29 ( talk) 09:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In this case we put in rebel and Syrian government claims. We would accept SANA on the timeline equally as the LCC, if anyone decided to put in Sana's claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Its inaccurate to put those death tools of rebel sources.We must at least confirm them or are escorted by confirmed video footage. If the thing is to write history of course and just claims. As for Syrian TV as of holding areas they are quiet accurate and escort their claims video with confirmed video footage. On the contrary LCC just give as numbers....if we add these numbers the past months then the half of Damascus should be dead until now with no rebel deaths at all!!!! â Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 ( talk ⢠contribs) 13:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No - Sana does not back up anything with video claims. Also if you add up these numbers the past month, 1,200 of the Damascus suburbs populace would be dead. Please do not removed the content until the discussion is over. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Heads up, if this discussion doesn't progress in a helpful manner I'm going to remove the lcc sources again, as per the unanimous RS:N consensus that they should not be used. If you disagree, you need to discuss it & show some reason to overrule the RS:N discussion on this topic. 92.15.54.149 ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please take a good look at this article. We use SANA rawly even though its an unreliable source - for timeline purposes. In the same way we can use the lCC. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)
When citing about number of kills, please distinguish between "matyrs" vs. "people" vs. "civilians". The LCC almost reports in the number of whom they call "matyrs" (who might be almost military). I have not read any exact number of killed civilians in their reports. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 ( talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"When they fought against US marines in Iraq they were insurgents. Once they crossed over into Syria they became rebels. And when they died they transformed into civilians." â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 ( talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
SOHR, unlike the LCC, is an unbiased independent monitoring group. I request for Sopher99 to STOP trying to own these pages and allow people to get on with their business. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do NOT add "Friday of ..." titles to dates in section titles. This article must maintain WP:NPOV and adhere to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. They do not meet WP:V either. ShipFan ( Talk) 04:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian opposition names their Fridays, it is NPOV to put in what they name it. Sopher99 ( talk)
Someone open a complaint or something with Wikipedia, b/c this can't continue.
- Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 ( talk) 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-Django
"Friday of..." dates do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. Unless a reliable, third-party source can be found (not the LCC itself) then do not include it. 203.9.185.137 ( talk) 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it does clearly break NPOV, those names are opposition slogans and are used by the opposition as political propaganda purposes. It is obviously not the role of Wikipedia to report on the events using the political slogans of the belligerents, the role of this page should be to accurately record the events from an objective viewpoint. You must remove these slogans or at least place them below the headings, and in the appropriate context. (i.e. The twelth of October has been refered to as "Free People of the Coast" by the Syrian opposition forces, etc.) To do otherwise is a blatant breach of NPOV. -Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems a handful of editors have this page locked down and refuse to engage in discussion befor editing the article. In order to avoid a protracted "edit war" I will refer the issue to the relevent boards, including the general "Syrian Civil War" discussion. I maintain that the titles in question seriously break NPOV standards, and changes need to be made. I will continue to pursue this disagreement over the course of the Syrian Conflict as the quality of the reporting on this article and on others is seriously sub-standard and very biased/misleading.
-Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 ( talk) 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The Friday names are not a breach of NPOV. They are not adding a single POV.
The Friday names are long-standing. 20 months to be exact.
The Friday names have notability - Three renown and reliable sources have made article JUST on the use of Syrian Friday names.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/how-syrian-activists-name-their-friday-protests/42586/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241314026709762.html
http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-activists-name-friday-protests-183434860.html
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for finally replying DIRECTLY to my complaint. First of all I have seen very little evidence of concensus on this issue, in fact directly above this section are various Wikipedia users who seem VERY opposed to the entire layout and wording of this article.
Secondly: the links you provided were actually only two sources the yahoo article, is just a mirror of the first source.
Thirdly: I'm not disputing the fact that the Syrian opposition names the dates after these slogans, my argument is that that these slogans shouldn't be included in the heading as they are not OBJECTIVE. They are political propaganda and are irrelevent to the title. They provide no further information than simply putting the date on its own, or accompanied by important events and battles such as, Siege of Homs, Damascus Volcano, Battle of Aleppo, etc. These titles add relevant information and context, whereas the "Friday of..." titles add nothing except bias.
Finally: These titles are apparently only used by certain sections of the opposition, and definately not commonly refered to by either the mainstream media, major news corps, or most press releases by the FSA. I'm not saying they should be deleted outright, just that they should not be placed in the Headings, as this is non-NPOV and innapropriate, and IF I can be provided evidence that there is concensus among the overall majority of editors on this wiki, I will of course capitulate, and drop the issue. But not if I am just going to be ignored and overuled by the handful of editors currently engaging in editwarring.
20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Gosh are we still debating this? You could find 100s of sources which refer to the Friday names. The Egyptian revolutionaries named their Friday and ONLY the April 6th movement had a say in the names. In the Same way the LCC and Syrian revolution commission are the only guides of the protests, and they are the ones that produce these names. I7laseral ( talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
To add to Sopher's list http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/3743 (though Alakbar is not that much of a reliable source) I7laseral ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
First off, that discussion with Shipfan and Andres arg ENDED in, with no concensus. A new one was crated latter on, which also ended with no consensus, until you revived it 2 months later.
2 oppose, 3 keep. It stays as no consensus was reached. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote Sopher99 ( talk) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Headlining of the propaganda slogans is undesirable in the knowledge of the widespread opposition to it, appropriateness of not forking from List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans, and for the sake of not getting out of compliance the example of Timeline of the Syrian civil war (MayâAugust 2012) and predecessors which did not have them or any trace of controversy about whether they should be there. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda is not a neutral term. The fork is not notable and original research. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 has already been slapped down on this exact issue by the rest of us way back here yet appears still choosing not to listen .. or remember, acknowledge & abide with. Counting in those opposers of the propaganda titles (Users Nanobear and ChronicalUsual), it's just 3 who'd be persuaded to hang on to them and 8 who want them gone. & that's just for this year. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Should we make a new article for 2013?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The "LCC reports" are firstly a prinamy and unreliable news. The news reported with their help should be take with a cautions.
But more important, their death tolls are about "martyrs" not about civilians. For oppositions supporters martyrs inclue rebel fighters as well. This would explain why their number of "martyr" killed is much higher that the real number of civilians killed.
In all cases, the use of "civilians" to replaced the term of martyr is a dishonest political choice. I am replacing civilians by civilians/rebels now. Martinski87 ( talk) 15:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Better to replace them with "people", as the civilian to rebel death toll ratio is usually 5-1 Sopher99 ( talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, following this edit, in which this source was removed and it was stated that Russia Today is not a reliable source because it is state-controlled and biased regarding Syria, I would like to know if this is a consensus position of all the editors here, and which other sources are considered to be banned? Was this a discussion that took place on some other Syria-related page, perhaps? Seems to me that those same arguments would also apply to al Jazeera (Qatari-controlled and biased in favour of the rebels - in terms of network reach, it is comparable to RT) as well as, naturally, SATA. Isn't it true that in wartime it is impossible to know what the truth is because both sides will be using lies and misdirection, so the only thing we can do is print what both sides are saying? Even if one of them turns out to be a lie later on. It seems like bias to make prejudgements about which side of the story is allowed to be included. The way we should be reporting is showing what both sides are saying rather than what is the actual truth. If one of the two sides is clearly lying it should be made clear by the way it's presented in the article for the reader to come to that conclusion, rather than being explicitly stated as such, or the other version of the story being entirely not mentioned. Esn ( talk) 07:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As per the RS noticeboard these sources can not be used in the way they have been, they are not RS. And no, putting 'rebels claimed' in front of each sentence doesn't help. 92.15.79.29 ( talk) 09:46, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
In this case we put in rebel and Syrian government claims. We would accept SANA on the timeline equally as the LCC, if anyone decided to put in Sana's claims. Sopher99 ( talk) 12:51, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Its inaccurate to put those death tools of rebel sources.We must at least confirm them or are escorted by confirmed video footage. If the thing is to write history of course and just claims. As for Syrian TV as of holding areas they are quiet accurate and escort their claims video with confirmed video footage. On the contrary LCC just give as numbers....if we add these numbers the past months then the half of Damascus should be dead until now with no rebel deaths at all!!!! â Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitrish81 ( talk ⢠contribs) 13:10, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
No - Sana does not back up anything with video claims. Also if you add up these numbers the past month, 1,200 of the Damascus suburbs populace would be dead. Please do not removed the content until the discussion is over. Sopher99 ( talk) 13:14, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Heads up, if this discussion doesn't progress in a helpful manner I'm going to remove the lcc sources again, as per the unanimous RS:N consensus that they should not be used. If you disagree, you need to discuss it & show some reason to overrule the RS:N discussion on this topic. 92.15.54.149 ( talk) 12:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Please take a good look at this article. We use SANA rawly even though its an unreliable source - for timeline purposes. In the same way we can use the lCC. Sopher99 ( talk) 16:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)
When citing about number of kills, please distinguish between "matyrs" vs. "people" vs. "civilians". The LCC almost reports in the number of whom they call "matyrs" (who might be almost military). I have not read any exact number of killed civilians in their reports. â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 ( talk) 22:27, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
"When they fought against US marines in Iraq they were insurgents. Once they crossed over into Syria they became rebels. And when they died they transformed into civilians." â Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.37.228 ( talk) 03:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
SOHR, unlike the LCC, is an unbiased independent monitoring group. I request for Sopher99 to STOP trying to own these pages and allow people to get on with their business. Jafar Saeed ( talk) 20:36, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Please do NOT add "Friday of ..." titles to dates in section titles. This article must maintain WP:NPOV and adhere to Wikipedia:Timeline standards. They do not meet WP:V either. ShipFan ( Talk) 04:10, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
The Syrian opposition names their Fridays, it is NPOV to put in what they name it. Sopher99 ( talk)
Someone open a complaint or something with Wikipedia, b/c this can't continue.
- Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 ( talk) 10:42, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
-Django
"Friday of..." dates do not meet Wikipedia:Verifiability. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are Wikipedia's core content policies. Unless a reliable, third-party source can be found (not the LCC itself) then do not include it. 203.9.185.137 ( talk) 03:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
No, it does clearly break NPOV, those names are opposition slogans and are used by the opposition as political propaganda purposes. It is obviously not the role of Wikipedia to report on the events using the political slogans of the belligerents, the role of this page should be to accurately record the events from an objective viewpoint. You must remove these slogans or at least place them below the headings, and in the appropriate context. (i.e. The twelth of October has been refered to as "Free People of the Coast" by the Syrian opposition forces, etc.) To do otherwise is a blatant breach of NPOV. -Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.145.9 ( talk) 19:49, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
It seems a handful of editors have this page locked down and refuse to engage in discussion befor editing the article. In order to avoid a protracted "edit war" I will refer the issue to the relevent boards, including the general "Syrian Civil War" discussion. I maintain that the titles in question seriously break NPOV standards, and changes need to be made. I will continue to pursue this disagreement over the course of the Syrian Conflict as the quality of the reporting on this article and on others is seriously sub-standard and very biased/misleading.
-Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 ( talk) 20:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
The Friday names are not a breach of NPOV. They are not adding a single POV.
The Friday names are long-standing. 20 months to be exact.
The Friday names have notability - Three renown and reliable sources have made article JUST on the use of Syrian Friday names.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2011/09/how-syrian-activists-name-their-friday-protests/42586/
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/04/201241314026709762.html
http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-activists-name-friday-protests-183434860.html
Sopher99 ( talk) 20:16, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for finally replying DIRECTLY to my complaint. First of all I have seen very little evidence of concensus on this issue, in fact directly above this section are various Wikipedia users who seem VERY opposed to the entire layout and wording of this article.
Secondly: the links you provided were actually only two sources the yahoo article, is just a mirror of the first source.
Thirdly: I'm not disputing the fact that the Syrian opposition names the dates after these slogans, my argument is that that these slogans shouldn't be included in the heading as they are not OBJECTIVE. They are political propaganda and are irrelevent to the title. They provide no further information than simply putting the date on its own, or accompanied by important events and battles such as, Siege of Homs, Damascus Volcano, Battle of Aleppo, etc. These titles add relevant information and context, whereas the "Friday of..." titles add nothing except bias.
Finally: These titles are apparently only used by certain sections of the opposition, and definately not commonly refered to by either the mainstream media, major news corps, or most press releases by the FSA. I'm not saying they should be deleted outright, just that they should not be placed in the Headings, as this is non-NPOV and innapropriate, and IF I can be provided evidence that there is concensus among the overall majority of editors on this wiki, I will of course capitulate, and drop the issue. But not if I am just going to be ignored and overuled by the handful of editors currently engaging in editwarring.
20:45, 22 October 2012 (UTC)Django â Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.51.64 ( talk) 20:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
Gosh are we still debating this? You could find 100s of sources which refer to the Friday names. The Egyptian revolutionaries named their Friday and ONLY the April 6th movement had a say in the names. In the Same way the LCC and Syrian revolution commission are the only guides of the protests, and they are the ones that produce these names. I7laseral ( talk) 21:01, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
To add to Sopher's list http://english.al-akhbar.com/node/3743 (though Alakbar is not that much of a reliable source) I7laseral ( talk) 21:04, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
First off, that discussion with Shipfan and Andres arg ENDED in, with no concensus. A new one was crated latter on, which also ended with no consensus, until you revived it 2 months later.
2 oppose, 3 keep. It stays as no consensus was reached. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_is_consensus%3F#Not_a_majority_vote Sopher99 ( talk) 02:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Headlining of the propaganda slogans is undesirable in the knowledge of the widespread opposition to it, appropriateness of not forking from List of Syrian Civil War propaganda slogans, and for the sake of not getting out of compliance the example of Timeline of the Syrian civil war (MayâAugust 2012) and predecessors which did not have them or any trace of controversy about whether they should be there. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 19:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Propaganda is not a neutral term. The fork is not notable and original research. Sopher99 ( talk) 19:57, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
User:Sopher99 has already been slapped down on this exact issue by the rest of us way back here yet appears still choosing not to listen .. or remember, acknowledge & abide with. Counting in those opposers of the propaganda titles (Users Nanobear and ChronicalUsual), it's just 3 who'd be persuaded to hang on to them and 8 who want them gone. & that's just for this year. MalesAlwaysBest ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Should we make a new article for 2013?-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 15:16, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The "LCC reports" are firstly a prinamy and unreliable news. The news reported with their help should be take with a cautions.
But more important, their death tolls are about "martyrs" not about civilians. For oppositions supporters martyrs inclue rebel fighters as well. This would explain why their number of "martyr" killed is much higher that the real number of civilians killed.
In all cases, the use of "civilians" to replaced the term of martyr is a dishonest political choice. I am replacing civilians by civilians/rebels now. Martinski87 ( talk) 15:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Better to replace them with "people", as the civilian to rebel death toll ratio is usually 5-1 Sopher99 ( talk) 15:29, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi, following this edit, in which this source was removed and it was stated that Russia Today is not a reliable source because it is state-controlled and biased regarding Syria, I would like to know if this is a consensus position of all the editors here, and which other sources are considered to be banned? Was this a discussion that took place on some other Syria-related page, perhaps? Seems to me that those same arguments would also apply to al Jazeera (Qatari-controlled and biased in favour of the rebels - in terms of network reach, it is comparable to RT) as well as, naturally, SATA. Isn't it true that in wartime it is impossible to know what the truth is because both sides will be using lies and misdirection, so the only thing we can do is print what both sides are saying? Even if one of them turns out to be a lie later on. It seems like bias to make prejudgements about which side of the story is allowed to be included. The way we should be reporting is showing what both sides are saying rather than what is the actual truth. If one of the two sides is clearly lying it should be made clear by the way it's presented in the article for the reader to come to that conclusion, rather than being explicitly stated as such, or the other version of the story being entirely not mentioned. Esn ( talk) 07:36, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on
Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:40, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Timeline of the Syrian Civil War (SeptemberâDecember 2012). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.â cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)