Hello, Lindi29, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help here on your talk page and a volunteer will visit you here shortly. Again, welcome!

Why do you marked the village Nasrat under the control of ISIS? Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Why is it not ? here If you have any other source than change it.regards Lindi29 ( talk) 19:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

We can not use anti-government sources in this situation. Also pro opposition source confirmed that this village under control by army. Syrian Army took control of villages of Masoom, Hanash, Uwaina, Hajj Hasan, Tappa, Marouf, and Nasrat (south of Hasakah city) and installed several checkpoints in the area. ARA News So that you need return everything as it was. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Done. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:04, 18 December 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi, when you update the stats in football players' infoboxes please remember that you should also update the |pcupdate= (or |club-update=) parameter. This shows when the stats were last updated and prevents editors from accidentally updating the stats again. Thank you. -- Jaellee ( talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. PBS ( talk) 08:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

You have broken the 1RR rule on Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map

• Revision as of 18:56, 16 January 2015
• Revision as of 21:43, 16 January 2015
• Revision as of 17:02, 17 January 2015

At least twice (and probably more) You could be bocked for edit warring, but I do not like to do so without giving a formal warning first. As you can see above you have now been formally warned. If you break the 1RR rule again then expect the block to be longer than it would have been for a first offence. Do not game the system by leaving your revert to slightly over 24 hours, (eg 25 hours) and try to argue that you have not broken the 1RR on the technicality that it is over one day, as that will not save you from a block for edit warring. -- PBS ( talk) 08:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

PBS thank you for the warning.I wanted to rv that beacause it was the same editor who rv my edits without explantion and source.I didn't want to break any rule.Again thank you.Regard Lindi29 ( talk) 12:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Rather than reverting immediately with no discussion follow WP:BRD in future. -- PBS ( talk) 12:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

PBS i totally understand you.I always disscus on the talk page about changing anything but i saw this editor making edits without disscusion only by himself and he does it again and no one does nothing about that. here,and for that edit that i made i know that rule but i didnt know how to rv both edits and so tried to make a fast rv.Regard Lindi29 ( talk) 12:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

From WP:3RR "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." so these two edits counted as one revert:

• 17:03, 17 January 2015‎ Lindi29 (rv,provided source earlier dont rv without source)
• 17:02, 17 January 2015‎ Lindi29 (rv,provided source earlier dont rv without source)

If you wish to revert more than one edit in one go simply open the history and click on the version you want to revert to and save it with an appropriate rv message in the edit text box. -- PBS ( talk) 12:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC) reply

I altered your heading for the reason I gave: See WP:TALKNEW "Don't address other users in a heading". If the heading I have given is not accurate (I really don't want to know the details) then change it to something similarly worded. -- PBS ( talk) 08:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

PBS Thank you very much,you helped me a lot :).Regard Lindi29 ( talk) 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Mos me shkruj mua budalliqe aty ti robo. Cana ka 81 ndeshje ne fakt por duke llogarit edhe ndeshjen e pare fare me Kosoven ne 2002 qe tani sapo eshte shtu ne ate website dhe se kisha vene re pasi eshte edhe ndeshje e pasanksionuar nga FIFA. Pra eshte ndeshja me Kosoven jo me SerBitchat sepse kjo ndeshje nuk llogaritet ne ato te futbollisteve tane apo edhe shkive sepse eshte nderprere e paperfunduar, i qarte? Eni.Sukthi.Durres ( talk) 14:13, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Above text translation": Cana has 81 matches in fact, but is calculates first match at all with Kosovo in 2002 that now has just been added to that website and I had noticed after the match is sanctioned by FIFA. So is the game with the Kosovo with Serbia because this game does not count in those of our footballers or even them because it is interrupted and incomplete (abandoned), are u clear?

Eni.Sukthi.Durres Sjom ka foli budallaqe po jom ka fol shka osht nuk osht llogarit qitash po ti nuk e ki pa,jom munu me tkallxu kom jam edhe fakte mas gazetave e gjitshka po ti apet en kry tonin e ndryshojshe,duhesh mu konsultu edhe me tjer heren tjeter.Kallxom pra ti mu qysh pranohet paraqitja e 2 e Taulant Xhakes ? Qe une tkallxoj u pranu se si ndeshje e nderprer e panderprer osht nisoj kur t'sanksionhet me rezultat zyrtar 3:0 plus ajo ndeshje Kosova-Shqipnia Cana nuk ka lujt fare nuk e di sa je ka e vren.Ndeshja e fundit e Canes me Italin osht llogarit paraqitja e tij 81. here, here.A u kuptum? Lindi29 ( talk) 14:36, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Above text translation": I speak what is, not counting now thou canst not free, I tried to show, I also dial newspapers all facts are you again in your head of changed it, should consult with Other times. Well Show me you just why it's accepting the 2nd match of Taulant Xhaka? Want me to tell accepted how uninterrupted interrupted match is the same when sanctioned by official result 3: 0 plus at the match between Kosovo-Albania, Cana has not played at all, do not know how you look. His last match (of Cana) with Italy is counting his appearance no. 81. here, here Understand?

Ore zotni, sa po boj un per kombetaren ktu spo bon kerkush, qe me thu ti ske lidhje fare (shif my Contributions). Un pyeta nje nga administratoret e wikipedias ketu dhe ai me tha qe ndeshjet e nderprera nuk llogariten ne lojtare. (shiko: ketu pergjigjien). Ti leje ca thojn gazetat se ato me shit te tyret dun dhe te fitojn vemendje, ti shiko profilet e tyre, psh tek profili i canes ne Eu football.info (website thuajse zyrtar) nuk llogaritet fare ndeshja me serbine. Ndersa sa per Taulant Xhaken ai ka lujt ne ndeshjen e pare me portugaline dhe te dyten e ka me danimarken. Edhe shikoje mire se eshte edhe Cana qe ka lujt ketu, ka hy si zevendesues, hapi syt mir. Eni.Sukthi.Durres ( talk) 14:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Above text translation": O sir, as I do for the national team are not dealing here makes one (see My Contributions). I asked one of Wikipedia's administrators here and he said that interrupted matches do not count on players. (see his answer here). leave it What the papers say because they want to sell their articles and want to gain attention, you only see their profiles, eg profile of Lorik Cana in Eu 3142 football.info (almost official website) does not count at all match with Serbia. As for Taulant Xhaka he played in the first game with Portugal and the second was against the Denmark. Also look good that is also having played Lorik Cana here, entered as a substitute, open the eyes better.

Eni.Sukthi.Durres e kom pa kontributin ton edhe hallall e ki.Tash e ki edhe ni 1 editor tjeter qe ka me ndihmu.Sa per Xhaken kqyre mir statistikat thote 3 paraqitje. herewebsite zyrtar.Ai administrator ose nuk e ka dit qe ndeshja e sanksionune me rezultat 3:0 ose ka menu viq per qat dit kur ndeshja osht suspendu,e sa per Canen kyqre edhe niher ti mir se sje ka shen Shqipnia ka bo veq 2 zevendesime.Rrespekt Lindi29 ( talk) 15:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Above text translation": I have seen your contribution and thumbs. Now you have even an editor one else has to help. look good statistics of Taulant Xhaka, it says 3 appearances. here. The administrator did not know that the game is awarded with the result 3:0 or he thinked just for the day when the game was suspended, and as for Lorik Cana look even better once you are there you see, Albania has made only two substitutions. respect for.

Ok un per vete po i them admineve. te na sqarojne se si eshte puna. Eni.Sukthi.Durres ( talk) 20:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC) reply

"Above text translation": Ok, I'm telling admins to tell you and me what to count and not.

You can express your opinion in this discussion. Villages around Kobane Hanibal911 ( talk) 22:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) reply

Lind nqs te duhet ndihme per ceshtjen e emrit te Pejes , dihe se edhe une jam ketu . Pra me lajmero , sepse emri i shkruajtur se serbisht eshte komplet kundra rregulave te wikipedias . Me dergo nje mesazh nqs akoma operon ne wikipedia Gjirokastra15 ( talk) 07:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Gjirokastra15 faleminderit per ndihmen.Thank you for your help.I still edit on Wikipedia. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry but we cant add on the map the towns or villages without identifying the source which confirms these actions. Since it violates the rules of editing and also if other editors will do the same then we distort the map. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 ( talk) 08:28, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I understand you mate dont worry,but look de syracuse map here it's showing them contested and that's were the frontilne is beacause SSA just captured Khattab and some other villages near this area and now started an offensive. Lindi29 ( talk) 12:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I also understand you but deSyracuse it is antigovernment source and we cant use it in this issue. Also maybe your actions would have been useful for the map but We are with you as I understood neutral editors but there are some pro-opposition or pro-government editors who dont want fully comply with the rules of editing and this can will provoke them on the unwarranted actions. And our map turn into trash. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply

deSyracuse it is antigovernment source and we cant use this source for displayed success all antigovernment fighters. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 if it is a antigoverment source,why does desyracuse on his reports use Elijah Magnier reports. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Just among opposition sources deSyracuse is less biased. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:29, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911I know it uses pro-regime sources on his reports to. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

In situation with Al Suwayda province this source use data from biased pro opposition source. Archicivilians Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You marked a village of Bab al-Khayr to west from city Hasakah as contested here according to data from this report from SOHR. But SOHR not said that ckashes in the village of Bab al-Khayr he just that reported that clashes in area of this village and army advance in this area. here So you need fix this and again mark this village under control by army. Hanibal911 ( talk) 22:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911  Done. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Regarding Taza, the source said ISIS attacked peshmerga in Taza, and peshmerga repelled the attack by attacking the (newly formed) ISIS positions. You need to read between the lines instead of taking words out of context all the time. In other words, it DOES say they recaptured the ISIS positions. This is what is implied with the word "repelled". Your just biased and pro-ISIS whereas the rest of us edit in all directions when there is evidence. Notice how I am not the only one reveting your edits.

Also regarding Beshir, it was not a mistake. A new source came and that is only days old. That is why I changed it to black, not because I did anything wrong before that or because you were right. You were just being pro-ISIS even though you had no source. I was waiting for a source and that source came in. Mozad655 ( talk) 13:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Dear Mozad655 you are the only one who rv my edits and is biased,I am not pro anything I am a neutral editor you are the one who is misreading and changing what is says on the source,It clearly says Isis attacked Peshmerga postion on Taza and replled them,then Peshmerga attacked Isis position but didn't say they captred so its contested,In Beshir case you were wrong like Taza beacause you dont read well the source,repelling and attack doesn't mean it captured something just like in Beshir case you sayed they repelled the attack and it captured,NO they just repelled the attack but clashes continoued and so i was right it was contested and now one of the Bellegrents took the village. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

cut the sarcasm buddy. For a neutral editor you seem to change an aweful lot of things to pro-ISIS even when there is no source or source is unreliable. I am only reverting you but you are reverting other users too. It seems that you think you have greater authority to edit than others. The source clearly said that ISIS attacked peshmerga and peshmerga attacked the (newly formed) ISIS positions and repelled the attack. "repelled" means that it was recaptured. Your english is very bad my friend. I didn't read anything wrong in Bashir. The Beshir source at the time, said that peshmerga were attacked and they repelled the attack. Repelling the attacks means that they kept their positions in Beshir. You were completely wrong in Beshir because you lack basic unerstanding of what words mean in english. You assume and interpret sources in twisted ways because you are pro-ISIS. Beshir was only changed after a NEW turkmen source revealed new informatiom. It had been months since the last source at the time. Mozad655 ( talk) 15:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

LOL Mozad655 who are you to judge my english.Look your english because you still cant read sources also you are the one who is the baised beacause the first attack from Isis was replled and then Peshmerga attacked the Isis position but it didn't say they repelled or captured end of disscusion but i cant help when you add words more or just want your mind wants to hear it and for Beshir look the history again who was wrong I said it was contested you said it is Kurd held and now the fact is on the war map and confirmed end of discussion. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Your sources showed situation in this town on morning but later reliable source reported that ISIS pushed out from the town and now it is controlled Iraqi troops and tribal fighters. Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 i know elijah magnier is a neutral source but lets wait for more news for this town and see if U.S confrims that ISF has taken this town again,Also time reported this 30 min before,Let's wait. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You should've waited before you changed it from contested to black. Not change it to black and THEN wait. Goes to show that you are pro-ISIS. Mozad655 ( talk) 15:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mozad655 i provided source look Time.com 8:58 AM.look Elijah Magnier source it says 6:47 AM - 14 Feb 2015.Not olny time.com but bbc too so edited with more source not just with one twitter source,and cant you see that you are the biased one and also you dont read well the source beacause you are the one who is the biased one here. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

The village that was removed was not on ANY map. You don't need to believe in any one map. Look up the coordinates and you will see that there is nothing there. A house or two at best. A building is not a "village". Mozad655 ( talk) 15:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mozad655I think you dont even search on other maps only on wikimapia,look this one here Lindi29 ( talk) 15:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

All maps agree. There is no village there. There are a few houses. This is not a village and there is no point in adding a few houses to the map, regardless of whether you call it a village or not. Nor does it make any sence to add chains of "villages" that are literally right next to each other. Add villages with some distance between and only REAL villages where there are actually more than 1 house inside the village. Your missing the whole point. Mozad655 ( talk) 15:51, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Look Mozad655 that map i provided tell the oppsite beacause the map points the village there,you just provided only one source wikimapia no other map. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Here is the source from which I take the maps for some military conflicts. here Maybe it will help you in the future. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 thanks mate thank you so much you really helped me a lot here you are awsome again thank you :). Lindi29 ( talk) 22:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC) reply

More sources confirmed that Rityan Hardantain and Bashkuy under control by army. Reuters Syria Newsdesk Elijah J. Magnier and SOHR also confirmed. Read talk page here And also you need know that archicivilians it is biased pro opposition source and we cant use this source display of success by rebels. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 archicivillians was refering to activists sources not by himself,also look the time when they tweeted. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

We cant use data from archicivillians for display of success by rebels. Also he report hereoutdated. SOHR later reported that those villages under control by army here here Also here more reliable source reported that Syrian troops take control villages Rityan, Hardantain and Bashkuy and bisieged village Bayanoon. Elijah J. Magnier Also pro opposition source reported that clashes between Shamieh Front and Iranian and Iraqi members affiliated with regime forces in the village Mu`arrasat al Khan here Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:50, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also remember that we can not use pro opposition sources to show the success of the rebels. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:52, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You need removed semicircle near Arak Gas field because we put this icon if reports about clashes repeated several times within a few days. We have previously agreed on this so let's not break the rules. So I ask you to remove this icon but if reports about clashes repeated we put this icon. You have recently begun to edit and therefore you bad know all the rules of editing. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911  Done. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:33, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I am re adding the semicircle on this gas field according to this news. SOHR,also I think Isis soon will make an offenisve on Palmyra after loosing ground on Kobane and Tel Hamis. Lindi29 ( talk) 22:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Why you add village Tadmuriyah because SOHR said about al-Hafna station near city Tadmur(Palmyra)? SOHR And I have already noted this on map here so you need removed village Tadmuriyah. And also SOHR not said about clashes near Arak Gas field so dont need put semicircle. And it is just small clashes because ISIS are not enough forces to advance toward the city of Palmyra. Hanibal911 ( talk) 22:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I corrected this mistake. Hanibal911 ( talk) 23:02, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I saw that.Already thanked :). Lindi29 ( talk) 23:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You can correct your edit about Rityan because here new more neutral pro opposition source reported that clashes still ongoing in Rityan. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I provided even more reliable sources but here look another fresh source says Rebels captured Rityan and clashes are still taking part around Bashkwi town. SOHR, SOHR. Lindi29 ( talk) 19:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This source just said Islamic and rebel factions could capture 15 members of the regime forces during the clashes in the farmlands of Retyan in the north of Aleppo, where the Islamic and rebel battalions could retake the town yesterday night after violent clashes with the regime forces. SOHR So SOHR just says about the events that took place yesterday but not today. But this source that today clashes still continued. here So that you need fix your mistake. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:32, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 i think you are misunderstaing look the reports of today that said the town has been captured. SOHR,and the source I provided in the upper text is saying about the situation that is happening rgiht now and clashes are taking part in the outskirts of the town. Lindi29 ( talk) 19:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a morning report from SOHR SOHR But much later, another source confirmed that the clashes in the village are still continuing. here Here's yourself a look at time when these reports have appeared. SOHR and Documents.Sy Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I am not refusing your source it is reliable, but you are "ignoring" the other sources that i provided from SOHR and Reuters which are more reliable and the source that i provided from reports on Rityan status earlier ago who said clashes near the outskirts of the town.Sincerely. Lindi29 ( talk) 22:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You edited two towns using a twitter account called "le_carabinier" as source. What makes you think this account is reliable? He does not hold any public position, is not a journalist or a proffesional of any sort as far as I can see. Mozad655 ( talk) 20:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mozad655This is not the talk page or place to disscus this issue,I edited with this source beacause other editors edited with source to. here,If you want to disscus it take this issue to the Iraqi Insurgency talk page. Lindi29 ( talk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You used the source. I talk directly to you. Others using it surely isn't no reason for you to do it. I'm not attacking you I'm just asking you if you think its a good idea. Forget others. Mozad655 ( talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Mozad655Yes,we dont know if it is pro-somebody or neutreal but it doesn't break any rule that I and other editor edited if you dont agree thats why we have the talk page on that article to dissus but you didn't instead you took the issue to me here on my talk page,also this is a attack if you see,you should have asked first the editor who first used this source and dont tell me you didn't saw it beacause you accepted this source after the other editor edited with this source and you didn't reverted him or even took the issue to the talk page(Iraqi Insurgency) or even provided any other source,And yes I think it is a good idea to use this source but if you dont agree like i said this is not the talk page to disscus beacause I am just only an editor and also you dont have to tell me what to do or not, what I agree or not that doesn't concern you at all beacause it's my opinion. Lindi29 ( talk) 23:27, 21 February 2015 (UTC) reply

SOHR laid said that clasjes in the hill of Tell al Fatimah. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 10:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 give me the english source pls i dont understand arabic. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:10, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll try find it. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Lindy firstly here correct coordinates for Taban also secondly you edited without source but this contradicts the rules of editing. And thirdly earlier pro opp source confirm that the Taban under control by Syrian troops. ARA News Hanibal911 ( talk) 08:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 this report is based on pro-regime reports and sources, read and i qoute "In the meantime, pro-Assad media sources reported that the Syrian Arab Army took control of villages of Masoom, Hanash, Uwaina, Hajj Hasan, Tappa, Marouf, and Nasrat (south of Hasakah city) and installed several checkpoints in the area." and are not confirmed I qoute "ARA News could not verify the news from local sources plus Tell Taban is not mention here."also this coordinates are wrong beacause it points direct in the Khabur River. Lindi29 ( talk) 11:52, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Tabab was added on the map much earlier and it was noted under the control Syrian army not on the based data from ARA News. Also not one reliable source not said that Tabab controlled by ISIS, So why you marked Taban under control of ISIS in violation of the rules without identifying the source. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Which source then was provided for this hill? Look coordinates for this hill it in the other side of the river and also de-Syracuse in his reports says the opposite also the SAA is advancing to capture the 121 artillery regiment and the question is how they captured a hill in the other side of the river? Lindi29 ( talk) 20:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Firstly deSyracuse it is pro opposition source which at the beginning November (8 November) marked area where located Taban under control by ISIS on based biased pro opposition source. here Stepagency Sy But no one from the reliable sources not confirmed this data. But earlier this area on the map deSyracse was marked under the control of the army. here here here Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 we know that de-Syracuse on his reports uses all source pro-regime,pro-rebel,pro-kurd also uses neutral sources,and yes erlier this hill de-Syracuse was showing on controll by the army but the new map from 9 febuary shows the oppsite,aslo from many news is reported that the regime is advancing towards the 121 artillery regiment? Here is a question how did they captured a hill which is far from the 121 regiment and from many villages which road did they use? Lindi29 ( talk) 14:52, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Previously, all agreed that deSyracuse it is anti-government source and we do not use it to change the map in favor of the anti-government forces. Just as I said earlier the area where located Taban was marked as under the control of ISIS based on data from biased pro opposition source. So that we need a confirmation from neutral source that Taban under control ISIS. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Ok, Hanibal911 you will see if the regime captures the artillery regiment you will see that the new news will say that regime captured Taban Hill to. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Why you are add to map the town of Harbinafsah under control by rebels. But SOHR just said that army regime forces shelled the town of Herbnafso but not said that this town under control by rebels. SOHR We earlier have already agreed not to edit the map only on the basis of reports about shelling if the source does not indicate who controls the town or village that was attacked. until we find the data which can confirm that he really under control by rebels. So let's stick to the rules of editing. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also previously pro opposition source clearly showed that that this town of under control by army. here So we need find more specific data. But for now you need remove this town on map. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 here fresh news for this town confirms that the regime is shelling this townHanibal SOHR,this is the second reports for this town. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

But not said that the village of Harbinafsah under control by rebels. As I told you earlier, we have agreed not add on map the towns or villages if the source does not specify who it is controlled. Although we use SOHR for editing map but he is partly the anti-government source of and sometimes he just reports that army shelling the village or town but not said who controlled this village or town. So need more data. Also some reports from SOHR sometimes are erroneous. He sometimes reported that the clashes in the city of Talbisheh but then later says that clashes outside this city but army just shelled the city. So sometimes his reports contradict each other. Also two days ago in a report from SOHR on english it was said that the army bombed the city Morek but after checking the data in the original report from SOHR on Arabic it turned out that the report stated that the army bombed the villages to the west from the city Morek. So need confirmation that the village under rebel control before add this village on map. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:22, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 OK,We will wait for more 2 or 3 news for this town,but its really strange that the regime shells his own controlled town.It like Al-Waer who know mb its joint controll but let's wait for more news. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You need understand that in the reports SOHR not says who control this village. After all, maybe going clashes in the village and this village contested. So that we need the more detailed data. Regards! Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 mb it is contested,I will raise the issue in the syrain talk page if another news comes out,Cheers Mate! Lindi29 ( talk) 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

I remember that earlier you are search the military maps which detaled display the situation in this conflict so here's a new map that displays the current situation in the conflict. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 22:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks Hanibal911. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Why you marked village Ghabshah under control ISIS. Firstly, it is a village yesterday was marked as contested on the basis of reliable data. Here yesterday SOHR reported that that YPG retake wide parts from the village of Ghaybesh. SOHR And today a reliable sources reported that YPG totally recaptured this village. The Daily Star DT News The Sydney Morning Herald NDTV Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I edited with today news sources.Also the sources says that Isis controlls 10 villages in this area. SOHR, SOHR,aslo this sources report the same this is just news from one source and they used this information to. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

But SOHR not said that ISIS controlled Ghabshah. You can specify where in your articles SOHR said that ISIS still controlled Ghabshah. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:44, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 its logical beacause it says near this area not far from the town also near the town are just 3 or 4 town shown Isis held so its logical.But if you dont agree mate it's okay you can change it back to kurd held or contested.Sincerely Lindi29 ( talk) 18:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Here also relialbe source clearly said that according to data from SOHR director Rami of Abdel-Rahman the YPG have reclaimed Tal Shamiran, Tal Masri, Tal Hermel and Ghbeish. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Also Ablahd Kourieh, an Assyrian Christian who is deputy head of a Kurdish-led defense council in northeastern Syria also that ISIS had attacked on 16 Assyrian villages this week. Reuters So maybe on this week ISIS captured more than villages than indicated in reports from SOHR. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:13, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I qoute "According to the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, Kurdish fighters recaptured three Assyrian villages and a nearby Arab village Wednesday.

“The [Kurdish] People’s Protection Units (YPG) have reclaimed Tal Shamiran, Tal Masri, Tal Hermel and Ghbeish,” Observatory director Rami Abdel-Rahman said. But fighting continues in the area, he added." So this was report from yesterday and also the director added that fighting countinoued in this area,today source says that Isis is helding 10 villages also airstrikes are targeting Isis postion so this means even this towns are contested or Isis held.Who knows the is the first source I read from a assryian deputy confirming this but it is logical beacause Isis is still clashing near Tall Tamer I dont know how they can last this long if the most nearest villages are captured by YPG. Lindi29 ( talk) 19:24, 26 February 2015 (UTC) reply

Please be more careful to avoid making links to disambiguation pages in complex modules as you did with this edit, adding a link to the disambiguation redirect, Selim. It is particularly important to avoid making this kind of mistake in modules, since these links are generally fixed by disambiguators who may not be familiar with the coding used to make modules work, and will have a difficult time implementing the fix. If the article does not exist, create a redlink to the title where the article should exist if created. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 3 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adem Jashari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prekaz. 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) 08:57, 6 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You have violated the 1RR [1 revert rule] by reverting the edits of 2 editors [Paolowalter and myself] within a 24 hours period here: 23:33, 7 March 2015 [1]‎ and here: 16:34, 7 March 2015 [2]. Please self-revert. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 01:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

XJ-0461 v2Nope that was just a normal edit,the second one was a rv. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:53, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The first one was a revert [You undid Paolowalter's edit]. And so was the second one [You undid my edit]. Once again, please self-revert since you have broken the rules. XJ-0461 v2 ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I see that you are against changing colors on this map. Libyan Civil War detailed map So you can express your opinion on this issue in this discussion. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:25, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Thank You. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that you will agree with me that also we dont need change colors on these cards. Yemen Insurgency detailed map Lebanese Insurgency detailed map Since these maps now look normal. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:15, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes Hanibal911 I agree with you for the yemen insurgency map beacause it's very clear map no need to change anything it was created with a reliable map with colors that was shown. Lindi29 ( talk) 21:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank for you for understanding and support in this issue! Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:30, 8 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adem Jashari, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Prekaz. 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) 09:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This map from the more reliable source (unlike deSyracuse) which showed situation in Hasakah province. here and here another map which also showed situation in Hasakah province. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 this source is based more on kurdish sources,but de-syracuse is based on sources from all sides also we always used de-syracuse for this areas between kurds and jihadis like in Kobane. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:00, 13 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You continue to move pages without consensus. Many of your moves include capitalization where unneeded, or spellings that are not common. See Talk:Zenevisi family for common name for the Zenevisi family.-- Zoupan 10:26, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Zoupan the article was created with Gjon Zenebishi and was changed to John Zenebishi which is in english,the name Gjon which is Albanian in English is spelled John,Also nobody made a request move so you are the one who is moving the page without reaching consensus. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:24, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid you're wrong, take a look at the talk page.-- Zoupan 14:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Zoupan yeah now you requested a move beacause you knowed that you were wrong. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I requested a move in order to stop your move-warring.-- Zoupan 15:03, 14 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Map from the pro opposition source deSyracuse outdated because this map dated for 15 March but here new map from other source which is dated 18 March. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:05, 18 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 mate the map is not outdated,and I think this map source is copying De-Syracuse maps,also this map source doesn't clarify his reports olny with amateur videos and more this source is just a twitter source and it's not indentified as a reliable source?!. Lindi29 ( talk) 19:20, 18 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The report from SOHR on english here was erroneous because in original report here SOHR not said that clashes in villages Bakka or Zibin SOHR only said about clashes in Bosra al Sham near Suwayda province. (You must know that translated reports often contain mistakes) Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also here pro opposition source reported that сlashes between Syrian troops and al-Nusra between villages Baka and Smad in southern countryside of Suwayda province. Document.SY So that as I earlier said no clashes in those villages only in area between those villages. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also another report from SOHR also confirmed that сlashes between Syrian troops and al-Nusra between the villages of Bakka and Zimid. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 mate,then a semicircle to put in those villages is the best solution beacause the are many reports from many sources near those villages. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

For now not need! If within a few days report about clashes will repeated then then we add semicircle. Because yesterday I add black semicircle near village of Shiekh Hilal in Hama in area town of As Sa'an on based of reports from SOHR that clashes between army against ISIS near this village but later other pro opposition source said that later ISIS retreated toward town of Uqayribat near border with Homs province. So that let us wait because this may just be sporadic clashes. Or hit and run attack against on army position in this area. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 this is not the first report for this area,the first one today here which I used and the second one for this area says clashes are still taking part here so to put a semicircle in this villages is the right thing to do after this sources reported 2 times in 1 day for this area,also this thing hit and run is just a trick beacause if we say hit and run why is T2 puming station in Deir er-Zor the besieged beacause the attack was just hit and run also no source said the clashes repeated,also look how many reports from al-Suwaydaa which are ignored herebeacause all this reports are talking about clashes in the countryside and not even a semicircle is not there except from Deir Dama and Lahtheh. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Reports about T2 puming station in Deir er-Zor marked as with semicircle because several source cofirmed that army attacked this object but only pro opposition source aid that army retreated in area from which they started this attack. And in this situation sources clearly said that army attacked T2 puming station but in sutuation with villages of Bakka and Zimid SOHR just said about сlashes between Syrian troops and al-Nusra in area between the villages of Bakka and Zimid. But not said that clashes between Syrian troops against Al Nusra near or around to those villages. Because when source reported that clashes between the towns of Tall Hamis and Tall Brak we not put semicircle near those towns. It's just a clashes somewhere in the area between the villages and no more. So it's not the reason. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

As I have already said earlier the reports from SOHR on english often are erroneous. And original reports from SOHR said that clashes not near those villages he said that clashes between those villages. Also here reports from SOHR said that clashes took place in Dama village between NDF and rebels. SOHR But in original report SOHR just said that clashes near village Dama between NDF and rebels. So that each report is necessary to re-examine and compare with the original report. Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 two reports in one day for this villages its's big news beacause there are clashes near this villagees,yes they can make mistakes on translating but making the same mistake twice in one day comon that's not logical,also there are to place with the name Dama:1.Dama and 2.Deir Dama,but anyway I am just saying that this not just one report who is hit and run beacause clashes are really taking place in this area of the countryside. Lindi29 ( talk) 21:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Two reports in one day just complement each other. Although the first report was generally mistaken because in original SOHR only said about clashes in the town of Bosra al Sham. SOHR But second report from SOHR said that clashes between Syrian troops and al-Nusra between the villages of Bakka and Zimid. SOHR So let's not rush if in the coming days will other report that the clashes continued near these villages but not in area between them we will put these marks. Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

OK,Mate Hanibal911 we will wait for this villages,but tell me something why is still the T2 Pumping Station in Deir er-Zor is still besieged? Lindi29 ( talk) 21:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) reply

T2 Pumping Sttion not besieged red semicircle just showed that troops still present in this area. Simply put it's easier than such put this icon. To show that the Syrian army is still in the area. Because not one reliable source not said that troops left this area and retreated from this pumping station or as ISIS still located near of Al Shaer gas field. Hanibal911 ( talk) 07:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Previous clashes was ended between Zibin and Bakka. Rebels for now just shelled the area in the village of Zibin in Suwayda province. SOHR So for now not need semicircle near Bekka maybe only near Zibin. Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I agree with you and about Zibin I think to that puting a semicircle on this village is the right desicion. Lindi29 ( talk) 21:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Simply we put this icon a little later that we were not accused of war of edits! Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 OK. Lindi29 ( talk) 22:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 can you report this 2 vandals who are vandalising beacause I am blocked by following the rules,one of them rv 2 times without a source and vandalise the map,the other one is editing without a source,I am asking this beacause the stupid admin Callanecc is busy blocking neutral editors who follows the rules and helping articles being vandalise. here. Lindi29 ( talk) 21:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC) reply

According to new data other editor corrected map. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 yeah i saw that but he only corrected only the village zibin, he forogot the village of bakka,and al-manajir. Lindi29 ( talk) 12:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

I correct another mistake. here But other mistake maybe some one other fix later. Or, as clashes in the area near these villages which located not far from each other one icon is sufficient. Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

OK Hanibal911,Thank you very much mate I appreciate it. Lindi29 ( talk) 13:10, 23 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Re "LogFTW may have violated the 1RR" use the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring make it clear that this is a sanctioned page and that this editor has been notified of the sanctions and then list the diffs just as you would for a WP:3RR violation. -- PBS ( talk) 17:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

PBS I dont really deal with this I am not used with this rules to report somebody,but I always report them to an admin mostly to you,that you can take actions,so If you dont mind and that will be really greatful that you report him at the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring or block him beacasue i think its 20 hours to the next rv.Regard Lindi29 ( talk) 17:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

We cant put semicircle near the strategic town only based on one report which dated 23 march and after we not have more reports about clashes near this town. Need more data. So remove this semicircle he is not justified. Hanibal911 ( talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If this reports will repeated we put this icon near this town. Hanibal911 ( talk) 23:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 No need,a pro-goverment source confirmed clashes near the place. Lindi29 ( talk) 23:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC) reply

The report could be mistaken! Just sometimes "near" does not mean that clashes in the vicinity of the town. You remember when SOHR and some other sources said that clashes near al Hafna station near of city Palmyra. But in fact this station located near Arak village on distance more then 15 km from city of Palmyra. Aslo some pro ISIS sources and SOHR several days ago reported that ISIS attack Palmyra airport and clashes near this object. But in fact later sources confirmed that clashes on distance of 30km N/W from this is airport in desert. But source Petro Lucem also early said that clashes near this airport but later many other sources confirmed that clashes to north in desert. And SOHR also later reported that ISIS just shelled Palmira airport. Hanibal911 ( talk) 07:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This source pro opposition. World Bulletin But we marked this town under control by rebels according to data from SOHR and put red semicircle becaue SOHR reported that clashes still going in its outskirts. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also I know that many reliable sources including Reuters and The Daily Star confirmed that rebels captured Bosra but according to SOHR clashes still in the outskirts this town. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911This is new report here,also the main pro-regime supporter al-masdar confirmed that busra was fully captured after the population there was removed to al-suwayada.also SOHR confirmation here. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Here original of SOHR report in which was said that clashes still going in its outskirts. SOHR also this here not al Masdar it is another source Middle East Online. And in this aource just said that Ahmad Masalma, an opposition activist in Daraa said some 10,000 rebels from various groups took part in the attack on the town and also he said Syrian government forces were holed up in the citadel in the last hours before they finally withdrew, adding that no major damage was done to the citadel or amphitheater. Middle East Online So it just information pro opposition activist that army withdrew from area near this town. So that for now we can retain the semicircle near Bosra. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 this is the al-masdar report thttp://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-capture-busra-al-sham/ here],also there are no clashes in the westren part of busra, the rebels are shelling Tall az Zuqaq hill. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

OK! Just in the beginning you provide not Al Masdar you provide this source here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:43, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Yes I did mate but look I mention al-masdar to,I qoute "also the main pro-regime supporter al-masdar confirmed that busra was fully captured after the population there was removed to al-suwayada" look up please dont get me wrong. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC) reply

You can express your opinion in this debate here and help me to recover the map after not justified editing. Yemen Insurgency detailed map Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC) reply

SOHR just said that troops shelled places near Qarah al- Qaser and Tall Asfar. But Tall Asfar it is just a hill north from village al Asfar here here Also SOHR not said that the village of al Asfar under control of ISIS. SOHR Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also I corrected coordinates for semicircle which you put near village of Lahetha because you noted not correct coordinates. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 mate you will misunderstand me again just like in Taban,because thats not a village but a hill so the source clearly says that shelled places near Qarah al- Qaser and Tall Asfar,al Asfar is just the short name,so pls I need that you to change that back. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:25, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Firstly those are two completely different situation! And secondly I have already told you SOHR not said that the army shelled the village of As Safir, or that it is under the control of ISIS. Also earlier we have data from some other sources which indicated that Tall al Asfar it is not just a hill it is a military object. But village of Al Asfar located near this hill here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 here is a report from al-masdar herefor Tal Asfar the other past month that reported clshes, were the regime attacked the west side and was not used,now SOHR confirms that the town in not regime held but Isis held. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:52, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

This source said that Syrian troops attacked an agglomeration of militants from Jabhat Al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) west of Tal Asfar in Al-Lajat. But not in hill of Tall Asfar or in village of Al Asfar. And here al-Lajat area. So we cany use this data in this situation. here So source clear said that army attacked Al Nusra and ISIS to west from Tall Asfar in Al Lajat area. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 read this report and the conversation by pro-regime supportes confriming villages who are in controll and was not used. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:13, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also many times SOHR makes contradictory statements. Here SOHR reported that clashes are taking place between the rebel and Islamic battalions against the regime forces in the city of Talbisah in the north of Homs. SOHR And SOHR many times already publish the such reports but we have not received confirmation of this information from other sources. So sometimes SOHR publish their reports with errors. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:17, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

If we receive clear confirmations from the neutral sources that village of Al Asfar under control of ISIS we will marked this village under control of ISIS. So let's put aside this discussion because I'm busy right now. I need edit articles about the situation in Yemen. And thanks you for the informative discussion! Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:26, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Even if I dont agree with this issue on this village,but no problem you are always welcomed for any help you need,It's time to restore the Yemen article. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Also here SOHR reported that clashes between Kurds against ISIS in the vicinity of the two villages of al- Aghbayyesh and Tal Nasri in the countryside of Tal Tamer. So you are was right do in this situation. here Clashes just near these villages but not inside. So if in the future you need help I will help you without no extra questions if you are right in situation in which you need my help. Hanibal911 ( talk) 08:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes I saw this report, I just wanted to convnice him that he was misunderstnding the issue,also thank you so much for your help and your trust and feel free to ask for help if you need.Sincerely Lindi29 ( talk) 08:36, 29 March 2015 (UTC) reply

Need your help because again editor engaged in vandalism when edit map. here I tried to explain to him that he is wrong but he ignored me. here He marked several towns as under control by Yemeni troops on based pro government source but this is not correct. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Also we put semicircle if report about clashes repeated within a few days. Maybe it was just hit and run. So for now need remove this semicircle. here Also why you marked this checkpoint near this village as under siege of rebels. Need to remove the mark and wait if the message is repeated we put semicircle near this checkpoint but not circle because he not under siege of rebels. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 this one is diffrent i hope you understand beacause there are clashes still taking par the source says and many casualties and it seems like an offensive on this area beacasue rebels and islamic battalions are taking part please read " Clashes are taking place between the regime forces and allied militiamen against the rebels and Islamic battalions around al- Hamamiyyat checkpoint in the northwest of Hama, information reported casualties on both sides." Lindi29 ( talk) 16:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Also why you mark as contested village of Ghur Gharbiyah because pro opposition source clear said that this village of under control by Syrian troops. And clashes outside of this village. archicivilians So I marked him as under control by army but we cant put semicircle because we cant use opposition sources for display the success of rebels. So dont need mark this village as contested because it village controlled by troops. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:27, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911The village was contested by reliable sources ,according the pro-opp source is marking as besiegd in one side now you put it as regime held? you are ignoring both sources also misundersating the pro-opp source,mate that's a terrible desicion. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:37, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As I have said earlier you should be careful when using data from the translated reports from SOHR. It is not offensive but just a small clash near of this checkpoint. Original report from SOHR just said that violent clashes between regime forces and their allies against the Islamic fighters and fighters from the another battalions in the vicinity of the Hamamiyat checkpoint and reports of casualties in the ranks of both parties. SOHR So that as I said for now we need remove this semicircle near checkpoint. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This village was marked as contested according to pro government source in last year and we not have more other data from neutral sources that village still contested. But pro opposition source clear showed that village is under control by army. Hanibal911 ( talk) 18:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I didn't say it's an offensive but it might be one,but it doesn't mean they have presence near the checkpoint beacause the frontline is there and ofc there are clashes there.Also for the town in Homs you missunderstaing the pro-opp real report the real report is all colors red,green,blue that the whole report but you used olny the one from red color and edited like that,beacause the pro-opp reports didn't show the regime in controll or contested but the real fact from that report for the town is the blue color besiegd. Lindi29 ( talk) 18:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You know when I on based of the pro-government maps noted some villages and checkpoints as under control by rebels this was not a problem and suddenly what I marked a village under the control of the army on based of pro opposition map this is became the problem. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:02, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I put near some villages red semicircles that be indicated that this area besieged from one side as a Nubl and Zahra or Kafraya and Al Fuah. Also, if you look at the map you will see that this area is surrounded and has no supply lines with the other areas which under rebel control. But I do not put red circles around as if they in besieged I simply display that army cut off supply routes for this whole area with other areas which under control by rebels. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC). reply

Hanibal911 it doesn't matter how old but the source is it mater's is changing the town from contested to regime held from a pro-opp source who is showing beasieged it's not the right way beacause he ddidn't report it is fully regime held but it is besiegd,also when you used pro-gov maps they reported what was the real fact,you cant just put 1 town and the other one not? where is the report then ? what value has the report? just like the towns who are shelled from the regime are not shown on the map and the ones who controlls and shelling are shown and that makes the reader confused and doesn't show the frontline to beacause it means the report from a pro-opp is false or fake it means that the town they are shelling is not in controll of rebels but in regime controll and that means that the regime is shelling it own territory ? thats not a source or a report mate.My opinion mate You have get it worng.And please make news section beacasue to many errors on this section and it's really long debate.Thank you Lindi29 ( talk) 19:18, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

sometimes some of sides on this conflict to mistake shell area which is under their control. We use data if source clearly indicated the fact who shelled this territory and who control this area which was under fire. But if for you it is very important fact then we put green semicircle near the village of Ghur Gharbiyah and we finish on this our discussion. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Yes they do shell own territory by mistake but not towns mb areas like farms but not towns,like abu dardah hill is shelling the town of Usaylah now you say the town,now you put abu dardah hill regime held but you didn't put Usaylah rebel held ? thats the question? And if we say if source clearly indicate the fact you used a source who confrim that the hill is shelling the town but you only put the hill not the town,and you indicate the fact from this source olny that the hill is regime held but not shelling the rebel town,as for Ghur Gharbiyah I am not saying is besieged but the source is saying,you missunderstood the report but it's okay I make mistake to like the one with matsomi military camp and I fixed it,I am just saying that the report was saying besieged not contested the whole town or fully regime held. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:06, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This pro opposition source reported that Syrian army from the hill abu dardah shelled the town of Usaylah. But we cant use pro opposition sources to add town or villages and other objects and mark their as under control by rebels because it is only data from the pro opposition source that rebels controled him and that army shelled him. So we can use this data to displayed success of army but not rebels this same applies to data from the pro government, pro Kurdish or pro ISIS sources. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Let's for now we temporarily finish this discussion. And I beg you when you use the reports from SOHR on English be careful in them a very lot of mistakes in contrast to the original reports. So that need to compare of data from their with the reports in Arabic. I just want edit other maps because I spent too much time on map of Syrian conflict. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Ok Mate,I wanted to reply that last comment but this conversation is really long and ofc I will be careful in my edits,please fix that mistake on that village in HOMS,also feel free to ask for help in whatever you need. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Ok buddy I will do it! And if I need there will help then I turn to you for help. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

 Done Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I did remove Birwani village because it doesn't exist, it's basically nothing there. We argue how the map is cluttered and we argue about towns and villages and their importance, while we add locations that don't even have buildings as this ... it's basically grass and rocks. It's not marked on an empty spot somewere in the desert, that would probably be fine. We already have Bikfalun village, and now you can't see it because of this location ... DuckZz ( talk) 21:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You made mistake when marked as under control by rebels village of Nahlaya and under control by Al Nusra the village of Faylun because SOHR only said that airforce strikes area in the villages of Faylun and Nahlaya but the village of Faylun previously was contested and Nahlaya was under control by army so need more concrete confirmation that Faylun is controlled JAN and that Nahlaya under control by rebels. So for now I marked those villages as contested until we get concrete evidence of who controls these villages. Earlier all the editors have already agreed that for the reason that SOHR it is a partially pro opposition source but we can use him to display of success of all parties in this conflict. But we also agreed to mark the towns or the villages as contested only on the basis of reports about clashes inside the town or village but also we all agreed that we can noted the town or village under rebel control if the SOHR clear confirms that this settlement under rebel control. But dont mark the town or village as contested or as under control by rebels only on the basis of one reports of an air strike. So as SOHR not said who control these villages we must left them as contested to clarify the situation. Hanibal911 ( talk) 09:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Remove Birawi from the map, that spot is already filled enough and this location doesn't exist as a village. DuckZz ( talk) 11:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

DuckZz Maybe this just a farm. But for now I cant removed this object because then I break the rule of 1RR. Although I agree with you that this is not a village just only a few houses. Hanibal911 ( talk) 12:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911, DuckZz  Done. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:34, 4 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You may have hurried to note the village of Sheikh Hilaal as contested only based one report from Al Masdar because this source in the past made many mistaken reports. And not one source (including pro opp. sources and SOHR) apart from Al Masdar not reported that ISIS attacked on this village and that clashes inside her. Maybe it was just hit and run as it was previously. So if there is no other evidence we can confine if only put black semicircle near the village or even mark this village again under the control of the army because there is no other evidence of this data. Also why you mark as contested the village of Aqarib if source said about village Aqeerabat. This name more seems like for the village of Uqayribat (Oqeirbat) Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:36, 5 April 2015 (UTC) reply

So I was right source Al Masdar made mistake because any more no one source not said that village of Sheikh Hilaal contested maybe ISIS just attacked on army position in area this village as well as last time but their attack was repelled and they retreated. So there is no reason to still display him as contested. If even SOHR nothing said during two days about this. Here is source just said that Syrian troops capture ISIS vehicle near Sheikh Hilal. here and nothing more. Hanibal911 ( talk) 07:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Yes mb they attack was replled,but they attack was on Aqeerab to but he made mistakes in editing so the attack was on Aqeerab to,here he says that the attack was replled it wasn't just hit and run attack but an offenisve now they will regroup and start another offensive. here. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:19, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe we should add to the map all border crossings that exist even unofficial border crossings. here here here here here here How do you think this a good idea? Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 yeah I think it's a good idea to add them but do the others agree?. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll also ask this question to others! Since we need universal approval. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:20, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 go on the syrian war map talk page and raise the issue there and we vote.My vote is YES. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:03, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I decided to do it on my talk page. I asked this question personally to you here and to Alhanuty here on talk page. But I is also asked express their opinions and other editors. here I did this in order to avoid unhelpful comments from the unregistered editors and those who have just begun to edit and have yet poor knowledge how need edit the map. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This source said about clashes between ISIS and troops near of Tall Delfa in Suwayda near Tha'lah Airbase but not about clashes between rebels and troops. And you made mistake so that remove this green semicircle. Source not said about clashes between rebels and army. SOHR also said that ISIS advanced against hill of Tall Dalfa near of airpot but army repelled this attack and regain area which was captured ISIS. So that please remove this semicircle. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

But pro opposition news source just said that FSA just shelled with mortars over Al-Thaala military airport. Qasion News Qasion News and that clashes between Regime forces and FSA between towns of Umm Walid and Al-Karak in Daraa province. Qasion News So for now not need put this icon. Hanibal911 ( talk) 19:45, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 firstly this source didn't say anything about clashes between isis and regime,this is a different airbase,but here another confirmation from you that clashes are going near the airport,so you need to rv yourself. Lindi29 ( talk) 20:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Pro opposition source said that the clashes between Regime forces and FSA between towns of Umm Walid and Al-Karak in Daraa province but not in Suweyda and this pro oppoition source also clear said that FSA just shelled with mortars over Al-Thaala military airport. And sometimes if source said that clashes near this not mean that we need put semicircle. In last month SOHR said that clashes in area of Al Hafna near city of Palmyra but this object located on distance more 10 miles near village Arak. So sometimes need more data. So that remove this semicircle. And you need remember that we put semicircle only on based several reports about clashes but not based only one reports. So we need wait. So we need wait and we cant use the pro opposition source Qasion News in this issue for displayed success of rebels also he just said that rebels shelled airport. So please remove semicircle or I do it this later because in this situation I was right. Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:16, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Also here another pro opposition source just said that some missiles fell on the Al-Thaala airbase to west of Suwayda. here So there is no reason for semicircle. Hanibal911 ( talk) 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 a pro-gov source confirmed clashes near the airport that doesn't mean that they are fightning only with machine guns,they use every kind of weapons this all report are confriming that there are clashes and you say that there are no clashes there? Why are now contesting a pro-goverment that admits that there are clashes near the airport? Lindi29 ( talk) 21:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Pro opposition source clear said that rebels just shelled Airport and clashes in area between towns of Umm Walid and Al-Karak in Daraa province but not in the vicinity of airport in Suwayda province. And as I said earlier sometimes you have to wait for more precise data before you put semicircle. And when the source says that the clashes near this is not always mean that in the immediate vicinity of the city or military base. Also remember what I told you about the situation in the Homs province. Just as there was a message that clashes near of Palmyra Airport but as it turned out later clashes was going at a distance of 30 kilometers north of the airport. Hanibal911 ( talk) 22:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I understand that you want to put a semi-circle on the basis of data in report from the pro government source. But this is simply the activist not news agency but sometimes pro government and pro opposition activists make mistakes in reports. But all other sources clearly indicate that the rebels just shelled from distance this airport but clashes between two towns but not in the vicinity of Airport so let's not be hasty. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I will wait but I hope you are not wrong again mate. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I forgot the al-Khanzat checkpoint which you put a semicircle without specifying the distance,you were hasty there mate. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lindi29 I find new data from the pro opposition source he indicated that clashes there were in the hill Tel Sheikh Hussein here so that in this situation no need to put a green semicircle because it was not an rebel attack on the Airport in this situation army attacked rebel positions. source Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 mate you still are not understanding this source is diffrent and is telling about an attack from the regime on a hill which is rebel held which is south of the airbase ,the Petolucem source is telling about clashes near the westren side of the airbase from the rebels.This are 2 different reports. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

In situation with al-Khanzat checkpoint I put semicircle because pro opposition source said that clashes were between FSA and regime forces over Al-Khazanat south of the city Khan Sheikhan. Qasion News But also earlier other pro opposition source showed on the map that army position located in the vicinity from al-Khanzat checkpoint and that area where located this checkpoint contested between two sides. de Syracuse Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I will monitor this situation in this area and if in the near future we will get new data about clashes in the vicinity of this Airport, I'll add a semicircle. Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Some editors use this source Jack Shahine for displayed success of Kurds as the neutral source. But after researching this source I think that he is just pro Kurdish source. What you think? I also wanted to tell you that a reliable source The Independent just confirmed that this is Elijah J. Magnier indeed the chief International correspondent from the Kuwaiti news agency Al Rai Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 true that jack shahine is a pro-kurd,for EM I think he is reliable but some of his edits are not really reliable. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

All reliable source sometimes make mistakes. This source not just an activist (pro gov. or pro opp.) from social networks as Twitter or Facebook he international correspondent from the reliable source Al Rai. I need your advice in a situation with Lafarge Cement Plant. Because earlier a several the pro oppositional sources reported that ISIS blew up the plant after evacuating its contents and transferring them to the city of Raqqa and that blast led to the destruction of 80% of the plant. ARA News here also about this said other source. here So now it just ruins and there is no reason to keep it on the map as the cement plant. So that maybe we dont need henceforth mark him as the Plant. Hanibal911 ( talk) 15:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I need your help because editor on the basis of their assumptions distort the map. This is vandalism. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Yes all this sources say that they blew the cement plant,SOHR to but I dont know if we removed it then it wont show the kurdish presence there,there are a lot of pro-kurd editor here which they will not like to remove it,if you raise it on the syrian war map talk page then we can reach a consensus.

And for the other issue I think this editor has right beacause al-Masdar said it targets the Coastal Brigades and Jabhat Al-Nusra at the villages of Nabi’ Al-Mir, Al-Sooda, ‘Ateerat, and Ghammam.And this source confrims that this places are in rebel and nusra controll. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This source only confirmed that Nabi’ Al-Mir, Al-Sooda, ‘Ateerat, and Ghammam under control by rebels and JAN and nothing more. But source not said that other villages also under their control. So that I corrected the map according to data from this source. He this source only confirmed that the villages of Nabi’ Al-Mir, Al-Sooda, ‘Ateerat, and Ghammam under controlled by the Coastal Brigades and Jabhat Al-Nusra. But we cant mark the rest of the village under their control on the basis of the assumptions and data from outdated too biased the pro opposition source. You are agreed with me? Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:11, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Mate if we leave the map like this this is really bad It doesn't make any sense then a village so deep in regime held area it is on rebel controll.I think archicivillians map in this case is correct.We cant leave like this.Somone asked leith fadel about Jabal al-akrad map and I think the regime sources has been lying all this time about the situation on Latakia until now when they are advancing toward Rabia to capture the border.I think we should fix it. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 thisone confirms it that the map is accurate. Lindi29 ( talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

He said that those data here was correct in December but now April and other pro opposition and neutral sources showed another situation. here here Also, we cant make such major changes only on the basis of an application for Twitter. Not one from relaible sources including SOHR not reported that all those villages was captured by rebels. Hanibal911 ( talk) 17:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

because,these villages were originally rebel-held,but a pro-regime vandal changed all green dots to red. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) so,Hannibal,just accept the facts mentioned. Alhanuty ( talk) 18:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

If you want you also can help me in editing of other maps. Sudanese Internal Conflict detailed map and Southern Sudan Civil War Hanibal911 ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Firstly we cant use pro opposition sources for displayed success of rebels. And secondly this video clear was filmed not inside city but in the in surroundings on distance from the city. here here pro opposition source clear showed that the rebels and Al Nusra still located on some distance from city. here here also here confirmation where this video which is you provide was filmed here this video was filmed in mountains in surroundings on distance in several km from the city. Also source archicivilians too biased and unreliable pro opposition source. More reliable pro opposition source the Cedric Labrousse clear said that Jisr al-Shughur is still under regime control as rebellion forces took some checkpoints to north, west and east to city. Syrian Rebellion Observatory also here another map from pro opposition source which also showed that this city still under control by Syrian troops. here here Hanibal911 ( talk) 06:10, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And here new report from pro opposition source hesaid that Ahrar al-Sham tank T-55 fires at BMP-1 of Syrian troops near northern entrance of city Jisr al-Shughur and that rebels still located on distance 2-4 km away from entrance in city. here and pro government source also reported that rebels no entered in the city. here Hanibal911 ( talk) 09:37, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 here a report from SOHR talking about clashes and the seize of 2 of the checkpoints but didn't name them also here a pro-gov source confrim them to here. Lindi29 ( talk) 13:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lindi29 In this area many checkpoints which is not marked on map so that we cant mark those checkpoints as under control by rebels because SOHR not indicated checkpoints which was taken by rebels. Need more data. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I am not saying to mark them under controll by the rebels but to show the real fact from the sources and to put a semicircle near them.Do you agree ? Lindi29 ( talk) 13:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lindi29 OK! Put semicircle near Al-Manshara checkpoint but Al Allawi checpoint still located in area which is under control by troops. This indicated on map from pro opposition source he located north-west from Furayka. here And on the map from pro opposition source he showed that this area still under control by troops. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 Pro-gov source admit clashes around Furayka here. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:05, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

He just publish map from pro opposition source. And his report was published morning but later the pro opposition source clear showed that this area still under control by army. See on these maps in reports from the pro opposition source and you see that I was right. So for now not need semicircle near Al Allawi checpoint. here here here Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:29, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911I fixed that mistake also please fix your mistake on Bishlaymun beacause the village is in controll by rebel the clashes are taken place near the checkpoint also on the map the sugar factory and the manshara checkpoint are shown fully red which is not right beacause there is the frontline where clashes are taking part. Lindi29 ( talk) 19:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You can give your opinion on the use of biased(pro sides) sources. here Buecause if the rules of edit will collapse we get the chaos on the map. And Pro-opposition editors will use pro opposition sources for displayed success of rebels and pro-government editors will use pro government sources for displayed success of Syrian troops. And the map will not be longer reflect the real situation. Hanibal911 ( talk) 07:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Weather they are possibly lies or not its not up to us to decide this. Also, Facebook is generally not accepted as a source by Wikipedia, especially if the post comes from an unverified source. Also, any family member's claims, if not quoted by reliable news sources, are regarded as unreliable per Wiki policy. The militants arrested/captured are stated by the Macedonian authorities and quoted by reliable news sites and thus we accept this news unless other reliable news sources show up that contradict this news. EkoGraf ( talk) 22:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC) reply

EkoGraf Macedonian authorities are not a reliable source in this case beacause they give only names and nothing else no clear evidence like photos from them also other sources olny qoute those authorities sources,if you read carefully it's just copy paste nothing else,also facebook is a source,we also use facebook on the syrian civil war,and others as a source to edit. Lindi29 ( talk) 15:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Facebook was agreed to be used at the Syrian civil war in a really limited capacity due to a lack independent journalists on the ground. And than its mostly SOHR (which has been verified) and again its mostly for the Syrian war map. This was also accomplished after a really lot of arguing among various editors. Your opinion that Macedonian authorities are not a reliable sources is your personal POV. You can take it up at the Wikipedia discussion boards to argue the exclusion of them as a reliable source. Read Wikipedia:Verifiability in regards to the usage of Facebook as a source. EkoGraf ( talk) 15:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This pro opposition source here and in this report he is uses data from pro ISIS source. here In their report he publishes screenshot from the one of ISIS media resources. So these data we cant use for displayed success of ISIS. Hanibal911 ( talk) 20:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Source not said that ISIS take control town of Al Busayri and Mount Busayri. So that you need fix this mistake. Hanibal911 ( talk) 10:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 the source said that Isis took all the area there and the front is near Al-Qaryatayn,Farluqus,Tiyas air Base and the mount Sha'er,also here is a source that confirms that here. Lindi29 ( talk) 10:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This amateur map from the biased antigovernment source. We cant use map from the all antigovernment activists. He used for create map in most data from the pro ISIS and pro opposition sources. This source at least two years opposes against Syrian troops and makes the biased maps which displayed success of all forces which against Syrian troops but most data from these maps which he publishes not confirm no one reliable source. For now many pro opposition, pro government and pro ISIS sources make maps but we cant use all maps. We agreed use only maps from sources which we know that they pro opp. or pro government and or pro ISIS. But this map here from biased antigovernment source. Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 pro-gov source al-masdar confrims the map from him on this case,also the other source you provided confrims that too.But the question is why are you using a pro-opp source to change all that what the pro-gov source reported which is the same thing.??. Lindi29 ( talk) 13:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 now why are you using pro-opp sources against Isis where pro-gov source reported diffrent,So you say pro-opp source are more reliable than pro-gov source on it's held territory???. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:09, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This source here more famous antigovernment source. Also Al Masdar said that the Syrian Air Force airstrikes on towns of Jabab Ahmad, Al-Shandakhiyah, ‘Umm Suhreej, Al-Taybeh, and ‘Ayn Bardeh in the Al-Badiyah area. Al Masdar But he not said that the town of Busayra and Al Bardah under control ISIS or that Air Force bombed these towns. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

But Ok! I self revert my edits. But I also ask you not use this antigovernment source here against Syrian troops. Hanibal911 ( talk) 14:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Hanibal911 I didn't know this is a pro-opp source first time I used it,I will not use it against the syrian troops,but I was referring to the pro-gov source which was talking about the Al-Bardah and it's area,I was olny conecting both sources to explain that to you.Hoping for you understanding. Lindi29 ( talk) 14:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you very angry because YPG is slaughtering Daesh psychopaths? :)) PS. My advice to many Chechens, Kosovans and Afghans is to learn Arabic before becoming hardcore jihadists. :PP Roboskiye ( talk) 15:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Roboskiye Look I dont care about any of this faction,i just edit and prevent vandals from vandalizing the map,if you are here to insult or attack editors their nationality and you are xenophobic WP:PERSONAL and harass editors who edit and even if they rv one of edits beacause you are pro-kurd and thats your WP:POV and dont follow the rules it doesn't mean that they are agaisnt you but it's your source that you provided or if you didn't provide any like pro-side sources or just vandalizing the article it's agaisnt the rules you could easily be blocked,Also i just fixed that beacause they were add with a source long ago. here.If you want to remove than reach a consensus on the syrian talk page.Dont come here to to insult instead go and resolve this were the place if you know the rules,if you dont know them than read them WP:PG.This time I will let this pass next time if this again happens i will report you for WP:PERSONAL. Lindi29 ( talk) 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Wow, so funny! So you know the rules and respect rules which are made by infidels? I'm really impressed! Look who is talking like that. Subhanallah!! If anyone is going to be reported, it is you, and not only to the admins but even to securities. Take this as a warning, and follow the wiki rules: do not vandal on wiki as ISIS is doing in Midle East.! :))) Refrain from revert-warring and have courage to defend re-addition of those non-existent hills on talk page of the module. Roboskiye ( talk) 17:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

it does matter his nationality , since it determines where his allegiance lies (most pro-russian are focused on local issues like ukraine and Putin himself said he isnt invested and backing the syrian regime) and this source was not yet proved to be Pro-Regime source,you need to learn about the reliable and pro-side sources beacause I see you dont know much about the rules and the sources which are reliable.So I need you to revert yourself. Ass711 ( talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) reply

For revert 1 (of edit 1), revert 2 (of edit 2). Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

To enforce community authorised sanctions, as described at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant,

you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:25, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

---

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by community consensus. In order to overturn this block, you must either receive the approval of the blocking administrator or consensus at a community noticeboard (you may need to copy and paste their statement to a community noticeboard).

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lindi29 ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))

---

Request reason:

Magog the Ogre to say the truth i still dont understnad why i was blocked,I only rv once not twice ??? I was fixing nothing else I provided a map source but somehow it didn't show in the first edit look diff,the one next it's the same edit diff I just fixed the same mistakes,but I dont know why it didn't show the source map that I provided in the first edit?? mb a Bug,but absolutely it was not my intention to break the 1RR,why should even rv if you check I could rv in the next 4 hour later!If you cloud advise or consult or advise me on this case I would have checked again and if this was a mistake or just a bug I would have rv myself.I hope for your understanding.Regards Lindi29 ( talk) 20:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Decline reason:

A standard requirement of an unblock request is an acknowledgement of why you were blocked and a request for clemency with the understanding you'll avoid such behaviour in the future. It would seem you've sought to appeal the block rationale. It's been reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block_review_requested: Lindi29 and endorsed by another administrator (and by a fairly prominent one). Not "understanding" a rule does not grant you immunity from it. Feel free to continue to inquire about it on your talk page, but not through an unblock request. Mkdw ^talk 05:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{ unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Magog the Ogre why ???

What is unclear with the explanation above? Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 15:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Magog the Ogre to say the truth i still dont understnad why i was blocked,I only rv once not twice ??? I was fixing nothing else I provided a map source but somehow it didn't show in the first edit look diff,the one next it's the same edit diff I just fixed the same mistakes,but I dont know why it didn't show the source map that I provided in the first edit?? mb a Bug,but absolutely it was not my intention to break the 1RR,why should even rv if you check I could rv in the next 4 hour later!If you cloud advise or consult me on this case I would have checked again and if this was a mistake or just a bug I would have rv myself.I hope for your understanding Regards Lindi29 ( talk) 16:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

It seems you never understand why you get blocked, although we consistently explain it to you. That attitude is only going to get you eventually sanctioned or banned from the subject. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 23:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Magog the Ogre thank you for the Block review requested I appreciate it, but you are wrong about my attitude,my attitude can be shown in this conversation where this editor keeps insulting me for the edit that I made(the one you blocked me but as I said it was the same edit as the next one where I provided a source but it didn't show the source on the first edit only in the second one and I dont know why Mb a Bug?!) and my nationality, tI was trying to explain hat I am not agaisnt your edits I was trying to explain the rules of editing with a reliable or pro-side source but he didn't understand and I wanted to let this pass,but he still insults and harass me.This history of not understanding of the uses of "sources" countinues now for a long time with the same editor and if you doubt what I told than you can ask Hanibal911 who also keeps explaining and rv this editor to and I would really like that Hanibal911 to express his opinion on this case.Also I wanted to ask you if you can report this editor for WP:PERSONAL.Regards Lindi29 ( talk) 11:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I so think that Lindi29 just wanted fix some mistakes on map and restore some objects on map which have been removed without any reason just because they are not indicated on the Wikimapia but they are present on other maps such as mapcrta, Geonames or OpenStreetMap Hanibal911 ( talk) 13:29, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Magog, the first revert you've pointed to is a correct revert, Twitter can't be used as a reliable source, the second revert doesn't look like a revert. I'd say this block isn't correct. I'd ask you to reverse it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 15:08, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ KoshVorlon: a man sits down in a chair that says "no sitting." When he gets accosted by the guard, he says "what proof do you have that I sat in the chair? That wasn't sitting; I was hovering above the chair. Also, sitting is such an amorphous concept." Similarly, the edit was unquestionably a revert, and a fairly obvious one. Failing to do your research or sticking your fingers in your ears and pretending otherwise does nothing to change that. Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 22:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC) reply

This issue has been discussed on the ANI thread. You will remain blocked until it expires, unless you admit your wrongdoings and agree it won't happen again (truthfully). Callmemirela ( Talk) 12:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Callmemirela I dont agree on nothing,beacause I didn't do anything wrong just as I explained above.Sincerely Lindi29 ( talk) 12:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, admins agreed with the block and will you have to wait until it expires. Callmemirela ( Talk)

Hanibal911 you know that I cant make any edits right now I am still going to help and give my contribute from my talk page, According to this pro-opp source Al-Haisa town is contested between this to factions,according to another pro-opp source clashes are taking part in eastren side of Mare,and in the eastren town of Sawran to here. Lindi29 ( talk) 10:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Lindi29, before you go too far, please read WP:BLOCKEVASION. While you are blocked, you are not permitted to contribute in any form, including from your talk page or to give direction to another editor so they may edit on your behalf. Mkdw ^talk 00:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindi29, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 23:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing and abusing multiple accounts. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{ unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.   Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 03:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lindi29, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community.

Magog the Ogre ( t • c) 02:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC) reply