The

Adventure

HiHanibal911!! You're invited to playThe Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there! Play The Wikipedia Adventure This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend,HostBot (talk)16:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

Hi ! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

--

• Hey there! I saw your recent large edits onIraqi insurgency (post-U.S. withdrawal) and I decided to write here before taking action. As you can see the sections Jan-Jun and Jul-Dec are meant as an overview of major attacks within the country, almost always linking to an actual article. While it is true that some recent major attacks (or days with, let's say more than 75 casualties) have been missed, but we know have a detailed day-by-day account of events on the ground, which is nice, but is not fit for Wikipedia. It is unrealistic to think we are going to add every single day from now on, and add every day from Dec 2011 to the present as well, and for this case I wanted to tell you that I will be heavily editing the article later today and the majority of what was added will be gone - I will leave only a few major attacks that were missing + some random bits of info about monthly death toll statistics that is also valuable, but most of it will be gone. Please take a closer look at how the rest of the article looks and feel free to add to it, but in a constructive and realistic manner - WP is a collective process, so let's try to make the article better, but in a proper way, not just mindlessly adding buckets of text to it every day. I have put a LOT of effort and time into this article, and I would love to have someone help me out, especially if you follow the conflict and are knowledgeable :) Thanks in advance!Skycycle (talk)11:33, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are continuously adding new information day by day, which IS NOT the point of the article, or any wikipedia article of this sort. I already explained my position above, 3 months ago, and you failed to reply. My next step will be to report this to higher authorities, because the article is slowly becoming a huge pile of text, full of information that is not always correct, or even relevant to the big picture. Please contact me to avoid any further possible action towards your account, as I WILL report this in a few days time!Skycycle (talk)13:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for playingThe Wikipedia Adventure, or at least considering it. We'd like to hear about your thoughts and feelings on the game, to help us improve it. Please take this brief survey:10 minute survey.

--thanks and cheers,Ocaasi20:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specificallyTemplate:Syrian civil war infobox, may fail ournon-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on ourNon-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at theMedia copyright questions page.Werieth (talk)21:27, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you have been active on the South Sudan article and wanted to ask you if you could jump in on the article's talk page and offer you opinion about the problems Lihass has with trusting the UN as a source and his constand reinserting of out-dated information.EkoGraf (talk)18:58, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although hesitant, I have went even further and even removed the 1,000 figure by the UN coordinator, beside the claim by the aid worker, because the coordinator said the numberprobably has gone over 1,000. I hope this is a fair enough compromise.EkoGraf (talk)19:18, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is reliable. It is a real source, and someone confirmed it in "comments" on the website. They said that the "YPG" said the same thing. --68.229.239.155 (talk)23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here is official confirmation from a reliable source.The Daily Star.

Your opinion would be appreciated here[1].EkoGraf (talk)13:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to Al-Jazeera, Reuters, WashingtonInstitute there are about 1700-4000 Hezbollah fighters in Syria.
Dailystar.com.lb is anti-Hezbollah website of Lebanon.
Hezbollah have total 15,000-20,000 soldiers. Its not possible for them to send 10,000-15,000 soldiers in Syria to defend Assad.SpidErxD (talk)22:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your sourcesAl-Jazeera andReuters for 29 May, while my sourceThe Daily Star for 24 December.Hanibal911 (talk)22:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As i said Dailystar.com.lb is anti-Hezbollah website of Lebanon which is not valid source.
Hezbollah have total 15,000-20,000 soldiers. Its not possible for them to send 10,000-15,000 soldiers in Syria to defend Assad.
According toWashingtonInstitutearticle which is published on December 5, 2013, there are 3000-5000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria.
If you think there are 10,000-15,000 Hezbollah soldiers in Syria please provide authentic source like BBC,Reuters,CNN etc. ThankYouSpidErxD (talk)22:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you thought about creating an article titled for exampleBattles of Ramadi and Fallujah?EkoGraf (talk)22:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start it and I will help you expand it. I thought about the title and maybe the titleRamadi and Fallujah uprising would also fit nice because some media outlets have also called it an uprising. We can always change the name in later discussions with editors.EkoGraf (talk)15:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already created it hehe2013–14 Anbar clashes.EkoGraf (talk)16:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I restructured that article about the IF-FSA conflict into the current Opposition-ISIS conflict.Syrian opposition–Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant conflictEkoGraf (talk)19:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to rename the article. Now this article looks more correct.Hanibal911 (talk)19:18, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This[2] repeats content from the paragraph above, Ive removed it, btw.(Lihaas (talk)09:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Just a heads up thatthis "north of the Iraqi capitalBaghdad, according to security and hospital sources. The deadly incident took place on Tuesday on a highway north of the city ofSamarra, the sources said" seems like its copy+paste from the source. WP cant do that it is a copyvio. Seperately, Tuesday doesn't mean anything when you look back at it years for now. Also be aware ofWP:OVERLINK and merely saying "sources said" as this is not a newspaper. I reworded it slightly.Lihaas (talk)11:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please beaware ofWP:OVERLINK and do not copy+paste from the article. This is not a media story and further it is a copyright violation to blindly write what is from the source!.

This is averbatim quote copy+pasted from the source "security forces backed by tanks engaged in heavy fighting with Al-Qaeda linked militants in the Albubali area, between Ramadi and Fallujah, a police officer said. "A big force last night attacked hideouts in an area of Albubali that had been turned into a stronghold for Al-Qaeda fighters and, since this morning, there have been fierce clashes between both sides involving army tanks," the officer said"(Lihaas (talk)02:33, 10 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Thanks for reminder.Hanibal911 (talk)06:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NP, keep up the good additions. Ill correct here and there if you have issues. Just that sometimes it was too redundant ;)Lihaas (talk)07:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother, but I implore you again not to copy and paste from sources as that is a copyright violation:

Here "fierce clashes have erupted between Iraqi special forces andal-Qaeda linked fighters in a village in the westernAnbar province, officials say. The village, al-Bubali, lies betweenFallujah andRamadi, two cities in Anbar that are under siege byIraqi security forces and their allies from Sunni Arab tribes" is a direct copy and paste from the first 2 lines of the source. I haven't checked the second source in that para, but it appears to be similar.Lihaas (talk)05:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very close copy vio fromnthisLihaas (talk)16:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I wanted to do yesterday but didn't have the time it is great like this as it represents what actualy happened in the area :) good job.Daki122 (talk)16:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to show more accurately what the happening there.Hanibal911 (talk)16:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you except for Deir Salman, which you should mark contested.http://brown-moses.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-rebel-offensives-in-east-ghouta.html

If you mark deir salman back to contested, I will leave the East ghouta region alone, so long as its not tampered with again untilmultiple reliable sources come through.Sopher99 (talk)16:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this source[3] notes Deir Salman under control army. Map for 21 December shows it under army control.Hanibal911 (talk)16:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Deir Selman is shown under government control by the pro-opp source so that does make it reliable an as far as I'm informed the rebels never reached Deir Salman and that is not only confirmed by por-government sources but also by pro rebel sources as well no need to change anything.Daki122 (talk)17:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. You got a pro-rebel source saying the town is most likely government-held.EkoGraf (talk)19:13, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When the NDF showed up sources indicated that the Shabiha and other pro-government militias were being integrated into the NDF, while Jaysh al-Sha'bi was even speculated to already BE the NDF. For almost a year now there has been no mention of Shabiha and Jaysh al-Sha'bi in the conflict, or very minimal. Even SOHR has described, in its daily death tolls, the pro-government Syrian militiamen killed as all NDF. That suggests that those two have at this point become non-existent and have been completely merged into the NDF.EkoGraf (talk)15:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Check their daily death tolls, in each one SOHR only says NDF members are killed. No mention of the two. The two do still exist but as subgroups of the NDF. Besides, the SOHR may as well be talking in that link of yours about those killed before the mergers. But the main point is they call them collectively the NDF in their daily reports. And Future and Sopher agree with me on this on the condition we note in brackets that the two still exist albait as part of the NDF.EkoGraf (talk)16:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you are listed on the wikiproject page for South Sudan as a member, I was thus wondering if you are interested in collaborating on a page together? There is more info on theWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_South_Sudan#Agricultural_page?Lihaas (talk)07:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's because SOHR regards all the rebels the same except for ISIS and Nusra and thus calls the rebel fatalities collectively asrebel brigades. Also, we got sources from earlier in 2013 and from late 2012 confirming the start of a merger of those two government militias INTO the NDF.EkoGraf (talk)16:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source -[4] clearly refers to Jaysh al-Sha'bi as the NDF and even links them to the Shabiha.EkoGraf (talk)16:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the best solution for the raqqa problem is a green circle with a black ring. Kind of like hassakah and qamishli.Sopher99 (talk)15:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This will be best option.Hanibal911 (talk)16:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But here some more information. ISIL is now in control of 95 percent of Raqqa.ReutersHanibal911 (talk)21:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here moremap (opposition source) showing situation in northern part of Aleppo province.Hanibal911 (talk)16:55, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Situation in azaz according to pro-opposition sources, in case you find it useful.https://twitter.com/ced_lab/status/426199220429672448/photo/1/largeSopher99 (talk)16:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this situation, I will be grateful for any information.Hanibal911 (talk)16:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you are good with adding new towns to the map. Could you please add the town of Ayyash in east Syria as government-held (its just north of Deir ez-Zor). We have both government[5] and opposition sources[6] confirming the towns capture by the Army. Also, the town of Tal Al-Azaeh should be added. We have a government source saying it was also captured, no confirmation from the opposition on this, but it should be marked at least as contested. Thanks!EkoGraf (talk)00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not found on map city Tal Al-Azaeh.Hanibal911 (talk)16:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cant understand your point. I dont see any problem to use old sources to add towns to the map, of course, only in the case that there arent newer sources available (As in the Nawa case, something the well-known vandal user we all know seems to not understand). If there are newer sources, good, lets use it (as they supersede the older ones), but if not, lets use the ones we have. As far as I know, there aint any WP rule that states that sources have expiration dates. And If we use that measure, for example, all the checkpoints should be removed from the map, as they were added months or years ago, so we dont now who control s them or if they even exists now.

Im starting to think that some users (not you, of course) are trying to do anything to avoid my edits. They used partisan maps (Syrian Persective, Cedric Labrousse) to add towns to the map with no problems or opposition, but when I started doing the same they suddenly discover that they were published on Twitter and oppose its use. Now, oppose the use of reliable sources with the excuse of being outdated (who decides that? and, wich is the outdate limit? one week? one month?). Unless you or other users found a better reason to avoid my edits, I ask you to restore them or I will do it by myself, as (if Im not wrong) Im not breaking any WP rule. Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk)16:53, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partially right that sometimes we could be used older sources but only to add new cities and villages. But then we need to be 100% sure that it was not later sources indicate other information relating to a particular town or village. But it's not easy to do.Hanibal911 (talk)20:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Mass Surveillance Dear, Hanibal911. We would like to invite you to joinWikiProject Mass surveillance, a group ofWikipedians devoted to improving articles related to the privacy and global surveillance. If you're interested, consider adding yourself to thelist of participants and joining the discussion on thetalkpage. -- We are just starting up and could really use help getting things set up.HectorMoffet (talk)11:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut WP:SETECWP:SETEC

	The Original Barnstar
	hi hanibal, why you are undoing my changes? these are real stuff.Thanks for your work anywayBarcaxx1980 (talk)16:53, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted all your changes because they unfounded. You have to specify sources which confirm all your changes.Hanibal911 (talk)17:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, reliable source !! is Aljazeera reliable?— Precedingunsigned comment added byBarcaxx1980 (talk •contribs)13:26, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is a reliable source.Hanibal911 (talk)13:29, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! for everything....

I don't know how to replay directly to your notifications! so I add it here.

Barcaxx1980—Precedingundated comment added22:08, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Was happy to help.Hanibal911 (talk)22:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, Raqqa is the only provincial capital not controlled by the Syrian gov., but by ISIS. And it seems that most of the road from Aleppo to Daraa (wich passes through Hama, Homs and Damascus and is the most important road in the country) is controlled by SAA and allied forces. That's what I know about that issue. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 16:23, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As Alhanuty has removed the towns you added based on a previous WP map (something wich could be discussable, but at least you provide something to back your edit), you should remove the towns Sopher99 added WITHOUT A SINGLE SOURCE (seehttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=595067679&oldid=595059738 &https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=595059407&oldid=595045023). I removed them for not being backed by any type of source, but hereverted my changes with one of his typical dumb and false argumentations. Lets oppose this flagrant double standards. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 19:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I returned those the cities which were earlier added by me because there is confirmation from opposition source that these towns under control the army.Hanibal911 (talk)19:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:ANI-notice.Alhanuty (talk)00:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion atWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--HCPUNXKID 00:24, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the map conflict only HPUNXKID appeared to had concenrs with Barcaxx. Indeed, I only saw you contact him about his use of pro-regime sites. Furthermore you and the other editors didn't have a problem with the use of wikimapia to add villages and towns so long as as it stayed within the clear defined boundaries of syria maps (like the BBC maps)

Like-wise for the same reason I took no issue with your additions to the deir ezzor province using twitter maps.

There fore your comment "Support block. I agree to other editors. The rules should be the same for all." is a bit in error, since I was abiding by a underlying rule I assume everyone was following.

I would like you to please reconsider my situation, and retract your support for a block/ban.Sopher99 (talk)22:43, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher I wanted to retract of my support for a block / ban but your friend Alhanuty became threaten me and I now doubt whether I should do it.Hanibal911 (talk)07:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You  also did the same thing,so you could be blocked also for this.Alhanuty (talk)06:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I added a citys in Tartous Province because that province is completely under control of army and this is confirmed by data from Wikipedia but this is also confirmed by many sources including the pro opposition sources. Maybe I was wrong adding two cities in province of Deir ez-Zor but this information confirmed pro opposition source. And at the moment no information confirming that rebels surrounded military in Deir ez-Zor hence road from Homs province under control of the army but if I wrong then I apologize. Also as you have probably noticed that I not returned them back because agree with your argument that maybe you're right and source of which I used to add them not entirely reliable.Hanibal911 (talk)07:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you are accepting a double standard. While you have accepted the removal of your unsourced edit, Sopher still denies the removal of the towns he added without sources. That cannot be like that, both should be removed or both added.--HCPUNXKID22:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question was first published in Foreign Affairs, then re-pubished in the pro-opp. outlets. As FA is a reliable source, I think it should stay like that. Regards,--HCPUNXKID22:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, would you please tell me what exactly the 1 revert rule is?

ThanksBarcaxx1980—Precedingundated comment added00:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is he doingReverting for 3 or 4 times without any source. He is not even looking for reality, but playing with the map like a toy or a rubbish.

Barcaxx1980—Precedingundated comment added10:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5 reverts in a row !!!! wow he made a record

What is he doing!!! some body sould stop him. He reverted 5 times with no source. You guys really made him crazy when you refused to give him those villages in Der-Alzor (for FSA against ISIS). Please give him Mars and tell him to leave the page. Opposition has no control in alawite and christian villages in Masyaf and west of Homs and Hama. and no control al all in Tartus. I gave him a map from opposition itself. It is very well known fact and he knows it very well, but as you refused to give him those villages in est of Syria, he will delete Damascus itself !!!

I know I am new, and I was not giving sources to every thing, but Hanibal and another user did tell me that and they guided me and checked my edits, and I am contacting them to understand how to make things in the right ways. But this guy Sopher99 is really amazing !!! He is a country himself and nobody can ever tell him what to do.

User:Barcaxx1980—Precedingundated comment added11:11, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re-add the lime part , rebels only handed heavy weapons over (aritllery and such)

also it says both red and green flag were raised. ThanksSopher99 (talk)16:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I agree with you on raqqa. Perhaps we can add a contested dot within Raqqa itself to represent the neighborhood.Sopher99 (talk)16:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source said opposition fighters handing over heavy weapons and the regime raising its red, white, black and green flag there. There is not told about the rebel flag this source only listed all the colors of theSyrian flag. Regime troops raised the Syrian flag over the municipality of the southern suburb.The Daily StarNOW News

I now try of note the contested area in Raqqa and try to find more data confirming clashes in the city.Hanibal911 (talk)16:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, thats not acceptable, not only for the source (LCC) but for the media used to publish it (Facebook). I will revert it when possible.--HCPUNXKID17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Below are the diffs that show Barcaxx adding villages without a source, or with youtube and twitter. I wouldn't have a problem except for the fact HCPUNX keeps reverting my villages I added with wikimapia.

Please help me remove these villages, I will continue myself after 24hours of my last revert.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594646538&oldid=594642856

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594260126&oldid=594233591

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594642856&oldid=594580088

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594658448&oldid=594649722

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&diff=594362268&oldid=594360075

or you can just revert HCPUNX's removal of my villages, and then we don't have to remove all these villages. Which ever way you feel is best.Sopher99 (talk)20:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us, as a compromise, I just bring back on the map villages that you added earlier. And we will not do such changes in the future. If you agree with me it would be the best solution.Hanibal911 (talk)21:33, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean you'll re-add the rebel villages under the condition that no additional regime or rebel village gets added without a good reliable source, then I agree.Sopher99 (talk)22:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here on this and agreed.Hanibal911 (talk)22:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of acommunity decision, broadediting restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to theSyrian Civil War. These sanctions are described atTalk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

• Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia, satisfy anystandard of behavior, or follow anynormal editorial process.
• If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
• Aone revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listedhere.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision atTalk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at theappropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged atTalk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk)21:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understood everything. Thank you.Hanibal911 (talk)05:32, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

source says regime bombs rebel held territories, immediately after that it says it bombed Inkhil. PBS Map shows Inkhil under rebel control. Please self-revert.Sopher99 (talk)21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need to remove the map of Damascus as it is out of date please see the talk page on the Tamplate i the last section "Damascus map not working out of date and hard to update" I would quite like to hear your opinion as a reliable source says the front lines have changed and they are a lot different from the ones on the map and even on the Tamplate as it seems the Army has pushed the rebels away from Abadeh.Daki122 (talk)15:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you turn to thiseditor that edits this map.Hanibal911 (talk)18:11, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you said about the source on Ayyash when you reverted it was totally wrong. It doesn't talk about any "district" 'Ayyash, it says "بلدة عياش بريف دير الزور", which means "town of 'Ayyash in the countryside (rif) of Deir ez-Zor". Taken in full, it says "The LCC reported that opposition forces killed three soldiers as they repulsed an attack on the town of 'Ayyash in the countryside of Deir ez-Zor..." ~~Lothar von Richthofen (talk)20:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ButAayash it is village not city.Hanibal911 (talk)21:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baldah means "town", and such semantic hair-splitting makes absolutely no difference anyway. Still referring the the exact same place. ~~Lothar von Richthofen (talk)21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some friendly advice: if you're going to try to make educated decisions on content from Arabic-language sources, you really should take some time to learn at least some basic elements of the language. It's clear from both the discussion here and past threads likethis one that you don't know much at all about it. While Google Translate is certainly a powerful tool that can do a lot of the translation work for you, it is prone to error like any such automatic program is. By learning even a little bit about Arabic and how it works, you can make more accurate judgements on what Google Translate shows you.

At the very least, you should familiarise yourself with Arabic letters.This table here is very useful for this—it's largely how I learned. By doing this, you can more easily recognise names (which online translators often get wrong—this is actually abig problem for them) and can also learn how totransliterate them in a more standard way when you add them to the map or talk about them in discussions. After this, you can move on to learning some vocabulary. It's particularly smart to learn some words commonly used in news reports so that you can quickly direct your attention to place-names or other important information in an article by searching for them on the page. Examples are geographical terms like "قرية" (qaryah=village) "بلدة" (baldah=town), مدينة (madīnah=city), or "ريف" (rīf=countryside); political terms like نظام (niẓām=regime), ثوار (thuwwār="revolutionaries"/rebels), معارضة (mu'āraḍah=opposition), or إرهابيين (irhābiyyīn=terrorists); and military terms like "حاجز" (hājiz=checkpoint), قوات (quwwāt=troops), or "مطار" (maṭār=airport/airbase). Remember that nouns often have thedefinite article ال (al-) added to them as a prefix. If you feel comfortable, you can even try learning some of the grammar too.

For instance, if we take a look at the older discussion thread that I linked above, you say that thesource doesn't mention the village in question (البويضة: al-Buwaydah or with a less-standard spelling "al-Boida"). That's not true, but given that Google Translate says that "البويضة" means "egg" (which it does, just not in this context), it's at least a somewhat understandable mistake. If you look at a translation and it has a random word like "egg" thrown in that doesn't make sense in context, you should immediately recognise that something is wrong—especially if it has a geographical term like "qaryah" in front of it. Since GT has a helpful function of highlighting the original word when you hold your cursor over the translated word, you can use the table of Arabic letters (or your memory, after enough practise) to figure out what's wrong. Here, you can see that the letters spell outa-l-b-ū/w-ī/y-ḍ-ah; after accounting for the fact that Arabic uses anabjad and so not all vowel sounds are honestly represented in normal writing, you can infer that it's talking about "al-Buwaydah".

I'm not saying this to insult you or be mean to you; quite the opposite, I only want to help you. You're also not at all the only person who needs to do this; what I'm saying could be directed at most editors of the map. And I'm not at all trying to claim that I myself am at all "fluent" in Arabic; I can't even carry on a basic conversation in it. But trust me, you'll be surprised at how much better you can obtain information from Arabic sources if you just learn a little bit of the language! ~~Lothar von Richthofen (talk)23:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The change to the status of Khirbet-Gazahleh from red to contested was never supported by reliable source. I made a search, presented on the talk page, that shows that the contested status of Khirbet-Gazahleh is not supported and nobody found any argument against it. Furthermore this town is considered gov held even in pro-opp maps. Therefore unless you find a reason justifying Khirbet-Gazahleh to be contested or revert it to red as it has alwaays been.--Paolowalter (talk)10:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is thesourceHanibal911 (talk)10:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion as you and agree with you that the source for the fighting is too dubious and that it should stay red (government held). But that editor keeps continuing to edit war. So I proposed the lime ring as a compromise solution and one other editor has also agreed to it. So I would ask you and the other guy to refrain from further edit warring. If you agree to the compromise solution to temporarily put the lime ring for a week (and than remove it if no further fighting is reported) we can than shut out the other editor with a majority compromise.EkoGraf (talk)11:24, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always believed that in any situation we need to find a compromise solution. And I agree with your proposal.Hanibal911 (talk)11:29, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Help me out both at that guys talk page and at the maps talk page. I can not get through to him to follow the rules. 15:33, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

He too does not listen to me. 16:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Send him the 1RR warning. 17:38, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

I have already notified the admins. You can also take part in the discussion.herHanibal911 (talk)17:44, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period of48 hours for violatingWP:1RR in contravention ofWP:SCWGS, as you did atTemplate:Syrian civil war detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk)23:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing anything. There were two villages in Quneitra and Qalamoun with the same name and by mistake I changed both and not only the one in Quneitra.The change in Quneitra is fully justified, syrian documents is relaible and nobody has shon any evodence of the contrary. Furthermore also SOHR reports the same newhttps://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/501083430000000?stream_ref=10I have already proved in the talk page under Quneitra section that the red assignmentwas wrong since the beginning due, probably, to an error in going from aran to english. The original articlehttp://english.al-akhbar.com/content/people-golan-return-%E2%80%98shouting-valley%E2%80%99 was talking about a place in the north of Quneitra.Therefore, thanks for fixng the error on Qalamoun, but the other is correct and must be reverted.

It is extremely unfair to revert changes without previous discussion.--Paolowalter (talk)21:34, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you but and you get me that we do not useSyrian Documents for editing the map. Also we do not use for editing data from facebook you must find more reliable source.Hanibal911 (talk)21:58, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Report by SOHR from today[7]. Fighting IN the southern side of the town.EkoGraf (talk)14:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see this information when edited the map but even now we can not use this information because we do not use Facebook for map editing. Need to wait for the appearance of this information on the official website SOHR or in other sources.Hanibal911 (talk)15:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No mistake. Here is the english version on SOHR's facebook page[8]. NoteClashes are ongoing between islamic fighters, the ISIS and al-Nusra front from one side and regular forces, NDF combatants and Hezbollah fighters from the otherin the Ras al-Ma’ara town, with reports that regular forces and Hezbllah progressed inside the town and took hold of large parts of it. The Army is advancing in both villages. :)EkoGraf (talk)20:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear thanks to that explained!Hanibal911 (talk)20:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your view in this discussion[9] on the opposition source Syria: direct would be appreciated.EkoGraf (talk)20:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Hanibal911. You have new messages atTradedia's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hanibal911. You have new messages atTradedia's talk page.
You canremove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you know, changes of status in the map must be backed by a source (if not, they could be reverted), so someone should warn that user about it. But about the 1RR rule, I dont think he broke it, as his edits were consecutive. Regards,--HCPUNXKID22:01, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc You blocked me on 10 days and I will admit the fact that I broke the rule 1RR but I did this when I tried to correct unjustified changes made editor Alhanuty. Because his actions are vandalism because he edited using sources that do not support his changes. Because when he edits it often distorts the data in source which he use as this he needed that make an edit.hereherehere Other editors are also trying to correct this actions but that does not stop him.hereherehere Perhaps you need to make an exception for this moduleSyrian Civil War detailed map which will allow the other editors to revert the wrong changes if they are made without providing the specific sources which can confirm such action.Hanibal911 (talk)07:25, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GAB states that you need to show that the block is no longer needed or was wrong in the first place. With the above you've shown the exact opposite of that. Blaming your actions on someone else shows that you won't take care in the future. Only one of the reverts you were blocked because of was a revert of Alhanuty. Also you need to re-readWP:Vandalism as the edits you've labelled as vandalism are not. The one revert rule on that page is doing it's job, if you believe that Alhanuty has a record of adding unsourced changes you need to present evidence of that atWP:AN or talk to them about it on their talk page first. As the community has imposed the restriction only the community can remove it, which I don't see happening as it's preventing edit warring on that page.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)13:14, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zabadani was confirmed last month to be under the same ceasefire deal as the towns around Damascus, so not contested. Bloudan is government-held per the opposition map, but I added a lime ring around it since its on the frontline.EkoGraf (talk)10:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sohr confirms Observatory sitll in rebel hands. Your yahoo source only says state tv claimed syrian army recapture.

SOHRs reliability exceeds state tv.

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2023&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.UznDzvldVsMSopher99 (talk)19:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we maybe create an article about aBattle of Al-Malihah if fighting for the town continues into the next day (we wait one more day)? And would you want to create it? I would clean it up.EkoGraf (talk)14:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that it is necessary to create an articleBattle of Al-Malihah because many sources say that the Syrian army launched an offensive in this city.Hanibal911 (talk)14:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, create the article and I will clean it up.EkoGraf (talk)10:42, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Im not too supportive of adding that infrastructure, but in case of adding it, I would choose the Panorama base, as its an army site, and not the police academy, because until now there's no police sites added, and I think that adding more new infrastructure would made the map more chaotic (for that same reason I dont support the add of oil fields like the T2, but it seems no one has opposed its inclusion, so I dont want to cause disruption. For example, I opposed the add of Aleppo power plant, but when it was accepted, I started to add other power plants in the map). By the way, I found more important to add towns like Al-Shoula, wich Alhanuty misinterpretate like ISIL-held (seems he thinks that in the AC map the territory where the black arrows are is ISIL-held, when they simply show the route of their attack), when its SAA (or NDF)-held. Could you revert his revert on my edit, as I dont want to break 1RR?. Regards,--HCPUNXKID18:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could do it but then I too break 1RR because today I already revert its editing. But I absolutely agree with you that this city is under the control of the army and the pro opposition source AC confirms this. Also I think that you are right and we need to remove the T2 oil pumping station because this object has no strategic value.Hanibal911 (talk)19:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you it's written. But if you look to the place of the village itself, there is absolutely nothing... There is no village :http://wikimapia.org/#lang=fr&lat=32.940962&lon=36.010029&z=17&m=b&search=Al-JabiyahWikimapia is made by normal people, maybe someone made a mistake... What do you think about it ?Oussj (talk)18:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here this village on the other maps.GeoNamesMap CartaOpenstreetmapHanibal911 (talk)18:58, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, I think you're right on this issue, as the 3 towns you mentioned are not explicitly mentioned onthat article, they must be removed from the map, as for example other towns I added without an explicit mention (based on a partial map) were removed later, so same must be done with that. Regards, --HCPUNXKID14:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the situation in Zabadani is still unclear, perhaps we should wait 24 or 48 hours to see what finally happens there. Regards,--HCPUNXKID17:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right.Hanibal911 (talk)17:04, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, that user is trying to mess with the map. He reverted my edit removing the towns in Deir Ezzor governorate added without specific source. So, we have two options: one is removing again that towns (that should be done by you, as I couldnt do it without breaking 1RR) and the other is taking him to the administrators board, as he perhaps (Im not sure at all) have broken the 1RR (see the hours ofthis &this edits). Regards, --HCPUNXKID16:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Take a closer look. I self reverted BOTH edits.Sopher99 (talk)16:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher99:No you don't. You added again that 3 towns near Abu Kamal wich were added WITHOUT SPECIFIC CITATION ON THE SOURCES GIVEN. If I acted the same way, I could had half a dozen towns in red on south Hasakah governorate.--HCPUNXKID21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'mBracketBot. I have automatically detected thatyour edit toCities and towns during the Syrian Civil War may have broken thesyntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: justedit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message onmy operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |<span>r</span>[[File:Flag of Syria (2011 combined).svg|40px]
• raises tension in Syria] [[al-Jazeera]], 9 July 2013</ref> ISIS rebels withdrew from Al-Dana.<ref>[http://www.aawsat.net/2014/01/article55326685 Syria: ISIS agrees truce, withdraws from Turkish

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, followthese opt-out instructions. Thanks,BracketBot (talk)18:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.EkoGraf (talk)18:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per this map, I think 7, not 5, would be a better choice.https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Siege_of_Homs_Map.svg

http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=2230&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.U2urpvl_tCh says that one fighter died of its wounds (from the fighting at the prison weeks ago) and seven others were killed by a pipeline explosion. Not 8 fighters killed in the prison.

Sopher99 (talk)16:56, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since the truce and the rebels must leave the city, we can not be sure they keep the same territory which they controlled before the armistice. So let's leave it at that and see because if all the terms of the armistice will be performed and the rebels leave Homs then all the city will be marked in red. Also source said that government troops have blockaded rebels inside a string of districts on the territory eight miles.The Daily StarHanibal911 (talk)17:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

... you do realize that Homs city is 19 square miles right?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HomsSopher99 (talk)17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lets we note Homs as before and close this issue.compromise version because I think this option is the most appropriate in this situation.Hanibal911 (talk)18:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there in the wiki map from Syrian conflicthttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War

Some one put the Khan Abu Shamat chemical facility in Insurgents handshttp://fotos.subefotos.com/d498ef8a09d1125b47da4f515475d321o.jpg

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-syria-crisis-chemicals-idUSBREA410MY20140502These Activists who obviously support the claim only = Activists say rebels have clashed with Assad's forces between Dumair air base, which they said came under heavy rocket fire from the rebels, and Sayqal air base about 40 km (25 miles) further east where the chemicals arebelieved to be held.

They said just believe...And they claim is only about Sayqal air base claiming this place was "shelling away by rocket" when they "believed" and are talking about air base no about Khan Abu Shamat that sounds very ambiguous coming from anonymous activists who only "believed".

They no talk about Khan Abu Shamat chemical weapon facility....

And before was confirmed the Dumair air base it's not under siege-

Basically I no found a single solid evidence the Rebels controlled this Chemical Weapon Facility.

Thanks for your time.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)15:55, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the source says that : "The diplomat said rebels have overrun the abandoned and emptied chemical base at Khan Abu Shammal, which lies between Dumair and Sayqal, and cut the road linking them."Reuters But I will try look for the data which will be able to clarify the situation with the Khan Abu Shamat Chemical Plant. But even if the rebels were there we can not be sure that they are still there.Hanibal911 (talk)20:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)17:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put this question here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Homs_.3D_Al_waer_.28al-Wa.27ar.29_still_in_conflict_.3F

This zone in Homs stilling in conflict ?— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)17:56, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this area is still the conflict zone.The Daily Star But I track information about this and if will be other data then I'll change the status this area on the map.Hanibal911 (talk)18:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a real problem with the military bases that were added based on a name found on Wikimapia. The problem is that ANYONE can edit Wikimapia and put ANYTHING they like without any source or explanation. So in terms offinding military bases,Wikimapia is unreliable. I can go now to Wikimapia and put in Brigade 69 (Shaykh Yurbuty) in some random place. Then, I can come back and put it on our map. The problem is that Brigade 69 (Shaykh Yurbuty) does not exist, as I just invented it. That is why we need some source other than Wikimapia to mention the military base before we can put it on our map. In this case, any pro-gov or pro-rebel source is fine. Notice that our problem here is not about which party controls the area in question, but rather whether the military base exists or still exists.

For all the above reasons, Wikipedia rules forbid using “wikis” (such as Wikimapia) as a source. Wikipedia ruleWP:USERGENERATED is very clear. It states:“open wikis are largely not acceptable as a source. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated.” This is exactly the case of Wikimapia, as users (anyone) generate the content. So Wikimapia can only be used to get coordinates for something that is already validly sourced. Please let me know what you think.Tradedia^talk01:04, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this I absolutely agree with you. I have long talked about it but then this problem was ignored.Hanibal911 (talk)05:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I will go ahead and remove these bases from the map.Tradedia^talk23:03, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I could use your help with an anonymous editor here2014 Latakia offensive (check edit history for the last several days) and hereWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive262#2014 Latakia Offensive.EkoGraf (talk)11:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This city is already on the map.Hanibal911 (talk)19:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Days ago was army reported the control from a place called Um al-Awsaj

sana.sy/eng/337/2014/05/18/545193.htmlhttps://www.facebook.com/SyrianArabNewsAgencySana/posts/740021592687037

If you got time put it on map.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)17:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cant use data from the pro government sources to display of army advances. But if you find confirmation of this data in neutral or pro opposition sources so I can add this town on the map.Hanibal911 (talk)19:40, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another pro government sourcehttp://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13930229000940

SANA usually reports the correct information most times.. Are the Lebanese and Iranian News agencies who usually exaggerated the things some times...Anyway the Iranian and Lebanese Media are very active following the conflict with professional Journalist, west media basically doing nothing just quoted everything who Anti Regime SOHR in London tell them and at the same time the SORH just quoted SANA for save his "Credibility"

But if you need "Third sources" there is a anti regime source who confirm that =

The army also took control of the village of Umm al-Awsaj in al-Sanamein in the Daraa countryside.http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/security/2014/05/syria-national-coalition-defense-minister-resignation.html— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)16:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But you added that town based onthis Al-Monitor article, wich calls Al-Shahil Nusra's main stronghold. While the Al-Shahil on the Euphrates river is a small city or a big town near the oild fields, the other Al Shahil is a remote small village. And due to the fact that the ISIS-"rebels" clashes had taken place mostly in the surroundings of the Euphrates & Khabur rivers, I doubt very much that the article refers to that tiny village, but to the Euphrates Al Shahil. Regards,--HCPUNXKID17:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! I think in this case you are right! Thanks buddy that all to me explained.Hanibal911 (talk)17:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont found that map important or reliable enough to be used, also most of the towns on the map had been added.--HCPUNXKID21:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that map is not from a pro-opposition source, but an outdated version of a Wikipedia map based on the one we edit, with some minor differences. See ithere. Regards, --HCPUNXKID21:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the template map talk page, the big mistakes on maps made by that twitter account make it so unreliable, unless we are going to accept any type of amateur child-like draw map...--HCPUNXKID14:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although we agreed on use maps published on Twitter, I dont think that simply using tweets as a source for edits is good or even reliable. For example, you use a tweet for adding Ishtabraq to the map. Only few hours ago, the same Twitter account published a map of the zone with Ishtabraq on it. So I think its better to avoid the use of tweets and wait a little bit for confirmation by maps, websites or other more reliable type of sources. Regards,--HCPUNXKID14:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK buddy!Hanibal911 (talk)14:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed before thatMahdi Army,Badr Brigades,Kata'ib Hezbollah andAsa'ib Ahl al-Haq should not be added (read the hidden tag just below the part you added in the editing template). We don't include every group that fights with Assad since they are numerous. Please self-revert your last edit and take it to talk.Fitzcarmalan (talk)10:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I agree with you that we should not add these groups. But I think that we should add the Arab National Guard because this combat unit which takes an active part in the battles.Hanibal911 (talk)13:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree again. How crucial is the Arab Nationalist Guard's role in combat? Is Assad incapable of winning certain battles without their support? There is also nothing unique about them since they are not the only nationlist group supporting the government. Please remove it for now and if you want you can initiate a discussion on talk so different editors can voice their opinions.Fitzcarmalan (talk)16:07, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK!Hanibal911 (talk)16:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anti Regime May 25https://twitter.com/CdricLabrousse/status/470534599479943168/photo/1

Pro Regime May 23https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=827637347255514&set=a.777540598931856.1073741827.777533765599206&type=1&theater

Map from June 2 (Dunno if it's pro or anti Government)https://twitter.com/deSyracuse/status/473403042243809280

Three maps coincide about Al-Shulah

This map used as source before is not credible -https://twitter.com/arabthomness/status/473225872942858240 creator is trolling seems he is just a follower racer.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)07:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that thismap is not a reliable source. But now I'm not going to use thismap to display the army advances, because I'm not sure that she is from the opposition source.Hanibal911 (talk)08:09, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

^ Could be pro Rebel no idea really - At the moments who got more credibility are Larousse and Sy Per maps seems the regime controlled Al-Shulah however both ISIS and Army move with very high OPSEC - Since February 2014 ISIS avoid combats with the Army some Pro Insurgents twitter account claim ISIS and Army sharing territories and ISIS is backed by the Army but the high OPSEC level makes that very difficult to know -— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)09:44, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As as-Suwayda got many towns under Regime control there are I showing the locations from a fewshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Towns_From_as-Suwayda_governorate_.281.29

Putting it to map will be look like that =http://sia1.subirimagenes.net/img/2014/06/05/140605113023769226.jpg

__________

In both maps who you are showing to me (I see both before) these towns are in regime held territory the 99,99% from as-Suwayda governorate is in regime hands everyone who know about the conflict agree with that, I just edited this crap just one fvcking time and some one reverted it anyway.

But there is a fact like 50+ tows in as-Suwayda governorate are under regime control and are not in map i just draw 13 of these and were deleted.

Here is the discussion about these towns anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Towns_From_as-Suwayda_governorate_.281.29

These bothmap 1map 2 maps like most available are just partial pirate copies from Wikpedia map this people just watch here Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil who we made here and in base of that they make their own maps..

The most accurate map stilling be this one here on wikihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer/File:Syrian_civil_war_2.png and it showing showing very clear the 100% from as-Suwayda countryside in Army Hands same case with these copiesmap 1map 2

These are a copy alsohttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1395974204http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1396132515

And same case 100% from as-Suwayda countryside in regime control.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)07:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway when you can see there are not violations from rules because the towns who I draw and latter were deleted coincide 100% with all these mapshttp://www.liveleak.com/view?i=202_1395974204http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5db_1396132515map 1map 2https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_groups_in_the_Syrian_Civil_War#mediaviewer— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)08:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have beenblocked from editing for a period ofone week for violatingWP:1RR atTemplate:Syrian Civil War detailed map perWP:SCWGS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome tomake useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you mayappeal this block by adding the following text below this notice:{{unblock}}. However, you should read theguide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk)19:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hanibal911(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Why you blocked me from editing for a period of one week for violatingWP:1RR rule although I am not breakWP:1RR when editing of this articleTemplate:Syrian Civil War detailed map is probably this mistake.Hanibal911 (talk)19:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Per below. —Daniel Case (talk)22:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

It takes two reverts to violate 1RR. You reverted three times today, at 4:22, 14:50, and at 18:48 UTC.--Bbb23 (talk)19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong because I only once revert editing which made ​​the editor Paolowalter.18:48 buthereit is not a violation of 1RR as it is simply an adjustment which has not changed very essence of the edit andhere I also made ​​small corrections which also did not change the essence of changes and it is also not a violation of 1RR.Hanibal911 (talk)20:26, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That page's edits are a series of adjustments, some large, some very small. Each of your three edits changed the content of the page and was clearly a revert. You're not new to this. If you can't figure out what is and what isn't a revert, then don't edit the page more than once in a 24-hour period. Short of obvious gamesmanship, you should then at least be safe from 1RR.--Bbb23 (talk)20:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again to look my edits and you will see that I not revert edits of other editors I just corrected them. After all, if you look you will see that the editor LogFTW added some villages from the Suwayda province to the list of towns and villages of the Dara province and I just moved them to the list of towns and villages the Suwayda province according to the map but I'm not revert his editing. So I'm helped him but I was not going to break WP:1RR. Also, I added source confirming his editing and I only helped a newbie.here. Also in thiscase, if I brokeWP:1RR I did it not intentionally simple if you look at all the previous changes in this articleTemplate:Syrian Civil War detailed map you'll notice that when we indicate on the map that the city besieged we mark it differently and not as did the editorPaolowalter and I wanted help him correct this. Yet I am not asking you to cancel my punishment I just ask you him to soften.Hanibal911 (talk)09:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to know that media often interchanges between provinces, districts and cities. For example, there are still report that talk about Kerkuk being partially held by insurgents, while the city itself is clearly in the hands of Peshmerga. The writers of such news mean that the province of Kerkuk is partially held, but don't indicate this difference. This is the same with other cities/provinces/districts in Iraq like Khaneqin. The city itself is in hands of the Peshmerga but parts of the district not, like Saadiya, where fighting is continuing.

NadaCambia— Precedingunsigned comment added byNadaCambia (talk •contribs)14:44, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention this source,[10] hopefully you'll understand why I changed it to contested & lift my ban.

Benjamin 145 (talk)19:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But what does this have to do with to your editing.Hanibal911 (talk)20:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My apologize, wrong link.[11]

"The YPG captured several buildings at the entrance of the northern Aleppo city of Jarabulus from the ISIL, as well as the water facilities."

Benjamin 145 (talk)07:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But I think that is not need now mark the city Jarabulus to contested because your source said that the YPG fighters was captured several buildings at the entrance to the city. I think until we get more information about the situation in Jarablus we can to install a yellow circle around the city. But if appears the data confirming that the clashes are already in the city I'll change status the city Jarabulus to contested. I hope you will agree with me.Hanibal911 (talk)09:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please mark the semi-protect edit requests as answered after you have either denied or accepted the edit. :)— LeoFrank ^Talk04:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The opposition activist group Syrian Revolution Youth Coordinatorship said in a written statement that ISIL rebels captured al-Muhasan, al-Buamr and al-Bulil regions of Deir ez-Zor from the Free Syrian Army.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/news/139355/isil-executes-free-syrian-army-fighters

I dunno what is the quality and tendency of this source but important to know anyway— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)16:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These cities are already on the map and marked under control ISIL. Al Muhasan, Abu Layl(al-Bulil) and Al bu Muayt(al-Buamr). Hafez and Muhassen in Deir al-Zor. But I cant find on the map of city of Hafez which ISIS seized on Friday.The Daily StarHanibal911 (talk)17:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok srry I'm not very active on it now— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)22:38, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we all know that Archicivilians is a pro-opp source, but also that its an anti-ISIS source as well as Anti-SAA source. If we follow the line that other editors used to revert my edit, the four red towns south of Tabqa must be deleted, as they were first added basing on a pro-gov. map (Syrian perspective), and later based on a pro-opp & anti-ISIS map (Arab Chronicle), so according to that line of thought we cannot use it, as that last source is anti-ISIS. As usual, I only expect the same rules 4 all...--HCPUNXKID22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Source Archicivilians this frankly the anti-government source and data from this source can be deliberately reduce the areas which under army control and thus increase the territory under the control of anti-government insurgent groups. And given the fact that the source is against the governments of Syria and accordingly it data can be deliberately skewed in favor of any anti government groups it can be FSA or ISIS thus we can not use his data to display success FSA or ISIS. So I strongly suggest you find a more reliable sources that can confirm to the fact that part of the Hama province under control of ISIS.Hanibal911 (talk)06:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The village of Jardaqli is alreay on the map, immediately southwest of Tuz. You can even see ithere.Roboskiye (talk)19:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are not quite right because the city Chardaghli which I added to the card is located south of the city of Kirkuk.herHanibal911 (talk)19:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The source reads:The attacks took place on June 16 in theneighboring villages ofChardaghli, Brawchi and Karanaz, as well as a fourth village, Beshir, some 50 kilometers to the north[12]. So it is clear which Chardaqli is meant here. Regards.Roboskiye (talk)19:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea.EkoGraf (talk)18:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it should go red.EkoGraf (talk)18:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.es/maps/place/Sheikh+Zayat/@36.2557977,37.2731567,13z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x152ffda19e931d77:0x147a2899a37ecdaa. So already in Aleppo city map.--HCPUNXKID14:13, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Based just on these two[13][14] I think we have enough reason to change them all to black.EkoGraf (talk)14:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After a long discussion [[15]] I no found substantial evidences Assal al-Ward is total or partiality conflict / Contested - besiege / surroundedThis is the official Report fromSANA near Assal al-Ward.

Yes in the area are some sporadic insurgent presence but they are not able to make a effective block to any sector of the town.

Anyway I planing keep it like is now some days only for satisfied this user who want put something green there.

The towns are still rebel-held[16].EkoGraf (talk)02:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Reuters didn't check its facts on this one even though I consider it more reliable, because the same day SOHR reported the eastern towns of the governorate falling to ISIS they reported those couple of towns in the western part were still rebel-held. And there has been no new info on them since. So I would wait.EkoGraf (talk)16:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I will do it.EkoGraf (talk)16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I created a new articleOperation Canopus Star. Seemed appropriate.EkoGraf (talk)20:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I dont know what you edited but after you added (some changes in Idlib per pro opposition sourcehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsCaBcyCAAEMwKu.jpg:large) to the map, everything has moved off coordinates and slightly off the map. If you could fix it that would be great otherwise I might just undo the whole edit because I dont know where the problem is.

regardsJumada (talk)11:44, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected the mistake! RegardsHanibal911 (talk)11:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be appreciated on a discussion an editor has requested (rather at length I would say) here ‘Talk:Syrian Civil War#Problems and errors in our presentation of events April–May2011 in Daraa, Homs, Baniyas’.EkoGraf (talk)15:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that we should ask that the western side of the town be marked as Army-held because that was already confirmed some time ago but the map editors for some reason marked the whole town as contested. I think the town should be marked as divided down the middle until we get independent confirmation of the whole town being captured by the military.EkoGraf (talk)17:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno if the Army controlled all the area but is very probable the Army controlled part of that I THINK the Army controlled at least the west area of Malihah so some areas are safe for journalists I see Severals reports from Syrians TV Channels / News agencies Inside Malihah these are some of them.

• SAMA TV June 15 I think it showing civilians returning to some West Malihah areas.
• Syria Alikhbaria June 15
• SANA June 11
• SAMA TV June 10
• Syria Alikhbaria June 10
• SANA June 10
• SANA June 6 Disabling IEDs after secure the area.
• SAMA TV June 6
• Russia Today in Arabic
• Syria Alikhbaria May 12
• Syrian TV May 10
• Syria Alikhbaria May 7
• Syria TV May 5
• Syria TV May 4
• SAMA TV May 4
• SANA May 3
• Syria TV April 5
• Lebanon Al Madayeen April 3

Based on the reports seems happens three Assaults to west of Malihah first one in April 2014, second Staring may and last one at the moment in June 2014 in all these Assault the Insurgents lost ground and Army doing small gains (No Substantial gains but gain anyway) I estimated the Army controlled at the moment between the 60% to 80% to Malihah

Yes I know "Syrian Controlled media" mostly of these reports but are sources anyway using professionals press teams are not Anonymous a "Activists" professional Journalists in the terrain.--LogFTW (talk)01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I decided removed the green circle around Assal al-Ward we keeping more than a week a insurgent presence who basically no exist or not enough I posted (Before and Again) many sources who suggest the insurgent no blocked the west way of Assal al-Wardhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Assal_al-Ward_Should_be_have_full_red_again This is a cites and town map it's not a map about held territories, unfortunately is the insurgent have presence in some rular low populated areas we no have mode how to draw them.

Here are changes who we used more than a week anyway (Basically for satisfied anyway

Boredwhytekid's edition =

{{# invoke: location map|mark |Syria |lat=33.864|long=36.416 |mark=Location dot lime.svg |marksize=10}}

Your edition =

{{# invoke: location map|mark |Syria |lat=33.866|long=36.411 |mark=Location dot lime.svg |marksize=9}}

Hey buddy I think that as long as no need to remove this designation but as soon as we get new data from a reliable source I immediately remove this designation. But if we now remove this designation but it will re-add this designation in this case admins can block us for the provoking war of editors.Hanibal911 (talk)06:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All sources are very solid there are not a permanent insurgent presence blocking the west of Assal al-Ward a lot reports in the area too More sources than many others towns who are in full Red. It's nothing personal It's a fact what I can do ?

The map keeping more than a week a permanent presence in Al Ward who no exist just for satisfied him.

Keep a incorrect change on the map just because this user want it ?

We never will be have a news sources because the insurgents retreat from the west the same day when they launch a low scale attack.— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)14:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I find your revert ofthis map a bit strange. A more detailed reasoning and elaborated questions can be foundat your Commons discussion page. All the best.--Paracel63 (talk)18:58, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The district where the fighting was reported is the one where the university is, which is the very northern edge of Tikrit (outskirts/entrance). Sources from the last two days showed ISIS is in control of 99% of the refinery, except one building where 50 SWAT officers are holed up under siege and being starved out[17][18]. And Atta not really reliable (I think he was the one who claimed the recapture of Tikrit at one point....or two).EkoGraf (talk)15:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some people on Damascus map is always reverting the Maydaa changes in Damascushttps://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Damashq.svg

But they not providing sources for doing the changes.

The information about Maydaa is very poor but at the moments these are the only two sources who I foundSource 1Source 2

Both sources coincided 100% - So if we no have any news it must be keeping in red.— Precedingunsigned comment added by190.203.205.104 (talk)05:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some one is changingthis town to contested and latter to green but thiswas in red according topreviously map.

SOHR and pro insurgents twitter account are not sources is against the rules used pro Insurgent sources (All insurgents factions) to showing insurgents advances against the Government

I report that on talkpage[19] but nobody pay attention me.

I ask you because I'm not able to edit at the moment.

I think If nobody have solid sources it must be change to red again. --Pototo1 (talk)19:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since SOHR has stated ISIS controls the whole province except the government-held areas of the provincial capital, I will change from blue to black because the source is newer and more neutral (the Institute has shown pro-opp tendencies in the past). Besides, reports do say that generally in all of the ISIS territories ISIS leaves local tribes to administer themselves while their troops go to the frontlines (same goes for Iraq). As for the T3 pumping station, I agree with you, that other editors conduct was Original Research.EkoGraf (talk)18:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Made a new articleBattle of the Shaer gas field. Update with info you deem appropriate.EkoGraf (talk)02:55, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources said or suggests this place is controlled by the army is a place very close to the brigade 93 the Remains from 17 division were relocated there.

Here are a lot sources.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map#Most_sources_suggests_Ayn_Issa_is_controlled_by_Army

Based on sources yes all suggests the army controlled that, but there no exist a TV Report inside the town so no visual confirmation.

What you think ?— Precedingunsigned comment added byLogFTW (talk •contribs)16:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A lot solid evidences including extensive visual confirmation suggests Deir ez Zor is controlled by the Army but this is black on map.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Ayyash_is_in_Government_control_stop_to_change_that_to_black.— Precedingunsigned comment added byPototo1 (talk •contribs)21:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the Hama area quoting a map about Jisr Shugur? A mistake in quoting the source?Paolowalter (talk)16:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aranews,also mention that the regime pulled out of hasakah city,and that the city is fully YPG controlled.Alhanuty (talk)16:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understand ARA News is a pro opposition source and its information can not be used to display the progress of the rebels. But even this source acknowledges a temporary alliance Army and kurds against the IS and that now two sides protect the city.sourceHanibal911 (talk)16:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Created a new articleQalamoun offensive (June 2014–present).EkoGraf (talk)13:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!EkoGraf (talk)15:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pro-regime forces guard two buildings in entire Hasaka city, which is totally negligible. This is even mentioned inyour source:On the other hand, the pro-regime military forces, who are stationed at al-Hasakah governorate building.Roboskiye (talk)20:55, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you editedIraqi insurgency (2011–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageRT. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles.Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)09:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo! :)EkoGraf (talk)14:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you get this sourcehttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsi8_1ACMAMCpc0.jpg:large.Paolowalter (talk)17:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember exactly but it was a reliable source.Hanibal911 (talk)19:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aleppo battle page is in disarray because of super biased editor. They refuse any change in favour of the government. Other than reverting their chnages I do not know what to do. Many modifications are warranted on the map.Paolowalter (talk)11:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardingthis edit: You are wrong. Removing unsourced material is not original research, which is actually a totally different issue.According to Wikipedia editing policy:Unsourced information may be challenged and removed. So you are tooooo biased, especially in favor of the vanishing aLawite aRab regime.Roboskiye (talk)16:06, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert his edit[20]. I cann't because I did that one from before today. Laststronghold does not mean its the last government position in the province. There have been no reports those villages had reverted back to ISIS control. Not to mention the termstronghold refers tofortifications that are military constructions or buildings designed for the defense of territories in warfare, and also used to solidify rule in a region during peace time. And a military airport is exactly that. Not towns and villages.EkoGraf (talk)19:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I can revert this editing but today I revert one edit. And he can accuse me of violating 1RR rule.Hanibal911 (talk)19:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you read the SOHR source you will find it says and i quote" violent clashes have continued between the IS fighters and the regime forces in the south and east from the Military Airport of Al Tabaq" how come them does assad control those far villages if the clashes are already now occuring on the south and the east of the airport,and okay i will self-revert ayad kabir,because no clashes were mentioned on the north or west.Alhanuty (talk)19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/569242349850774

Also here on 11 August SOHR reported about clashes between IS fighters and the regime forces nearAl Ajrawi which located in an area which is under control IS according the pro governmentmap.sourceHanibal911 (talk)20:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf You can fix a mistake which do Alhanuty because he put green circle around the town Kanaker but SOHR clear that the regular forces bombarded Kankar town outskirts and another areas in al-Tayba town. But Sohr not said about clashes around or near the town Kanaker.source And why he change size of the town Kanaker and noted him how just village.here His actions are harm the map!Hanibal911 (talk)16:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Maybe ISIS use Chemical Weapons against Kurdish Fighters in Kobane? And I think need display this information in the articleSiege of KobanêInternational Business TimesMiddle East ForumRTThe Jerusalem PostHanibal911 (talk)09:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf I need your help in a situation with the editor Alhanuty. He edits without any reasons. Here you can see this.herehere This is vandalism. He edits how he want it and he does not even want to listen to those who tell him that he is wrong.Hanibal911 (talk)20:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done[21].EkoGraf (talk)13:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGrafThank you for your help. But you probably made a mistake because you noted under the control the army the village of Khirbat al Atrah which located near the city Nubl but need marked under control by army the village of Khirbat Bajjah which located to north the city Nawa.hereHanibal911 (talk)13:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, corrected[22].EkoGraf (talk)13:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since July 19 it's in full Army control (10+ Sources + visual evidences) I no found solid evidences IS get there atm [[23]] --Pototo1 (talk)13:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For all your help in keeping the maps updated. Your constant diligence keeps them accurate!MrPenguin20 (talk)14:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should change the towns in east Hama on these maps to ISIS-controlled or contested since these three sources[24][25][26] are all consistent on this point. One is SOHR (all agreed it is highly reliable), Desyracuse (slightly pro-opp), Archicivilians (heavily pro-opp, not always reliable). However, again, they have all been consistent on this point that ISIS controls at least a part of this area. These are the propositions:
Abu Hanaya and Akash - contested
Salba, Masadah, Masoud, Mukayman al-Shamali, Abu Dali, Abu Ramal, Soha, Grouh and Jinn Albawi - ISIS-held
That's it. P.S. Grouh is off a bit on our map. It needs adjusting.EkoGraf (talk)04:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both maps how we know are pro opposition. Also SOHR as we know from many sources opposes to Syrian government even though we agreed to use it. But we need confirmation that IS captured so many villages but not one of the reliable sources not said for this. I think that all the same, we need to confirmation these data from other reliable sources.Hanibal911 (talk)05:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We all agreed to use SOHR as the most authoritative source. And we have SOHR confirming that sub-district is ISIS-held. Not to mention the reliable sources you mentioned (like AFP, AP, Reuters, etc) are all actually using information from SOHR most of the time. P.S. There are no pro-government sources countering the claims about this area.EkoGraf (talk)05:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled on by chance just a minute ago a pro-government news source[27] that is showing a map where the area in question is highlighted.EkoGraf (talk)05:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I have edited the map. So what do I do to change they villages on under control IS or not.Hanibal911 (talk)05:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said above. Abu Hanaya and Akash contested, the rest ISIS-held.EkoGraf (talk)06:32, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look closely at the Al Jazeera map[28] you will see the area in question also marked as asupport zone, again giving credence to the notion they are in control there. I cann't read the New York times because I'm over my limit for this month. But again, SOHR said they control that sub-district.EkoGraf (talk)16:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bait tima was added as contested via SOHR.so please self-revert or tell someone else to do so please.Alhanuty (talk)20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey do me a favor and undo my last edit please - the Tabqa Airbase one - I am having trouble reverting it. 19:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Boredwhytekid (talk)

	The Original Barnstar
	For your efforts on the Syrian and Iraqi maps and also showing sources that are reliable for that edit(s).Damirgraffiti|☺Say Yo to Me!☺00:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much! :)EkoGraf (talk)19:57, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I didn't realise that was a pro-opposition source. This, however:https://docs.google.com/file/d/0ByQl9HGZDeRXbmdkSnRQVDd3Nm8/edit isn't a pro-opposition source— Precedingunsigned comment added byJafar Saeed (talk •contribs)18:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the map fromhttps://pietervanostaeyen.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/2000px-syria6.png are too coarse to gain intelligence about single villages. Furthrmore he is unlikely to have any more detailed info that we have. On the other hand the map from pro-government source is precise and reliable.If any, we should push for having them accepted for all changes, as we did for SOHR.Paolowalter (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)Paolowalter (talk)20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that the maphttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bw2v9IIIIAAHoPf.jpg:large is a puzzle of other maps. No original information is available. It follows quite closely our map with a few points of difference. It would bring no significant changes anyway.Paolowalter (talk)20:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is @deSyracuse not a reliable source?— Precedingunsigned comment added byJafar Saeed (talk •contribs)20:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you a reply on your talk page!Hanibal911 (talk)20:31, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet, there are only 2 villages there - Urozhaine (Урожайне in Ukrainian, Урожайное in Russian) and Tamara (Тамара in Ukrainian and in Russian). Evenhttp://liveuamap.com/ displays that circle as red (controlled by the insurgents). Do you have any information that those 2 villages are being sieged or something like that?? - see map[29] (Ukrainian) /[30] (Russian) /[31] (English)Mondolkiri1 (talk)02:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed multiple times in the past. Even though they are a pro-opposition source and their rethoric can be heavily anti-government, their battlefield reports (reporting advances and defeats of both ides) have shown to be highly reliable and for the most part neutral in the past and are used by the international reliable media outlets who describe SOHR authoritative on the issue.EkoGraf (talk)09:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right!Hanibal911 (talk)13:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

can you revert Paolowalter's last edit on the Module.Alhanuty (talk)19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

via this source,these villages has been captured by IS,so can you update the map.http://www.alkurdiya.net/2014/09/blog-post_231.html.Alhanuty (talk)22:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've written to you:

@Hanibal911: I asked you about Zolote, Hirs'ke and Stanytsia Luhanska, concerning to the source you've provided to paint Pervomaisk in red again: are Zolote, Hirs'ke and Stanytsia Luhanska also occupied by the insurgents? And, by the way (at least for me), you don't need to refer to the rebels as the evil ones against the good ones. I'm neutral and I think both sides have antagonist, though legitimate positions about the issue. You didn't answer to me about the question I posed to you! Unless you can provide me a consistent answer answer about Zolote, Hirs'ke and Stanytsia Luhanska, I'll be quite blind about the situation in these 3 towns. Because I translated the sources in Google Translator and Paralink translator (I'm a Portuguese (latin) with a good knowledge of English and Spanish and some knowledge about Italian and French). Pervomaisk, by what I've understood, is in the same situation of Zolote, Hirs'ke (or is it another place?) and Stanytsia Luhanska. I have to be consistent in the maps that I edit from the sources you provide to me (and others that I get). So far, I've only kept Pervomaisk as red, but according to your source, if I'm not wrong, at least Zolote and Stanytsia Luhanska should also be red. Only after you (or someone else) reply to this question (preferably with more sources about Pervomaisk, Zolote and Stanytsia Luhanska), I will do a later update about the other sources you provided to me. I have to be accurate according to the sources that are provided and I update the map according to them, if they seem to be reliable enough, taking into account the "fog of war". I'll quote this answer in both maps involvedMondolkiri1 (talk) 04:27, 18 September 2014(UTC)

AND:

@Hanibal911: OK, I'm not going to quote this yet, since it could provoke an unnecessary confusion and some bad-faith editors could turn against you because of this. But, please, please, please, clarify me first about Zolote, Stanytsia Luhanska and (if I understood well) Hirs'ke!Mondolkiri1 (talk)04:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad if you could clarify these issues to me, because I have to rely on online translations from Ukrainian and Russian and they're not always accurate.Mondolkiri1 (talk)04:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

I've already reached 3 reverts, so today I can't revert it anymore. According to the sources you've provided to me and according tohttp://liveuamap.com/ (the official ATO site of Ukraine), correct the map if you think it's appropriate, providing sources, please! Today, I can't do anything else.Mondolkiri1 (talk)13:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry for the enormous delay on this one, you know, summer is a difficult time for editing WP, hehe...Here you have wich I consider the most appropiate location of Rumeilan oil fields, if you want to add it to the map. Regards,--HCPUNXKID14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The video about the capture was uploaded to youtube late on 18 September, despite it being dated as 19 September. So it was most likely filmed after the capture on 17 September as reported by SOHR.EkoGraf (talk)22:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saw a report about this yesterday. The barrier (checkpoint) is outside the village, not in it I think.EkoGraf (talk)15:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree.EkoGraf (talk)16:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHRreports barrel bombing of "Nemer". ThisNimer is on our map, SAA held. ThisNamer is not on our map. Both towns are on the front line, so I do not know which one is contested! Any ideas?Boredwhytekid (talk)16:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR clear said about two towns ofal Na’emeh andNemer. SOHR not said about Al Nimr.SOHRHanibal911 (talk)17:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't we discussthis before?Fitzcarmalan (talk)22:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just started to read the neews. I only saw, except for your source, Peto Lucem quoting government sources that they are advancing towards Duma. At the very least Tal-al-Kurdy needs to be marked as contested while Al-Suwan as government held.EkoGraf (talk)12:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer!Hanibal911 (talk)12:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I am trying to locate "Albu Aitha, north of Ramadi" as mentioned inISW report, which states that IS is besieging 240+ ISF troops there.This location is listed as "Albu Aath" on mapcarta. What do you think? Same place?Boredwhytekid (talk)13:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Detective Barnstar
		In appreciation of your very valuable contributions concerning to providing a wide range of sources about the military situation in theWar in Donbass and2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, which have been of the utmost importance for updating the maps concerning to them!Mondolkiri1 (talk)22:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mondolkiri1 (talk)21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have a source about Starohnativka?. The source you gave to me ([32]) talks about Schastya, Popasna, Slavianosebersk, Avdiivka, Marinka, Maiorska and Volnovakha (and in the Donetsk Airport and Debaltseve area), not Starohnahnativka. Is it in the map?
• Is Kurakhove still contested? There have been some weeks when I haven't heard anything about it!Mondolkiri1 (talk)21:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

via multiple sources,the towns are bombarded heavilyhttps://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/590837797691229https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/590465967728412https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/590434211064921https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/590324227742586https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/591546840953658https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/591396717635337http://syriahr.com/en/2014/10/23-soldiers-from-the-regime-forces-died-in-daraa/https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/591117634329912https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/591033547671654https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/590863937688615https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/591964154245260.Alhanuty (talk)14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is adiscussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk)17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aranews is not pro-opposition,it is a pro-kurdish source,so it doesn't break the rule.Alhanuty (talk)06:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an communitysanction, and for violating the one revert rule atModule:Syrian Civil War detailed map with these edits1,2 &3,

you have beenblocked from editing for10 days. You are welcome tomake useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read theguide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.Callanecc (talk •contribs •logs)08:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reminder to administrators: Community sanctions are enacted by the consensus of the community. You must either discuss this block with the blocking administrator and receive their approval, or receive consensus at a community noticeboard before reversing this block.

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

Hanibal911(block log •active blocks •global blocks •contribs •deleted contribs •filter log •creation log •change block settings •unblock •checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I believe that my block is not justified because according the rule 1RR I can not revert the editing which make other editor without good reason. In this casehere I not revert editing because I just edit ​​map and provide source which confirm my editing. In these both cases,herehere editings have been made not justified because the sources that were provided not confirm editings which were made and I only edited this Module in accordance with the data from these sources and not just take and revert editings which were made by other editors. So I did not break a rule 1RR. Also in this moduleSyrian Civil War detailed map was a warning that we can not revert editings which were made by other editors without provide reason which justifies such action.

Decline reason:

It is not clear why you think reverting good faith changes from other editors is exempt from 1RR. The message above seems to be claiming that you feel your edits are correct, therefore exempt from the sanctions; this is not the case.Kuru(talk)11:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, pleaseread theguide 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.

Got it on the opposition claim. I will revert him and note its an opposition claim.EkoGraf (talk)15:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid So, according toSOHR clashes continue between the two sides around village al-Adnania not inside the village. Regards!Hanibal911 (talk)15:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBoredwhytekid (talk)15:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed Adnania back to contested. Here's why:SOHR says clashes "in" Safirah. I think this city is too big and strategically important to make contested based on 1 report! So I put lime circle to the SW, and changed Adnania to contested because rebels must have gone through there, but there is no confirmation of who controls it. I think this is suitable until more information about the front line is available.Boredwhytekid (talk)18:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidThere's probably a typo because the same source says that rebels “strike three sites of the army which are al Adnaneyyi, al Zera’ah al Foqaneyyi and al Zera’ah al Tehtaneyyi in order to open a road to attack the Defense Factories. Also SOHR said that if rebels take control of these factories this led to besiege the regime forces inside the town of al Sfireh, So does this mean that there is no clashes in the city or its suburbs and the rebels only shelled from artillery the outskirts of the city Al Safira (al Adnaneyyi, al Zera’ah al Foqaneyyi and al Zera’ah al Tehtaneyyi) So I think it may be noted the village Al Adnaneyyi for now as besieged. Also as long as there is no evidence from other reliable sources about the advances of the rebels and the capture of territory in this area. This information was originally published in the pro opposition source.Sln News www.syriadirect.org/rss/1600-syria-direct-news-update-10-8-14Hanibal911 (talk)19:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right. SOHR isreporting clashes in Adnaneyyi though. In any case - I threw the whole topic up on the talk page for further discussion.Boredwhytekid (talk)20:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jafar SaeedThere's probably a typo because the same source says that rebels “strike three sites of the army which are al Adnaneyyi, al Zera’ah al Foqaneyyi and al Zera’ah al Tehtaneyyi in order to open a road to attack the Defense Factories. Also SOHR said that if rebels take control of these factories this led to besiege the regime forces inside the town of al Sfireh, So does this mean that there is no clashes in the city or its suburbs and the rebels only shelled from artillery the outskirts of the city Al Safira (al Adnaneyyi, al Zera’ah al Foqaneyyi and al Zera’ah al Tehtaneyyi) Also as long as there is no evidence from other reliable sources about the advances of the rebels and the capture of territory in this area. This information was originally published in the pro opposition source.Sln News www.syriadirect.org/rss/1600-syria-direct-news-update-10-8-14Hanibal911 (talk)05:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidSOHR reported that YPG fighters took control over Tall Shair which located in the western countryside of city Kobane.hereHanibal911 (talk)05:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBoredwhytekid (talk)12:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid You can correct the mistake! Because SOHR said that clashes taking place between regime forces and Islamic battalions in JAdia area but not said that clashes inside city Judayyah.here But Alhanuty probably not carefully read the source and noted it as a contested.Hanibal911 (talk)06:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Judayyah, Simlin, Nimer. Geez oh man.Boredwhytekid (talk)12:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I apologize in advance that may be I often bothering you with my requests, but I can see that you also trying to do everything that would the map reflects the real situation. So maybe you can help me to fix not justified change which was make without identifying the source.hereHanibal911 (talk)17:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 'em coming. I am trying but cannot keep up/do not have enough reverts!Boredwhytekid (talk)18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidAlso you can restore this my editinghere which had previously been reverted the editor Cobanas but without a valid reason on this although I have provided the pro opposition source of Ara News which confirmed my editing!sourceHanibal911 (talk)19:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done An addition - I placed a yellow ring around Ja'zah per the same source - "This coincided with clashes between the Kurdish forces of the Popular Protection Units (YPG) –military arm of the Democratic Union Party PYD– and IS militants in Jazaa area near the Syrian-Iraqi border"Boredwhytekid (talk)20:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid You can fix a mistake which do Alhanuty because he put green circle around the town Kanaker but SOHR clear that the regular forces bombarded Kankar town outskirts and another areas in al-Tayba town. But Sohr not said about clashes around or near the town Kanaker.source And why he change size of the town Kanaker and noted him how just village.here His actions are harm the map!Hanibal911 (talk)16:24, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid SOHR reported that regime forces have regained control on villages after losing it in the battle of ” Za’er al-Ahrar ” against Ahrar al-Sham movement.sourceHanibal911 (talk)14:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Sorry to bother you but maybe you manage find on the map these villages (al Wehdah al Da’emah and Masaken al Shabab )in the southern countryside of al Hasaka about which reported by SOHR.sourceHanibal911 (talk)15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

village Ma'rkaba in the northern Hama countryside under control by regime troops.SOHRHanibal911 (talk)10:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol those are some questionable edits! the Ma'rkaba source just says rebels bombarded it, right? and the Aleppo source does not specify which villages have been retaken! But, both of those edits have already been taken care of anyway. I'll look for al Wehdah al Da'emah and Masaken al Shabab.Boredwhytekid (talk)12:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidBut SOHR clear said that Islamic fighters targeted with shells regime bastions in Ma'rkaba village.here Also pro opposition source confirmed that rebels retreated from the villages Abu Tabbah, Sad'aya, Qashuta, Bashquy, Diman, Zira'ah, Adnania.herehere Also how you can see I try not to publish unconfirmed data.Hanibal911 (talk)13:55, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Here new confirmation about situation in the city Al Harra in Dara province. Iranian source clearly said that rebel forces in Daraa have seized the town of al-Harrah.Mehr Iran TVHanibal911 (talk)14:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidBut you are wrong when you noted the city Nimr under control the rebels. Because SOHR not said that rebels seized this city. Also SOHR did not elaborate on what exactly the city in question.here But in the situation with the city Ma'rkaba SOHR clear said that Islamic fighters targeted with shells regime bastions in the village Ma'rkaba.hereHanibal911 (talk)14:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That Iranian TV source is a diamond in the rough! What an argument that's been. True, SOHR didn't specifically say rebels are in Nimr, but, it's so far behind rebel lines (especially since Harrah is confirmed rebel held). And Nimr is too small for the SAA to bombard it if they have troops inside still.Boredwhytekid (talk)14:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidYet SOHR not said that the city Nimr under rebel control, and I think that at the moment the best solution is to mark it as a contested. Also some activists reported about violent clashes in Tal al- Harra between the SAA and Jabhat Al-Nusra.herehere Although I do not quite trust to these sources but maybe you have more information on this subject.Hanibal911 (talk)15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think Nimr is pretty obviously rebel-held. But, I do not have a source to 100% confirm that, and what you suggest is a fair and reasonable compromise. I will make Nimr contested. Let's revisit Nimr in a week or so if reports of bombardment continue but no reports of clashes surface.Boredwhytekid (talk)15:22, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid OK! Also you can change the size of the circle which marked the city Kanaker because he must be larger (8 but not 6)because Kanaker it is city but no village.

Here's a table of sizes for cities and villages for displayed on the map:

• Under 5,000 is size 6
• 5000 to 19,999 is size 8
• 20,000 to 49,999 is size 10
• 50,000-99,999 is size 12
• Above 100,000 is size 14Hanibal911 (talk)15:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On review, Alhanuty may have been correct (though without sources!) Within the last 30 dayspro-gov't farsnews reports clashes in Kanaker,pro-gov't syriatimes says some of the militants of Kanaker surrendered,eaworldview implies that Kanaker is part of the rebel-contested West Ghouta pocket, and thatSOHR does say the SAA bombarded its outskirts. Maybe the green concentric circle would be appropriate after all.Boredwhytekid (talk)18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid But here pro opposition map dated on 8 October which clearly shows that no clashes in the city Kanaker or on its outskirts.hereHanibal911 (talk)18:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncertain. pro-gov't media would NEVER give the rebels credit for being somewhere they are not.Boredwhytekid (talk)18:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Let's at the moment leave it at that but will closely monitor the situation in the area!Hanibal911 (talk)18:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidIn accordance with data from the progovernmentmap you can add on the map two military objects in the Eastern Ghouta.Air Defense BaseArmy Storage BaseHanibal911 (talk)06:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I see that you also how and I became a victim of the rule 1RR so that if you have data to edit the map you can sent this data to me. After all, you helped me and now it's my turn to help you. Term of my block expires 16 October at 8:15. Regards!Hanibal911 (talk)15:52, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Heavy clashes between regime forces and Syrian rebels in the Handarat district of the city Aleppo.ReutersHanibal911 (talk)19:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBoredwhytekid (talk)12:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Can you help me fix the map? Need fix the unjustified editing without identifying the source:hereHanibal911 (talk)16:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done I caught and reverted the other 11 unsourced edits that that user made yesterday.. must've missed that one. Thanks!Boredwhytekid (talk)17:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Thank you very much for your help! But there is a way to solve the problem of IP vandalism. Request to the admins about protection.Requests for page protection This will solve the problem!Hanibal911 (talk)17:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion. If that IP continues to vandalize I will request protection for the pageBoredwhytekid (talk)18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid The reliable sources said that the town Baiji under control by Iraqi army.NaharnetNDTVSBS NewsKhaleej TimesThe Malaysian InsiderHanibal911 (talk)17:22, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid So what do you think about the information about the city Baiji.Hanibal911 (talk)15:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBoredwhytekid (talk)15:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Today around 300 government forces retreat from the military camp which located outside the city of Hit and join to other forces which holed up at Asad air base to deeper in the desert.Naharnet You do not know what kind of a military camp. Also according this source the Iraqi town not under control IS only parts of this town. Help me fix a map!Hanibal911 (talk)17:16, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the red presence in Hit based off ofDaily Star, what says "Iraqi government troops stationed on the edge of Hit in beleaguered Anbar province have withdrawn to another base, leaving the city under full jihadist control, security sources said Monday."Daily Star just issued another report about it too. I believe the Hit Training Camp ishere.Boredwhytekid (talk)17:48, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid You are right! Also you can change the town of Ramadi on contested.NaharnetHanibal911 (talk)18:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneBoredwhytekid (talk)12:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about thissource? It links to lots of Arabic news source, and I think it could be helpful in updating the Iraq Module (which is in serious need of updates)Boredwhytekid (talk)17:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Absolutely agree with you. I think that for update of this module it is great source.Hanibal911 (talk)18:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911,EkoGraf, you two and myself do the majority of edits onModule Syrian Civil War detailed map - hence I'm reaching out to you two. We don't always agree, we downright argue sometimes, but I think overall the map benefits from our combined attention. Is there any recourse we can take to somehow stem the tide of unsourced edits, argument about using al masdar as a lone source for pro-gov't gain, and argument about using SOHR at all? These are all topics that I'm pretty sure have been agreed upon by the main editors of the page - no unsourced edits without community consensus, no al masdar as a lone source for pro-gov't advances, and SOHR used for all sides, but with a grain of salt and common sense concerning their wording. Nonetheless, vitriolic arguments about al masdar and SOHR happen on a near monthly basis, and unsourced edits (without community consensus) plague the module and demand reverts pretty much daily. I'm still kinda new at this, but doesn'tDisruptive Editing come in at some point? Or is there some sort ofDispute Resolution that would be appropriate?Hanibal911, I see that your current block was a result of you making multiple reverts on such disruptive editing - so obviously breaking 1RR is not the solution here. I'm just spit-balling here.. how do we stop POV pushing and disruptive editing generally?

al Masdar as primary source for pro-gov't edit

unsourced pro-op edit

misrepresentation of information in source

straight vandalism

If I'm completely out of line please tell me so. My bad for bothering you two, again - Just getting tired of being hands-tied by 1RR and watching unsourced edits or edits based on community-agreed-upon sources being reverted and substituted for biased sources or misrepresented sources.

Boredwhytekid‎You raised a very important question which I see has long been worried not only me. So I think that the rule 1RR should not apply in the case when we reverted the unjustified editings which were made without specifying the source or when the source that was specified not confirmed this editing or just plain destructive edits or if that provoke war of edits. So sometimes this rule (1RR) prevents fix the map.Hanibal911 (talk)19:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This rule should be applied only in the cases when the revert is not justified or if it provokes the war of edits. Otherwise, it will only be to encourage editors who make unjustified changes to continue their destructive actions, and even so deliberately provoke of the other editors which revert this unjustified changes. Knowing full well that these editors will be blocked for violation of the rules 1RR. And after that they will be able to freely make unjustified changes knowing that no one can stop them.Hanibal911 (talk)19:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously the usage of Al-Masdar to report Government advance has gone over the limits.Alhanuty (talk)22:34, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty In our discussion, we have clearly shown that we are against the use of a source of Al Masdar to display the progress of the army.Hanibal911 (talk)05:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

problem is editors Paolowalter and pototo and another editor still insist on doing so.Alhanuty (talk)06:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tradedia here confirmation from pro oppositionmap that "Battalion 602" near the village Handarat under control by army. So that need return this base on the map.Hanibal911 (talk)05:56, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we filled the al-Adnania section enough. What's your take onthis Daily Star article. It says that there are only 4 villages in Qunietra province not overrun by Nusra. The 2 Druze villages mentioned have got to be Turnajah and Hadar; the other two must be Madinet al Ba'ath and Khan Arnabah, right? If true, then it is time to turn those 5 villages behind rebel lines to green (Mamtinah, Rasm Kharrar, al-Hajah, Dwayah, and Rasm al Sayd)Boredwhytekid (talk)14:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Probably you are right! But let's wait for tomorrow morning and I'll try find more information and if there is no other information about situation it this area then we marked these villages under control by rebel. Just, that would we have been fully confident in the correctness of such a change.Hanibal911 (talk)15:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a planBoredwhytekid (talk)18:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I have no other data and we can note these villages under rebel control. So If you also not have other data we can make this change.Hanibal911 (talk)11:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Also here pro governmentmap dated on 12 September clear show that areas south from the village Majduliyah under rebel control.Hanibal911 (talk)12:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This al-Monitor article supports these edits too - "The regime lost Quneitra and its countryside weeks ago, and today it is losing its most fortified positions in Daraa"Boredwhytekid (talk)13:01, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidDoneHanibal911 (talk)13:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidMaybe when Alhanuty mark the city Nawa under control by rebels he made not a big mistake because source said that government forces have left their positions in the vicinity of al-Harra, northwest of Daraa, and in Tal al-Harra. So that based on data from this sourceAl Monitor we need put under control by rebels the city of Nimr. Because many pro-government and the pro opposition sources indicate that the town of Nawa contested between the army and rebels. The west part of the city under control the rebels but the east part of the city under control the army. Here pro oppmap What do you think?Hanibal911 (talk)16:27, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he has corrected his edit - Nawa contested, Nimr greenBoredwhytekid (talk)17:19, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I read your comment about the city Kafr Shams on the talk page and you and you are right that needed confirmation from a neutral source. Further here more detailed pro oppositionmap which clear show that clashes near the city Kafr Shams. And you correctly put the green circle on the west side of this city.Hanibal911 (talk)18:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I have the question for you ! Maybe you want join to other similar project and help in editing and improving the map (similar to the Iraqi and Syrian).Yemen Insurgency detailed mapHanibal911 (talk)18:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to have you back! I'm excited to work with you on the Yemen module as well. Let's try to keep the written log up to date on that one; it's kinda fallen behind on the Syrian module. Is there any similar module for the Libyan civil war? I understand a module for Lebanon is being created.Boredwhytekid (talk)12:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid I'm not very interested in the Libyan war, so I do not know whether there is such a module for this conflict. But if you edited the articles about this conflict, and if you will need my help I will try to help you. And I'm sure that soon there will be a module for the conflict in Lebanon because this conflict directly related to the conflict in Syria.Hanibal911 (talk)12:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid The editorJumada created theYemen Insurgency detailed map for conflict in Yemen. So if are you interested the conflict in Libya, you can refer to this editor, and may be he will help you to create the such same template and for the Libyan conflict.Hanibal911 (talk)12:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. Perhaps I will reach out to him - I'd like to track Libya too, because it, Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq are all hotspots of the same regional conflict right now, and I think it'd be a shame to omit LibyaBoredwhytekid (talk)12:45, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidAgree!Hanibal911 (talk)18:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think we will need a libyan one,because most likely the conflict in Libya will be over soon,and also,we can do the samething for libya as we did in 2011.Alhanuty (talk)19:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlhanutyMaybe you're right! Personally, I cant say anything on this matter as I am not very sign with topic about conflict in this African country. But if there are editors who are familiar with this topic, and they would like to create a similar module so is their choice. Maybe someone from the editors wants show in more detail situation in that country. Just based on the history of other conflicts in Africa and the Middle East we cant be sure when ended this or that military conflict.Hanibal911 (talk)20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidAlhanutyEkoGrafTradediaPaolowalterJafar SaeedDaki122 Dear editors, I want make offer for all us not add the circles around towns or villages on the basis only of a single message from SOHR about the bombing of a neighborhood town or village or clashes in the area or near a town or village. Because it could be attack only hit and run or the source could be mistaken. Let's add circles only in the event if this report about clashes repeated in the short period. Also I think it would be appropriate to add a larger circles in case when the city or village under siege and the smaller circles if clashes go near or around the town or village. I hope we all remember the case with the village of Tal Malid and about some other cases.here I hope for your understanding. Regards!Hanibal911 (talk)10:30, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this one as lets remember this is an insurgent war and many of the attacks are hit and run and many times after the first attack we put a circle around the town showing there is a rebel presence around the town but many times rebels are miles from the same town.The Qualamoun region is a perfect example where rebels are fighting government troops in mountains kilometers from the towns of Flita and Assal-al-Ward but we still have green circles near the towns.Many of those attacks come from the Lebanese side of the border and as soon as the rebels run into government checkpoints or a patrol they flee back across the border into the Arsal area.If there is no constant presence on the outskirts of the town like the rebel presence near Kafr Shams or like the government presence near Telbisah then we should not add circles to mark only one report from SOHR which many times uses the name of the town for the area around the town which is not the same as in the Qualamoun areas around the town with the same name are vast as there are only a few towns in the region.Daki122 (talk)12:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidEkoGrafPaolowalter Do you think maybe we should mark this area as contested as there truce broken and now in this area go clashes.SOHR www.syriadirect.org/rss/1616-syria-direct-news-update-10-16-14Hanibal911 (talk)10:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Apparently clashes have been going on for some time.Paolowalter (talk)12:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AgreeBoredwhytekid (talk)14:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DoneHanibal911 (talk)15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For now I think we should leave it as it is because the notable name for the event has so far been the Siege of Kobane.EkoGraf (talk)12:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They may have denied sending new fighters to the town, but 300 FSA fighters had already been there since the start of the battle, of which 9 died as SOHR confirmed.EkoGraf (talk)19:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have created ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Lebanese_Insurgency_detailed_map

take a look and check if it needs any repair.Alhanuty (talk)23:39, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AlhanutyOK! And good idea to create ​​the template for the conflict in Lebanon. It will be extremely useful.Hanibal911 (talk)05:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidEkoGrafPaolowalter‎HCPUNXKID‎AlhanutyDaki122 I suggest you to give your opinion in this debate.hereHanibal911 (talk)13:20, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the pro-government map,clearly shows the areas as IS-held.Alhanuty (talk)20:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait a few days to see, because this well may expand yet since it seems Nusra has paired with ISIS now. However, if it does not, we name itofensive as you said. P.S. I would ask for your opinion on an issue where an editor has already made three reverts of my edits. I warned him he is on the brink of breaching 3RR. Here is his revert of my original edit[33] (tried to insert compromise wording later on[34] that he refused.) Discussion (or the lack of it) is at his talk page[35]. Cheers!EkoGraf (talk)09:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Agree! Also I'm did what you asked.Hanibal911 (talk)12:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!EkoGraf (talk)14:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it seems the name of the article should be changed tooffensive now, but the title you proposed seems to long. Maybeal-Nusra Front offensive (October–November 2014)?EkoGraf (talk)08:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGraf Agree!Hanibal911 (talk)11:16, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been reading some stuff on thispro-regime sites saying about losses for their soldiers in Beit Temah, in an ambush. It looks like said the same. I belive this town is rebel held. Should I edit the map ?DuckZz (talk)00:57, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZzSOHR not said that Beit Temah is under rebel control. And I do not see the confirmation from the pro-government sources. You just sending me the link to the group on Facebook. Understand that before you edit the map you will need to provide a source that can confirm the change but you dont provide source which said that Beit Temah is under rebel control.Hanibal911 (talk)06:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidEkoGrafPaolowalter‎HCPUNXKIDDaki122 I suggest you give your opinion in this debate.Nawa 2Hanibal911 (talk)13:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidEkoGrafPaolowalter‎HCPUNXKIDDaki122Alhanuty I suggest you give your opinion in this debate.here I need your opinion and maybe your help.Hanibal911 (talk)10:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why makethis edit? The front line in Latakia was already clear - all those villages are obviously gov't held, being behind gov't front lines. Adding these towns doesn't add any new information to the map at all.. it's just clutter.Boredwhytekid (talk)13:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Ok! I remove some village which I add that map the would have looked better!Hanibal911 (talk)14:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded for contending, debating, cajoling, cooperating, arguing, and ultimately working with those holding different perspectives on Modules Syrian Civil War and Iraq Insurgency - long overdueBoredwhytekid (talk)15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid (talk)15:06, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Thanks!Hanibal911 (talk)15:09, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here amap of the conflict in Syria from BBC dated on 11 November. It seems that earlier positions ISIS in central Syria were exaggerated.Hanibal911 (talk)15:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to that map, the government does not have stable control of the area between Homs and Yabroud! lol I do not think this is accurateBoredwhytekid (talk)16:49, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid You know, I also studied the map and think that you are right map from BBC is not very accurate.Hanibal911 (talk)19:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In my personal opinion I think the town is still contested. From a neutral standpoint its too confusing to tell what's happening so again I would leave it as contested.EkoGraf (talk)23:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If that's true why did the battle stopped (according to the wiki page editors) after SAA recaptured ALL wells and companies?

Why are these villages marked as JAN control. Every source is saying that members ofIslamic front let the battles, some groups odJAN fighters were involved but not enough to have an argument putting those areas under their control.Should I change the colors to green ?DuckZz (talk)19:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Because SOHR clear said that Jabhat al-Nusra have taken over villages al-Jaara, Tat, and Aqriba after violent clashes against regime.SOHRHanibal911 (talk)19:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic battalions means Islamic front groups, Rebels = FSA groups.I haven't said JAN were not involved but you can clearly read that 5 members of IF died during those clashes. Same groups of Ahrar Al Sham took control of the same villages they lost weeks ago. SOHR clearly doesn't say JAN took the control but JAN and IF, but we can assume JAN only participate during clashes. I can open a discussion on the main talk page.DuckZz (talk)20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Understand that we are not edit just based on assumptions. So while we have only the specific data that those villages under the control of Al Nusra. And in this situation we cant use as source to edit a pro-opposition sources.herehere This source biased in side FSA and her allies. And SOHR did not specify what this Islamic battalions they can be allies the Al Nusra. Need more data.Hanibal911 (talk)20:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree as for now. You need to understand the kind of names used by SOHR. They never write Free Syrian army, Islamic front, Syrian Army. They use Rebels for FSA/SRF groups, Islamic battalions for Islamic Front groups, Al Nusra for Al Nusra and Jund Al Aqsa, and Regime for Syrian Army.

DuckZz SOHR clearly indicates when says about Islamic Front or about other rebel groups. So that as I said earlier we need more data. Also the Lebanese source reported that villages Al djaarh, Tata and Aqraba near defense plants in the southern countryside of Aleppo are still under the control of the army.Al-Ahed NewsHanibal911 (talk)20:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aranews is a pro-kurdish source,and this source is reporting an ISIS gain,and YPG/Regime and ISIS are enemies,so self-revert.Alhanuty (talk)16:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any logic putting this town under JAN control in this way ? There is sense for Khan Sheykun as Al Nusra there has a dominant presence but south Syria is mainly under either FSA or IF control, there are only few Al Nusra groups operating in Nawa. Not a significant presence, would be the same as making a new color for Islamic Front because they have a larger number of fighters in Nawa than Nusra.DuckZz (talk)19:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Khan Sheykun was marked as under the joint control the rebels and Al Nusra as a compromise, although reliable sourcr clear said that city Khan Shaykhoun it is main stronghold of Jabhat al-Nusra in Idlib province.herehere And someone of editors also marked Nawa as under the joint control the rebels and Al Nusra. Perhaps on the grounds that reliable source said that Syrian rebels and Al Nusra fighters seized the southern town of Nawa.The Daily Star Although I do not think that city Nawa should be marked as under the joint control the rebels and Al Nusra.Hanibal911 (talk)19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nawa as many others Towns is with Al Qaeda elements there sharing the control with others irregular armed groups.

• http://news.yahoo.com/syria-rebels-qaeda-capture-key-southern-town-monitor-193046956.html
• http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/afp/2014/11/syria-conflict-clashes.html
• http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2014/11/10/syria-rebels-and-al-qaeda-capture-key-town.html

Sources in Spanish =

• http://www.caracol.com.co/noticias/internacionales/filial-de-al-qaeda-en-siria-arrebata-al-regimen-una-localidad-meridional/20141109/nota/2499577.aspx
• http://eltiempo.com.ve/mundo/violencia/combatientes-del-frente-al-nusra-filial-de-al-qaeda-en-siria-y-de-varias-milicias-rebeldes-e-islamistas-arrebataron-hoy-al-regimen-sirio-la-localidad-meridional-de-nawa-informo-el-observatorio-sirio-de-derechos-humanus/161529 --Pototo1 (talk)17:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pototo1 OK! In this issue, I absolutely agree with you.Hanibal911 (talk)20:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Green Circles in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa in Qalamoun should be removed these places are not besiegeshttps://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu6MGKyIEAA46Ji.jpg

Insurgents are too weak there. --Pototo1 (talk)17:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pototo1 I understand what you are up against those marks near of some villages but and you must understand what they in currently justified. Because now rebels presented near these villages and green icons show this. Also many reliable sources confirm this but furthermore the map which you are have provided is obsolete and also this is map is pro government and for this reason we cant use her to display the success by army.Hanibal911 (talk)20:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lucem maps are the most accurate who you can found his maps always are 100% right and no exist a single source who prove the insurgents blocked the west way in these places

Link something saying Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa are blocked in the west by the insurgent Borekid is just doing vandalism.

This is just stupid so we can all the greens towns in Homs besieges by the Army, same case with greens towns in North of Hama ............ --Pototo1 (talk)21:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pototo1 Over time, the situation will be clarified and perhaps we be able to remove those icons which marked near villages in Qalamoun. But if you again remove them on the basis just of outdated map you again provoke war of edits and some one of admins will be forced again blocked you. So I propose for you let's wait some time. Regards!Hanibal911 (talk)22:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But why we should keep these circles there when this information is totally incorrect and wrong ?

Why we need keep incorrect info on the map just because some users are crying ?

There no need to be any war of edits because that's the true they no have any single source saying these two towns are blocked in west side.

If they no showing any single source these circles must be remove --Pototo1 (talk)10:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pototo1 These marks show that in this area still there are rebels and periodically occur clashes near these villages.hereHanibal911 (talk)12:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your take on this issue[36] would be appreciated. Thanks!EkoGraf (talk)05:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This video, altought opposition, says that Al Nusra is allowed to enter the city of Marat Hurmah, what means the town is rebel held. Same thing is said by the guy in the video. I belive that more cities are rebel held in Idlib despite the JAN vs Rebels propaganda online. We can only say for sure that they are at war with SRF front rebel group and that's about it. I belive Marat numan and Kafranbel are also rebels held. The first city is full of opposition groups like Div13, Corps5, Hawk Brigade, Kataib Shamal etc ...DuckZz (talk)17:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz I even dont know what to tell you. For now the city is marked under the control of Al Nusra. Because previously reliable sources confirmed that Al Nusra and its allies seized all the towns and villages in theJabal al-Zawiya which earlier was under control of some rebel groups associated with FSA.BBCAl Monitor Also we cant use the data from opposition amateur video from YouTube as source to show the success of the rebels. but I still keep track of this issue. And if appear are new data I display this on map.hereHanibal911 (talk)18:51, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with DuckZz on this, since the various sources generally presented the SRF as the only FSA group in Idlib, which is far from true. The SRF was the largest FSA group in Idlib, but not the best armed, and certainly not the best organized. Its' leader was not a military professional, unlike the leaders of other FSA groups there.

To me a critical reading of this is describing a situation that parallels that of the ISIS in Raqqa before they attacked al-Nusra. In al-Raqqa, remnants of FSA groups joined al-Nusra for protection, and it is only later, after the FSA and IF attacked the ISIS in other provinces that the ISIS regrouped in Raqqa and defeated al-Nusra in the capital city there, and later the province.

In Idlib, the FSA forces are regrouping in larger groups, in cooperation with most Islamic Front groups, to try to prevent a repeat of Raqqa. I'm certain that most reporting has grossly exaggerated al-Nusra control to date, incorrectly taking al-Nusra presence as control.André437 (talk)07:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mate can you find and add these villages in the syrian war map beacause i am not rly good with this stuff 2 are captured by SAA and 3 are captured by al-nusra.hereLindi29 (talk)23:38, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I see you have quite an impressive talk page. Nice :)
I really like the idea of better indicating a rebel presence in the Qalamoun.
A few days ago I saw a suggestion to use the semicircles around a region to show rebel presence in an area.(In the desert east of Damascus if I remember correctly.)
As well as myself liking the idea,Tradedia, the creator of our map page, gave a thumbs up to the idea.
So that is at least one potential solution.
If you have a better idea, I'm willing to do my best.

Also, among the 3 light yellow dot icons I made for the kurds, it seems that the middle one that I put on the map is too light. Do you think the darker one would be better ? (They are in the caption at the bottom.)André437 (talk)06:18, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought : Maybe a grid of small dots (in the various sides colours) would be better ?

While on the subject of icons, I have an idea to create an icon to show that the control of an area has become uncertain. That way the previous icon would not be simply removed from the map, to give some continuity for those following the war.

As for shape, it could be 45° slanted lines over or under the previous icon, or maybe a big X over.

The colour could be grey or black, but the violet of the truce areas is probably better, as it would contrast with all existing control colours. If under it could have a solid white background, but transparent is probably better.

So what do you think, of having such an icon, and the form and colour it might take ?André437 (talk)06:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André437 Yes you are right need a darker icon for the Kurds. Personally, I like this icon.Hanibal911 (talk)10:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André437I rummaged in Wikipedia and foundhere such icon. Maybe on our map need to something like this. We can use this icon for the western area Qalamoun near the Lebanese border. Because we now that rebel forces not control villages or towns in this area but we now they presents in this area. So we can put this icon near with Lebanese border and thus we show on the map the presence of rebels in the area. What you say about this?Hanibal911 (talk)10:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the darker kurd dot icon, I was thinking of instead of currently shown. Or maybe halfway in between - I could make that quickly. I like the flat tone better because it fits the style of all the other dots. The grey border makes it more visible. The other dots have an extremely thin invisible grey border. (Except the grey dot) I think that was probably because whatever .svg editor used insisted on making a border. For me it's faster to hand code the icons from the .svg spec.

For the unknown current control, I was thinking of marking the icon that was present before with something like an X with a transparent background. So we can see what was there before, but the superimposed X (or whatever) indicates that it is not up to date. Maybe an X surrounded by thin white lines, so it is obvious that the X doesn't make part of the icon underneath.

For control of rural areas, I'd like better something simple in one colour, with lots of open background. So it is obvious to all observers that it does not indicate apoint of control.

Maybe like the 4x4-dot (or 5x5?) preferences icon that appears in a lot of software these days. (Something like this only 4x4 to be more visible at a normal size, in the various colours.) Or slanted parallel lines. (Something to give a general idea of the density, although it is not simple enough :) It could even be an 8-point star (but without a coloured background). Probably much easier to make than find.André437 (talk)03:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

André437 Yes this color will be much better. And in the rest I also agree with you. But I think icons for the contested towns or villages looks excellent and no need to change their.Hanibal911 (talk)08:14, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#Green_Circles_in_Al-Jebbah_and_Ras_al-Maraa_should_be_removed_if_you_no_have_sources.

Sources1234 who Boredwhytekid provide only talk about Assal al-Ward, i'm not removing the green circle in this place only in Al-Jebbah and Ras al-Maraa because the editor Boredwhytekid no showing a single evidence these towns are blocked in the west by the Insurgents.

I dunno if he have more than it at the moment but rules are rules no sources no changes if he doing that only can be considered vandalism. --Pototo1 (talk)00:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The user Boredwhytekid is putting greens circles in some towns in Qalamoun area in without evidences --LogFTW (talk)14:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

News are saying that isis attacked the border crossing and killed 16 iraqi soliders.here.here.here.hereshould it go contested.

Lindi29 Al Waleed border crossing located on Iraqi side of border. And reliable source said that ISIS tried captured Al-Waleed border crossing from Iraqi side of border but failed.here And pro opposition source clear show that on Syria side Al Tenef border crossing under control by Syrian armyhere and Al Waleed border crossing on Iaraqi side still sontrolled the Irqai army.hereHanibal911 (talk)19:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trebil border crossing

Photograph released by the Islamic State's Wilayat Anbar allegedly showing the explosion from the suicide bombing near the Trebil border complex.here and its saying that it is contested for some time,should it go contested.Lindi29 (talk)18:17, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lindi29 And about the Trebil border crossing other source said that this crossing under control local tribes. but not ISIS.hereHanibal911 (talk)19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]