User talk:Paolowalter: Difference between revisions

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must specify the source when editing a card or you can be charged with vandalism. But that would this not have happened you must use reliable sources for editing and also not use doubtful and unreliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to edit using the not reliable sources, I will notify administrators about your actions. Such actions are vandalism. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:03, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand that we are not using Syrian documents for editing map because this source is not a reliable. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but yalla souriya it is blog and therefore can not used as a source. This is the rule in Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Blogs We can only use blogs the news agencies. Here is an example Al Jazeera Live_BlogNOW News BlogNEWS Blogs Hanibal911 (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And no need to use to edit such sources as yalla souriya because has repeatedly was proved that this source is not reliable. And sometimes some editors start using it in order that to display the rebels advances and map turns into trash. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I again ask you not to use source Syrian documents because data from this source not once admitted unreliable and inaccurate. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We do not use data from Facebook for editing the map. I recommend you to use data directly from the SOHR website. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk: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 the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal 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.
• A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
• Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk: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 the appropriate 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 at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 23:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Facebook cannot be used in the majority of times as a source per WP:FACEBOOK, so please abstain to use it and try to use other type of sources (newspaper articles, websites, journalistic videos, etc...). Regards,--HCPUNXKID 15:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why you changed the village Ayn al-Tinah in Qalamoun using source that said about a village in Quneitra. Your actions are this is vandalism, and if you continue edit without a reliable source confirming your editings I'll have to notify administrators. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you add village of Shayzar but without specifying the source on basis of which you added this village. But you can specify it on the talk page. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article clearly states,that rebels capture the border crossing,so self-revert it.Alhanuty (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct your mistake because of your edit on the map disappeared the city Kesab.her Hanibal911 (talk) 21:21, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to revert the map, you go down to a section that says the file is from the wikimedia commons and click on the words that say "description page there". Then scroll down and you will find a history of the map. You will notice there is a revert button next to each previous version of the map. Simply find the version you want, and click revert. Now as for placing a new map in place of the old one, I was ironically going to message you for information on how to do so. Maybe ask Hannibal and see if he knows. If you do find out how from him, please tell me.

Thank You Dr Marmilade (talk) 22:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea. EkoGraf (talk) 22:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro government source who used the editor Sopher for editing the city of Inkhil did not said that the city is under the control of the opposition and the second source which he used is pro opposition source and cant be used to display the rebels advances. So I Think that us again should be noted the city Inkhil as contested. So I am grateful to you for what you corrected this inaccuracy because if I did it I break the rules of 1RR and Sopher already warned me about it.her Because I already tried to fix this but another editor revert my editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR later also said that the rebels were just trying to capture the village of Tal Malah but does not say that they captured her.source Hanibal911 (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted without a source,so self revert yourself.Alhanuty (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Alhanuty reported by User:Hanibal911 (Result: Warned Alhanuty and Paolowalter). You have been warned for violating the WP:1RR restriction on pages relating to the Syrian Civil War. It is normal to issue blocks for 1RR violations. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll try not to be rude. First, Al-Shula must be black, as the newer sources we have (pro-opp maps from 31 May & 1 June) say so. Newer sources are above older ones, most if the map you use didnt even have the town on it. And when you add towns, do the effort of reviewing if that town is already on the map, as it happened with Jubb al-Abyad.--HCPUNXKID 21:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the map from the pro opposition source that displays the situation in Syria on the beginning of June! Data on this map confirms Joshua Landis renowned expert but also a supporter of the Syrian opposition. I think all the supporters of the rebels will not challenge this data because they themselves have repeatedly stated that he prominent expert on Syria. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I applied several changes pro-opp from pro-gov map situation in South Aleppo countryside [1]. I found also [2], but it is in arab (which I cannot read); translated with google I got something like

Simplified unit element of the Syrian Arab Army, with the support of the local defense forces control over the missile base in the area of ​​Azzan , and villages Abtin and draw wormwood and Kvrobeid Plus and south of Aleppo up to the outskirts of the area west of Aleppo Zorba .

A military source said the TV news that the control elements of the Syrian Arab Army came to complement the military operation that began two days ago , where lies the importance of the region being overseen most of the villages in the southern and western Alrevi .

"After control of the southern villages , especially air defense base and Plus , the army has cut supply routes for the gunmen Alrevi between the southern and western , as it became Aleppo - Damascus under the main goal mechanisms ."

A possible interpretation is that Arbin and the neighbouring bunker (http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=36.071580&lon=37.119026&z=12&m=b) is under SAA control. Can somebody help in the translation? And the source is reliable? Paolowalter (talk) 21:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violating WP:1RR at Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map per WP:SCWGS. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bbb23 (talk) 22:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rumeilan oil fields in Hasakah province still submit to the control of the Kurdish forces of YPG and pro-regime forces in the area. But i cant find it is oil field on the map maybe you can help me find him and i marked this oil field to the map. This confirmed the pro opposition source. source Hanibal911 (talk) 07:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found an oil depot in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=37.000359&lon=42.071457&z=11&m=b and Rumaylan in http://wikimapia.org/#lang=it&lat=37.008584&lon=41.953354&z=13&m=b, which is already on the map. I'll loe for more precise infos. Paolowalter (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sohr is reporting clashes in the vincity of the villages,and sohr is a very reliable,source

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/561469397294736

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/561744473933895

i would advise to put them back rebel-held with a red ring around them.Alhanuty (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the data from the pro opposition source the city of Khan Touman must be marked how contested. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1481-syria-direct-news-update-8-6-2014 Hanibal911 (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Alhanuty noted the villages Arzeh and al-Sheyha under rebel control on based opposition source ISW which said that rebels captured these villages in 31 July but in same day other pro opposition source noted these villages under army control. You can help me convince Alhanuty that I was right when I marked these villages under control of rmy and that ISW it is source which loyal to Syrian rebels. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:21, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dont remember exactly but it was a reliable source.map Also here pro opposition source said that rebel forces of al-Mujahideen Army targeted pro-Assad forces in Kallaseh neighbourhood in the city of Aleppo, using heavy artillery.Ara News Hanibal911 (talk) 19:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Moester101 completely ignored all information from reliable sources that confirmed that the army controls the Haydarya in the eastern part of Aleppo but for some reason when an anonymous editor gave him the data from the pro opposition source which alleged that the rebels captured the research center, he immediately changed it on the map. Editor Moester in mostly make editing in favor of the rebels and thus it is not a neutral editor. Hanibal911 (talk) 11:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help! The actions of editor Roboskiye it is vandalism. He changed the status of the 5 villages in the Hasakah province with the contested between Kurds and Isalmic State to under conrol by YPG simply because it is he so decided.here Here is his argument in favor of this decision: No evidence of fighting for a long time. But how I know this not sufficient base for such editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:25, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-masdar is a biased source similiar to SANA and this is refuted further by the clashes occuring in Qohama,so Self-revert and stop this Vandalism.Alhanuty (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now area which located villages al-Shandakhia, Unq al-Hawa, Rahhoum under army controll per pro opp source but editor Boredwhytekid revert my editing her although earlier to according data from the pro government map was changed status of several villages in the north of Hama province.here And then he did not mind. This is a double standard because it means we can edit in favor by rebels based the pro government map but we cant edit in favor by Syrian army on based data from pro opposition map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can use this map to edit the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Partially pro opposition source SOHR only reported that helicopters dropped explosive barrels on Taiba al-Emam here and not said about clashes in this city. And also in same day SOHR also reported that helicopters dropped barrel bombs onto areas in the south of Tebet al Imam town.here I think that this is not enough to change the city on the contested need more data. To change such strategically important city in the contested need more data and no one of the reliable sources did not confirm that clashes in the city . How you think? Hanibal911 (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the end,it was discovered that Taybat Al-Emam was actually under rebel control,when the regime regained it,but you refused to show,and that is an inaccuracy.Alhanuty (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you were right in the article that says that the city was captured was a mistake. Because this article in other sources does not speak about it.The Huffington PostThe Associated PressThe Boston GlobeFox News Maybe it's worth marked it to contested and try find more information about the situation in the city. Also pro opposition source on 1 September showed this city under control by Syrian troops.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a warning this time as it's a tad stale. You broke 1RR with these two edits 1 then 2. Please be more careful in the future. Thank you, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now it became absolutely clear that SOHR it is biased pro opposition source and we can use him to show rebel advances. Read this article:SOHR Even other pro opposition sources acknowledge it. Pro opposition source Syria Direct clear said that SOHR it is the pro-opposition monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. www.syriadirect.org/rss/1552-syria-direct-news-update-9-10-14 Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the article clearly states the area of Lajat, a rebel stronghold in south-west Dera’a province,meaning that the area and its vllages are under rebel control and stop reverting this,like it was very fine to add tens of loyalist villages in homs and hama and daraa itself,but it is like not allowed for rebel-held villages,even Hannibal is accepting it,stop stop reverting and vandalism.Alhanuty (talk) 15:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Alhanuty Alhanuty (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring and contravening WP:1RR, as you did at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.   Wifione ^Message 18:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!. Ive removed that dots from Damascus map following the rules agreed by editors here, but Alhanuty (what a surprise!) reverted my edit. Could u revert his edit in order to not make me break the 24 hour rule, please?. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 23:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the edit has been agreed on,and i recomment to add those towns to the reef dimashq map,and alot,alots of evidence has been brought for it.Alhanuty (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NW area in Wadi Barada valley under control by army but rebels still present in NE area in Wadi Barada valley this confirmed the pro opposition source.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Masdar is not a reliable source. It has no independent review, is not reputable or renown for facts, and focuses only on regime gains.

I will only not-revert masdar if sources of similar quality - such as etilaf, zamanaswl ect, are used too. Zenithfel (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an community sanction, and for violating the one revert rule (1 & 2) at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map per WP:GS/SCW,

you have been blocked from editing for one week. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there.

---

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.