User talk:Boredwhytekid: Difference between revisions

Hello and welcome to the Military history WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to military history.

A few features that you might find helpful:

• Our navigation box points to most of the useful pages within the project.
• The announcement and open task box is updated very frequently. You can watchlist it if you are interested, or you can add it directly to your user page by copying the following: {{WPMILHIST Announcements}}.
• Important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
• The project has several departments, which handle article quality assessment, detailed article and content review, writing contests, and article logistics.
• We have a number of task forces that focus on specific topics, nations, periods, and conflicts.
• We've developed a set of guidelines that cover article structure and content, template use, categorization, and many other issues of interest.
• If you're looking for something to work on, there are many articles that need attention, as well as a number of review alerts.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask any of the project coordinators or any other experienced member of the project, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome, and we are looking forward to seeing you around! Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor Boredwhytekid when you edit this map you need to specify the source confirming your changes. But you should also know that we do not use pro government sources to display the Syrian army advances but we also dont use pro opposition sources to display success rebels. Thank you for your attention. Regards Hanibal911! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, cheers! Which edit are you referring to? I only added Zanuba, Hama based on a SOHR report reflected in media that supports neither ISIS nor the regime (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/06/isil-kills-102-year-old-alawite-family-201461143215253773.html) and Shiyeh, Aleppo. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant.her You did not specify the source. Hey buddy how you see, I have nothing against your revisions, but in the future I would ask you to specify a link to the source to confirm your edit! Hanibal911 (talk) 15:05, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see. Ok, no problem - will do for all future edits. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:11, 3 June 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) 19:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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) 16:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The village of Sheikh Hadid is already on the map and so why you again add this village on the map. If you wanted to note that this village contested you just need to be change the status of this village on the map but why you add another village Sheikh Hadid the map. Also army stormed this village.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 15:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Couldn't find the line for it. And stormed = raided = contested yea? No confirmation of army control there.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:55, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor Boredwhytekid in due to the fact that there are editors which said that the data which are published the SOHR are not reliable I decided to explore all the data relating to this source. And in the process of exploring the many data I came to concluded that this source is anti-government and pro opposition source and all its data are largely based on data of opposition activists and rebels and thus its data can not be used to display the achievements of rebels in clashes against the Syrian army. Because it is the same if we used the data from the SANA to display success of army. Here's confirmation that the SOHR is opposition source and this is confirmed by many reliable sources: read this article in Wikipedia, Also Reuters said that the SOHR it is anti-Assad grouphereand here Also Chicago Tribune said that the SOHR it is anti-Assad group.here and it also confirms First Post and ABC NewsJerusalim PostBusiness InsiderFree Malaysia TodayNews Week So that none of the editors should be no doubt that the SOHR can no longer be used to display the progress of the rebels against the Syrian army. Or should we then use SANA Al Manar of Fara News to display the progress of the army. But otherwise, we also can used data from government sources about such as SANA Al Manar of Fara News to display progress of the army. And that would not break the rules, we must use to edit on the map the data of SOHR or SANA only if their data confirmed the reliable sources. So I recommend you not used to display success rebel the pro opposition source of SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not your call. This discussion has been had, and is closed. You can re-read it in the archives of this talk page if you need refreshing - SOHR CAN and WILL be used to validate advances by ALL sides; SANA, Al-Manar, and Fars cannot be used for gov't advances, without confirmation from alternately aligned outlets. This is an established rule for this map. If you do not abide by it, if you revert edits based on SOHR, or try to edit based exclusively on SANA, Al-Manar, or Fars, I will pursue disciplinary measures against you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I know that you largely disagree with me but I as a gesture of goodwill wanted to consult you. Do you think we can to change the status Tishrin Dam on the basis of this pro-government map Because I think this object should not be marked under the IS control. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it's not personal my man - sometimes we agree, sometimes we really don't haha. Yea go for it, that's a pro-gov't source indicating IS and rebel moves. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See, we agree sometimes :) Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:1RR at Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map (see 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) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

---

Request reason:

While I fully admit violating WP:1RR, my actions were in the interest of preserving the integrity of the Wikipedia page involved. Another user was editing without proper sourcing, against the general consensus (I was not the last user to place the concentric lime circle around Assal al-Ward), and against FACT. See the talk page. No one else responded to his latest rant on this topic because we had had the conversation before, and that user is simply POV pushing. Blocking me is arbitrary and superfluous, as my reverts/edits made the wiki-page more accurate. That being said, if the block remains, so be it...

Decline reason:

So be it. There's a reason these 1RR restrictions exist, and you're demonstrating that. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 16:06, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

• Boredwhytekid, some advice. Your justification for violating 1RR doesn't work now and won't work in the future. If you use it again, realize that the duration of these blocks escalate with each violation. If, as you say, the other editor is editing against consensus, then someone else will revert them. The page is very active; there are certainly enough eyes on it.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, and appreciated. I'm relatively new to wiki and never had a block before so I figured to at least lay out my reasoning; if you say that reasoning does not fly here, again, so be it - it's not my boat, so my bad for rocking it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To enforce an community sanction, and for violating WP:1RR at Template: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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:54, 23 July 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.

Guilty as charged. I thought it had been 24 hours; it had only been 23. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it had been 24 hours, you might still be blocked. Waiting to revert to just beyond the 24-hour window is not acceptable (see WP:GAME and WP:3RR).--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

? - maybe I'm just missing something here - the user LogFTW was blocked/sanctioned in correlation to myself for violating WP:1RR reverting my edits, and he was up and running again in less than 24hrs. What's up with that? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you're saying this. I blocked LogFTW twice, once on June 2 for 48 hours and again on July 13 for one week. Both blocks naturally expired.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see this morning the block was renewed for "violating your page ban". Never mind.. I obviously do not know the norms/rules well enough to comment. Just seemed odd.Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LogFTW - I was not the user who originally added those 3 towns; that was Tradedia 's edit - I did re-add them after they were removed, but I cited the source every time, check the edit log: the source was/is a Syrian gov't run television station. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear editor of Boredwhytekid the city of Mhardeh has already on the map and it is under control of the army this confirms pro opposition source.source Hanibal911 (talk) 13:11, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR same date as your source https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/566724656769210 says Mhardeh is contested. Syria 24 https://www.facebook.com/syria24english/posts/715838328451952 same date claims infiltration was attempted. And pro-gov't source same date http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/news/local/13972-syrian-arab-army-eliminates-over-34-terrorists-plus-several-foreign-ringleaders-outside-idlib-and-lattakia says "attack on garrison IN Mhardeh city". Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

‪SOHR also confirmed rebel attack by position Syrian army but not in the city. SOHR said that Islamic battalions targeted regime checkpoint near Maharda town.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 14:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here new report from SOHR said that A soldier from the regime forces was killed in clashes with the rebel and Islamic battalions near the city of Mharde which is inhabited by Christians.SOHR This report came out an hour ago, and thus he put an end in to our issue. SOHR clearly said that the clashes go near the city and not in the city itself. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:36, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because the SOHR is also reporting clashes "around" the city does not mean that the reports about clashes "in" the city are negated. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How you can not understand that the rebels do not entered in the city Mhardeh pro opposition source showed that all rebel position located to few miles from this city.Archicivilians So we noted a green circle around the city in accordance with the received data. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR and SANA both have reports that say "in", not around. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:59, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I agree with you about the village Tardin because it is located in area which under control by rebels but the village Ghmam located in area controlled by the government. So I suggest you compromise! I am now removed this village from the map because as we do not have accurate data about who controls this village so let's we now try find more data about the situation in this village. I hope for your understanding. And on 8 August pro opposition source showed that this village under control the army.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You carefully read the source on the basis of which I put a black circle around the city Mare? Source said that man was killed by clashes against ISIS around Mare'. Source clearly said that there were clashes around the city not only bombarded on the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 20:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also here another Kurdish source which said that violent clashes around Mare.Firat News Hanibal911 (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me for understanding, now I guess I'll do the same. When we had the discussion about Ras al-Maarra,EkoGraf wrote "The circle is there if there is clashes on the outskirts of the town, the town is besieged or if the town is shelled", and you ultimately wrote "I agree with Ekograf". Qomhana is being shelled, and now all of a sudden that's not enough for a green ring to the northwest? We keep green circles around Nubl and al-Zahraa even though the rebels are only shelling and have not assaulted in months; we keep red circles permanently around the Homs towns of Kfar Laha, Tal Dahab, even though they are only being shelled, and there is no fighting around them.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/572186916222984 still bombarded

If we add circles around each town or village on the basis of information about their shelling from artillery at us all the towns and villages will be with such circles. You understand that the majority of artillery have range of 10 kilometers or more. BM-30 Smerch Maximum firing range - 90 km (56 mi), BM-21 Grad Maximum firing range 20 km (new rockets 30–45 km), 2S1 Gvozdika - Maximum firing range Conventional: 15.3 km (9.5 mi), 2S3 Akatsiya - Maximum firing range Conventional: 18.5 km (11.5 mi) But if it is a reactive system of volley fire even more. 122 mm howitzer 2A18 (D-30) - Effective firing range 15.4 km (9.6 mi) 21.9 km (13.6 mi), 130 mm towed field gun M1954 (M-46) - Maximum firing range 27.5 km (17 mi) (unassisted) 38 km (23.61 mi) (assisted), 180 mm gun S-23 - Effective firing range 30.4 km (18.9 mi) Maximum firing range 43.8 km (27.2 mi), 240 mm mortar M240 - Maximum firing range 9,7 km and many more. So let's put a circle around the town or village only when the message says that the clashes near the city or in the vicinity or around the city or if the city in besieged. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough - but if that is your position, then prove it and remove the circles from Kfar Laha, Tal Dahab, Taldou, Talaf, Talbiseh, and Umm Sharshuh. There is no fighting in these towns, only bombardment. If you can show sources that there is fighting, leave the circles. If not, be true to your position and remove them. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let us proceed as follows! If we do not find until tomorrow sources that can be the basis for the red circles around these towns and villages, I'll remove them myself! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So be it. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Frontlines of a fierce battle, with the villages of Om Sharshouh, Talbissah, al-Ghanto, Ezzeddin, Rastan, and al-Houla.Al Akhbar Hanibal911 (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that says the front line is there. So? Why is that a reason to put a red circle around rebel towns but not vice versa? And besides, it does not specifically say that their is fighting in any of the towns, rebel or gov't Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:38, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro opposition source showed that area which located this towns and villages to besieged the Syrian troops. And clashes near Talbiseh and Rastan.here and here another pro opposition source. here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But those sources don't show any of them besieged - just surrounded. By that logic, we'd have to put lime circles around every position the government holds in Idlib province. Really I don't care either way, circles around the rebel Homs town and the Idlib gov't ones, or circles around neither - it does not matter to me, just so long as we apply it the same to both sides. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:10, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About the situation in the city Talbiseh SOHR twice said that clashes go in this city.hereand here Also on 5 June The Daily Star said about clashes in the village of Umm Sharshouh.here and pro oppositiom map on 12 June showed that clashes go near the village of Umm Sharshouh here and pro government source on 8 July also said that Umm Sharshuh still contested here and on 15 June SOHR said that regime’s control over the village Umm Sharshouh.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 08:19, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also there were many reports of clashes near the town of Rastan and even been reports of clashes in the city so we as compromise put red circle around the city. And the Houla area for a long time besieged the government troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per the sources you provided, I am 100% for keeping the red circles around Umm Sharshouh, Rastan, and Talbiseh. Now, if you intend to keep your word, the red circles around the rest of the Homs plain cities should be removed until such time that valid sources are produced that actually justify re-placing the red concentric circles. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I promise you that today I remove them! Just at the moment I'm a little busy. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syria Direct today reports Taldou is surrounded by SAA - I'm restoring the red circle around this town Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

village Tall ad Dirrah it is not Taldara or Taldoa and village Tall ad Dirrah in Hama province but your source said about village in Homs province read carefully your source. source. You source said that other army units targeted terrorists’ gatherings in the villages of Taldou, Kafer Laha, Tal Dahab in al-Hula, Deirfoul in al-Rastan and al-Sa’en in Talbiseh in Homs countryside. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, you're right. My bad. In that vein though - there is no fighting reported in the towns, just bombardment, so the circles should be removed, right? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have to do self-revert. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also IS taken village Hawar al-Nahr here but clashes around village were was previously before IS taken village here so I think we need to remove the green circle around the village. Or even put it right because now the village looks on the map not correct, as if village were controlled by rebels and insurgents IS attack her. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Read this here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that already. Two peoples' opinion, not a community consensus/rule. If we're removing ALL of them, then yea of course I'll abide by that - but that has not happened... Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But we need to finalize the matter and leave only circles around those cities that are either surrounded by or around them for a long time there are clashes. And I think that we can do it for a couple of days. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, we need to finalize the matter. Until there is a community consensus, it is not a rule, so you reverting on the basis of it is not valid. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think what we could also in some cases to put temporary circles around towns or villages but neutral color and if in a few days we will not see reports about clashes in the area of the city or village then we remove this circle. How do you like this idea? Hanibal911 (talk) 16:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the green icon near the town of Sanamayn because SOHR not said that clashes near this city he only said that clashes on south east from the city but it does not mean that it is near of the city and source said that clashes in the city Simlin which located on south east from the city Sanamayn. Maybe SOHR reported about it. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the post? https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/578906808884328 "in the southwest of al Sanamin town" - how can you possibly interpret that as not near the city? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We had a similar situation in the city Halfaya you can see here but we did not change of anything and leave everything as it was. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:09, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, we ignored the reports of fighting, missing the contested stage, and then turned it straight from red to green. Why make the same mistake again? Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I need your help in a situation with the Hasakah province where Kurds captured more than a dozen villages but i have little information about this and maybe you can help me find more data about situation in Hasakah and that be I was able to edit the map.

• 1}pro opposition source reported that Kurdish fighters from People's Protection Units , the official armed wing of the Kurdish Supreme Committee captured the villages Tall Khalil and Hadeyate.World Bulletin But I only found on the map the village Tall Khalil but I not found on the map the village Hadeyate maybe someone from the editors know where located this village. )
• 2)Many reliable sources confirmed that Kurdish militias capture 14 villages from IS in northern Syria but not said what kind of village.Fox NewsIrish Sun abd pro Kurdish sources also did not specify exactly which villages were captured.Firat NewsHawar NewsRudawa Hanibal911 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have been struggling with this too! I was not going to post anything until I had more solid information - here are the meager results that I have:

Syria Direct 9-15-14 references SmartNews link below:

http://smartnews-agency.com/news/ypg-%D8%AA%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%B7%D8%B1-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-5-%D9%82%D8%B1%D9%89-%D8%A8%D8%B1%D9%8A%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%83%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A3%D9%86%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%B9%D9%86-%D9%82%D8%AA%D9%84%D9%87%D8%A7-14-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%86%D9%8A%D8%A7

Using this translator I got:

"Controlled units protect Kurdish people ' YPG Saturday night – Sunday, five villages in the countryside South of qamishli, after violent clashes with the ' Islamic State ', according to the correspondent of the ' smart '. The reporter said that fierce clashes broke out between the two parties last night, ended with the control units of the Kurdish villages of rheya as Pepe weharki and hajeia and Abu porcelain near the hill town known."

Possible location of Rheya (only "Rheya" I can find in Hasakah province, and it is relatively close to Tall Khalil) http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.976710&lon=41.516119&z=16&m=b

this index shows Rheya in the same location

Possible location of Hajeia http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.915207&lon=41.381816&z=16&m=b - wikimapia lists as - حاجية كبيرة google translator says "Hajih large", microsoft says "Hajeia large"

Possible location of Harki/Weharki - Google translation says - "Harki" instead of "Weharki" - http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.886802&lon=41.393283&z=16&m=b&search=harki

It's not much - I will keep researching Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 15:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	This award for your work to improve the map of Syrian Civil War detailed map Hanibal911 (talk) 14:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar! Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR clear said about two towns of al Na’emeh and Nemer. And SOHR not said about city Al Nimr.SOHR Also let's not rush to edit on reports of bombing especially if there is only one report of the bombing. We need more information especially when it comes of the cities. Also you add city Saida and noted him in green color but SOHR not said that this city under control by rebels. Although I think that the in issue about city of Saida you are right as it is located on the territory which is under the control of the rebels. But in the future, we not need rush to edit. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to locate "Nemer"? Both of the geonames links just zoom in on Daraa City - is Nemer a district of the city? I think SOHR was referring to Namer because SOHR always spells towns incorrectly Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here area where located city Namer And now this city under control by army so i think we need search more data before changing this city on contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! One single report of bombing is not enough. I only ignored that rule with Saida because it is so deep in rebel territory. Thanks for your help. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can add on the map the village Khatuniyah and mark it under the control of the IS. Because according to data from the pro-opposition activists the United States of and allies bombed this village together with the adjacent the village Al Hawa which now under control of IS.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right - Khatuniyah should be added based on this report. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi security forces, with the support of tribes and Iraqi planes and helicopters, were able to recaptured military bases al-Sijir and Albu Etha in Anbar province.Press TVShafaqnaGlobal PostJordan TimesReutersYahoo NewsNBC News But I can not find them on a map so that you may be able to help me find them on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have had no luck so far. Sijir is "near Fallujah" and Saqlawiyah per this source. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:39, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This location is labeled on geonames as "Qaryat as Sajar" Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Albu Etha, a village near Ramadi" NYT Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right and that is is the "Albu Aath". I think that this object is in the area.mapcarta Hanibal911 (talk) 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding this location! Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Would appreciate your thoughts on my section "Where are these villages?", Iraq module talk page. Cheers! Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about my proposal in this situation.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No objections here. To the left of the label "Suran" on our map, directly above the Madajin Checkpoint, there is a red circle enveloped by a lime circle - what is that? There is no town there besides Lahaya and Ma'rkabah Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we now using al masdar for pro-gov't gains? here and [1] - I reverted once.. but no one else jumped in. I'm skeptical about this.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro opposition source Syria Direct confirmed that army captured two villages in area rebel-held the city Salma.here and www.syriadirect.org/rss/1597-syria-direct-news-update-10-2-14 Also some the reliable sources confirmed that the Syrian troops recaptured strongholds of the rebels in the Latakia Province.Global TimesFinland Times Hanibal911 (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can help me to find these villages (al Wehdah al, Da’emah and Masaken al Shabab) where located the IS positions and the air forces of international coalition bombard this villages.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 17:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. EkoGraf (talk) 15:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I ultimately reached out to an admin for advice, and was told that reverting said edits would not place me in violation of 1RR. It was just really bugging me to watch those random, unsourced edits mutilate the map when I felt my hands were tied. Thanks for the response! Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

you have been blocked from editing for two weeks. 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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:49, 14 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 an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

My edit was made in light of a newly uncovered source that ended all debate on the topic (it has not since been reverted and the long-running argument on the talk page has ceased). I made it as clear as possible in my edit summary that although I was making the same edit again, I was only doing so based on said new information that I knew would be acceptable to all editors, here. I have been on wiki less than a year, and learned early on allll about blocks (2x in July, 48hrs and 1 week respectively). Since then I have been extra conscious not to break 1RR, reaching out to others whenever inexperience made me unsure about a revert - reaching out to an admin here, and expressing concerns on the admin noticeboard here. Where is the good faith? My edit ended a long running argument in a way that has been accepted by every single editor of the module (see talk page links) and increased accuracy. It was not damaging or disruptive - in fact the exact opposite - and hence does not seem to fall under the expressed Purpose and Goals of editing blocks. This seems like a punitive block, especially in light of the fact that everyone involved in editing the module has recognized and accepted my source/edit as a valid resolution. I can't emphasize that enough - not a single person involved in the module has levied a complaint or revert on this topic since. Also, on a pettier note - the user who was blocked in conjunction with me also has 3 blocks in the same time frame as myself, but his are 24hr, 72hr, and 1 week. Why are mine longer?

Decline reason:

From my perspective, you were clearly in breach of the 1RR restriction, and in addition, you clearly understood about the existence of this restriction. In terms of what you should have done, you should have posted on the talk page, and hoped that someone else would make the edit. Anyway, I sympathize, however you aren't supposed to go over 1RR. And, if you do accidentally go over 1RR, you should self-revert. Anyway, an early unblock may still be possible, however you need to commit to not going over 1RR on articles related to the Syrian civil war. Otherwise, this is your third block, so 2 weeks is probably a reasonable duration. PhilKnight (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

I guess it was a mistake on my part to assume that a 1RR edit block wouldn't be imposed unreasonably. Yes, I knew full well that I was placing myself in violation of 1RR, but, working on Module Syrian Civil War detailed map daily, I also knew that the edit would be copesetic with every single other editor, even those whom I do not always see eye to eye with. Hence I made my reasoning overt in the edit summary. It was helpful, improved the accuracy of the module, and resolved a dispute that had put all of us editors in opposing camps for days and days on end. I edited in what I presumed was a Wikiquette-aligned spirit of helpfulness. It just seems that my block is procedural, bureaucratic in the worst possible way. Sorry if I sound whiny - I just really disagree here. I know this block is technically correct, I know I have no choice but to abide it, but if ever there was a situation where "the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for, you will not do it again, and you will make productive contributions instead", this has got to be it. I understand what I am blocked for, I have gone out of my way not to break 1RR since my first 2 blocks, and only broke it here because I really thought an understanding of the situation would trump technicality. No more out of me. Thanks for your time in any case. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]