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]

HERE

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]

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/06/12/world/middleeast/the-iraq-isis-conflict-in-maps-photos-and-video.html

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 on the 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]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

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

---

Request reason:

Accept reason:

I've unblocked you based on your commitment not to violate the one revert rule. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	It is award for your fight against unjustified editings are not supported by the sources on the maps about the war in Syria and Iraq!!!! Hanibal911 (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this barnstar! I am glad that you are back and am sure your return will benefit the modules. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can use the pro-opposition source to show the success IS against the Kurds because the Kurds and the rebels cooperate in the fight against IS in Hasaka province. Pro opposition source ARA News reported that the IS militants took control two villages Khirbet Orta and Girke Kere in the southern countryside of Qamishli.source What do you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 19:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i have found Tal Arbid http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.878247&lon=41.047325&z=12&m=b&show=/14473596/Tell-Arbid.Alhanuty (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can use this map to edit this template Yemen Insurgency detailed map In Syrian conflict we clear know that the source Archicivilians support the Syrian opposition and against Syrian government and ISIS. But i dont know which of the belligerents in this conflict support this source. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think we can add a village Khirbat al Atrah and noted her under the control of the rebels this village located to south from besieged city of Al Zahra which now under control by army. And on the pro government map the area where located this village marked by flag the front Al Nusra. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea - seems that Khirbat al Atrah town is really really small, but putting it on the map would fill that empty space below al Zahra Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:25, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done Hanibal911 (talk) 14:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty created a detailed map for Lebanon as those that have been previously created for Syria, Iraq and Yemen. So that buddy if you want you can help join for us in editing this map.Lebanese Insurgency detailed map We need your help. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 08:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you saying that you are also searching data about the situation in Libya. So here I accidentally found map which shows the situation in this country and shows which territory under control by different groups.here So now you can try to find an editor who can make the module how for Iraq, Yemen and Lebanon. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the map has many inaccuracies.Alhanuty (talk) 19:09, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just when I left a link to this map I has not claimed that it on 100% correct since for me this topic not interesting and I cant judge of her correctness. I just accidentally stumbled to this map and sent her Boredwhytekid. Because earlier he told me that wanted to find the map which reflects the situation in Libya. And that's it all! Hanibal911 (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remembering me when you came across this map! Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another map which in detail shows how going the battle for the city of Benghazi, the second largest city Libya.here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Umm Hawran was already present on the map so why you add another. And I marked him under control by rebel.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is odd - because it was not showing on the map. I will revert mine. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See! I have reverted mine, but now there is no Tell Umm Hawran on the map here. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also what do you think about this situation.here Hanibal911 (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will look for sources providing specific town names. I wonder why Tell Umm Hawran is not showing up.. maybe I should just repost mine, since it showed up. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected coordinates for the Tall Umm Hawran. And now you can see it on the map. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

YPG fighters could retake the villages of Eastern Kajo, Western Kajo, Asforeyyih, Swaydeyyih, Barqa and Kwashilah in the countryside of Ras al- Ayn.SOHR Can you help me find these villages. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-opposition activist said that Al Nusra take control of the city Al Rami in northern Zawiya mountains after SRF hand over their weapons.here Do you think we can trust this data. Or maybe you have more information about the situation in this town. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think al-Rami can go grey. I just edited Kafar Hawar in the west ghouta per SOHR reporting barrel bombing. I think this town can either be green with red circle (as I edited) or contested, since no clear control by either side and Bait Teemah right next to it is contested. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:27, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blin, Bluin, Bsqala, Binnish, and Saraqib are under the control of Jund Al-Aqsa, a group loyal to Ayman Al-Zwahiri. And I think that we need noted city Saraqib under control by Al Nusra because the Jund Al-Aqsa and Al Nusra are allies in battle against other rebel groups in Idlib.source Hanibal911 (talk) 21:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think about the situation with the city Saraqib? Hanibal911 (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think for clarity's sake, Jund Al-Aqsa's possessions should be included in the JAN grey Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is not need because in this article Al-Nusra Front–Syria Revolutionaries Front conflict already stated that they are allies. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We cant used the pro-opposition source to display success of the rebel. This is not entirely correct. Also this source shows al Sayad as contested. So I think will be properly removed from the map the village of Khanafis. This will be the right decision. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not leave it up? It's better to have it up and contested, to show the front line, rather then to take it down. Besides, the SAA is sure to overrun it shortly anyway. We could just throw up a section on the talk page and see what other editors think if you want.. I think contested is good though - certainly better than not having it on the map at allBoredwhytekid (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you are right but just such our actions, we can provoke the some of pro government editors to the use of pro-government maps and sources to add the towns and villages which will noted under control by army. And in the end we get war edits. Also I am against here such editing.here Hanibal911 (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also would like to hear your opinion about this change here I think that the source that was used is clearly anti-government and therefore can not be used for such a change also this source not confirm the editing that was done on the basis thereof. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I'm skeptical about that edit too, but I am not familiar with the source and my Arabic is crap so I do not know if it is anti-gov't anti-rebel etc..

Me too! But if we look on homepage of this source it becomes clear that this is biased the anti-government source. So I think for such a serious change this source cant be used. So maybe you can help me fix this is not correct editing which also not confirm the data from reliable sources. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey look here the pro-opposition map clear show that army controls the border strip to the east of the Nassib border crossing and the city of Bosra al Sham and some small villages near this city. Also this map clear show that the city of Izra under control by army and a city of Shaikh Maskin still contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:57, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if there are any other sources to corroborate the border strip - we are not familiar with the author of this new map, and its information runs contrary to the sources found/used to make the border region as is on our map. Izra = 100% SAA controlled, Sheikh Mishkin/Maskin contested - 100% agree.

Not a lot of off-topic discussion, but have you heard that today reported that was killed Abu Omar al-Shishani one of the top leaders of the ISIS.herehere I think that this is good news! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wonder if it's true or propaganda. I had not seen those articles - but came across this post questioning the validity of the claim Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You violated the one revert rule on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map with these edits 1 & 2. Your previous block was for a similar issue and I unblocked you after your commitment to abide by 1RR. However given that I believe you were acting in good faith I'm warning you this time. Editing based on a consensus you have assessed is not an excuse to 1RR (which are listed here) as you were told last time. Having said that, you did exactly the right thing by starting a discussion. Let me by crystal clear, if you violate 1RR again on that page again you will be sanctioned, either with a block of at least 2 weeks or a ban from editing the page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:05, 15 November 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

If you have time, please advise on the situation evidenced here and here Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And now here too Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just undid Pototo1's vandalism here - if I am breaking 1RR by undoing all of his destructive edits at once, please advise and I will immediately self-revert Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Callanecc, sorry to keep bothering you - but this issue is persisting. Seen here, the same user is up to the same tricks - and is bordering on personal attacks against me here and here. He's making unsourced edits, then when I revert them, saying I'm vandalizing by not providing a source. Getting really frustrating. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So it continues Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this information? International Coalition and Arab governments are making huge efforts trying to fight the Islamic state but they appears in other Middle east countries and captures the territory in these countries.herehereherehere Hanibal911 (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro government source just said that militant from the Islamic State of Iraq and Al-Sham (ISIS) carried out a suicide bombing operation at the defensive barricades of Well 105 inside of the Al-Sha’ar Gas Fields. So source not said about clashes near al Shaer gas field the source only said about suicide bombing. So this is not a reason for the black circle. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"The suicide bomber was successful in destroying part of the barricade, allowing for ISIS fighters to infiltrate into the area of Well 105" - they carried out an assault. It's clear that IS is still pressuring from the north. A black circle JUST to the north is appropriate.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that in this matter, you're right. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Will you add it? I added originally, but it was reverted - I do not want to seem to be edit warring. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it today but later. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I cant to note the black mark near with Al Shaeer because I cant put black circle so that he only showed the presence of IS to the north of it. It turns not very correctly and not beautifully. Maybe we still wait and see how this situation will evolve. Maybe soon the fighting in this area will expand and then we can put a black circle around of gas field Al Shaeer. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that not enough only one message about the bombardment for the edit to contested the cities Kafr Shams here and Mahajjah here. After all, it's not a small villages also earlier, many pro opposition sources indicate that these cities under the full control of the army and there were no reports about clashes in these cities.hereherehere also Army could bombed the rebel sleeper cells in the city or on its outskirts. Or it could be hit and run and helicopters bombed rebel group which try enter the city. But all the same for now we no have reports about clashes in those cities. So I think that in this case need only put a green circles around these cities. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So that buddy you can help me correct this inaccuracy on map. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al Monitor only said that rebel fighters were able to break the regime siege of the town of al-Shaykh Maskin, near Daraa, on 6 Novvember they penetrated the town through battles that led to the fall of Brigade 82, one of the Syrian army’s largest military bases.here but later were many reports that the military base still under the control of the army. And today pro opposition sources said that fires burning in Brigade82 in Shayk Maskin today. Assad troops there are under siege and heavy fire.here Hanibal911 (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That al-monitor article says "They penetrated the town through battles that led to the fall of Brigade 82, one of the Syrian army’s largest military bases." But, al-masdar says rebels infiltrated, but parts of the base are still SAA held. Contested, until we get a clearer picture? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro opposition source reported that the Assad regime taken over by the former UNDOF position in Quneitra province. And rebels are shelled this positionhere You know where this position located? Hanibal911 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those villages {Ma'er Kebbeh and Lahaya) editing from the government control to the control by rebels based only one messages about bombing.here But source not said that this villages now under rebel control. In the extreme case we must noted those villages as contested. So that for now we not have confirmation from reliable source that these villages are captured a rebels. You can help me fix this mistake. Also we need to remove a copy the village of Lahaya. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you beat me to it. Man, the vandalism is running wild.. with 1RR, the damage Pototo is doing to the map will take days to undo. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would not provoke the war of edits let's wait one day. And after pass day since my last revert of his edits and not violating the rule 1RR. I will restore everything as it was before. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's just frustrating - he can vandalize the crap out of the map with no consequences, but restoring 2 of his vandalizing edits to their original form will get us blocked or page banned. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just disgusting feeling when know that someone is violating the rules of editing but cant fix it without breaking the rules for the violation of which may be followed a sentence of the block. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for you is why you on the basis of this source added on the map and marked as contested the village Ayn al-Bayda here in area which under control by army in the province of Latakia, although in this province there is other villages Ayn al-Bayda. So if there is not other source which confirms that the source is stated about this village, I will fix the map by removing the village Ayn al-Bayda which you add and noted as contested and add another village Ayn al-Bayda and noting this village under control the rebel. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are correct it seems that I have added the wrong Ayn al-Bayda Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I correct mistake. I also wanted to ask you about the situation with ISIS. You agree with my proposal about the village of Bi’r Qassab in this issue.here? Hanibal911 (talk) 17:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that too - I posted a France24 link supporting your proposal about adding Bi'r Qassab Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I rummaged in Wikipedia and found here icons which we can use to show that rebels still present in west Qalamoun in mounts near Lebanese border. We can select the icon of a certain color and we can put this icon in the border area near border. And we dont need more half circle near some of villages in the area. What you think about this decision? Hanibal911 (talk) 18:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me - the only reason I was/am a proponent for the half circles in the area (Assal al Ward, Ras al Maara, Flita, etc) is because those were the only icon we had to show that the rebels were still present and waging asymmetric warfare in the borderlands. If we now have an icon that would better represent that, and not be confused with a partial siege of those towns, I'm all for it. Where exactly are we putting these new icons though? I think if we just put two of them in that empty space between Assal al-Ward and the Lebanese border and Flita and the Lebanese border, that would do justice. Then we can remove the lime semicircle from the West of Assal al-Ward too Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I re-added all the lime semicircles that Pototo had removed in Qalamoun here - but just to be clear, as soon as we start using icons to show the presence of a group in a general area, I am for taking all of those lime semicircles down, and the one around Assal al-Ward as well. Just putting them back up as a temporary measure. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he is removing literally positions that were mentioned by multiple source,is there anybody who can stop him.Alhanuty (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I know. Just revert him when it is appropriate/when he makes an unsourced edit. Don't get baited into breaking 1RR though - I'll stay on top of it too. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please,report him for breaking 1RR.Alhanuty (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

he broke the rule multiple times.Alhanuty (talk) 01:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How do you find such information? Looks that fighters Al Nusra is becoming more similar to the fighters Islamic State and they not trust in then for what are fighting moderate rebel groups. The aim for Jabhat al-Nusra it is to create an Islamic “emirate” to rival with the Islamic State’s “caliphate,”The Washington Post Hanibal911 (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A frightening development. Boredwhytekid (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the map http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?ca=a3b60f0c-7f1c-4666-b671-5753603361d6&c=a494ff50-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76&ch=a499ba40-f60e-11e3-ab57-d4ae526edc76

ISW Is anti Assad since a lot time ago --Pototo1 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that, but there is a long-running discussion of this situation here - multiple sources were provided and the whole 9 yards was discussed at length. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history Wikiproject has opened nominations for the Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year. Nominations will be accepted until 13 December at 23:59 GMT, with voting to begin at 0:00 GMT 14 December. The voting will conclude on 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message was accidentally sent using an incorrect mailing list, therefore this message is being resent using the correct list. As a result, some users may get this message twice; if so please discard. We apologize for the inconvenience.

What are you think about a situation in the city Sawran in northen part of Aleppo province. Pro opposition sources said that the city is under control by moderate rebels but ISIS trying to storm city.herehere But I not found information from neutral sources about the situation in this city. Only find pro opposition source in which said that several ISIS militants were killed in heavy clashes with rebels in Sawran N. Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have not found further sources about Sawran either. I'd say leave it as is or go contested lime-black. Either way, it's the front line so we know clashes are going on either right around it or possibly in the outskirts. Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're right but this editor also addressed to me with other question about city Kafr Nabl.here So I decided just to consult you. Also he addressed to me about the situation in a city Kafr Nabl.here He believes that the city is under rebel control and not Al Nusra and provide some sources. But although I have not edit this city, I gave him the sources which confirm that the city under the control of Al Nusra but he still tries to prove me otherwise. Maybe you can help me clarify this situation. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the skepticism - would Nusra allow a peaceful protest supporting the FSA? Hard to tell. Not sure about the Al Jazeera video, because saying "JAN left the frontline in west Hama rif" might just be an echo of Jamaal Marouf's claim that JAN left the frontline PRECISELY to take towns like Kafr Nabl. Impossible to say with 100% certainty. I lean towards keeping Kafr Nabl as is - since, as you pointed out, there are sooo many sources here and here, saying JAN took the whole of Jabal al-Zawiya. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. But if you is not hard you can leave this your answer on my talk page in this discussion.Kafranbel Hanibal911 (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/al-qaeda-inspired-rebels-gain-in-syria-making-life-even-worse-for-us-allied-forces/2014/12/05/0930bde0-7388-11e4-95a8-fe0b46e8751a_story.html?tid=hybrid_1.1_strip_1 Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need your advice in this situation. Editor DuckZz about which I mentioned to you noted town Kafr Nabudah under rebel control by rebels not clear on what basis.here But his source not said that Al Nusra left this town.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 21:40, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't there a recent source about JAN executing someone in Kafr Nabudah? Unless I'm mistaken. Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

About situation in this town 30 November a reliable source reported that Al Nusra stormed the town of KafrNabudah and (SRF& FSA) handed over all their weapons.Elijah J. Magnier And not have more no reports that JAN left the town. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You can take part in this discussion.here We are talking about situation in the town of Kafr Nabl. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	L’étoile originale
	(Now that I discovered how to do this) A note of appreciation for your positive collaboration on the Syrian civil war map :) André437 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar André437! And once more thank you for providing the new icons - both the directional circles and the "rural presence". Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid i think i found al-wafa.hereLindi29 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I think that is a school - the prefix being "Madrasa" - and it is not quite 45mi west of Ramadi. Let's keep looking though! Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i think you right i didn't see that beacause that east not west my mistake i think its somewhere between Ramadi and Hit somewhere there Lindi29 (talk) 14:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid i think this map will help not just to find al-wafa but to add more towns and villages can you check this map.Lindi29 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which map? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:57, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one hereLindi29 (talk) 16:24, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see it. Have you found it on that map? Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope I was looking everywhere but i didnt found it very strange Lindi29 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the military historian of the year and military newcomer of the year have now closed, and voting for the candidates has officially opened. All project members are invited to cast there votes for the Military historian and Military newcomer of the year candidates before the elections close at 23:59 December 21st. For the coordinators, TomStar81

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR just said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions have taken over new points in Basida village, regime forces pulled back from al-Hamedia and Wadi al-Deif camps into the village.SOHR So for now we need mark this village as contested. Hanibal911 (talk) 17:43, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off of this source, which says Basida fell and the SAA fell back to Maar Hattat Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Also I think that we need noted under control by Al Nusra all checkpoints around Wadi al Daif military camp. Because SOHR said that al-Madakhen checkpoint in Wadi al-Deif in the countryside of M'ara al-Nu'man was captured by al-Nusra and Islamic fighters.here Also SOHR said that Jabhat al-Nusra and Islamic battalions taken over 7 checkpoints ” al-Dab’an, al-Raii, al-Za’lana in Wadi al-Deif, and al-Madajin, Habosh, Kamin, Mo’asasa al-Meyah in al-Hamedia camp.here Hanibal911 (talk) 17:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this? Hanibal911 (talk) 20:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. It is clear that certain former or current members of the Islamic Front have allied themselves more closely with JAN after their assault on the SRF. But, does that mean we should mark all JAN, Ahrar al Sham, etc gains as grey? Or just the ones where we know that JAN is the primary group? It's a slippery slope to start marking all Islamic factions in grey - we'd have to change pretty much every rebel-held town in Aleppo over to grey! For these ones in Idlib though, yes I agree that those checkpoints should be marked in JAN grey. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR confirms Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid this town or village its siege on one side and i cant find his source can you help me hereLindi29 (talk) 19:47, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the original edit adding Tall Ahmad, and here is the addition of the YPG presence to the north. Looks like the latter was added based off the SOHR comment that the YPG had targeted the village. Makes sense to place the YPG presence to the north - it's the only direction they can pressure this village from. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:56, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This towns Tall-Tunaynir,Sab'a,Taban,Burj Ghrabyiah,Sabburyiah,Hamadanyiah,Al-Melabyia that are under SSA controll there is no source of that but i can find many source that this towns are under ISIS controll.hereLindi29 (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the last posted source for those sites was Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Boredwhytekid about this here only said too biased anti-government source Stepagency-sy also troops now launched the offensive in the southern part of Hasaka. pro gov. Al Masdar and pro opp. source ARA News Hanibal911 (talk) 21:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll poke around on this topic to see what the latest reports say about this area and who controls it Lindi29. If desyracuse's source about air strikes is legit and can be corroborated, then there's a pretty good case for some of these southern towns being IS territory Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:42, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK,i will wait for your answer and confirmation.Masive respect Lindi29 (talk) 23:45, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid According to this source the border has been captured by Isis.hereLindi29 (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But later source said that attack a failed and 16 ISF were killed. But border crossing still in ISF hand.Elijah J. Magnier This is a very interesting question! For now we have also data from the opposition source which showed that on Syrian side of border the Al‑Tanf border crossing under control by Syrian troops.here But showed that area on Iraqi side of border where located Al‑Walid border crossing controlled by ISIS.here So maybe need more data. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:17, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the SAA still has a presence there, but it is harassed/attacked by the IS operating in the desert - we'll have to keep an eye out for more information Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here another map which show that this border crossing still under control Iraqi government troops. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid what do you think about this map can you add this.here.Lindi29 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting map. I don't know much about the on-going clashes in Libya though. I'm sure there's some sort of project or related page here on wiki Boredwhytekid (talk) 21:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here interactive map showed that a villages Kabajeb and Al-Shulah which located on Highway Homs - Deir Ez Zor controlled by Syrian troops.here Also this source showed that Menagh Air Base still under control by rebels. Also source showed that villages of Tilalyan, Tall Malid contested between moderate rebels and ISIS. And clashes inside of the Infantry School north of city Aleppo.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What/who is the source? If it's just another amateur map.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here another source which clearly opposes of the Syrian government also confirmed that Syrian troops still controlled road from Homs to Deir ez Zor.here Hanibal911 (talk) 10:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For the great work you have done in the search for truth in many complex issues. Good job! Hanibal911 (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Hanibal911 for this barnstar! And also thank you for arguing and conversing with me to get the clearest possible picture of events on the ground! Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:35, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid According to this sources Isis is in controll of more territories and i think we shoud add some town there to like buraq,al-waghi,jabriyah,shuwayhah,safwani,kahliliyah,abu-liyah,tafhah,hanajaf,rasm humaydah,dab'at al milli,jibab hamad,manuh,tadmuriyah etc.What do you think ?.here.hereLindi29 (talk) 16:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree - we should add some towns shown on those maps to link the IS holdings in Homs and Raqqah, that way we could take down the "presence icon". But, it's not for me to arbitrarily decide. I suggest proposing this on the talk page and see what the response is. My vote is a "yay". Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:53, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this map Isis is under control al-kasik military base and 3 towns Khariz,Faqiruq,Qasr Sarij can you change them.hereLindi29 (talk) 17:54, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where are those sites on that map? Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:00, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show them in the map but they are there, the map acctually shows the airstrikes attacks in that province they are north of Tal-Afar.hereLindi29 (talk) 18:08, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. We'll need a consensus on the talk page to add them since they are not specifically named. Same problem as the IS-held towns in NE Homs province on the Syrian side Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK! I added this problem in the talk page but i dont think that anybody will response on this beacause i issued other cases but nobody responded :/.Lindi29 (talk) 18:51, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol yes, it's hit-or-miss. There really are not too too many editors devoted to running down sources for these maps on a daily basis Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:56, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do change it or wait till nobody respond :p.Respect Lindi29 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, give it some time, see if anyone cares to comment. If not, throw the edits up and see if anyone cares to revert/comment thereafter. This is a quickly changing battlefield though, in light of the ongoing Kurdish offensive Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infighting between moderate rebels and Al Nusra in Dara province. Perhaps we need to examine in greater detail the situation in the Darra province. Since now it has become clear that in the Darra province repeated the same situation as in the Idlib province . Al Nusra trying to capture the territory which belonged of the moderate rebels. And also some rebel groups joined to ISIS.

• Liwa' Shuhada' al-Yarmuk, Abu Mohamad al Tilawi Brigde and Beit al-Maqdes in Daraa declared to Islamic State.Elijah J. Magnier Infighting ongoing between "moderate rebels" supported by JAN and IS in Daraa. And IS getting closer to borders Israel.Elijah J. Magnier
• Three rebel brigades in the Daraa countryside pledge allegiance to Islamic State fearing Jabhat a-Nusra.Joshua LandisCham Times
• Al Nusra confirms that Liwa’ al-Yarmouk declared Ba'ya(loyalty) to the ISIS and explain that it is due to infighting between rebels in Dara.hereElijah J. Magnier Also reliable source said that Al Nusra kill a senior commander from moderate rebel group accusing him that his faction it is a sleeper agents for ISIL. Mousab Ali Qarfan who also have other name Mousab Zaytouneh, was a leading figure in the powerful Al Yarmouk Brigades. He was killed by the Al Qaeda-affiliated Nusra in Sahem El Golan, along with three other fighters from his group. The Yarmouk Brigades are part of the moderate rebels alliance, still commonly referred to as the Free Syrian Army (FSA). According to opposition sources which monitoring Al Nusra, and information published on social media by some activists close to the Al Qaeda affiliate Al Nusra commanders believed that Zaytouneh was secretly in league with the extremist militant group ISIL.The Nationl
• Pro opposition source said that the al-Qaeda-linked group of Nusra Front seized the headquarters of the rebel brigade of the “Yarmouk Martyrs” in the town of Taseel in Daraa province following clashes between the two parties. Also civil rights activist Mohammed Hassan said that members of al-Nusra stormed the town and took control of the headquarters of the Yarmouk Martyrs Brigade of the Free Syrian Army , as well as seizing a military vehicle. Clashes between both sides (Nusra and Yarmouk Brigade) spread to the town of Saham al-Jawlan, without causing casualties.ARA News
• SOHR also said that a demonstration took place today in the town of Sahm al- Jolan demanding to transfer the conflict between al- Nusra Fron and the brigade of Shohadaa al- Yarmuk to outside of the town. And al- Nusra attacked the demonstration followed by clashes between al- Nusra and the brigade. Meanwhile, al- Nusra Front attacked al- Allan checkpoint in the west of the town of Sahm al- Jolan where fighters from the brigade of Shohadaa of al- Yarmuk exist there. Information reported that the brigade’s fighters could drag the injured fighters of al- Nusra.SOHR
• In fact Israel will have on its borders either JAN Al Qaida flags along 45km or Islamic State flags due infighting between rebels.Elijah J. Magnier Hanibal911 (talk) 10:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Three local jihadist groups that were fighting against the Assad regime in the southern Golan swore fealty this week to ISIS. According to Arab media reports, three small Islamist factions – Shuhada al-Yarmouk, the Abu Mohammed al-Tilawi Brigades and Bayt al-Maqdis – announced earlier this week that they are transferring their allegiance to ISIS. The largest of the three, Shuhada al-Yarmouk, comprises a few hundred armed men, while the other two contain only several dozen each.Haaretz Hanibal911 (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We'll have to see if the truce talks stop the fighting. In the meantime, we should track JAN's presence in Daraa ISW Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this guy considered neutral ? According to him, FSA members are controling Ad Dana village DuckZz (talk) 22:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New source. SOHR reported the same, but TahrirSy was quicker so I belive he gets information on the ground. Ad Dana should go green. DuckZz (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZzTahrirSy it is pro opposition source. And it Idlib province there are two villages Al Dana here and here Hanibal911 (talk) 08:51, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I see, It's probably Ad DanaA (west of Aleppo) and not Al Dana DuckZz (talk) 11:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although our views with you in the situation with the source SOHR are slightly different. But I think you will agree with me that this source Conflict Reporter clearly the pro opposition source. Here are some of his reports that confirm the fact that the he pro opposition source and can not be neutral:

• The #Assad #terror regime also killed men,women and children in #Idlib today.Conflict Reporter
• The worst terrorist #Assad keeps on destroying the Syrian capital #DamascusConflict Reporter Hanibal911 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pro-op, but I'm really not familiar with the source. I have no clue if it's a reliable outlet or not. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But when sources called the rebels as terrorists we called those sources as pro government so also we need recognize that sources which said that Syrian government it is "Assad terror regime" pro opposition sources. How you think? In my opinion it is would be the correct solution! Hanibal911 (talk) 14:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to know how reliable their reports are. I don't want to call it pro-op because then it will automatically be used for SAA gains.. which will be counterproductive if we don't know if it's a consistently accurate source or not. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source Conflict Reporter picked up data for their reports hereherehere from the pro opposition resources Shaam News Network SMO Syriahere And this is clearly evidenced that he is pro opposition source. But to tell you the truth I dont trust his statements and dont want use him. Hanibal911 (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pro government source not showed that village Sabsaba now contested also month ago pro opposition source showe that this village controlled by army.here Also if you look map you can see that pro government map showed that hill of Tell Sabsaba still under control by army. But the village [But the village Sabsaba is located on northwest from hills, and thus village located in area which under control of the army. Sabsaba] is located on northwest from this hill, and thus village located in area which under control of the army. So that need fix this mistake. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The al-Masdar map shows Kafr Nasij in the rebel's rear, and the front line going straight through the Sabsaba / Tell Sabsaba area. Kafr Nasij is clearly shown on the road, and the front line is (on the map) about a half inch north of there - clearly straight through Sabsaba. And the map doesn't mark Tell Sabsaba at all.. it has the front line running straight through it so there's no way to tell who holds it. Hence I marked contested. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On pro-government map this is hill Tell Sabsaba marked in red color and located in area which controlled by army. You can see the location of this hill on the map and you'll see that I'm right.here Hanibal911 (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The red color is not the icon that map used to show Tells/hills though - just SAA presence between Himrit and Kafr Nasij. Being right in between SAA Himrit and rebel Kafr Nasij, in all probability nobody is sleeping in Sabsaba. It's a battlefield. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's to search more detaled data. Because earlier pro opposition source indicated that the village is under the control of the army.Archicivilians Hanibal911 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here new map from pro opposition source Archicivilians which showed that area where located villages Sabsaba and Himrit still controlled by army. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hanibal911 , who removed the red concentric from Inkhil? I haven't found the edit yet. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, I did it!here Because then I have a data from opposition source which said that clashes in the city.here But later pro government source revealed that the city is under rebel control, and I marked it again under rebel control, and completely forgot about the red mark. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and your pro-rebel vandalism Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry buddy! I will try not to do more. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No reports of clashes there. VICE News puslished the last part of their series. I belive the reports are not old as both Simon and the IDF soldier are talking about recent events. On 4:45 he clearly says that FSA controls the town. DuckZz (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Done Beit Jinn to rebels.Dailymotion Hanibal911 (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this town changed to contested in the first place ? Nevermind, SOHR reports about barrel bombs on the town, and we know how accurate those bombs are. DuckZz (talk) 10:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz Here Al Arabiya reported about clashes in Khan Shaykhun.Al Arabiya Hanibal911 (talk) 11:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yea this city keeps flipping back and forth from green to contested. One day there are reports that the rebels overran it, the next day SOHR will post an ambiguous mention of fighting. The proximity of Brigade 82 pretty much ensures that Khan Sheykhun will stay contested unless/until that base is taken by the opposition. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BoredwhytekidYou probably now said about the situation in the city Sheikh Maskin but not Khan Shaykhun. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:10, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Yup, didn't read carefully enough. peter Clifford links tons of videos confirming Khan Sheikhoun as rebel held. Desyracuse shows the same. Pretty sure that al-Arabiya article is more talking about initial clashes on the southern and eastern outskirts of the city - which are now within SAA small arms range. Personally I think a red concentric to the S or SE would be more accurate. Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right but with a little refinement. Because before we noted Khan Sheykun as contested the other reliable source reported that the city is the main stronghold of Jabhat al-Nusra.Al Monitor and also later pro opposition source deSyracuse showed that in area where located Khan Sheykun presented the are militants of Al Nusra. So maybe we need city under control by Al Nusra with the red mark to south side. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That'd work. A green/grey Khan Sheykun is probably even more accurate. With the red concentric to the south Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As for me it's a great idea! Hanibal911 (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hanibal911 Neutral map showing FSA presence in Kobane ? DuckZz (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you want to say? We know that some rebels also participate in clashes in Kobane but their number is too small and they in this battle as reinforcements for the Kurds also as and Peshmerga .Siege of Kobanî But the main battle between the Kurds(YPF) and ISIS. And on your map it is clearly indicated that there is a territory under the control of the Kurds and there is a territory under the control of ISIS.here Hanibal911 (talk) 21:02, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thought it wouldn't be bad to put a small green circle there, as there were dozens of videos posted showing FSA (Kataib Shamal, Liwa Raqqa) members fighting in Kobani way before Peshmerga arrived. Their presence is not small, according to rebel sources. DuckZz (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid my friend can you help me with an article name ? Lindi29 (talk) 18:40, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I can I will Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go on the talk page and see hereLindi29 (talk) 18:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have vandals look they edit without explantion and ruins the page can you report him for vandalism.hereLindi29 (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Everything you need is here, on the Dispute Resolution page - pretty much lays down the steps to be taken and different approaches to take to reach agreement or get assistance.

I am new here and i rly dont know how to use this thing can you do it for me if you can that will be rly kind from you.Much Respect Lindi29 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Try discussing it with the other editor in question on his/her talk page. If that gets you nowhere, or you guys can't agree, try any of the links under Resolving content disputes with outside help. I'm not an administrator so there's really not anything I can do to help other than point you in the right direction Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay thank you so much for your help but i dont think things will get right beacause they all are agaisnt me even they reported me ,but anyway if you need any help just ask for it.Respect Lindi29 (talk) 19:15, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see on my talk page, I too experienced the learning curve of being new to wiki haha. Really though, you should read over the content resolution page and try it out Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:18, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It will be tough i know, but i wanted just to see how you do this content resolution content thing beacause i dont know how rly to put it ? on talk page ? but forget it man i am just bothering you with this stuff.Lindi29 (talk) 19:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - read it over though Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

boredwhytekid what do you think did i do it right?here.

Hey, Hanibal911, in this edit, I changed Durin from green to contested based off of al-Masdar, and added a lime concentric to the east of Nab' al-Murr even though it wasn't specifically mentioned. Durin is the front line - that's true regardless of whether or not the source is pro-government, and there must be rebel presence east of Nab' al-Murr because there's rebel presence around Jabal Al-Nissr, at the base of which Nab' al Murr is settled. That's an even swap "breaking the rules of editing" for both FSA and SAA and both sites are more accurate this way, I think. Any objections? Boredwhytekid (talk) 03:08, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are all correctly edit because and previously I have seen reports from SOHR about fighting in the mountains around the city of Durin and even been reports of fighting in the city and on the outskirts of Salma but I ignored them but you did everything right. But I think that the green mark near the mountain of Jabal Al-Nissr and a village of Nab 'al Mur should be removed because the source is clearly stated that Al Nusra attacked from the Turkish border how as last time from Turkish territory so we need removed these marks. Also in the source is clearly stated that they are completely retreated from the area.here Hanibal911 (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although I think that we can confine so that just put red circle near the village Durin. Hanibal911 (talk) 10:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We won't be able to see a red circle around a green Durin though. I prefer the contested icon because it's an active front. As goes the green concentrics, they're appropriate because obviously between SAA held Nab' al Mur and rebel held Kelez there is rebel presence in the mountains - that's where they trekked through/crossing the Turkish border to get to Jabal al-Nissr Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid can you give your opinion for this should we add this town.hereLindi29 (talk) 16:58, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still searching for usable sources to confirm Boredwhytekid (talk) 17:05, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will wait for more sources until then can you add the village in the map to green.Lindi29 (talk) 18:26, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any source showing this village contested ? According to Pro-rebel maps, one example, this area is way behind rebel lines. I hardly belive the SAA can resist a siege for that long. We also know that the route from Idlib to Jish Shugur is not very wide and rebels are managing to cut off the supply route once in a while. DuckZz (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. I mean, I'm sure some towns/villages on the northern flank of the Jish Shugur supply route are seeing clashes, but I doubt the SAA ventures that far north of the highway. I have not found any recent sources specifically mentioning al-Ghafer though. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boredwhytekid Can you give your opinion on this.here. Lindi29 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too. It really bothers me when Tgoll774 consistently edits in favor of ISIS with no explanations or sources. He's been doing that for at least 2 weeks, ever since the confusion over the area east of Hasakah. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pbfreespace3! Yea, I listed 8 of his recent unsourced edits on the talk page.. just something we'll need to keep on top of. Boredwhytekid (talk) 18:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the appreciation . Jack6780 (talk) 17:12, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jack6780! And thank you again for your efforts to increase the accuracy of the maps. Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 July 2015.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:20, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some fresh input on what the sources say about the subject would be welcome at this RfC. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:05, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway, and as a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 23 September. For the Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Asia/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like South East Asia, Japan/China or India etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Asian content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon which has produced near 200 articles in just three days. If you would like to see this happening for Asia, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Asia, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 01:23, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Time is running out to voting for the Military Historian and Newcomer of the year! If you have not yet cast a vote, please consider doing so soon. The voting will end on 31 December at 23:59 UTC, with the presentation of the awards to the winners and runners up to occur on 1 January 2017. For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This message was sent as a courtesy reminder to all active members of the Military History WikiProject.

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

• tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
• updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
• creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive#Participants and create a worklist at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]