Rules for Editing the Map

1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. Tradedia^talk 02:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Iwan123Iwan,

I ask you seriously to revert your edit. DaeshDaily is actually a very reliable source concerning events around the Islamic State. Furthermore, it is a much more reliable source than any Twitter account's tweet. The using of Twitter as a source alone is arguable enough, but it can absolutely never countermand a proper source as DaeshDaily is one.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ermanarich,

Sourse DaeshDaily is not reliable as he is contrary to official sources.Provides a more reliable source.

But Daeshdaily is a collection of official sources in arabic, which are translated into english. And in case you don't know it yet: DaeshDaily is not pro-ISIL.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:52, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

At sourse DaeshDaily there is a lot of mismatches with official sources.Therefore better use an official source or more reliable source.

A source does not need to match an official source. Official sources can usually be biased in favour of government. Even SOHR has a lot of mismatches woth official sources, doesn't make it unreliable. DaeshDaily is a pretty reliable source. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently reverted my edit. Airstrikes aren't confirmation of the opposite side being in control. That's your own claim. The source you added nowhere states ISIS controls Akashat. Airstrikes even in cities of Rutbah and Fallujah ahave been carried out against ISIS after they were recaptured. Does that mean ISIS controls them too? No. Leftovers and cells usually exist even after capture of some places. It is usual in an "insurgency". Insurgent elements attacked and were in cities under control of USA during Iraq war. Plus here is Iraqi News stating that ISIS launching an offensive to capture Akashat in late July 2016 (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/buraq-forces-thwart-isis-attack-western-anbar/). Now someone will obviously not launch an offensive on something they already have control over. It is not as simple as attack and every enemy is wiped out. Japanese holdouts remained in territories captured by USA during WWII. Clearly your claim is by all means wrong and your edit is essentially unsourced. Airstrikes can also be over ISIS elements who were attacking Akashat and were in the town or even near it during the attack. Your edit is WP:OR as your source nowhere indicates ISIL controls Akashat. I therefore ask you to please undo your edit. Newsboy39 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

https://mobile.twitter.com/IraqiSecurity/status/777054568945422336 - Report source an air strike on Akashat.If in this area are the remains of militants IS this region may not is under control Iraqi Army.All the more so this area is not big to size and population which composes 4000.Concerning airstrikes on this city as Ramadi and Fallujah they were marked not by city and in districts near towns which still controls IS.

Again, your source does not say anywhere that Asakah is under ISIS control. You are making your own assumptions and your edit is effectively unsourced as your source does not say Asakah is under ISIS control.

I can't even understand what you are saying, not being offensive but your English is poor. You do not understand what an insurgency is. Insurgents are usually present in a town even where they have no control, it was usual during USA's war in Iraq. There are remnants after every battle, it doesn't mean the town has not been captured. It's not as simple as wipe out all enemies and you win. If the enemy has holdouts, that means they have effectively lost control of that place and are waging a guerrilla warfare to recapture it. The city of Fallujah and Ramasi are under Iraqi control and are marked so but ISIS cells occasionally attack and infiltrate them.

Besides presence also simply doesn't mean just hideouts. There can also be elements who sneak in from outside the city who might try to set up cells and prepare for attacking the city in future. As I already proved, your edit is WP:OR, original research. I do not want to get into meaningless arguments, therfore I request you revert your edit instead of arguing and making claims not supported by the source. If not, then I'll revert it tomorrow because it does not follow the rules. Instead of making your own rules, please follow Wikipedia's rules. And please sign your posts after you post them. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted me twice. However you can only revert a user only once a day per the sanctions. Not just that, you have falsely blamed me of vandalising the module when I just edited per a very reliable source. Please revert your edit as it is a 1RR violation, you cannot revert a user more than once in a day. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided unreliable source.According to this map ISIS still controlled part Ramadi,Khalidiya,territory near Fallujah,and territories near Samarra.Also on the card shows that half of the settlements near Hawija that controls ISIS control Kurdish.And more other.So this source called reliable not desirable.

If you think the card is reliable source.That's map pro Iraqi sourse which shows that the village Al Hujayl and others that you have designated controls IS.Here sourse https://mobile.twitter.com/A7_Mirza/status/779297953928273920

Your claims about source being reliable/unreliable doesn't allow you to violate 1RR. Please revert your violation. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides how do you claim thr source I gave is "pro-Iraqi"? The source has been used my multiple other reliable sources and it even has Iraqi officials declaring the same. Now I've never even heard about yours source and it doesn't look like it has been used by other sources. So who are we supposed to believe? Making baseless accusations of "vandalism" and bias that too without proof can get you blocked. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the source is correct even about areas around Ramadi, Fallujah and Khalidiya. Iraqi forces have recently launched operations to liberate areas still controlled by ISIL around Khalidiya, HIt, Haditha, Baghdadhi, Ramadi etc. You can check about these operations onlime yourselves. So yes, I will say my source is pretty reliable. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, your source contradicts majority of sources. It says "most if Shirqat" is under Iraqi control while many news sources as well as observers state Iraqi troops have completely captured the town. Clearly, you haven't checked the source which you say back ups your claim. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So now you're using a source from the same person who I myself used for showing Hujayl bring under the government control? Yet you blame me for using "unreliable" sources. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

if you yet think what http://isis.liveuamap.com reliable source I give you examples its unreliability.On the map what rebels control half Al Bukamal and its surroundings although IS repulsed the attack.Also here shown what SDF are kilometer from Markadah though they are 15 kilometer.There is also shown that the Syrian Army controlled gas field Shaer though its controls IS.

I was talking about Sayed Ridha not Liveuamap. Besides here's some obvious incorrections in your claims regarding Liveuamap. I suggest you clearly observe the map. There is no rebel control at all near Al Bukamal. Markadah is the last stronghold of ISIL in Hasakah Province: (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/us-backed-rebels-prepare-storm-last-isis-stronghold-hasakah/). And Syrian army is not represented in the map, but I can't understand what you're trying to say. Besides Shaer gas field is under IS control in it. You didn't even properly observe before making your claims. And the map uses the same sources you yourselves use, and it is regularly updated. You're proving hoe incorrect you are.

Besides I was talking about the source from Sayed Ridha and capture of Hujayl. I used his tweet as source (https://www.twitter.com/sayed_ridha/status/741935167531421696). Yet even after reverting me, you used the source of Sayed Ridha yourself [1]. It is a reliable source and you have violated 1RR, please revert your edit. Newsboy39 (talk) 14:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think http://isis.liveuamap.com/ reliable source as brought many examples him insecurity.But I can offer you 2 other map that considered reliable sources:http://newsmap.pl and bit.do/tutomap

Hi, for your information: Youtube as an RS. Regards, Erlbaeko (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We not use anti-SAA sources against SAA. Two reliable local sources confirmed: SAA controlled this area.linklink Mehmedsons (talk) 09:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See map! Al Safa Station and Al Safa Kaziya is it two parts of Al Safa rest area. SAA take back these area and now they storm the Battallion 559. So I ask you to roll back the own change. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Source make mention SAA managed to recapture the Al-Safa Rest Station from ISIS.link map Mehmedsons (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At source speaks only about Al-Safa Rest Station but there is no information about the village Al Safa Kaziya.Al Safa Kaziya-it does not rest area this village.And if would Syrian Army captured this village the source would inform about it.

We not use biased anti-SAA and pro-ISIS sources against SAA. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bosno Sinjic is a reliable source when it comes to desert warfare and he stated many times he is no with the rebels,so revert your edits.Alhanuty (talk) 18:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]