Lets include both LCC and SOHR then. Sopher99 (talk)

If you are having trouble with the content of an article, you can try discussing the issue on the article's talk page. Just make sure not to get involved in an edit war.

AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was your intent, but you added a reference link that was the link to edit a specific section of that article. I think you may have copy and pasted the wrong link. Jeancey (talk) 18:44, 18 June 2012 (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) 17:38, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example - you made several reverts at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map yesterday. You made one after the notice above and could have been blocked. If you make more than one there today you will be blocked. If you edit that page inappropriately you might be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 10:10, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

• On the The State of New York vs. Derek Murphy page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )
• On the Roots of Evil page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )
• On the Foundation (Brand Nubian album) page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). ( | )

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

POV vandalism we not use pro opposition sources to display success rebels. source Hanibal911 (talk) 18:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I revert all your editings because we not use pro opposition source to display rebel advances and source which you used is pro opposition source. With the exception of the city of Jasim because even pro government sources previously showed this city under rebel control.here Hanibal911 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many editors have agreed more not to use questionable maps. Only pro government map (http://www.syrianperspective.com/category/battle-maps Syrian Perspective) to show success rebels and the pro opposition map (https://twitter.com/archicivilians/media Archicivilians) to show of the army advances. We can also use the maps from reliable sources such as (BBC, New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and some other) Hanibal911 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I not said that this source not reliable but @deSyracuse source largely duplicates other pro opposition sources and has been recognized by the pro opposition.here So I am sorry but we cant use pro opposition source to display rebel advances. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This source on 1 September said that Syrian army withdrew from the city Morek.here But SOHR on the next day reported that combatants from the islamist battalions were killed in the clashes in the town of Morek.SOHR And that means that the city of Morek still contested so you need fix this bug. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the message from Twitter is not reliable source we made an exception only for maps and secondly the source says that previously town was under the control of the rebels but the map from the pro opposition source clearly showed that on 6 September, the city was under control of the army. So if you can not provide reliable source which can confirm that city under rebel control not need revert my editing. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And today pro opposition source said that rebels today captured this city so that this means that yesterday the city was under the control of the army. But we cant use data from pro opposition source to display rebel advances need confirmation from a reliable source. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong! Here is the original reports from SOHR and they not said about bombing of this city today so you can read this reports.hereand here I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In firstly city too big that to change it on the basis of single message, and in the second source said that clashes in the southwest of Idlib but not in the city and rebels only shelled it.source And also there were many similar posts on the situation with the city Talbilesh here but we not edit him to contested. And for the future, remember that we do not noted such major cities on contested only on the basis of a single message. Just if were clashes in such a big city many other reliable sources also reported of this. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No news emerged that ISIS captured those towns in the western edge of Raqqah and besides semi-neutral source here [1] from five days ago stating those towns are still rebel-held. EkoGraf (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you are not going to say the Irish Times and the Washington Post are pro-opposition. [2][3] And I will remind once again that no news emerged that ISIS made any advances at all in that patch of land. Claims of ISIS being in full control of Raqqah province are at this point a common misconception because that western chunk is a forgotten front at this point. EkoGraf (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And one more [4]. EkoGraf (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR clear said that clashes in the vicinity of Ghabagheb town but not said that clashes in the town. source If you bad know English, I will prompt you that source said that clashes in the vicinity the city it is means near the city. But if you do not believe me you can use an interpreter. Regards! Hanibal911 (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article in Wikipedia which proves my point.vicinity=near or around Hanibal911 (talk) 19:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]