Hi Mehmedsons! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

The reason I removed the Facebook source containing SOHR's post is because all Facebook posts are copyrighted. I didn't remove it because it's unreliable. Copying from copyrighted things such as using it as a source can be considered a copyright violation which is not allowed on Wikipedia. That is why the source was removed. Please read and understand the edit summaries properly next time. 117.199.81.5 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking maybe we should split the article into two articles. One for the SAA-initiated offensive from 25 June until 30 July. The second for the rebel-initiated offensive from 31 July to present. Since they are basically two offensives. The SAA one ended after the rebel one started. What you think? EkoGraf (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They were lost and recaptured by the SAA within just 1 day, if not possibly just several hours. So its non-notable. The count of 42 gains by the rebels is for up to 29 Sep., and doesn't count those few villages. These were the lasting gains by the rebels which are notable. And including those few villages into the recapture count beside the 42 lost would be over counting. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say? EkoGraf (talk) 16:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Mehmedsons (talk) 16:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ustam kullandığım kaynakların çogu zaten almasdar yazarı .Yazarların attığı twitler kaynak sayılmaması saçma bence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyline12399 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe but they all the government sources. But I uses more reliable an local source. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons those sources you used to edit are map sources...you have to stop using map sources to edit it's against the rules of editing!!!Lists129 (talk) 20:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR makes no mention of the sawmill in ether the arabic or english version of the report. Also, english report is already cited, there is no need to cite the arabic version as well. EkoGraf (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR said that the SAA regain all lost areas during a both battles launched by rebels to break siege of Aleppo. And all areas is it means all areas including sawmills. Mehmedsons (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The original SOHR report lists all of the areas recaptured, and makes no mention of the sawmill (only the carton factory). Also, pro-SAA sources reported the capture of the sawmill only tonight in the last few hours. EkoGraf (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, the gov't affiliated Kurdish NDF forces must be considered as red collor because they're not SDF. If they're kurd or not, it doesn't matter. So FSA units in SDF must be considered as green? No. So you must collor it red instead "joint control". Beshogur (talk) 13:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In this area Kurdish NDF forces is the part of SAA and Republical Guard and must be as red.linklinklinklink SDF gave limited help when attacked ISIS on this front but all gains made SAA and loyal forces. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:58, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	Anti-Vandalizm Yıldızı
	Anti-Vandalism Star for you. :) Beshogur (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teşekkür ederiz.:) Mehmedsons (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An editor isn't accepting any of the sources that have been provided at the article that the ISIL attack on the T4 air-base has been repelled and that currently there is a new SAA-initited offensive. He's reverted several editors. I am trying to discuss the issue with him at the article's talk page and your input would be appreciated since you are involved in editing the article. EkoGraf (talk) 03:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you get to ban PPB3Freespace for correctly reverting you're NPOV-pushing here, it is not unthinkable that when you brake reverting rules on this subject. You'll get reported... Sad this is necessary, but I hope you learn from it.

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Niele~enwiki (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Niele~enwiki I roll back my changes as I do not wish that I was accused of violating the rules, but still I was right. I only agree with you about Khirbet Duwar, is it was a bad source. Mehmedsons (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re [1]. Do you know where you find the talk page? It's here. It is consensus for removing that map. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Erlbaeko No any consencus between main editors only one IP-editor and two unknowed guy which never edit map. I against the remove a map Rif_Aleppo2.svg! Also SDF/YPG controlled not only Sheikh Maqsood, they also have some positions in SAA controlled districts and parts of al-Zahra and Layramoun districts north-east of Aleppo still disputed between SAA and rebels. Rif_Aleppo2.svg must stay because this map correctly note the military situation in and around Aleppo. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, one IP-editor and two registered editors + me like to remove it. That is 4 against 1. I believe we easily can add the districts and parts of Aleppo correctly without that map. We don't need to mark every factory... Btw, it's nothing in the consensus policy that favor "main editors". Erlbaeko (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ErlbaekoThese two editors never edit detailed map and they dont know the real situation at this area so their opinion should not influence our actions. I very good know situation at this area inside and around city of Aleppo because I'm already half a year make edits to the detailed map. Also map Rif_Aleppo2.svg a good compromise for this area. So your voice to remove and my voice against this. Mehmedsons (talk) 12:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I removed the image since there was clear consensus to do so and also since readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. Sorry, but it not possible to check anything on that image. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We use detailed maps for Daraa, Aleppo, Deir ez Zor and Rif Dimashq and we not have any conflicted edits. If we remove map of Rif_Aleppo2.svg then a big area around of Aleppo will be empty. If some one want to see detailed situation just need open this map.Rif Aleppo2.svg If you do not like a map it is not a reason to remove this map. And it's not the most important issue at the moment. Mehmedsons (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al bab farms has been confirmed under TFSA control by all official rebel accounts, by Hawar Kilis Operations Room as well. Al bab farms isn't special to announce it. So, IS lines are already collapsed there. Beshogur (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur You only provide a map but we cant use maps as a source! And your source publish too incorrect maps, as according a map from your source no SAA gains south Al Bab. And at rules noted the map is not a source for changes. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:35, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I make Al Bab farms as disputed according this source.link Mehmedsons (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is the EuphratesPost source reliable enough to be used in this case? It sounds like it is a pro-rebel source, which is almost always anti-SDF, and if that is so, that would disqualify its use for reporting such an advance from ISIL. IF such a large reversal occurred, then the Al-Masdar News outlet would probably report on it within a day, given their recent scope of coverage on the Raqqa offensive. In light of these facts, I would like you to reconsider the edit on the Syria map. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 08:53, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000So maybe I need roll back my own change for Al Kubar and Al Jizah and wait more confirmations? Yea or no? Mehmedsons (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the only source that is reporting this right now (or the only side reporting), then I would guess so. If more sources or media outlets being reporting this, then there would be enough sources to justify such a significant change. Although I think that ISIL is probably more than capable of breaking through the siege on that side, the fact that almost no one reported on it so far makes the report seem dubious to me. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000 What you think about this a pro-opp/pro-SDF source? link Mehmedsons (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally wait for a couple more, but that source is pretty reliable. Though it only mentions 2 villages. LightandDark2000 (talk) 10:24, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you used for these places are Islamic world news pro-SAA map source and WC an unreliable source who citates other sources.Lists129 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lists129Many gains for TAF/Rebels maked on base pro-opp. sources or without any sources.linklinklinklinklink And you also use pro-opp. source for TAF/Rebels gains against SAA.link But I used pro-SDF source for change and one pro-SAA source for the addition SAA controlled village in SAA controlled zone after recent gains. And you are said that I was wrong! So you realy think is it only I was wrong when use those soures for my own change!? Mehmedsons (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the source wasn't specific regarding if the fighting is happening around the village or in it, and the other pro-Turkish/rebel source said fighting was taking place AROUND the other villages, not in them. EkoGraf (talk) 19:05, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I used up my 1 revert for 24 hours, so if you can, please revert Beshogur. Here [2] he changed a village from government-held to rebel-held based on two pro-rebel twitter posts. Which is not acceptable per the map rules. EkoGraf (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons I was wondering do you think it will be SNR or SAA that take control of villages along line of contact in the Manbij area? Militaryconflict (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Militaryconflict It will be Syrian troops and Russian military police. SNR only located at several villages north of Aleppo. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Militaryconflict (talk) 15:36, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Palmyra offensive (December 2016), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic State. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert the edit for Muqla Kabira. I know that the SDF captured Muqlah Kabirah, but this village is not on the map (because adding it would overcrowd the area). It's sandwiched between Al Kulayb and Khass Hibal, and ironically, it's just north of Muqla Kabira. The ridiculous similarities in name is another reason why I didn't add the village. The village is actually north of the Euphrates, not Muqla Kabira, which is a different village to the south of the Euphrates. I almost made that mistake myself earlier today. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You can see the differences in this map

LightandDark2000 OK! Mehmedsons (talk) 09:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's confusing. (Muqlah Kabirah is also considered to be a part of Khass Hibal in Wikimapia). LightandDark2000 (talk) 09:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thanks for your edits Mehmedsons. Although your regular contribution is a great help, your language leaves a lot to be desired. Please do understand that I am not insulting you, nor I am trying to offend you. I know English is not your first langauge, I am not perfect either. But still one can learn a lot about how to write properly from news articles. Please try hard improving the language in your edits. The grammar especially is sometimes completely off. News articles etc will help you. This is an English Wikipedia, we need to be able to talk in such a way that people clearly get what we are saying. Thank you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

MonsterHunter32 Ok! Mehmedsons (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He did it again, he reverted us again. He's accusing that site of being pro-regime and ignored SOHR altogether and even removed one of its refs. EkoGraf (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EkoGrafMany IP editors and the biased newed editors try to spoil the articles! But it is necessary to suppress all illegal actions if they are not confirmed by reliable data. Mehmedsons (talk) 06:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator gave me permission to revert him, even though I already made one revert. He also warned him he violated 1RR and the admin instructed me to start a discussion with him on the article's talk page. Your opinion in that discussion could also help. The administrator has also tried talking to him further. EkoGraf (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar's claim of Regime regaining those villages northeast of Suwayda are false,plus there is no photo-evidence,while FSA advance has photo evidence Alhanuty (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AlhanutyI also think so Al Masdar exaggerate! SOHR say both side advance after ISIL completely withdrawal but without any indicating the points captured by both sides.link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bosno,who is a reliable source said regime didn't advance.https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/846352394808180738.Alhanuty (talk) 16:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty I trust SOHR! SOHR one of most crediable source at Syrian conflict and Bosno directly contradict it. I dont trust that only one of sides(SAA or FSA) captured whole area after ISIS fleed to Deir ez Zor or Raqqa. Al Masdar exaggerates in favor of the Army but same time Bosno in favor of rebels. Nevertheless, Al Masdar also confirmed a big FSA gains at east Suwayda.link Mehmedsons (talk) 16:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)][reply]

Please look at the latest edit requests on Syrian talk page. Thanks! TheNavigatrr (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TheNavigatrrOk! I will solve this problem. Mehmedsons (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Please try not to add more villages unless absolutely necessary. The Syrian, Iraqi, and Lebanese map template is breaking, just like the Middle East Conflicts map before it. I'm going to have to delete a number of recently added villages to restore the first template in question (I won't revert your changes; I saw the sources). We will also have to start a discussion on the module's talk page to remove villages from inactive fronts (like Afrin) because the module's system can't handle so many villages/location being integrated together. I'm going to start a discussion shortly to declutter/remove unnecessary villages shortly. Thanks. LightandDark2000 (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the Latakia front (which has been static for almost a year now) also need to be de-cluttered. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The larger map modules seem to break down if the Syrian Civil War map exceeds a size of 756,000 bytes. As a result, I think that we need to reduce the map to at least 750,000 bytes, or even 700,000 bytes to be safer. To restore the Middle East Conflicts map, a reduction to 600,000 or 500,000 bytes will probably be needed, but I will wait for user input before attempting to restore the larger Middle East map. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:15, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've started the discussion. LightandDark2000 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

LightandDark2000 Is not a decision we can't just removed villages. We not have this problem earlier but if we begin remove villages be will broke the a real situation at the ground. I against such action, we need another decision. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they effect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take 5 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH?Q_DL=6ybvGHdBVVUDi1D_80J3UDCpLnKyWTH_MLRP_57T6AET5BYZSRut&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this is Qalaat's assumption,there has been no news of them withdrawing yet.Alhanuty (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adding unreliable info sourced only from terrorists constitutes vandalism. Don't do that as you did at Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi Legacypac (talk) 09:13, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac I use data from crediable source SOHR which reported that of ISIL top liaders also confirmed of Baghdai dead. Why we must wait confirmation from Pentagon or others source if local actvists and ISIL liaders confirmed it. Mehmedsons (talk) 09:29, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes SOHRs reported that some ISIL people said he died. That does not mean SOHRs reported he died. Big difference. Legacypac (talk) 09:35, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you nicely. I explained. Now you edited ISIL to declare the leader dead. Do that again and I'll seek sanctions against you. Legacypac (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights told Reuters on Tuesday that it had "confirmed information" that Islamic State leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi has been killedlink And why my edit was reverted? If Pentagon can't confirm Baghdadi dead, is it not mean that it still alive. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I will have any more confirmations from other sources without ISIL claims then I can edit this article or not? Mehmedsons (talk) 10:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Y Mehmedsons (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, read the link you posted. The Russians, Americans, Iraqi's, Kurds, and Reuters itself all can't confirm the claim made by the terrorists. If he is really dead it will be front page news and we will not be having the debate. The fact there is andebate on Wikipedia proves we should not be changing the page yet Legacypac (talk) 10:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Coming from watchlist. Neither does it mean he is not alive as everyone else cannot confirm it. "Reuters could not independently verify Baghdadi's death.", "The Pentagon said it had no information to corroborate the reports. Kurdish and Iraqi officials also had no immediate confirmation". This is a case WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS. Alex Shih^Talk 10:16, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac Agree. Mehmedsons (talk) 10:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you. Could you revert your edits to ISIL? Legacypac (talk) 10:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Legacypac But you already did it!link Mehmedsons (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I ment Bagdadi's page but I've seen you already took care of that. Legacypac (talk) 10:54, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi 1.jpg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Hddty. (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Northeastern Hama offensive (2017), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HTS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should maybe join in on the discussion at the article's talk page. A few editors want to separate the SAA from the ISIS offensive in the article, even though both are part of the same event that is the subject of the article. They mostly want the separation because they feel the article implies an alliance between the SAA and ISIS, which it doesn't. I proposed as a compromise to rename the article from offensive to campaign, so not to imply that its all part of one operation. EkoGraf (talk) 14:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SDF is launching an assault on Baghuz according to Deir Ez Zor 24,can you put a circle around baghuz.Alhanuty (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty OK! Mehmedsons (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can you update the situation for Afrin.Alhanuty (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons, please read this source [3] It's clearly stated Erdogan talked to one of the wives of those captured/missing soldiers and that the Turks are working on bringing them back. So its not just simple reports. EkoGraf (talk) 12:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mehmedsons, please cancel your edit here [4]. So far only the Turks have claimed the capture of Rajo and Shaykh al-Hadid, while SOHR (who is more reliable) has stated in its newest report that the towns are still contested and not captured. I added the latest SOHR report to the main body of the article. EkoGraf (talk) 16:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf  Done. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "need provide a source befor edit" when I already provided a source?--Sakiv (talk) 10:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv I say about this your change, where you edit Afrin but not provide any source! At Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)# As you do at next change when you provid source for change.# Mehmedsons (talk) 10:53, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

can you please revert Paolowalter edit,regarding Tishreen Dam,only Government employees returned to the dam,but it is still fully under SDF control.Alhanuty (talk) 01:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlAboud83  Done. Mehmedsons (talk) 08:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

multiple sources,including Syrian Civil War Map,Suriyak and Syria Info and Hawarnews and YPGRojava,are reporting massive SDF gains in Deir Ez Zor Desert,can you update the map.Alhanuty (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlAboud83  Done.Mehmedsons (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert Paolowalter's revert because the YPG/SDF source explicitly says that SDF has advanced 100 Kms from Al-Dashishah here https://www.ypgrojava.org/%D9%82%D8%B3%D8%AF-%D8%AA%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%AF%D9%85-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B5%D8%AD%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%86%D9%81%D8%A7%D8%B3-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D8%AE%D9%8A%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B9%D8%B4-.The Source is in arabic Alhanuty (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@AlAboud83  Done.Mehmedsons (talk) 17:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently edited strength section in Syrian Civil War infobox, raising the Russian strength to 63,000, using the source that 63,000 total amount served, this is not the strength, similarly how other factions show there strength and not total amount served, or other factions such as Syrian Armed forces and other groups would be much higher then they are, or for example how the Iraq war and the War in Afghanistan (2001–present) Show the USA's strength at 112,000 in Iraq, and 18,000+ in the ISAF, however 2.5million americans total served.^[1] I hope this clears things up, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel OR (talk • contribs) 13:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edits in the Syrian civil war map module. However, the actual map is severely outdated and needs updating. Would you mind updating that map so that it reflects the current situation on the ground? Many thanks. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:39, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم I never do it, but I asked for this guy Kami888. He is a very good Map maker! Mehmedsons (talk) 11:07, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RMaung (WMF) 16:29, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TheNavigatrr It's the one of main points in the agreement between the SDF and the Syrian government: The abolishment of the Syrian Democratic Forces, with all the current Kurdish forces and military groups joining the 5th Corps (Assault Legion) under Russian control.[5]. My source clear said SDF withdrew from Ayn Issa. Acc. some sources SDF only remain inside Ayn Issa camp near the city. So the correct solution back it to under SAA control. And put SDF-held Ayn Issa camp to map. Mehmedsons (talk) 15:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get this

1. invoke:Location map/multi

and I cannot load the 'detailed' page. Probably you did some errors in updating the page. Paolowalter (talk) 20:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolowalter  Done.Mehmedsons (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:50, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]