Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:12, 15 December 2013

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Misplaced Pages. When you add content to talk pages and Misplaced Pages pages that have open discussion, 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) 07:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1 revert rule

Daki you broke the one revert rule. Please self revert, otherwise it could lead to being temporarily banned. Also you criticize me for using youtube, yet you used wikipedia as source which is not allowed either. Just saying. Sopher99 (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Here is the source showing regime forces pulled out of Kirnzaz. Now please self revert.

http://syrianewsdesk.com/en/news/hama-al-sheikh-hadeid-witnesses-massacre

And please stop acting as if I am some evil conspirator. Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

You think it might have been reported by SOHR which is a pro opp source and they shell the town every day.

Syrian regime forces, backed by members of the regime-loyalist Shabbiha militia, carried out executions targeting local civilians in the village of Al-Sheikh Hadeid, after pulling out of the nearby town of Karnaz in the Hama countryside. Maher Hamwi, a local field activist, said regime forces used knives and shot civilians randomly. They also buried the bodies immediately "to prevent activists from documenting them", according to Hamwi. Al-Sheikh Hadeid is a small village near the town of Karnaz, northwest of the city of Hama. The village has been subject to violent shelling by regime forces on daily basis, driving most of its inhabitants out of it to seek refuge in nearby areas.

Also no specified as did the rebels enter the town or not as Army many times leaves the defense of the town on pro-regime militias while Army units pull out to be redeployed to other sectors.Source does not give specification who controls the town so it can not be used(again I will quote my self "There is no mentioning of rebels taking or entering the town")

Daki122 (talk) 20:46, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

As you have continued reverting after being warned that you broke the 1-revert restriction, I have reported you to the Administrators' noticeboard for edit-warring. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Daki122, if you respond at WP:AN3#User:Daki122 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: ) and promise to wait for consensus there may still be time to avoid a block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The complete report of this case is at WP:AN3#User:Daki122 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: 24 hours). A WP:1RR restriction has been previously imposed on this article by the community per WP:SCWGS. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles of interest to you are covered by Syrian civil war/General sanctions

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described at WP:SCWGS and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. 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.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:SCWGS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Power plant

Pretty much every claim you made in your edit summary was false.

1. I did not claim it was the single biggest power plant in all of Syria, but that it was one of the biggest—which is totally true.
2. It is absolutely not a "single building"—just look at it. It covers more area than quite a few of the villages we show on this map and even has an associated housing development next to it which had well over 1,000 plant workers and their families living in it before the war.
3. I put it as a simple location dot only because there isn't a better choice of icon, and even set it to a size not used for towns. When people mouse over the dot, they'll see it's a power plant, so there is really no issue.
4. It has everything to do with the military situation because it lies along the highway to Kuwayris Airbase, which is a very likely objective for the government in their current offensive in Aleppo.
5. It's less than 10km from the current frontlines east of Aleppo—not at all "deep" within rebel territory.

Given that I don't find reverting you worth getting blocked, I can only hope that you'll demonstrate a little competence and self-revert. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Position adjustment of towns in Ghuta

Don't worry about adjusting town positions in Ghuta... I am working on a major adjustment of the whole damascus/rif dimashq governorates... Tradedia 23:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks Daki122 (talk) 12:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Your "fixes"

First off, dot size for populated places (that aren't provincial capitals) is supposed to be reflective of pre-war population:

• Under 5,000 is size 6
• 5000 to 19,999 is size 8
• 20,000 to 49,999 is size 10
• 50,000-99,999 is size 12
• Above 100,000 is size 14

I realise that was probably not obvious to you, but that's how it's been since very early on. The Syrian government's census website vanished a few months ago, so it's been hard to determine population for places that don't already have the numbers written down, so it's not as exact as it once was. But for the places you downsized we actually do have articles with population counts, which is what I used to size them.

Second, do you have sources to demonstrate that those villages in Suwayda were taken by government forces? Simply the fact that they're in a generally loyalist province isn't enough on its own, given that these villages are on the fringes of the province and so aren't as tightly controlled as those in the core. Dama is in the Lajat area, which is a fairly significant hotbed of rebel activity (besieged fighters in Western Ghouta even say it's one of their escape destinations), while Tall al-Asfar is very close to the vast desert wastelands that are pretty much the only way that rebels can transfer fighters and arms between regions (and is therefore at higher risk).

Given that I've exhausted my revert by changing Nabk back to contested for now, I'd appreciate if you'd self-revert at least the size change. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:25, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I am fully aware that you changed the pro-government towns too. This isn't about what colour the dots are, it's about the fact is that there is a standardised system of sizing for them. I really don't care at all how big your hometown is—it's not relevant here. You might want to re-evaluate the way you estimate things, because according to the 2004 Syrian census, Al-Zaafaraniyah had over 5,000 inhabitants (and you can bet it's only grown since then). Zaidal had close to 6,000; Fairouzeh had almost 6,500; Al-Dar al-Kabirah had over 7,000; and Teir Maalah had close to 8,000. It's all about population density. Also, like I said before, the power plant only gets shown as a dot because I don't know of any green icon that works better. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Resilient Barnstar
	Thank you for handling this in a quiet and mature fashion. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)