User talk:DanielUmel - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Asarlaí (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 10 September 2012 (→Edit warring on Battle of Al-Qusayr: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:38, 10 September 2012 by Asarlaí (talk | contribs) (→Edit warring on Battle of Al-Qusayr: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Welcome!

Hello, DanielUmel, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

meco (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Damascus battle

Please stop, if you want to create a new article on the current battle in Damascus than do that but at the moment that article you are editing is about the fighting for the last two months and there is an ongoing debate to merge it to the 2011-2012 Damascus clashes. You cant rename while a discussion is ongoing. Create a new article for the current Damascus battle. EkoGraf (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Here lets create it together Battle of Damascus (2012). Ok? :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you can make it as it seems it deserves its own page. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, seems thats enough for a start. :) EkoGraf (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding comment by Alhaunty

The Neutral Reports confirmed that the Opposition has taken control over Al-Midan and Al-Hagar-Al-Aswad and Al-Tadamon All of the neighborhoods lie in South Damascus . with clashes over the rest of the neighborhoods. So stop Changing it. (Alhanuty (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC))

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. EllsworthSK (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

Your recent editing history at 2011–2012 Idlib Governorate clashes shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 20:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:DamascusbattleMezzeh.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:DamascusbattleMezzeh.jpg, which you've sourced to SANA. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Misplaced Pages:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Misplaced Pages:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Misplaced Pages's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Super Mario Man 03:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Damascusbattlerebels.png

Thanks for uploading File:Damascusbattlerebels.png. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

Aleppo on map

I fixed it ASAP :D --Wustenfuchs 16:45, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

you're required to provide reliable sources, or else it will be considered as a vandalism, and it will be reported to an administrator. Ahmad2099 (talk) 21:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR violation

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

August 2012

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for persistent edit-warring despite prior warnings. 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 below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Invitation

You're invited to be a part of the WikiProject Syria, a project with the goal to create and to improve articles related to Syria. To accept this invitation, click here!

And be more careful with the edit warring, it's pointless. Rather insist on sources and try to solve the problem at the talk page.

Cheers!

--Wustenfuchs 00:53, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Casualties list

All of those in the table are confirmed by the opposition themselves. If they have been confirmed by the rebels themselves than it is most certainly true and verified, simple logic. Also, 90 percent of those in the table have been confirmed by name by SOHR, the VDC and the Syrian Shuhada body-counting groups. If we are to have any real approximate count we need to stick as best as we can to the numbers coming from one source and at a constant interval. In this case that's the opposition or semi-opposition groups. And most of them are coordinating among themselves so the numbers are for the most part unified. The government does not give out constant figures on the number of rebels killed, only sporadicly and on occasion, and the fighters killed are in most cases not confirmed by name. It's a matter of verifibility if you understand me. EkoGraf (talk) 13:58, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Didn't see the 16 rebels killed at Daraa (which were reported by the opposition) mentioned in the report. Thanks for pointing them out to me, will add them. :) EkoGraf (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

SOHR rebel toll

An editor has expressed reservation at my attempt to combine SOHR-only day-to-day numbers of rebels killed into a unified death toll and wants to remove the full toll on the basis that it is OR if the full toll itself was not cited. I have stated that I agree with him if the figures were coming from different organisations, but in this case it is coming from one organisation with its own constant methodology. I have proposed that the toll be removed temporarily until the discussion is resolved and we include other editors. Your opinion would be appreciated. Discussion here Talk:Casualties of the Syrian civil war. EkoGraf (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Shabiha

I don't like it ether personally, but per Misplaced Pages rules we go with what the majority of reliable sources are calling them. That's simply how it is. EkoGraf (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

What is reliable source? How rebels are more reliable than Al-Berri tribe members? --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources

Well you didn't that time

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Battle_of_Aleppo_(2012)&diff=506403695&oldid=506398052 I7laseral (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the full report had not come yet in English at that time. But I never add false information. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Government claim on Battle of Damascus

Your claim for 476 is an unsourced number. 600 not really. Read the two sources beside it. First source is for casualties before the tadamoun battle and says hundreds killed (that can translate to at least 300), second source says 300 killed in tadamoun battle. That is 600. EkoGraf (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

476 is the addition of all the casualties that have been reported. Your 600 number is an apothecary count based on a vague "hundreds" description. Hundreds equal 300 is not a calcul we can make on Misplaced Pages --DanielUmel (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no source for the 476. EkoGraf (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

It is the 1+1+1 that we do in all pages. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, no sources, and that summing up that happened before was actually a mixture of government and opposition claims. The two sources that concretly say hundreds before Tadamon and 300 during Tadamon are the best we got. Ok if you are the oppinion that 300 doesn't fit hundreds than compromise. 200-300 and that's 500-600 but that is a whole lot better than 476 based on 30 sources and not all the same ones. EkoGraf (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, they did not all come just from the government, but opposition, journalists etc. That is more of a violation of OR than two government exclusive sources. We need to have figures all from one unified source. Also, one more problem with the 476 figure, it does not cover all of the period of the battle, just part of it. Listen, we got one government source that says hundreds (translated 200-300) and 300 during Tadamon. That is 500-600. If we look at your 476 figure and the lack of figures for certain days that is most likely than over 500. Which would be in line with 500-600. This is my compromise proposition. EkoGraf (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

The same thing has been done for all Syrian battle pages. It can't be used as an argument or original search since it is only basic logic. Also your hundreds is not a governement source, it is australian newspaper source. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

When I said a government source I wasn't talking about the website. I was talking about who made the hundreds claim. And the Australian article cited government sources that hundreds of rebels were killed (before Tadamoun). EkoGraf (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I did give a valid reason before any removal, but the person who has added it again, has done the same addition without a justification. please find my last two contribution to the page and my visit to the talk page. Ahmad2099 (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Press TV

I'm not here to ask you to revert your edit or anything. I've made perhaps 1 edit to the Battle of Aleppo article, and since then I've just been monitoring it. However, I would like to note, that generally YouTube videos should not be used as references on Misplaced Pages. It would be preferrable if you could link to the Press TV article itself, even if that one contains the YouTube video. It'd also be preferrable when using Press TV as a reference, to properly identify that the reference is Press TV, since it is a semi-state run Iranian media outlet that has an extreme bias against the West and the Syrian rebels (which is evident in their reporting as well, and not just by minor wording).

Just mentioning this in case it pops up in the future. This way too you will run into less controversies with other editors.

Hope it helps.

Cheers. --Activism1234 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Update: better. Other editors may have problem with Press TV though, so be aware about that, but it's not something I will argue about on an article I haven't significantly contributed to. Cheers. --Activism1234 23:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Frontline at the roundabout...

Where is this roundabout... in which part of Aleppo? --Wustenfuchs 22:48, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Mother of all

Didn't had intention to revert your edit... I was reverting the IP as he erased most of the informations. --Wüstenfuchs 08:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No problem --DanielUmel (talk) 08:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Good faith

Hi Daniel, I noticed that you reverted an edit by Lothar von Richthofen on Syrian Civil War as vandalism. ~~While do I agree with your reversion,~~ could you try to remember to assume good faith, and reserve accusations of vandalism for clear-cut cases vandalism, and not merely political disagreements on controversial topics? —Quintucket (talk) 09:04, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. When you recently edited Rif Damashq counter-insurgency operation (August 2012 - Present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Damascus (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 11:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Rif Dimashq

What's whit ref no. 23 ("has been put at 730")? --Wüstenfuchs 18:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A wrong past and copy, simply, I did not pay attention :( --DanielUmel (talk) 18:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

SANA

We need a solution for the SANA problem or the anti-SANA editors won't stop demanding its removal. We have fended them off for now but I think we need a compromise. I propose that we summarise all of the SANA reports in just 2-3 paragraphs. Without the long wording. By summarising just in which areas they conducted the attacks during the continued offensive period, who they eliminated, what they claimed destroyed etc. That way, the government claims still remain but the article won't be 75 percent SANA as the anti-SANA editors have argued. I have proposed the same thing to Wuster. What do you think? EkoGraf (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit war

Please stop edit warring with me on the Rif Damascus offensive page. I7laseral (talk) 20:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Darraya massacre

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

Jihadists

If you ask me it concerns both, Battle of Aleppo and the FSA. Why it concerns Aleppo is because it's important fact about the structure of a combatant, namely the FSA in an important battle like Aleppo is. I think that this fact should be noted there as well as in the FSA article. A "problem" represented by Sopher can be solved, you have a "background" section which could serve very well to this purpose. --Wüstenfuchs 17:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I saw your proposal over my talk page... and we could create a separate section presenting the combatants, that is their size, or expirience etc. I hope we will be able to gather enough infos... With FSA we can mention foreigners, jihadists and the FSA itself. The problem is the Syrian Army... What to add there? --Wüstenfuchs 17:28, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

the berri and christian militia?--DanielUmel (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

We don't need composition sections because we already have linking articles which describe those in full. Anyway I put it in the foreign reaction section blatantly where everyone can see it. Sopher99 (talk) 17:52, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeup, we can write about al-Berri and Christian milita... Tell you what, I'll make this in my sandbox tommorow and we can see how good it is... --Wüstenfuchs 22:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

daraya

why did you take this out , Daraya massacre, and not have decency to give reason, or say anything in the edit summary? Just plain censor it? whats that about? a totalitarian desire to throw stuff you don't like down a memory hole? Sayerslle (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Combatants

User:Wüstenfuchs/sandbox

Any suggestions? --Wüstenfuchs 13:36, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Very good. it should be included in a new section at the top of the page presenting the forces fighting in the city. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "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 17 September 2012.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring on Battle of Al-Qusayr

Your wording of this section is glaringly biased and ignores a great deal of the story. What you'v done is taken a fairly neutral news article and twisted it into a pro-regime propaganda piece. You ignore key info and misrepresent what the source says. The source doesn't say that "all christians have been forced to leave" or that all Christians wer' "expelled" by "sunni islamists dressed like Afghan people". Both myself and User:I7laseral hav' reverted you twice each. For that, you hav' accused us of supporting Islamists and trying to "hide the truth". If you keep adding such misleading info and acting in such a way I'll be reporting you to the administrators. ~Asarlaí 19:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)