حرية
Flag of Syria edit
I will include my opinion on the talk page shorty, but I am not getting anywhere near any edit war till report on me is pending. DanielUmel made so far 2 revert, WP:3RR states that there cannot be more than three revert in the 24 hour period. EllsworthSK (talk) 15:11, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Not asking you to edit war like User:DanielUmel (don't sink to his level), just provide your opinion to expose his false statements regarding 'no consensus' existing. حرية (talk) 15:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
You have no consensus (according to DanielUmel...) edit
You have no consensus to make such an important change and you have to wait the decision of the administrator following the request I made. --DanielUmel (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 19 edit
Hi. When you recently edited Syrian media coverage of the Syrian civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Free press (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) 05:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you read this page post haste. Your edits at Matt Drudge may be seen as violative of this rule. Collect (talk) 01:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
Saif al-Dawla edit
I was middly offended by your accusation of violation of SYN in the infobox at the battle of aleppo page. Please assume good faith. SYN is when you combine two different sources and make a third conclusion. This was not the case here where one source was being used to confirm the military advanced into the district, and the source itself was none other than the opposition group SOHR. The other source, which confirmed continuing fighting in the district itself yesterday, was to confirm that fighting was still going on there, to counter previous government claims of taking the district, and thus there was no change in the area. So please do not remove sourced info. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- P.S. Our compromise wording for the reported stalemate in Salahadine still stands with the source. EkoGraf (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, read what SYN is. What you are describing as SYN definetly is not. Its not value judgment and its not SYN, its per sources. Per the sources they moved into Saif al-Dawla four days after capturing Salahadine. 4 days can translate freely into soon after. Per Wikipedia policy we can not make copy-paste sentences of the sources but we can freely edit in our own words what the sources state as long as we don't deviate from it. Its not value judgment, its Wikipedia policy. If other editors also thought it was SYN they would have removed it, but at this point you are the only one arguing this. Other editors haven't had a problem with it. Everything is properly sourced so please do not remove the information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the article is a total mess anyway. Have at it, I'm sure you'll lose interest once SANA ceases to function. حرية (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What was that supposed to mean? I'm using primarily Reuters, BBC, AFP, Guardian, Telegraph and SOHR sources. Wüstenfuchs and Daniel are the ones who have been adding the SANA information. I have only just been cleaning up the grammer of their sentences and polishing the neutrality of the statements. If you were questioning my neutrality I am surprised given I have been arguing with both pro- and anti-Assad editors constantly for the past year so the articles could keep a balanced level of neutrality where both sides pov are presented. Just because I am trying to be neutral doesn't mean I am for one side over the other. As far as I care, they can all kill each other as much as they want, doesn't affect me ether way. What I do care about is that the articles on the conflict are presented in a neutral way, because I simply hate pov-pushers. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then why are you going to the trouble of presenting sources if as to suggest some sort of Syrian Army grand strategy which is not mentioned by the aforementioned sources? حرية (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What? What are you talking about? What strategy? I never made any mention of that. I am writing as the sources say. And the sources (all of them, not just SANA) clearly state that the military recaptured most of Salahadine in early August and advanced into Saif al-Dawla just 4 days later, where as of 2 days ago there was still ground fighting per Reuters. And per our consensus which is backed up by the source we also put there is an ongoing stalemate in parts of Salahadine with continuing fighting in some areas. All I have ever done is stick to the sources. If you don't like what is happening on the ground in Aleppo, that both sides are in a stalemate at the moment for the lack of a better word, that doesn't give you the right to lash out at other people with accusations and assume bad faith. I would suggest to you that you take a cooling off period and try and look at the situation objectivly and keep a neutral stand-point which reflects the reality on the ground based on the sources we have. EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What are you talking about more like. Why are you even still talking to me? I already told you I have lost interest in that specific article, so your 'cooling off' jibe is pretty redundant. Just don't try and present yourself as neutral. You aren't, as your edits at the main Syrian civil war article have shown. حرية (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What? What are you talking about? What strategy? I never made any mention of that. I am writing as the sources say. And the sources (all of them, not just SANA) clearly state that the military recaptured most of Salahadine in early August and advanced into Saif al-Dawla just 4 days later, where as of 2 days ago there was still ground fighting per Reuters. And per our consensus which is backed up by the source we also put there is an ongoing stalemate in parts of Salahadine with continuing fighting in some areas. All I have ever done is stick to the sources. If you don't like what is happening on the ground in Aleppo, that both sides are in a stalemate at the moment for the lack of a better word, that doesn't give you the right to lash out at other people with accusations and assume bad faith. I would suggest to you that you take a cooling off period and try and look at the situation objectivly and keep a neutral stand-point which reflects the reality on the ground based on the sources we have. EkoGraf (talk) 22:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Then why are you going to the trouble of presenting sources if as to suggest some sort of Syrian Army grand strategy which is not mentioned by the aforementioned sources? حرية (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- What was that supposed to mean? I'm using primarily Reuters, BBC, AFP, Guardian, Telegraph and SOHR sources. Wüstenfuchs and Daniel are the ones who have been adding the SANA information. I have only just been cleaning up the grammer of their sentences and polishing the neutrality of the statements. If you were questioning my neutrality I am surprised given I have been arguing with both pro- and anti-Assad editors constantly for the past year so the articles could keep a balanced level of neutrality where both sides pov are presented. Just because I am trying to be neutral doesn't mean I am for one side over the other. As far as I care, they can all kill each other as much as they want, doesn't affect me ether way. What I do care about is that the articles on the conflict are presented in a neutral way, because I simply hate pov-pushers. EkoGraf (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever the article is a total mess anyway. Have at it, I'm sure you'll lose interest once SANA ceases to function. حرية (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Again, read what SYN is. What you are describing as SYN definetly is not. Its not value judgment and its not SYN, its per sources. Per the sources they moved into Saif al-Dawla four days after capturing Salahadine. 4 days can translate freely into soon after. Per Wikipedia policy we can not make copy-paste sentences of the sources but we can freely edit in our own words what the sources state as long as we don't deviate from it. Its not value judgment, its Wikipedia policy. If other editors also thought it was SYN they would have removed it, but at this point you are the only one arguing this. Other editors haven't had a problem with it. Everything is properly sourced so please do not remove the information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
Salahadine, again edit
The compromise was made between you and me. If you remember our discussion. I proposed that we include the mention of the advance into Saif al-Dawla after the large (not complete) takeover of Salahadine early in the month. Than, chronologicly correct, next mention the continued fighting in Salahadine, with the stalemate. After my proposition you didn't make any new attempts to remove the wording and I assumed that was the confirmation of our agreement. And as far as other constant editors on the Aleppo battle page goes, I haven't seen Daniel, Wuster or even Sopher trying to remove it. And I would like to say that my compromise wording was much better when taking into account that Daniel wanted to completely remove the mention of continued fighting. EkoGraf (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- I most certainly did not agree to the 'soon after' part. It is WP:SYN. That single bullet point should be two seperate ones, as you are taking two different sources and combining them to say something new. It is against basic WP:POLICY. But that is the only issue I have with the info box. It makes it seems like there is some kind of surgical Syrian army battle plan, when no sources say that and what all sources actually say is the battle is is an ugly haphazard affair with the Syrian army shelling civilians en masse and surging/retreating at random. حرية (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 4 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Air Force, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Defected (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) 11:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Bashar will stay. edit
Bashar will stay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.7.138.208 (talk) 20:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Possibly unfree File:Bashar Jaafari.jpg edit
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bashar Jaafari.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 14:40, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
