بروليتاريا

Hello, بروليتاريا, and Welcome to Wikipedia! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Yazan (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2012 (UTC) Getting started Introduction The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Intuitive guide to Wikipedia Finding your way around Table of contents Department directory Editing articles How to develop an article Simplified Manual of Style Getting help Frequently asked questions Cheatsheet Where to ask a question Help pages New contributors' help page Article Wizard – a Wizard to help you create articles How you can help Contributing to Wikipedia Community Portal Join a WikiProject Follow Wikipedia etiquette Practice civility

Chemical weapons

Your own sources say that the weapons are housed and were tested at Al-Safira, if you would check, you would see that its a totally separate city from Aleppo city (where the battle is occurring and about which the battle article relates to). Its the same province, but not the same city. And the article only covers the battle for Aleppo city, not the whole province. EkoGraf (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Stop undoing!

Stop undoing the article about the Reform Party of Syria! --Danrolo 13:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kurdish

Syria and weapons of mass destruction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Iranian

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Your edit

Please explain to me why the assessments by the BBC reporter and the SOHR director of the situation were removed? Did you even read the BBC and Al Jazeera sources? Also, if the Chechen's comments can be removed and declared a POV edit why not these also? EkoGraf (talk) 21:40, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Please explain why you are edit warring? You have made 4 reverts in a 24 hr period. Get back to me when you cool off, you really need to. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

What are you even talking about? I am trying to provide the assessments of the neutral point of view of the BBC reporter and the assessment of the opposition SOHR director. What is so damaging in that? And the 3RR block counts only if the same edit is reverted 4 times. I reverted only 2 times. Or if you are talking about the cowards POV comment made by the rebel, I reverted that one 3 times and in regards of that part of the article I am going to stop because of the rule. So please don't lecture me and make inflamatory and derogatory comments which are in itself violation of Wikipedia's policy on civility. I have not made 4 same reverts. If you think I have list them here please. Also, please answer my question, which you havent', why is it so important to you that the BBC reporter's and SOHR director's comments be excluded? EkoGraf (talk) 21:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Counted it myself: 1st time [1], 2nd time [2], and possibly 3rd time [3] based on your POV but not a revert of the same edit. Where is number 4? EkoGraf (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The revert rule doesn't apply to the same content being reverted, it is any 4 reverts on the same article in a 24 hr period, regardless of which User you are reverting. The opposition remark about syrian troops begging for their lives in radio messages is ironic, because you and other pro-regime editors add Syrian state claims along those lines constantly. Yet as soon as the shoe is on the other foot, you throw an edit war fit. Very telling. Also you can't include the random analysis of CNN, al Jazeera, etc. The article is bloated enough already. بروليتاريا (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I can't include random analysis? It's a report by a BBC reporter on the ground in the middle of the fighting and a report by the director of the opposition group who's activists are tracking the fighting. If we can't include comments made by independent reporters on the ground than who's can we? As for the 3RR rule, I was aware only of the older version of 3RR, under which only 4 reverts of a same edit could lead you to being blocked, I wasn't aware the rule had been updated since than, thus I thank you for informing me and will be more careful in the future. EkoGraf (talk) 22:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

In any case, I'm done editing for today, like you said, I need a cooling off, I think we all do. And once again, thank you for informing me more precisely on the 3RR rule, I did not know it had changed since I last read it 2 years ago. My apologies in that regard. EkoGraf (talk) 22:12, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Damascus (2012)

The battle was over for more than two weeks before the new fighting restarted, and even than it was not in the capital itself but in the outlying areas. When it ended it was declared an Army victory by all major news media outlets. The article is specificly about the attempted rebel push in July. We already have an article which covers the fighting that restarted more than two weeks later when the military, not the rebels, started an offensive Rif Dimashq offensive. That article talks about the current fighting. There is no battle for Damascus itself at the moment, unlike back in July. That rebel operation, which was dubbed by them Damascus Volcano, ended when the rebels pulled back to the outlying villages. The fighting continued when the military started an offensive against those outlying towns, and like I said we already got an article on that fighting. Please edit that article. What is happening in the capital at the moment is not a battle for the city, unlike in July, but rather rebel hit-and-run attacks. EkoGraf (talk) 18:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The fundamental problem with what you are saying here, is that you are suggesting an unrealistically narrow definition of "battle", and an unrealistically narrow definition of Damascus, which is a city, a metro, and a governorate. Add to that the fact that you don't seem to be providing any sources which are claiming the battle is over. Just today I was reading about intense fighting in Damascus suburbs (Damascus suburb gripped by Syria's civil war). Here is another from yesterday (Battles Rage in Aleppo, Damascus). You are entitled to your opinion, but that opinion seems to jar with most peoples perception of events. بروليتاريا (talk) 18:21, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand, that article covered the rebel push for control of Damascus back in July, known as Operation Damascus Volcano, which failed at the time. We already have, not even one, but two articles that cover the current fighting in and around Damascus. Those are Rif Dimashq offensive and 2011–2012 Damascus clashes. Battle of Damascus (2012) covers only the than battle for control of the capital itself, nothing more. And you say Damascus is a city, a metro, and a governorate. Most of the current fighting happening is happening in the Rif Dimashq Governorate, which is also sometimes called the Damascus countryside governorate. The capital city itself is separate from that governorate. I don't deny there is sporadic fighting in the capital, but it's not a battle for the city, which the article Battle of Damascus (2012) talks about. Also, like I said, both the fighting in the capital itself and the surrounding countryside is already covered in those two articles. If you attempted to put the same information in this article it would be simply Content forking, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 20:19, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Listen, I am not trying to argue with you. I am trying to tell you that we already have two articles which cover the current fighting in and around Damascus. One of them was even created as a compromise solution after Alhanuty made the same reservations as you have. After it was created he didn't have any more objections. Trying to reopen an old article would simply be content forking. Please be compromising. I admitt there is fighting in and around Damascus, but that is already covered in those two article. Also, I saw that you added info on a potential new rebel offensive to capture the capital. If it happens that would be a totally new and separate event from what happened in July. Also, it may even not happen any time soon. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball [4]. If an offensive happens we will open a new article for that event. Can we compromise please that we include all new clashes info for in and around Damascus in those other two articles? EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The only real compromise would be to either: a) remove the battle of Damascus article and keep the Rif Dimashq article or b) remove the Rif Dimashq article and keep the Damascus article. There is a huge issue here with a regime narrative being presented, i.e. "Rif Dimashq offensive", or the regime "winning" the battle of Damascus. This is a long running conflict characterized by periods stalemate and sporadic violence on both sides. No side has won anything yet, especially not in the Damascus area. As for the 2011–2012 Damascus clashes, that is just a superfluous catch-all mess of an article. بروليتاريا (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The name Rif Dimashq offensive was agreed to by both Lothar von Richthofen and Sopher99, who I know you regard as balanced editors, and was even proposed by Sopher himself. EkoGraf (talk) 13:16, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

The article was in that form for 3 months before you started asking for the changes, thus you need a consensus before making such radical changes, that is Wiki policy. Trying to make changes before a dispute is resolved is simply pushing. Try finding a compromise, make suggestions and I will listen, but don't try to push your POV of the event and constantly remove sources (not all of which are regime claims). So...suggest a solution. EkoGraf (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am asking you to discuss on talk page and find a peacefull concensus. Your sources talk about the same kind of fighting that has been going on since last year. Nothing about the offensive being ongoing. You don't have a source that says the rebel offensive is still ongoing. Reverting last time for today since it is my 3rd time. You already reverted the article 3 times. 1 time that anonymous guy and 2 times me. So please calm down and talk on discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 15:10, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

One of your sources talks about Hajar al-Aswad, which is a city in Rif Dimasq, separate from Damascus city, and the fighting there has already been written about in the Rif Dimashq offensive article. EkoGraf (talk) 15:16, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CBW (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) 09:57, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Salahadine

My interpretation? The BBC source does not say in any moment reversed or even that the Army gains were negated. That was totally your own interpretation and frankly OR because they would be reversed and negated only if the rebels had recaptured Salahadine. What the source does say is that there is renewed fighting in Salahadine, which is a result of the offensive. Which I have clearly written. Also, sources clearly confirmed the army advanced into Saif al-Dawla at the time because a Reuters reporter who was on the ground confirmed the Army controlled the upper half of that district. So, in conclusion, the BBC source only confirms fighting in Salahadine, not even that the rebels have managed to capture any significant strongpoints. It was already confirmed by the rebels themselves that the base they did manage to capture the first day of the offensive they had to abandon a few hours later. EkoGraf (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

For sake of compromise I have made it more clearer, per your request. Now it is written exactly per the source. Opposition offensive in late September leads to renewed fighting in the Salaheddine district. We agree on this interpretation? The BBC source only said and I quote But resistance clearly continues...as the battle for control goes on. No mention of negations or reversing. EkoGraf (talk) 18:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes and the BBC source also says Salaheddine district is "devastated" and "deserted", and specifically calls into question regime claims of "capturing" it. Hopefully the infobox can stay the same until another major result becomes apparent. This quibbling is tiresome. بروليتاريا (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Soon after IS factually accurate. Read this source [5]. According to the opposition group SOHR the military advanced into Saif al-Dawla only several days after capturing Salahadine, which can be interpreted freely by editors as soon after, also SOHR reported the advance on August 13. Which is barely mid-month, hardly late in the month. EkoGraf (talk) 19:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

It was confirmed by Reuters reporters on the ground just two weeks ago Salahadine was under effective Army control, sources to this fact have already been provided. The current fighting in the district is the result of the renewed rebel offensive from a couple of days ago. I do not deny there is some fighting there at the moment. But yes, this is all tiresome and in a few days when the offensive ends and the smoke clears we will see if the rebels made any gains and if they have what they are. Until than, live long and prosper! Piece bro! ;) EkoGraf (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

"several days later" would probably be most accurate, as I distinctly remember several beats before the attack on Saif al-Dawla (which the Syrian Army didn't capture, even if it did establish a presence). I fail to see the great significance of these two ambiguous words "soon after" other than it presents some kind of narrative that makes me uncomfortable in terms of WP:NEU, and seems at odds with the reality of a decades out of date Soviet armed army ill equipped for urban warfare who are on the verge of being completely encircled. بروليتاريا (talk) 19:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Milita disarmament rally Tripoli Libya 7 December 2012.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Milita disarmament rally Tripoli Libya 7 December 2012.jpg. 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-en@wikimedia.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-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia: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 Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:National Coordination Committee for Democratic Change Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)