User talk:Nulla Taciti

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Hello, Nulla Taciti, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited General Military Council for Iraqi Revolutionaries, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Diyala and Salahaddin (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) 08:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Duri, Hussein, Aysami and Ramadhan during Aflaq funeral crop.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected].

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} 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) 13:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hezbollah, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Militant. 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) 08:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dont need to invent facts or make unwarranted editings. Firstly your link not work. And the second Al Jazeera reports that IS only captured Shaer gas field, east of the ancient site of Palmyra.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CIVIL and WP:GOODFAITH. The link does work, and the pumping station appears to be a part of the oil field. Nulla Taciti (talk) 11:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Firstly gas field located at a great distance from T3 Pumping Station. And secondly here's your link here and it not work. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then the simple solution is to add the Islamic State occupied oilfield to the sparsely populated Palmyra region on the map, and not assume bad faith and accuse editors of "inventing facts". Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Shaer gas field already marked on the map. And now this gas field marked under IS control. But now it is gas field surrounded by an army which is trying to regain control over it.NaharnetYahoo NewsGlobal Post Hanibal911 (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the oilfield marked on the map? I don't see it. Nulla Taciti (talk) 17:27, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Bashar al-Assad

added a link pointing to Islamic State

Syria

added a link pointing to Islamic State

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you recently undid my edit (here:[1] indicating that the US would back the Syrian Islamist group Army of Mujahedeen; though the group is not identified by exactly the same name in both the Wikipedia article and the NPR article ("Army of Mujahedeen" vs. "Mujahedeen army"), the fact that the NPR article indicates that the group was the first to fight against ISIS confirms that they are in fact the same group. .David O. Johnson (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion regarding Hezbollah at Iranian-led intervention in Iraq. To help generate a faster consensus one way or the other, I am leaving a blanket (non-Canvass) notification on the Talk page of all recent contributors to the Hezbollah article in case they might like to participate. The discussion is here: [2] DocumentError (talk) 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• |casualties1 =Unknown (PYD ~100 killed<ref name="kurdishmilitiamen" /><ref name="kurdish" /><ref name="discuss" />

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian Kurdistan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unrecognized 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) 17:04, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bashar al-Assad page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:47, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bashar al-Assad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of al-Qusayr. 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) 09:02, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Hama-Marat al-Numan-Aleppo highway (that you point to) has been out of use by the Syrian military for more than 2 years since the rebels captured Marat al-Numan and all the towns north of it in October 2012. So, what the Long War Journal source said that The military uses the highway to supply its forces in Aleppo... is factually incorrect. All government supply lines to Aleppo have been going via the Hama-Kanasser-Aleppo highway for the last 2 years. The bases have not been critical to the resupply of Aleppo for the last 26 months. What they have been critical is for a potential breakthrough into the northern rebel-held part of Idlib province. However, that has nothing to do with the Battle of Aleppo city itself. What I would suggest to possible put into the results section is the capture of Marat al-Numan in October 2012 which did result in the cutting of that specific military supply line at that time. EkoGraf (talk) 13:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be missing the point here. You said Obviously the opposition sealing control of a main supply line is relevant to the ongoing battle..., but forget the part where that specific supply line has ALREADY been sealed since October 2012. I do not deny the closing of that highway should be mentioned in the results section, but it should actually be put within the time frame it actually happened (more than 2 years ago). And I am not questioning the reliability of the Long War Journal, just pointing out the one sentence where they were factually incorrect (the part where the SAA is still using the highway to supply Aleppo, but in reality have not been using it for 2 years to supply Aleppo). And saying The source isn't incorrect, your interpretation of it is. is not really in accordance with WP policy on assuming good faith. I will put compromise wording about the closing of that highway when it did actually happen and I hope you will agree to it. PS In regard to your Stratfor source, the link you provided as a reference In Syria, Loyalist Forces Are Spread Thin and Looking for Victory again makes no mention of the highway shutdown sentence you pointed out to, but I did google the sentence and found the real source here [3] under the title Competing Groups Vie for Control of Syria. So instead of accusing me that I did not read the source (again, not assuming good faith) you could try and check if you linked the correct source. Best of wishes in the New Year! EkoGraf (talk) 18:20, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was agreed two years ago among editors that we should only include information about fighting within the city itself and its outskirts or information that directly and immediately affects the battle for Aleppo city with which the article deals with. Including info about a battle that is not even occurring in the same province and that could potentially one day (but also maybe never) affect the battle for Aleppo city is not really relevant, especially since your same sources talk about the military reopening the other highway (Hama-Aleppo) which has now become the main supply line instead of the M5 highway. Also, analysts have pointed out that the only immediate effects that have been seen from the fall of the two bases is that rebel forces are now in a position to re-allocate manpower and resources to the siege of the Abo Duhur air base and a potential assault on Idlib city. EkoGraf (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on 2014—2015 Russian financial crisis, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo, or other unlikely search term.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Dustin (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If he did tell the story it's very much like how he told other stories. They are tall tales akin to the "biggest fish" stories that are always exaggerations or outright made up stories. When he recounted the Ventura story, he said Ventura "fell out of his wheelchair." That's an exaggeration about Ventura's age and Ventura doesn't use a wheel chair. When he met his wife he told her that he was an Ice Cream Truck driver. The term "Legend" that is often used to describe him was a teasing/derogatory term his SEAL team called him because he was getting a reputation for marksmanship and he's part of a platoon that discourages standing out. The Superdome story as well is made up. It's "how dumb are people that they'll believe these tales?" That is part of his makeup and part of the ego. Using it as a basis to challenge his integrity, though, is "less that biographical." There is no way to gauge his meaning or intent. Read his book and you will see lots of stories and none will be confirmed by his SEAL teammates because they don't talk. They know what's true and what's bravado and what's just a fish story to reel in someone looking for a larger than life persona. His best quote about number of kills is "does it make me more or less of a man if you know how many?" As a general rule, SEALs don't talk about medals, kills, missions or really anything else he has 2 silver stars and 5 bronze stars but try to find the citations for those - there is only one public Silver Star official citation. Those who break that "quiet professional" oath (like Bissonette, Marcinko and O'Neill) become shunned by the community. Some books are deemed okay if they are vetted but still discouraged. Kyle was not PNG'd but no one will comment on his book except others that are writing books. Here's what came from the SEAL community [4]. Those are the people that know what's true and not and they don't vouch for any of the stories. --DHeyward (talk) 19:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, your language isn't in line with Wikipedia's rule on Civility and assuming Good faith from other editors, so please be more careful. Second, this is not my arbitrary battle endings, the wording was in fact put forth by editor Kaj Metz and I concurred with him. Thus, it wasn't arbitrary. Third, you are inserting information that is part of a separate/later battle/offensive for which there is a separate article. This article deals with the battle up until 15 December. So its not a matter of covering it up, its a matter of placing it in the proper article. Fourth, the new offensive started more than a month later, so in that regard you also inserted incorrect information by stating the situation changed with further rebel gains days later. You put in the lead 10 days, while it actually happened 40 days after this specific battle ended.

So please, do not mix the events of two different battles into one. The rebels themselves even called it the beginning of a NEW battle, so even they regard it as separate. And if you have a problem with the wording inserted by me and Kaj than please start a discussion at the talk page. The stated aim of the rebel operation was to capture Nawa and Al-Shaykh Maskin. They only accomplished 75% of their goal (Nawa and half of Al-Shaykh Maskin). Thus it was partial as Kaj worded in a rather compromising way I might add. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For one reason that we all know? You are doing it again, you are accusing me of being bias and trying to cover up things. Reminding you again of WP: Civil & Good faith. I also remind you again, it did not happen immediately after this battle that ended on 15 December. It happened a full 40 days after the battle had ended and as part of a completely new offensive that was launched by the rebels and it was a direct result of that new battle (for which we have a new article). As compromise I have noted the capture of Brigade 82 and the base in the aftermath section of the battle that ended in mid-December. EkoGraf (talk) 23:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Qantara.de.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my fixes to Debkafile and Qantara.de. In the future, please 1. Read the documentation of templates to see how they should be used 2. Check the results of your edits. These errors could have been avoided. Debresser (talk) 22:13, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American-led intervention in Syria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page YPG. 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) 09:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the MLKP fighters in Kobanî are indeed "not part of YPG", I think you might want to go over and inform them of this yourself. Their commander must be in error when she states that "the party had been in Rojava since 2012, adding that they had predominantly fought in the ranks of the YPG/YPJ". Evidently Suphi Nejat Ağırnaslı, Sibel Bulut, and Oğuz Saruhan were all seized by a curious collective delusion in which they thought it possible to fight in YPG/J while simultaneously distinguishing themselves as MLKP. Also inform the party itself that they ought to stop using phrases such as "in the ranks of YPG/YPJ as a member of MLCP" when they talk about their fighters, because obviously that can't be true, and tell YPG/J to stop making it look like MLKP martyrs are also their martyrs. And while you're at it, you could even try to explain to these mourners that they have no clue what they're doing when they include both YPG and MLKP imagery on portraits commemorating those fighters killed in action. Clearly there is a binary opposition between the two groups which stems from... a joint operations room with some small FSA units or something like that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 07:38, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know maybe you could have clearly articulated your view of their involvement before repeatedly adding an obscure Marxist party prominently into the infobox of the article, which would be a WP:REDFLAG to anybody. Nulla Taciti (talk) 16:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, you could have indicated that you had actually read the source that I used—or better yet, done some cursory research of your own—rather than just blindly reverting. Whether the Randys in Boise reading the article get thrown for a loop when they see "MLKP" in the infobox isn't my concern. Aside from the fact that those reasonably familiar with the history of the broader PKK/KCK movement over the last decade should have little trouble in at least recognising them, the addition was properly sourced to begin with. If you're going to challenge sourced additions, you should base your objections not on extraneous arguments and your own preconceptions, but on some kind of direct critical engagement either with what the source says or the source's general reliability. Responding to a source which explicitly says that MLKP has "predominantly fought in the ranks of the YPG/YPJ" with a blunt "MLKP are not part of the YPG or Euphrates Volcano" doesn't exactly show that. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:18, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few odd members of the MLKP (probably < 10) joining the YPG isn't really something that warrants this kind of hysterical rhetoric. Edit summaries are there to avoid interactions like this, thanks. Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:26, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian opposition, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front. 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) 08:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bashar al-Assad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Retarded. 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) 09:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Syrian Arab Air Force page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bashar al-Assad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mukhabarat. 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) 08:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are not claiming anything. Its confirmed fact (by SOHR and everyone else) that government troops captured those 15 locations successfully. Masdar simply put the capture of those towns/villages into context as part of the military's first phase. The slow-down and stalemate came during the military's second phase. Still, going to try some compromise wording in the lead (hope it will be satisfactory), but the Jerusalim post, which is an Israeli source, is in this regard biased against Iran and any of its allies. Also, going to remove your addition in the results section of subsequent battles that were not related to this offensive and happened in totally different areas separate from this area of operations (Triangle of Death). They are already mentioned in the Analysis section. And stop with the use of the expressions pro-Assad and regime! EkoGraf (talk) 16:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Pushing that the result be Indecisive when the military captured 15 locations is a non-neutral POV. Especially since you had previous rebel offensives in Daraa province which ended with the rebels capturing even less than what the military achieved here but we still marked them as Partial rebel victories. The current wording that I put is fair compromise since everyone else wanted to mark it as an outright government victory. If you insist on putting it indecisive than I would have to follow the template established in regard with other battles in the area (that I mentioned) and mark it as a partial military victory so to stick to neutrality. Although I think the current wording best represents the situation. EkoGraf (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if they are state-owned or not. You don't need to be a government-controlled news agency to be biased. Any Israeli source is biased against Iran and its allies. Always have and always will (can be seen from their language). The writer is used in references in other part of the article yes, but that's because you inserted him in there. If you remember, you and I wrangled a lot about the wording to be used about the info from his reports before. So its not suddenly that I'm against him as a source. I'm against the use of Israeli sources in general when it comes to Syria. And apparently user Hannibal agrees with me. Also, saying the offensive totally failed is incorrect since they totally expelled the rebels from that corner of Rif Dimashq and pushed into Daraa. As for the results section, its there to show the immediate military strategic or tactical effects in the area of the battle. Possible consequences that affect a totally different area of operations in this war is appropriate for the Analysis section. EkoGraf (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First, let me say I am going to try more compromise wording. Removed short-term and added limited as you wanted. Hoping you won't have a problem with it again. Second, you are over-quoting. We are an encyclopidia and we summarize or describe the situation, we are not here to quote every sentence from every possible person who made an opinion on the issue. So please, try to write in your own words what's in the sources and not over-quote. Third, I see you constantly move the part about it not being strategically significant to the back and being significant to the front. For the sake of the flow of the longer text on it being significant it needs to be stated after the shorter non-significant sentence. Fourth, some say this and some say that is highly fair compromise/neutral wording, and in that regard that's the only thing I would agree on. Fifth, just wanted to point out I have not removed any of the sources you added (except non-neutral ARA news), even though I think you are adding too much, and even used them to write some additional info. Finally, will you, again, please stop with the Assad government/regime? No matter what your personal opinion on the issue is, as far as the UN is concerned they are the only official government of Syria. The opposition government has been only recognised by Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS Please do not reintroduce the un-needed quotation from Charles Lister. I think I properly summarized what he said and I think I really showed a neutral/compromise step with that, considering his highly anti-Assad biased attitude shown over the years which anybody can see from his daily tweets. Also, we can not make out what he said as fact, because he is speculating/making predictions, and Wikipedia has a policy on that issue (WP: NOTCRYSTALBALL). EkoGraf (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that I have specifically cited sources in such a manner is because you keep adding material that isn't in the sources. Specifically, the poorly worded sentence you have been incessantly reinserting: "According to some, the fall of Idlib, which had little strategic value, was more a morale blow to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad than a strategic one, and a short-term one at that". This sentence is both WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE. WP:SYN as you are combining two sources to state something neither source says (neither mention regime morale vis-à-vis this battle), and WP:UNDUE as even if the two sources said as you claim (and to be clear, they do not), you are crowbarring a tenuous minority view into the start of the paragraph. Also the Lund source states that the defeat will force the Assad regime to rethink its entire war strategy — so this is WP:CHERRYPICK on top of it all. Also it isn't constructive to point the finger of bias when you are editing this subject in such a provocative manner. Nulla Taciti (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect about the BBC report. Clearly says It has been frequently claimed that Qatar has relatively close ties, probably through intermediaries, with the Nusra Front. And the FT source also clearly says and I quote (as you wanted a valid quote) ...allegations that the Qataris have – directly or indirectly – helped Jabhat al-Nusrah have not gone away. At least one Arab government recently said as much.... I now added a third source. I already compromised on this issue by adding the word alleged since it has not been definitely confirmed. So please do not remove sourced information. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "sourced information". This is just speculation (e.g. "claimed", "indirectly"). By this logic Turkey could be added too by citing Hersh's conspiracy theories. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote "stop adding non lethal support" in a comment reverting my edit. Since when providing weapons is not a lethal support? Perhaps you could at least read the sources I have provided. For the second and last time I'm asking you to put it back and refer to the ongoing discussion on the talk page. TIA. --Emesik (talk) 23:48, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at the admin noticeboard, apparently there is one WP:RS stating this. Go ahead and put it back if you wish, but you should probably leave the non lethal support comment (as well as seek definitive WP:CON as this change is highly controversial). Nulla Taciti (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know very well I cannot put it back because of 1RR. By the way, you could at check how the article looks after your edits of the infobox. Now it's all messed up. --Emesik (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not touching that subject with a 10 foot barge pole, gain consensus then re-add it — having seen a reliable source, I for one don't intend to remove it. Also the error was minor and had already been fixed by another editor, the template order had been inappropriately changed on the main Syrian Civil War article and I was unsure what the issue was. Nulla Taciti (talk) 15:31, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nulla Taciti. You've been reported at WP:AN3 for violating the 1RR rule at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The 1RR is in effect through WP:GS/SCW and is explained in a banner on the article talk page. Normally you would be blocked, and it is too late to self-revert. But you may be able to avoid sanctions if you will agree to make no edits on the subject of Wahhabism on any article for the next seven days. If you agree to this, please reply at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Noted in the wording the pro-government stance. EkoGraf (talk) 21:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the NYT used the term "pro-Assad", so giving the quote used in a WP:RS verbatim hardly seems biased. Nulla Taciti (talk) 05:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The section deals with the rise of Nusra, their conflict with the moderates and their elimination, and the Nusra-led hardline Islamist campaign to dominate the province. Its not blatant editorializing if that's how neutral sources themselves describe both the situation and the Islamists. I already changed the title of the section once to compromise with you. It would be OK to call it Northern Islamist spearhead offensives if more than half the section isn't devoted to Nusra and their elimination of the moderates, but it is. As for the term takeover, sources themselves call it that, see here [5] quote - the north has been largely TAKEN OVER by Islamists..... EkoGraf (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you stop removing wahhabism from isis related pages? Have you read the talk pages? Its not derogatory Blizzio (talk) 04:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is: The Vocabulary of Sectarianism. If you enjoy Shiite sectarian terms expressing their contempt for Sunnis being thrown around, may I suggest Press TV or Al-Manar TV. Wikipedia isn't the outlet for this kind of deliberate and aggressive hate speech. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been misinformed. The Sunni establishment created the term to identify followers of Abdulwahab. Ibn Abidin is just one scholar during the Ottoman era, who mentions wahhabism in his writings. It is a historical term that is why you find it in various academic works and news agencies. In those times Muslims were refered by their school of thought Maliki Hanbali etc Blizzio (talk) 04:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term may well have had an obscure historical usage, however it has now become synonymous with being used as a slur. The article Wahhabism even makes it clear in the lead that Sunnis do not self identify or prefer this term. Also you appear to be a particularly narrowly focused WP:SPA, so unless you want a WP:SPI I suggest you stop with this. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Im glad you understand now that it was historically used. The point is it should be included for reference if academics or news agencies still use the term. As far as the investigation link you posted, you are probably not happy that you have been proven wrong. Blizzio (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring/aren't addressing the well established sectarian nature and usage of this term. Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that opening an SPI is a personal attack on a user? Blizzio (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know that you should have nothing to fear if you are actually editing in a valid way, dispite all appearances to the contrary? Nulla Taciti (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the point. Its offensive. I was trying to discuss the issue with you civilly but you became aggressive. When evidence in a discussion turns contrary to what you initially believed, it should not be upsetting to you. Blizzio (talk) 05:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing "contrary" has been proven; you are simply WP:STONEWALL and refusing to WP:LISTEN after aggressively and obsessively reinserting a term which you know full well is a sectarian hate term. Nulla Taciti (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think your in a bad mood. Whenever you feel like actually discussing the matter civilly. You can come to my talk page. Blizzio (talk) 05:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still failing to acknowledge anything I said, amazing. Nulla Taciti (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Syrian Rebellion Obs and McClatchy both say/show the SAA back in control of these four villages they lost in the plain. SRO (highly pro-opp) is regularly used at the Syria map for SAA territorial gains since its biased against the government. As for McClatchy, its a reliable news media outlet. So I would politely ask that you stop removing sources that confirm the Army regaining these villages in the plain. After some research, in an attempt to find compromise wording, I have found that the rebels indeed managed to retain control of one village in the western part of the plain, Sirmaniyah. So, based on this, I will insert compromise wording in the form of Rebels capture five villages in the al-Ghaab Plain. Subsequent Army counter-attack recaptures four villages, except Sirmaniyah, and establishes a new supply route in the area. Or something along those lines. EkoGraf (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Southern Front logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would ask you politely Nulla to stop removing the word rebel every chance you get when describing the anti-Assad fighters, because despite what you may think of them, that's the common name for those forces per the reliable sources. Despite me and Kaj reinserting them, you constantly remove them. EkoGraf (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposition is used just as frequently, and the FSA/IF are the legitimate opposition regardless of your opinion (vs. battles involving al-Nusra Front where more ambitious terminology is appropriate). Also you keep removing SAA, when the context of what "army" is doing what is completely unclear even for users who are familiar with the subject matter, even though this was a clear WP:CON involving LightandDark2000. Stop politicizing every term, it is tiresome. Nulla Taciti (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not politicizing anything. SAA is not the common term under which they are known per reliable sources. Media outlets call them ether Army, Syrian Army or regime forces (non-neutral term). Opposition is used, but not as frequently. Rebels is the main term RS use to describe them. It has nothing to do with legalities, but with the common terms under which they are known, as per Wiki policy. I could compromise if you stop removing rebel every time by leaving SAA on occasion, but not as frequent as to be so much repetitive, the other term that could work is Syrian Army. As for the Syrian Civil War map message you left. I have nothing against ISIS being marked to be just west of the town since The Telegraph confirms it on its own, but the source does not confirm, in a verifiable way, that the town is contested. EkoGraf (talk) 00:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly are you getting this "regime is POV" thing from? If you want to talk about common terms, regime is indisputably the common term for the Assad led faction in Damascus. In political science, the type of government under Assad, as per university press sources, is classified as an authoritarian regime (which is one step below a dictatorship, mainly because Assad is seen as such a personally weak leader). Even the Russian ambassador to Lebanon calls it a regime. Literally no one considers the Assad regime to be a liberal Western style democray. Also I have no problem with the term rebel used generally, I've never claimed otherwise. But for infoboxs, specifically cited statistics, etc. the correct factions should be noted. Nulla Taciti (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The factions should be made as specific as possible. As for the terms, whenever there is a clear consensus in the public or international community, I think that it would be okay to use the same terms that they use. However, we should still try to remain as neutral as possible. Another thing: we should try to remain consistent. I think that either of those terms would do, just make it clear to the audience who you are talking about. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:02, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "regime" issue was discussed among multiple editors more than three years ago, and several times since than, and was agreed the term, though possibly politically correct, was still deragatory and non-neutral and should not be used. EkoGraf (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think (if I'm correct) you also had an issue with User talk:Greyshark09 edit history. Well, it seems he has had the article North Yemen Civil War protected here so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it i.e. he did this to prevent me from editing it and adding the content he has, seemingly, sworn to never have appear on the page. I expect him to soon remove my edit—knowing full well that i will not be able to immediately respond to his conniving manoeuvrings. This is where i hope you can come in: if i warn you, would you then re-add my edit for me? This would be greatly appreciated and may enable a more serious inspection from outside editors to the reality of his baseless behaviour—unlike the inexplicable ease with which he gained the page protection. Don't worry, if the issue goes further i will do all the arguing against him. I only seek your aid in re-adding my edit.--120.18.201.59 (talk) 14:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, greyshark did exactly as i expected. So will you help?120.18.67.157 (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all I haven't had any issue with greyshark09 in the past, I was seeking his assistence with a matter he is familiar with actually. Second of all, while your edits appear well sourced, you should remember how contentious the inclusion of Israel is in Middle East related articles — maybe Israel's role (which was honestly minimal) should be confined to the main body of the article? Nulla Taciti (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You totally ignored the source I linked [6] which confirms both the FSA, IF and Nusra have partnered for this operation, and reinserted the lines. I would ask that you remove them or I will, with the addition of this source. EkoGraf (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is one journalists opinion, who isn't introducing any evidence that they have any formal alligenice or cooperation, and speaking of partnership in a loose informal manner. The Southern Front has specifically stated that they won't cooperate with JaN — exceptional claims require exceptional evidence. Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually your personal opinion of the source, which is a RS source (International Business Times). And POV edits are not allowed. When the Southern Front earlier claimed they are not cooperating with Nusra and wanted to distance themselves it was during the Quneitra and Suwayda offensives. During this offensive they have not made such claims and you have not provided sources that confirm they are not partners during this offensive. Also, sources like the IBT trump rebel claims in reliability. EkoGraf (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing, you separated the IF as well from the FSA. IF is not Nusra. What's your basis for that separation line? Has the FSA started distancing themselves from IF as well? EkoGraf (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to your compromising wording for the infobox. EkoGraf (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The division was based on them attacking from different positions and not having seen any formal confirmation of cooperation, probably because of a media blackout on the offensive. However a (slightly clearer) WP:RS ([7]) seems to suggest there is a broad alligence so I changed the article accordingly. Nulla Taciti (talk) 02:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is Reuters a weak source? Also, they lost half the city before this offensive over the previous four years. Sources (including rebel ones) actually state little to no progress was made (with often self-admitted exaggeration). I'm not going to revert you today, since Falconet8 was kind enough to provide a source confirming the current fighting is still indeed part of the offensive. However, if nothing major changes again in a few days I'm going to close it again, because any fighting that takes place at that point would not be any different than the fighting that has been constantly happening in the city over the last four years. And I would advise you not to remove sourced information or its reliable source (Reuters). EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would advise you to show good faith and follow your own editing practices. A throw away comment in an article not even about the battle is not good enough to make this a SAA victory. And while I actually agree that the Reuters statement is broadly accurate, opposition forces captured the town of Atman north of Daraa, as well as progressed in the industrial district, making this battle indecisive if not a minor victory. As soon as articles emerge about the battle from the usual places (ISW, Stratfor, etc.), I will cite them. You have been editing this subject for years, it won't kill you not to rush to state something contentious. Nulla Taciti (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a throw away comment according to you, but we don't make edits based on POV. And I would remind both ISW and Stratfor are less neutral or reliable on this issue. And not seeing how I rushed it since I waited four days since the last attempted rebel advance. Also, the main operation goal of the offensive was to capture and/or cut off the city, which they failed. Taking one town does not make the result of the battle indecisive, especially since they reportedly suffered over 200 dead. In any case, we will see how the situation develops over the next few days. EkoGraf (talk) 03:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now, we have been over this. Minor regime gains in the 2015 Southern Syria offensive despite categorically failing all of their objectives didn't make that a victory either, yet you insisted upon the odd wording in the result section. So if you are going to insist upon minor tactical advances being oh so significant when the regime makes them (while ignoring the major strategic significance), then it works the other way too when opposition factions achieve the same thing. Regardless, the latest ISW article I cited stated that fighting is ongoing so it remains to be confirmed or disproved as to whether any advances will stand. Nulla Taciti (talk) 09:49, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qalamoun offensive (May–June 2015), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Iranian. 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) 09:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The one and only later report of the offensive being ongoing was from Masdar and it did not say anything about changes in control. Since than, Masdar itself has said the offensive has ended. The rebels themselves have not mentioned the offensive for almost two weeks and the last time they did they said they exaggerated their claims of control. The link you provided says nothing about areas being captured by the rebels, it only shows points of interest/areas of fighting. And the source itself actually says there has been no news about the offensive at all. As for the combat footage, remember, youtube is not accepted as a source. Reuters clearly states the attack on the government-held part of the city was repelled, which was the main operational goal of the offensive. PS The Masdar report you linked in the edit summary does not say the attack on Khirbat Al-Ghazalah was part of the offensive from two weeks ago. EkoGraf (talk) 12:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is good faith. A proper source by the rebels saying they are renewing their assault [8]. EkoGraf (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you please stop removing academic neutral headings like 'decline' or 'questioning'? Just take a look at what Wikipedia says about 'Conspiracy theories' and compare it to the section of the Free Syrian Army article. It just makes no sense. It's even an insult to make Robert Fisk a conspiracy theorist. You may believe the FSA actually exists as described on the page, and you may have good reasons for that, but that doesn't change the 'questioning' of several highly respected Middle East journalists of the FSA's form today. For they, too, may have good reasons for questioning. Your heading is implying conclusions already. Whereas the academic neutral heading leaves the question open for wikipedia-users, it only shows the opinion from important journalists. Some people question and have good reasons for doing so. They deserve academic neutral headings instead of a priori insults like 'conspiracy theorist'. With similar logic, Robert Fisk could turn all other headings of the FSA page into 'conspiracy theories'. Thank the Holy Wikipedia he doesn't do so. So thank you for respecting academic neutrality.

"Decline" is not "academically neutral" in this context, rather inaccurate. As multiple Wikipedia articles regarding battles attest, various FSA groups were gaining significant ground throughout 2014 & 2015, you can see that for yourself. And stating the "FSA don't exist" in fact is a conspiracy theory, as they clearly do exist. It is the same as stating the SAA don't exist due to widespread Russian/Iranian support—polemical & over the top. Also, the "FSA don't exist" thing is only stated by a handful of journalists/politicians, so it is WP:FRINGE. So meet in the middle and find a compromise wording. Nulla Taciti (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again: it doesn't matter wether you believe it exists or not, or wether other wikipedia articles suggest its existence. The point is that some journalists and politicians, and not of the least, don't believe it exists in its presented form. Wikipedia pages suggesting the opposite do not legitimate you to label them as conspiracy theories. That would not be a fair debate. Any armed group in Syria who won or lost a battle can claim they are part of the FSA. No matter how many Wikipedia articles say the opposite. The few who are questioning the factuality of such issues deserve headings that do not label them as simple conspiracy theorists, as you tended to do. I agree on the fact that decline isn't neutral either, but 'questioning of actual existence' is indeed the middle.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bashar al-Assad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Republican. 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) 09:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bashar al-Assad, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assyrian. 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) 10:22, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Southern Front logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Euphrates Volcano logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Free Syrian Army TOW.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Stratfor logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]