User talk:Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv

February 2020

Please do not add or change content, as you did at 2014 Latakia offensive, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. El_C 17:33, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

General sanctions alert

Please read this notification carefully; it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

El_C 19:00, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OR accusation

In response to your message at my talk page, no original research and no unreferenced doubling of casualties was made with this edit [1]. Please read all of the cited sources that were added more carefully. As per the 1st reference ("Erdogan says three more Turkish soldiers killed in Syria's Idlib") 21 Turkish soldiers were killed up to right before last night's massive airstrikes. 2nd reference, which contains two links ("29 Turkish soldiers killed, 36 wounded in Syria's Idlib - live blog", "Dozens of Turkish soldiers killed in strike in Idlib in Syria, reports say") clearly state 29 soldiers died per the Turkish governor and 70 per rebel sources. As per WP:COUNT this is a total of 50-91 dead as per two different accounts. @Mr.User200: can also confirm this. Or we could ask @El C: as well if WP policy was breached. The figures have now been further updated to reflect the governor's updated figure of 33. Everything has also now been referenced so the casualties are presented (in the ref) in a more date-by-date basis (so its much clearer). Please refrain from making accusations against your fellow editors or threatening them, which is contrary to Wikipedia's policy on civility and assuming good faith from your fellow editors. I hope we can work in the future and resolve any disputes through talk page discussions and compromises, as Wikipedia requires from us. Welcome to Wikipedia, happy editing and cheers! EkoGraf (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Perhaps it is not your fault that you have made this OR mistake, I checked all the sources once again and cannot see any mention regarding 70 casualties from last night. Perhaps the article was updated and had it removed. I suggest you check it again because I certainly cannot find one. Cheers. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source was the Guardian article here [2] and you are right, the article was apparently updated and now it no longer mentions the figure of 70. Here are earlier versions [3][4] of the Guardian report where it says, and I quote "Military sources among moderate and jihadist rebel factions...said up to 70 Turkish soldiers died on Thursday night...". Thank you for pointing out the Guardian article got updated (removing the figure). The other sources will be cited so to reflect the claim made by the rebels. Nice find! EkoGraf (talk) 08:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf:Please do not use unreliable rebel sources on infobox. As it breaks neutrality. You should use rebels and Turkish claims on Syrian Gov too otherwise its not a Neutral Point of View. I recommend you stick to reliable sources alone and take it to 50 casualties, rather than using unreliable rebels sources and further breaking the rules. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 08:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rebels are a primary source, the Guardian, which is considered a reliable source by Wikipedia, is a secondary source. As per Wikipedia's policy, we are advised to use secondary sources more than primary sources. Also, we are already providing pro-rebel sources (SOHR) for pro-government casualties. Besides, the rebels and Turkey are on the same side and here we have pro-Turkish sources reporting on Turkish casualties. And again, you are making accusations against a fellow editor, contrary to Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. EkoGraf (talk) 08:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that, just like you, I advocated in the past that casualty claims by both sides should be presented so to preserve Wikipedia's neutrality and presenting both sides POV. EkoGraf (talk) 08:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Just to let you know accusing someone of not assuming good faith does not make you immune from breaking the rules. I am warning you about the rules you are breaking. SOHR is considered a WP:RS while other rebel sources are not. You are allowed to use SOHR but not the other rebel sources. And if you still believe you are right and I am wrong you can ask El_C to solve this. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Making accusations and threats against someone from the very start, instead of talking to them first in a way like you did with this edit [5] properly, isn't per Wikipedia's policy. And again, the rebels are not directly cited, the Guardian is (which is considered RS). As you say, @El C: can way in here as a 3rd un-involved party. EkoGraf (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: Ill repeat again, accusing someone of not assuming good faith does not make you immune from breaking the rules. Once again, like you yourself have said above, the guardian got updated and had it removed. So now the article is including the original research material which you've added. Rather than telling me to assume good faith you are required to revert the rule you have violated. Which is what I'm warning you of since the beginning. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 08:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article is actually not including original research since the Guardian link has now been replaced to reflect the earlier version of the Guardian report which does mention the 70 dead as per the rebels. PS I could also cite Der Spiegel which cited a Turkish official of saying 50 soldiers died in the strikes [6][7] for a figure of 50. But again, we wait for El C to way in first. EkoGraf (talk) 09:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taking into account that since last night, except for the Guardian, no other sources have appeared to cite a figure of 70 dead (plus the Guardian removed the figure from its original report), I would be willing to remove the figure of 70 and edit in the figures that are widely reported on by everyone at this point (33 per Turkey and 34 per SOHR). However, I will not make the change until @Mr.User200: gives his opinion on the matter since he also used (just like me) the Guardian report as a source for the figure of 70 in his editing. EkoGraf (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All articles regarding the number of Turkish soldiers killed in yesterday attack; are citing Pro-Trukish rebels and/or Turkish officials numbers. Currently in the lower case there are 34 killed (SOHR) and in the upper 50 (Turkish official at Spiegel) to 70 (Turkish backed rebels). The death toll is espected to rise in the course of the day (today). As more ambulances reach Hatay and its hospitals and some other dead soldiers are recovered from the debris. There are conflicting reports of the number of killed and wounded, but more likely in some days a final number will appear. The Turkish goverment cant hide the numbers of killed because of the scale of the attack and is likely that a political turmoil, social too, could take place in Ankara. Regarding the current state of the article, we are using most RS sources; namely, SOHR, Speigel and The Guardian & others.Mr.User200 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, I'm not going to use administrative intervention to decide on a content dispute — though I strongly urge all of you to stick to mainstream, English-speaking sources as much as possible. Certainly, avoid becoming too dependent on only one side; please feel free to use inline attribution in parentheses, such as "Turkish estimates," or "Syrian estimates," etc., when you do. You are not confined to only one set of numbers, if these are in dispute. Regardless, if you're looking for a third opinion, that's what 3rd opinion is for — and I think you've just got one from Mr.User200's directly above, anyway. For even more outside input, please see the dispute resolution requests page. I, however, am interested under what, if any, previous accounts Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv has edited in the past... Thanks and good luck. El_C 15:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv, I'm afraid I have to insist on an answer to that query. El_C 11:30, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why the bite? Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edits made in portal 29 February 2020.

Please stop making claims in the Portal of Current Events; one of the entries you have edited today about the Pantsir is not backed in the source you provide. It not the first time this system was destroyed. Also one was already destroyed in Lybia before, not Syria. ^[1]

Regarding another entry of the current events we cant say in Wipedia voice that Syrian still operates chemical weapons like you made. Especially considering that the same source you used, clearly says "scientific research laboratories in the Al-Safira area of eastern Aleppo".Mr.User200 (talk) 20:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Here

Indefinite block

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sock puppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below.

El_C 11:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Did you just block me because I didn't answer whether I was a sock or not? Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 11:39, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. Again, did you ever hold previous accounts on Wikipedia? El_C 11:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: No, I did not. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you are so familiar with Wikipedia (with multiple counter-bitey responses, etc.) — something feels off. El_C 11:58, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: I know the rules. I've been reading for quite a while, just never had an account before. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still, I hesitate to unblock immediately. In case you submit any unblock requests in the future, the reviewing admin does not need to consult me in any way whatsoever in deciding to act as they see fit. El_C 12:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Got blocked for not answering whether I'm a sock or not. I am not a sock. Nabu-Kudurri-Usur Yaniv (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You will need to go into more detail about your situation, and explain why we might think that you are a sock if you are not. Merely denying it is not sufficient. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 11:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

[1] Here

[1]