User talk:Lothar von Richthofen

Edit warring complaint about Sopher99

Please see Wikipedia:AN3#User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: ). When a page like Template:Syrian civil war infobox is so active, it is hard to pick out any one problem for admin attention. When you made this revert, were you intending to comment on Sopher99? If you think there is any user conduct problem with the editing of the infobox that needs admin attention, you could give your opinion at WP:AN3. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The template map of syria

I have provided February-March 2013 reliable sources stating that the two towns are disputed. If you have newer sources stating other thing, bring them, if not, stop reverting. And about Palmyra & As-Sukheina, I had searched WP and I didnt find any info about so-called rebels there. In the case of Palmyra, it even contradicts the detailed info on the table of cities and towns.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2013 (UTC) There were more reliable that stated there are under rebel control,and for palmyra and as-sukhna ,there were reliable sources that confirm their current status look at the edit history.and you stop the edit-warring.Alhanuty (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

If you called "reliable" the so-called one-man pro-"rebel" activist group SOHR, that shows your lack of neutrality. A biased activist (and not journalist) group is accepted as a "reliable source", but official news journalists outlets like SANA or Press TV arent, poor declining Wikipedia credibility... And about Palmyra, the latest news I have (April 2013, so newer than the February 2013 source) says clearly, quote: "the government has managed to retain control of Palmyra.". See here: [1].Thats also consistent with this BBC (or BBC is now pro-Assad?) map:[2] (at the bottom). If terrorist-"rebel" presence in the desert areas that surrounds Palmyra is reason enough to put the lime roundel, that must be made with the other terrorist-"rebel"-held towns wich have the Syrian Army surrounding them. Nothing more, nothing less...--HCPUNXKID (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The government has indeed managed to retain control of Tadmur, and the map shows precisely that; even SANA acknowledges that government troops have "pursued terrorist groups southwest of Dedeman Hotel in Palmyra", which is 1.5 km from the city itself. Given your extensive use of the partisan agitprop label "terrorist" in describing one party to the conflict, you're not exactly someone who should be bitching about "lack of neutrality". I'm not going around saying "shabbiha thugs" and similar nonsense. Scram, kid. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

the template syrian civil war map

thanks for the new added locations,but i advise you to correct the location of deir attiyah,adra and zamalka and arbeen and to add the city sabinah and qarah and to make the word qussaya smaller because it is covering the name of the city that is near it.Alhanuty (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hart-Miller Island State Park, Maryland may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s and 2 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• at the time comprising three islands—Hart, Miller, and Pleasure—with a total land surface of ((convert|250|acres|km2}}. A dike was built joining Hart and Miller islands into [[Hart Miller Island]] in 1983, and the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war map 2

Hello, I noticed that you often partakers on the map of Syrian civil war, there are several cities that have been taken over by the army but are not displayed on the map, for example, and qaysa Jdaidet al-Fadl in the province of Damascus or Ma'atram in Idlib province according to SOHR Rogal Dorm (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Judaydat al-Fadl is the working-class quarter of Judaydat Artuz, which is already a big red circle on the map. As for Qaysa and Ma'tram, show me some sources (i.e. not direct SANA/SOHR links). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Adra

Multiple sources were presented at the talk page from reliable news media that confirm the town being government-held. Reports are of clashes not a battle for the city, like in Hama. Also, the reports of clashes in Adra in scale and number are minimal. And, opposition are insurgents also, who conduct hit-and-run attacks behind enemy lines. Besides, the source Sopher quoted was SOHR facebook and you said we do not use SOHR facebook as a source for the map. EkoGraf (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I've created a new article 2013 Latakia offensive. EkoGraf (talk) 20:26, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your revert on the Battle of Aleppo page

I have posted on the talk page of this article, disputing your reverting of my previous edit. I am asking for a clarification of the reasons for your revert and I am opposing your behavior. If you fail to reply to my query I will take action through the appropriate means to have your reverts stricken from the article. MrDjango (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Hm. Dialing back the cheesy formality a few notches might make me take you more seriously, kiddo. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lothar von Richthofen. You have new messages at Tradedia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

User:Destroyer1812

Is this guy a sock of Deonis? I believe you're an expert on this kind of stuff. He seems to be copying text from sources when adding info to articles, something Deonis has done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Al-Infitar

Please do not delete the explanation of the verses of Surah Al-Infitar. If you have an objection to a particular explanation of the verse, mention it but don't delete the explanation as sermon. Without the context of the verse, people misinterpret the verse and that's why we have so many misinterpretations. We are working to provide explanation for all chapters of Holy Quran. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followerofquran (talk • contribs) 17:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your additions violate Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing and appear entirely as your own interpretation. This is not allowed here. I am removing it again. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

The interpretations are from 4-5 different scholars. I have mentioned the names of the scholars all throughout. These books were written in Arabic, so I have translated them. I will update the references accordingly. I have added two external links pointing to books on Amazon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Followerofquran (talk • contribs) 19:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

If it is from famous Islamic scholars,then okay,but be careful when it comes to translation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.210.152 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Syria map

This user is using alot of fringe sources like random pro-assad lebanese arabic newspapers and arabic russia today. Sopher99 (talk) 00:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC) http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history

Annoying, yes. Actionable, not really. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Syria map

Source is here,the map failed to upload it,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/12/syria-massacre-nusra-front_n_3912376.html?utm_hp_ref=world

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 17:21, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

The Nomination of a Speedy Deletion of Valgria

I believe you are wrong in doing this, for everything I have said in my article about the small Syrian town of Valgria is true. I am a member of the Syrian Casualty Moniters, and the Article on Valgria is straight from the report, "Syrian Civil War: The Casualties" written by Jackson Reed Porgo. We go around the war-torn country of Syria, in a neutral manner, getting stories from both sides of the conflict. The first story I saw fit to be put on here was the SCM Report on Valgria. --Ky — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kydon Shadow (talk • contribs) 21:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

^PLEASE DISREGARD THIS^

I have recently come to learn that my article, Valgria, was truly a fake. The information provided to me was indeed false. I sincerely apoligize for this, and disputing the deletion of the fake. --Ky 23:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kydon Shadow (talk • contribs)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Some proposed changes to the table of cities and towns + the format of map

Hi Lother,
You probably noticed that I have made 2 rather involved proposals about the syrian civil war page, on the talk page :

1) To divide the cities and towns table by governorat
- It will make updates much faster
- It will group locations closer, for both users and editors.
For users, it will make it easier to relate to the map, and have a better sense of how that relates to reports they see elsewhere.
For editors, it will make it easier to lessen discrepancies between the map and the table(s). As well, it will make it easier to notice when (reliable) news reports indicate changes should be made.
- It allows automatically generating an index of tables by governorat at the beginning. (The automatic index is now suppressed.)

Tradedia says that he is indifferent to this proposal, and I would like your view.
This has an important effect on how everyone interacts with the table(s), so I know we need a consensus. There is a complete example here (old data now), so you can see what would look like. (Subject of course to modifications.)
It would only take me a few hours to do, and I would do it one governorat at a time. They are ordered according to what seems to be the official governorat numbers, which I found on the Internet. So I would like your feedback on this proposal.

2) For the proposed map clean up changes, after discussion with Tradedia, my proposals were refined somewhat, keeping only items 2, 3, and 5.

- Item 2 definitely requires your approval.
It is changing the displayed labels from links to non-links, since they now duplicate the links associated with the icons. This somewhat simplifies the display, but Tradedia informed me that you had a problem with the display.
I want to ensure that it was only transient, or just related to the default colour (which is black).
So I would like to do a test, and see how it works for you. We can use any colour for the non-link labels. I suggest for the tests that we use a blue-violet, halfway between the usual colours for unvisited link (blue) and visited link (violet), since that shows up readily if you are looking for it, but is not too obtrusive. Setting the colour for non-link text just involves putting <div color: #4400ff> and </div> in the right place, so it is really easy to change it to anything we want after the tests. It has no effect on link text.
- Item 3 is moving the label definitions where-ever they block icon links, so that all icons become clickable. (It is related to item 2)

- Item 5 is exchanging the label (name) and (icon) link fields in position definitions, so that all the label-related fields are together at the end. It has no effect on the display, but means that all position definitions start with the same fields, whether they have a label or not. (To programmers like myself, it is considered cleaner code.)

Note that these are just format changes, and don't affect the content. A hopefully non-controversial way to improve the Syrian civil war page
So what do you think ? André437 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Lothar I have for you here is the question!

Maybe even so it is possible to unlock my main account as Deonis 2012 if I promise to abide by the rules of Wikipedia and before that or edit consult with the other participants well, for example with you!? Just when I blocked my account Deonis of 2012 was still new to editing rules but I ask you to give me one last chance to mend.37.55.208.218 (talk) 18:47, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to go for the standard offer, no socking for 6 moths the npost an unblock on your original accounts talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Я буду ответить на обсуждением AOnline по-русски, чтобы вы лучше понимали. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I shall follow to your advice. And once again I thank for understanding. Я пока попробую редактировать в русском варианте Википедии.46.201.104.134 (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Всего хорошего! ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Durin

I did extensive research to try and confirm if you were right about Durin and I have confirmed via HRW [3] that it was rebel-controlled even before the offensive and still is. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Voilà :) SANA reports "destroying a vehicle" (i.e., shelling it) just today even. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I just said you were right. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I know. Just showing further corroboration is all. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide me with the source for Shaatah still being rebel-held, I am having trouble finding it to confirm. This report from C. J. Chivers. If you were referring to this source [4] than the info is out of date. Because he does mention Shaatah in it as rebel-held but while talking about its capture by rebels at the start of the offensive back in May. Which is a month before it was reported recaptured by both SANA and SOHR. EkoGraf (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Lothar, please provide me with a source for Shaatah that it is still being held by the rebels. The one report I found by C. J. Chivers talks only about when the village was captured at the start of the offensive, a month before SANA and SOHR reported its recapture by the Army. EkoGraf (talk) 20:08, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I already gave you the oldid for the diff where I added it, but here: [5]. Dated to 6 August, while the "offensive" ended on 15 July. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not know how to connect with the previous link you provided. In any case thanks for the link and info! EkoGraf (talk) 11:41, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Map

Can you please self revert. All you have to do is look at the next line over

"- 1 civilian and 6 rebels were documented as killed earlier" Sopher99 (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a separate bullet point, Einstein. Note that in the beginning it says:

"The dead include: 19 civilians, 22 rebel fighters, 37 regular soldiers, 12 unidentified rebel fighters, 7 armed villages, 3 YPG fighters, 11 NDF combatants and 13 fighters (5 of which are non-Syrian) from the ISIS, al-Nusra front and some rebel factions."

i.e., they're distinct from rebels. Case closed

By all reports, Khan Shaykhun is a garrison town bristling with checkpoints. Stop misinterpreting your news from SOHR copypasta. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:31, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

And here's another Sopher99 add these cities on the basis of outdated sources:

Kafr naya http://www.firstpost.com/topic/organization/tnt-syria-aleppo-bread-crisis-in-kafr-naya-9-dec-12-foreign-video-UKFReHqK3w4-2125-1.html (source for the December 9, 2012)

Bza'a http://supportkurds.org/news/tuesday-18-june-2013/ (indications of source is dated June 18 and already out of date)95.134.223.90 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin

Hi. Since you were involved in the discussion resulting in the ban of Wikiexperts, you may want to consider the CEO's appeal at Wikipedia:AN#Ban Appeal of AKonanykhin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

al-Sukhnah

I don't understand where is the relation between who took a picture and the content of the picture. I said that the image only showed 6 people, regardless of who took it. I don't doubt of the authenticity of the picture, I just say that the photo is not even close to be the proof of the city being contested.--Andres arg (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Rebels don't calmly pose for pictures with western journalists in towns firmly under control of the government. "Contested" is even a stingy interpretation.

Red points outnumber green ones almost 2 to 1 on the current map. Many of them are sourced only to sketchy Arabic-language sources that just regurgitate SANA (often alongside hagiographic coverage of Nasrallah). If "NPOV" was your real concern here like you claim, I'd think that that would take precedence over changing one single red dot to contested based on a noncombatant source from directly on the ground. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

OK. I didn't know that most of the red dots were based not not so NPOV sites. But it was that a picture with six guys was considered a proof that the city was being contested, seemed to me at least not serious (since we don't know whether they left the city in the other day). But considering that, it seems it is correct that way for now.--Andres arg (talk) 01:01, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian Army retakes al-Sukhna. http://documents.sy/news.php?id=9045&lang=en95.134.223.90 (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lice massacre

Hi, I'm Sulfurboy. Lothar von Richthofen, thanks for creating Lice massacre!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This is a good article, but you put undue weight on one side of the story, which can be fine, but a minimum you need more than one citation for some of your bolder claims. This isn't an immediate issue, but something that can hopefully be improved.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Mahin and Sadad

Dear Lothar sorry to breaking his promise not to edit here but circumstances force! but I believe hastily change the status of these cities by the contested since that is the source points to the fact that the city is still under the full control of the army, and the attack was repelled.And this source is dated October 23. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-23/235532-syria-rebels-advance-towards-arms-depots-activists.ashx#axzz2iSSXwwav95.134.223.90 (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

And here's a more reliable and trusted source which speaks only of the village of Sadad not mentioned Mahin and he also points out that the gunmen fled the city.http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/22/us-syria-crisis-christians-idUSBRE99L0U52013102295.134.223.90 (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Hatite at Turkuman

Syrian forces seized the city Hatetat al-Turkman. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/10/24/us-syria-crisis-suburb-idUSBRE99N0NU20131024 http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2013/Oct-24/235652-army-seizes-damascus-suburb-from-rebels-state-tv.ashx#axzz2iSSXwwav95.134.223.90 (talk) 16:29, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Вы уже нарушили свое обещание вот и вот. Из-за этого кукловодства, карта сейчас перманентно защищенная от IP-редактирования.

Раньше было вряд ли возможно, что вы не знали, что вы здесь заблокированы. Но несмотря на несколько месяцев вашего кукловодства, я все-таки попробовал объяснить вам об этом, чтобы вы ясно понимали. Сейчас у вас нет никаких оправданий. Вы знаете, что вам на этом сайте нельзя редактировать никаких страниц. Это значит, что вам также нельзя спрашивать других участников, изменять карту для вас. Вы не единственный участник, который таких статьи читает.

Еще раз: редактировайте только на русскоязычном Вики. Мне все равно, что вы там делаете. Через шесть месяцев без такого кукловодства, вам можно спросить о разблокировании.

В будущем пожалуйста не будьте так нечестны. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Простите еще раз Лотар и уверяю вас, что на этот раз я ухожу на русскоязычную версию Википедии не менее чем на шесть месяцев и искренне прошу меня простить за то, что нарушил предыдущее обещание.37.55.53.141 (talk) 06:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Shaatah

Lothar, just wanted to tell you here on your discussion page in person before I make the necessary changes. Based on the combination of two new reports I have confirmed that Shaatah, at least at this moment, is government controlled. The sources are a combination of SOHR and Fars news. SOHR [6] reported a raid by ISIS on the village, while Fars news [7] reported the military based in Shaatah repelling an attack by militants on the village (most likely the ones SOHR talked about). So that puts government forces in control of the village. I thought of maybe just coloring it as contested but since SOHR said it was just a raid (which are only short-term attacks) than I opted for government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 14:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 21:59, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Bahariyah, Deir Salman and al Qisa

I self reverted myself after remembering the 1RR rule, however, I am still of the opinion and standing by my position that one unknown anonymous rebel activist is not enough of a reliable source and is too dubious to be trusted for such a big change on the map. So I was of the opinion that it would have been best to wait another 24 hours until SOHR made a report possibly confirming this, or some other source. If no secondary confirmation is made by tomorrow I will revert it back to government-held or at the very least edit it as contested. P.S. After reading your sources I agree now on Yalda. EkoGraf (talk) 00:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Alepo Power plant

I did not want to say that it is small or big but i think it is rather better to put it as a military base because i does not represent for what the dots are used.My suggestion is for you is to put the power plant as a base (with the color green of course).It will be better like that as the plant does not represent a town but a complex of buildings, it is rather a base for the opposition.If that can not be done then it is ok to put it as a dot but if you can make it as a base(like government once but green)it will be betterDaki122 (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I did put it back as a dot until further noticeDaki122 (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ergenekon

I seriously don't know what you're on about with declaring Ergenekon trials and Ergenekon (organization) "unbalanced" in a "pro-AKP" or "gulenist" way. I'm not remotely either of those, and I've contributed substantially to the topic (though less so to those main articles, which are a bit outdated), and I don't know what sources or facts would generate a major shift in perspective. So, please clarify. Podiaebba (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

? - synth or not, it's also one of the points in favour of the idea of the trials overegging the pudding. Podiaebba (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I read it totally opposite. Regardless, it can't be included without sourcing. The main issue (particularly in the "trials" article) is that there is a dizzying focus on every little detail of the unfolding of the case, not helped by weird, hyperspecific content forks like this. Taken as a whole, it effectively drowns out whatever criticism is incorporated—the articles themselves come off as "overegged". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Weapons found in the Ergenekon investigation is a subarticle, not a content fork. And I split it off precisely because the excessive detail was overwhelming the main article, and shunting it off elsewhere solved that. As to excessive detail generally: well this a lengthy set of trials involving 300 people - how can adequate documentation of it not have large amounts of detail? I mean, you could boil it down to the fact of the convictions, but I don't think that's a good idea, do you? TBH, I gave up on tackling the main articles because the topic is so unmanageably big and complex I didn't really know what to do with them. I concentrated on related articles instead. Podiaebba (talk) 18:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Happy medium". Not suggesting to leave it at the convictions, but I do think that, for instance, listing the names of practically every person charged and giving the specifications of each individual hand grenade is well over the top. Detail is important, but if you provide too much you hopelessly dilute the main ideas and hinder readability. Summarising the intricate detail and incorporating more (sourced) analysis of the trials is what I had in mind. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:44, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Otaybah

The dubious source from before was talking about Abadeh, Deir Salman and Qaysa. As far as Otayba was concerned they talked about fighting in the outskirts of the town but fighting inside it was never mentioned. Besides, the pro-government source states they secured the Otayba area (which can mean its countryside as well, not just the town) after rebels infiltrated a few days ago, not two weeks ago when the rebel offensive was launched, so this is some totally new thing separate from those past events that happened only recently. EkoGraf (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

So, rebels bypassed the towns between Otaybah and their shrunken holdings in East Ghouta and randomly materialised around 10km behind the front lines in an operation totally unrelated to the recent reports of rebel advances? Not exactly the most parsimonious explanation. Look at a map: Abbadah, Dayr Salman, and Qaysa all lie between the Otaybah and rebel-held core of East Ghouta. If you're going to advance into Otaybah from Ghouta, it could well take over a week given that you'd have to first push through that area. Any rebel advances in this area will very likely be short-lived, but that doesn't mean they can't happen. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:36, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Who said the rebels fighting at Otaybah are the ones from the surrounded part of East Ghouta? When you look at the map it is obvious that the ones that fought at Abbadah, Dayr Salman and Qaysa were from inside the surrounded areas of East Ghouta, but the only ones who could have been attacking the Otaybah area were rebels from outside the surrounded East Ghouta, outside the siege ring. Which is quite logical, if they wanted to break the siege the rebels would have attacked on two fronts, from inside the surrounded East Ghouta (Abbadah-Dayr Salman-Qaysa front) and from outside it (Otaybah front). Also this was not the first time we had fighting on the Otaybah front, about a month and a half ago, long before the recent rebel offensive, rebels attempted to attack the siege line at Otaybah from outside East Ghouta, it ended with an Army ambush and 40 rebels dead [8]. By all accounts, rebels hold territory east of Otaybah, that is, east of the surrounded Ghouta area. EkoGraf (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

And who said they weren't? You're saying that if rebels advanced into Abbadah, the town immediately west of Otaybah, there is absolutely no way they could have moved 2km east into Otaybah? Even if some attack was sent from the wastelands east of Otaybah, the intent would be for them to link up in the town with the forces coming from the Dayr Salman–Qaysa–Abbadah front. Interesting though that you now seem to acknowledge that there was fighting in those towns.

That source says nothing about rebels attacking anything, let alone trying to break the siege. The location is also highly unspecific, especially given that the "Otaybah area" also includes the large lake of the same name to the north (which may well account for the "small river" state TV showed). Given the high rebel casualties and the amount of materiel seized, the army almost certainly ambushed an unsuspecting rebel supply convoy which probably was trying to slip across the blockade and reinforce their besieged comrades in Ghouta. And really, I can't see why throwing a small collection of over-armed fighters—whose supply lines are likely stretched across many miles of desert wasteland—to attack a town at the very rear of the siege lines would be a "logical" strategic decision to make. This is like the frequent bloodbaths near Adra, which looks to be almost certainly major transit point for fighters and supplies between the Ghouta and Qalamoun enclaves. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think there has been a misunderstanding here Lothar, I never acknowledged there was fighting in the towns of Dayr Salman, Qaysa, Abbadah. Rather, I consider there was fighting in their general area (countryside) of those three towns. And it would be logical if they wanted to squeeze government forces from both sides of the siege line. I remind you that when the rebel offensive started two weeks ago the first reports of fighting were actually at Otaybah, not on the Dayr Salman–Qaysa–Abbadah front. The reports of the fighting on the inner front of the siege lines was reported a full two days AFTER there were reports of fighting at Otaybah. In any case, this is all irrelevant at this point. The offensive ended. The point is, the SANA source said they secured the Otaybah area, and like I and you yourself said the area also includes the town's countryside and the lake. So the SANA report is as you would put it unspecific. As for whether the rebels captured those three towns or not, I believe they did not, for several reasons. First, there were never reports of fighting in those three towns itself, rather around them. Second, yes SOHR itself said seven villages were captured by the rebels and the Army itself admitted this but the names were never stated. Third, yes you had a few activists and the FSA media center (both outside Ghouta) claiming to had captured the towns and essentially broken the siege, however, at the same time, you had activists from inside Ghouta denying reports of rebel advances and saying they were still under siege. Fourth, the official position of the rebel battalions at the start of the offensive was that they would make a statement on which towns they captured when the offensive ends, in essence a media black-out was in effect...the offensive ended a week ago but they never gave a statement. So a lot of contradictions coming from opposition activists and the rebels, while SOHR, the most reliable source we have, was unspecific over what advances the rebels made. So, a lot of contradictions there. Also, one more thing, ever since the offensive ended there has been no reports of fighting in those three towns...not even shelling (which would be logical if the Army wanted to recapture them)...rather there have still been reports of fighting in the Marj area as of just a few days ago, so based on just this I would say the inner line is still at between Marj Sultan and Dayr Salman. EkoGraf (talk) 08:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

These towns are diffuse farming villages with little clear distinction between countryside and town. Fighting "in the area" is not really different from fighting "in the town", given that the towns themselves bleed into the countryside and even into each other. As regards the activist reports, I really don't understand why it's so hard for you and others to understand that rebels could have advanced without breaking the siege or even fully securing the towns. "Contested" is the most reasonable designation.

Given that SOHR has reported clashes near Ahmadiyah within the last 24 hours, I'm sceptical as to whether the offensive is over. But if it has indeed ended, then you and other editors have simply worked to mince words to suppress valid information that didn't fit your black-and-white interpretation of grey events. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Interesting that you find fighting "around" Khan Tuman be a valid reason to add a nice red ring to it, while maintaining that fighting "around" these towns cannot be marked. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I am sure that the frontline is at otaybah,because many pro-government news are talking about resecuring otaybah ,and previous sources talked about rebels seizing 7 towns in the eastern ghouta,so I think at least that all town west of otaybah to be putted contested till further news comes,Alhanuty (talk) 04:46, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

http://eaworldview.com/2013/11/syria-forecast-battles-east-ghouta-near-damascus/#ghouta,written by a reliable author,reports that the ANC reported that all cities west of otaybah are rebel controlled,but I suggest putting them contested till further source emerges.Alhanuty (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Yazdânism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:

• [[Turkish people|Turkish]]-[[Qizilbash]]-[[Alevi]]-[[Bektashi]]s'' in such a way that the prophecy]] of [[Muhammad]] as it was revealed by the verses of the [[Quran]] does not constitute a part of
• | edition =2nd (20020

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:38, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Al-Tall

Thank you for reverting me. This map history is becoming a mess, I could not find the NYT reference you mentioned, but I managed to do so through google. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/world/middleeast/in-syria-motorists-press-on-yielding-for-war.html

I make edits in good faith and not impulsively to serve any POV. Thank you for your core contribution to this topic and also the detailing of the Halbun checkpoint. Regards - Ariskar (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your core contribution to the Syrian Civil war topics Ariskar (talk) 12:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Syria

Yea I sized the towns down all of them even government ones I mean look it the size of this http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.891422&lon=36.789436&z=15&m=b&search=harasta%20syria this is not a town it is a village as well as all other towns you added and about the changes in Suwayda province i will revert it to contested but you keep on asking things and you never compromise.An-Nabk has been taken by the army and we have sources that say so.Daki122 (talk) 13:37, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And about the size lets be honest here these towns can be at max around 1000 people given the size on the map my home town is 4 times bigger in size and housing and it has 10000.This towns that you have added are smaller then the Alepo power stationDaki122 (talk) 13:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I think i got them all back to the original size even tough i highly doubt that these towns have little over 5000 people given the size of them but nvm i just wanted to size them down cuz they were almost on top of each other it is rely hard to see which town you are looking when they are like that.Daki122 (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Red and black partisan edit warring

Hi, could you please take a look at this? I noticed that you already made previously such report and I simply don´t have time, nor nerves to try to revert his destruction of all articles he touches. Its pretty obvious that RBP doesn´t give two shits about anyone but himself, so hopefully this time someone will just end it as they should´ve done long time ago. Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:34, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Ellsworth SK you and your family eat my shit. At lunch dinner eat my shit. At breakfast, eat my shit.