User talk:AlAboud83

This user is in school.

This user is taking a wikibreak and may be away or inactive for varying periods of time.
Although they may occasionally be able to do some editing, messages left for them may not be replied to for a while.
They will be back on Wikipedia when school is over.

This is AlAboud83's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 14 days

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Eastern Ghouta

I think the situation is at this point highly unclear. We got opposition political commities and the rebel leadership claiming victories, opposition activists on the ground fiercely denying the victories and saying they are still besieged [1] and the rebel units involved in the fighting and most importantly SOHR being silent about what has happened or has in fact not happened. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we then put them contested till further news appear Alhanuty (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree, that's my sugestion also. EkoGraf (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which towns are to be included.Alhanuty (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

is Yabrud contested.Alhanuty (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Which cities do you suggest we put contested.Alhanuty (talk) 23:10, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of Syrian civil war general sanctions

As a result of a community discussion, long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Syrian civil war, broadly construed, have been acknowledged. The community has therefore enacted broad editing restrictions, described at WP:SCWGS and below.

Any uninvolved administrator may, at his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length, bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict, bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics, restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor shall be given a warning with a link to this decision and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the decision. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:SCWGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening, summarizing, (in) article Syrian civil war

Hello Alhanuty. Article Syrian civil war tends to get (much) too long. In recent months several editors have noticed it to be too long, in discussions or by putting a tag above the article (for example the tags on 13Nov and 24Nov2013 when the article was 197,000 bytes and 200,000 bytes respectively).

The Wiki guideline Wikipedia:Splitting#Size split recommends that an article larger than 100 kB “should almost certainly be divided”. Although that guideline (like everything) is ofcourse open for discussion, I think that in the history of this article too, repeatedly editors have urged for summarizing and shortening when the article became much bigger than 100kB. The tag presently above the article also asks for the content to be condensed, and/or to be split into sub-articles.

When between 13Nov(when a first tag was placed) and 6Dec2013 nobody had taken a shot at summarizing and condensing, I made my attempt, 6Dec,16:39, shortening section 2.7 (civil war, Nov2012 – 3April2013) from 1397 to 140 words (which shortened the article from 203,000 to 186,000 bytes) and moving the complete removed part of old section 2.7 to a sub-article Syrian Civil War, November 2012 – March 2013. Some hours later, you reverted that edit for the most part, saying In your edit summary: “Restored information that was deleted”.

This puzzles me. Information “deleted”? I removed the entire old text of 2.7 to a new page, new article, in Wikipedia, so no “information” was lost, “deleted”, at all, from Wikipedia. Yes: I replaced (‘summarized’) that old text in that article for a new, shorter text. Technically, that is pretty much the only way how anyone can make an article shorter. It is done dayly in many articles, and has also very often been done already in article Syrian civil war.

You told us in your edit summary what you did (you replaced, restored that old version), but not, why you did that.

Why did you (mostly) revert that edit of mine? Do you principally object to condensing, shortening articles, even when the removed information is moved to a new subarticle? Do you not mind an article to be 200,000 or today 204,000 (or, later, 300,000; 400,000; 500,000 ...) bytes long? Or did you perceive grave errors in the summary I proposed? Corriebertus (talk) 18:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but the info is soooooooo important,it mentions how thr rebels expanded from small pocket,to controlling nearly 60% of syria.Alhanuty (talk) 19:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the rebels between Nov 2012 and March 2013 expanded from small pockets to controlling 60% ? If it is true, and as important as you say it is, why then is it not mentioned in that section 2.7 : Syrian civil war#Rebel offensives (November 2012 – April 2013) ? Corriebertus (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war

Hey some guy added a section onto the Syrian Civil War page called "shelling of peaceful quarters" , where he uses a bunch of Russian sources to say that "oppposition terrorists" are always the ones shelling peaceful neighborhoods according to residents. Its really undue and POV pushing, can you remove it? I would my self but I am topic banned until the 18th Sopher99 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Show me the history of the article so I could act of this .Alhanuty (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

I did not use pro government sources I try to stick neutrality. And many reliable sources used information from the agency SANA and SOHR if they believe their data accurate. But directly use SANA and SOHR for editing we should not. Hanibal911 (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Russia today and xish are pro-govornment and all editor in 2012,have decided to not use them are sources,also xish is controlled by the Chinese communist government.also Russia today by the Russian government.Alhanuty (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So self revert yourself,because other editors will revert your edit.Alhanuty (talk) 00:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you think I'm wrong then why you are editing map without specifying the source.her And why you add the archaeological site to map because there's nothing there are only ruins. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And if you noticed, I have not used as a source Xinhua or SANA. I used reliable sources, who used information from the Xinhua News Agency. Like many news agencies use the information from the pro opposition source SOHR. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is confirmation of my information from a branch of the Chinese news agency in the U.S. China Daily USA Hanibal911 (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

how you are arab and kurdish at the same time? you mean that you has both arab and kurdish ancestory?

or you are just adding userboxes for fun?. you already has ridiculous userboxes like "This user recognizes the Palestinian Right of Return.‡" and "This user supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) campaign against Israeli apartheid".do you know anything about the "palestinians" and the israeli-arab conflict at all??. your favorite subject is history so its about time for you to read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Southern_Levant instead believing in the arabic propaganda.