Talk:Control of cities during the Syrian civil war

Template:Syrian Civil War sanctions

Important message from creator of map: Please read

Wikipedia administration is obviously not happy about the way the map is being managed (refer to the indefinite block of Hanibal911 for violation of Wikipedia rules on the map). We need to conform more strictly with Wikipedia rules. I have been in contact with administrators with respect to the situation and am in charge of putting back the map in strict conformity with Wikipedia rules & standards. You have to realize that many admins do not like the map and consider it un-encyclopedic and in violation with WP:NOTNEWS. They are waiting for an opportunity to harm it and lead to its deletion. Those of you who have been around about a year ago know that the map has been nominated for deletion and survived the procedure. You also have to know that the first version of the article “Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War” was deleted after an “Articles for deletion” (AfD) procedure and I had to fight back and create a new modified version. In any case, I will do whatever it takes to protect us. I count on your cooperation and discipline. Please avoid getting in contact with admins and be very nice if they are around and let me handle them. We need to conform strictly with the following Wikipedia rules:

1-Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from reliable outlets are approximate and therefore unreliable for any use. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any use. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
I cite the WP:RS rule verbatim: “Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets, are largely not acceptable as sources.” Source: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources
I cite the WP:CIRCULAR rule verbatim: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.” At least one map maker has admitted to using the Wikipedia map as a source. There is strong suspicion others do the same.

2-WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will no longer be tolerated. If you are not sure what the source is saying, post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed. Tradedia^talk 09:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia I really didn't know that tweets can't be used as a source. I mean, i understand the term that anybody can make a tweet, but we have a "list" of pro-government and pro-opposition users that are active for several years, i believe that 50% of our edits are based on their tweets, and it's somehow working, no complains about that ... but ok. Something else, can we use this talk page as a source, i mean if we aren't sure about something, we disquss it here, and if everyone agrees about something, we make an edit based on the talk page, is that ok ? DuckZz (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Edits are not made based on total consensus, DuckZz, they are made based on general consensus involving everyone who participates in editing the page.

Tweets are fine to use as sources, so long as they can be backed up by other, more reliable, sources, should they come from smaller, lesser known, and possibly less reliable ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

So Elijah Magnier can no longer be used as a source,but SOHR is the only source that can be used,SOHR has been an agreed condition between the editors and admins three years ago,and so the main source will be news outlets,what about ISW.Alhanuty (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

With such rules no Pro ISIS sources can be used. How is that neutral ? (All pro ISIS sources are tweets) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference to twitter was more in the context of copying from maps. The problem with maps is that we don’t know when they are guessing and when they are not. Twitter is not a source. Twitter is a media tool. The person writing the tweet is the source. Since Elijah Magnier is a well-known journalist, he is a valid source. So it all depends on the credibility of the person writing the tweet. Anyone can open a twitter account and start relaying rumors. It is important to also not use a source automatically, but assess the credibility of the writer and see what other sources are saying about the same town/situation. Some people who tweet are known to have information about the situation in Syria. So they can be used as a source, while taking into account their bias (no pro-gov/opp/kurd/ISIS sources for gov/opp/kurd/ISIS gains). For example, we can use the tweets of Leith Abu Fadel as a pro-gov source because we know he has information (similarly to other prominent pro-opp/kurd/ISIS internet activists). However, we cannot use the tweets of PinkFuzzy444 because we don’t know who the heck it is. So we need to be careful and weight the news by the credibility of the writer. Again, we have to look at what other writers are saying as well. For example, it might be prudent to make a town contested based on one source and then wait a little for other sources to change the color completely. We are trying to avoid mistakes, but at the same time be reactive to changes on the ground, so it is all common-sense. All previous and new sources should be looked at before making a map change decision. There is a balance to be found between jumping the gun too early and being unreactive and have something become outdated. Concerning the question about the “talk page as a source”, the answer is yes. Tradedia^talk 18:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Hanibal911 .Because of the unfair way Hanibal911 has been treated I will no longer donate to Wikipedia and will advise others to do the same .Also I say goodbye to all of you on this talk page .thankyou .86.135.154.220 (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Didn't realise it, but we lost Lindi29 to a sockpuppetry indeff on the first, and the tools that were used to find the top editors are down (as of the day Hanibal911 was blocked). Lindi was quite active too (about 5% of edits to this module). Banak (talk) 22:56, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

talk Tradedia Users LightandDark2000 and 佐倉千代 are using twitter Hashtags as a source, pro-opposition tweets for Rebel advances etc.. breaking the rules and even making edits according to "their own opinion"... please respond, i can't revert them all because they make more than 10 changes during their edits so i need to do it manually. DuckZz (talk) 12:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustration with how this project was being managed drove me from this map 6 months ago. Glad to see some order is being restored. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

A quick clarification please, Tradedia; pro-gov't al Masdar and (for the purposes of this map) pro-op Institute for the Study of War are two of the more vigorous outlets reporting on the Syrian Civil War. Their reporting/information often comes in the form of maps, some more detailed than others. 100% unusuable? Not trying to equivocate, and will abide by your response for all future editing. Thank you. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Also would appreciate clarification on archicivilians, which I see is still in use as a source Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Boredwhytekid: Interesting that you mention the Institute for the Study of War. Just now, I had to revert an edit (based on their map) on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rif_Damashq.svg (see File talk:Rif Damashq.svg#Khan al-Shih). ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. So in this case, our Rif Damashq map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from ISW map!

Concerning al Masdar, he usually hosts maps by pro-gov PetoLucem (or another Persian map maker). There is a major difference between our map and their maps. Our map marks towns (or bases, etc.) that we have information for. On the other hand, their maps color the whole territory assigning a control status to every area. Do they really have enough information to assign every area to a specific party? Do they have information to be able to draw the frontlines? Our map has started by marking all the towns for which we had information/sources. We did not have the aim to cover the whole Syrian territory. We prefer not to guess. If we don’t have reliable sources/information about an area, we should just leave it empty.

Just because an amateur map is classified as pro-gov, it doesn’t mean that map is always correct for the towns that it marks as under rebel control (and vice versa for pro-rebel maps). We need to be examining all sources, instead of blindly copying someone else's map. For example, just because Peto Lucem is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. Many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

Also, i can give you 2 recent examples off the top of my head where the map by DeSyracuse was wrong and we copied it and made our correct map wrong:

1- See Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War/Archive 34#Abu al-duhur airbase

2- His map dated 8-january-2015 shows Kafr Shams gov-held. This was before the large gov offensive (beginning february). So we know it was wrong since one of the gov offensive’s objectives was to capture Kafr Shams.

Also, see here an honest dialogue with DeSyracuse, where I confront him with the fact that his maps are not up to Wikipedia standards.

We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse (same story for archicivilians)… We need a source that talks specifically about a location so that we know it is not guessing. So the source has to say: “location xyz is under this control or that status…” The news could be right or wrong, but we need a news, not a guess. Amateur maps have been wrong too many times and made our map wrong too many times. They are not sources. They are our competitors. Tradedia^talk 18:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Kurds vs regime in Qamishli

According to Now Lebanon there have been clashes going on between Kurdish forces and regime forces in the city of Qamishli. [1] 76.99.189.128 (talk) 18:34, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR Confirms: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B1%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B4%D9%84%D9%8A-%D8%A8%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A/ I believe the clashes were only temporary and have subsided since a reported prison exchange and hence, I propose setting the city back to mixed, stable control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 07:56, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you. Reports about "Unwritten truce in Qamishli." [2] Stharkov (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Masdar reports about new clashes in th city. 93.182.46.24 (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Offensive south of Tal Abyad

The map lists Hammam al Turkman and Sharakarak as under YPG control, yet two pro-YPG/rebel maps [3] [4] show them both under ISIS control for the time being. Additionally, a more conservative map maker [5] depicts that Ayn Issa and Qantari were not taken either, although Qantari was later reached today, but this means we labelled Qantari as YPG days before this happened. What sources are editors here relying on? It's difficult to browse through the edit history every time a major change is made, so can editors please just drop a shout here in the discussion, as a courtesy call? Then when issues like this arise, we can easily access the sources responsible.

I'm not sure what to do about Ayn Issa. Others on Twitter claim to have local sources (SRO, CizireCanton, etc), yet others still speak of a push towards Ayn Issa taking place now, alongside Sarrin. After Qantari, there's some serious questioning regarding the status of Ayn Issa. Especially since Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa is claiming they were as far south as Khunayza ("almost") [6] and Tel Seman [7] while also claiming they are assaulting Hazima [8]. Those are so close to Raqqa, around here [9]. I don't see any non-anonymous source aside from LTR on Twitter or anywhere else for Ayn Issa. For the time being, we should wait until we had confirmation that Ayn Issa is captured. I'm also reverting Hammam al Turkman and Sharakarak since nobody has seriously claimed them. NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:38, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Since I just reverted an edit, would it be considered a revert if I changed those two towns (Hammam al Turkman and Shar Karak) from yellow to black, given that they've been this way for days already? Also based on observing this source [10] [11], the current claim that the operation reached Ayn Issa does NOT make a supportable claim that Ayn Issa is captured by them. Reaching and capturing a town are different; it seems WSJ was intentionally vague due to the murkiness of current reports. Can someone please revert it to black? NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Every edit on this map was added by someone, so when is an edit considered a revert, and when is it not? NightShadeAEB (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB, can you edit that Islamic State pocket west of Tall Abyad to YPG control? There are 9 villages there. These sources say that it is no longer under Islamic State control.

https://mobile.twitter.com/LCarabinier/status/611227480343584768/photo/1

https://mobile.twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/611339220444160000/photo/1

Thank you. With regards to the editing based on questionable/ameteur sources, I do think it's true some people were too quick to edit based on rumors. However, I also think it's important to trust people's good faith when they edit. In many cases, the reports are quite accurate, but more trustworthy sources don't report the news until later. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Someone's already changed them to yellow, which is accurate in this case. But Hammam al Turkman and Shar Karak should still be returned to black. The reports we use are usually accurate, but this time there have been a lot of mistakes. NightShadeAEB (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this pro-kurdish map released today (18 june) YPG/FSA-forces are yet not in Ayn Issa and villages just east of Al-Qantari are still under ISIS control. Rhocagil (talk) 19:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@sylezjusz Twitter is so far the most reliable mapmaker on Rojava. Everybody else jumped the gun and declared Ayn Issa liberated, he did not. When he updates a map to contradict other mapmakers, I think he should be given the upper say. Here's the latest map version, shows them still some distance from Ayn Issa. We should remove the green colour from its outskirts. Latest map NightShadeAEB (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Using 'reliable' sources quoting rebels to justify rebel advance

An edit was made adding a location to the map which was supposedly controlled by rebels here [12]. The source [13] used to justify this edit was quoting pro rebel sources and clearly biased. Since the source was not neutral i reverted the edit. Now the editor in question has personally visited my talk page and threatened me with reporting me to an admin for an unjustified rollback [14]...

Now i have the feeling biased editors are justifying rebel advances by quoting, for them 'reliable' sources, even though these sources as biased.

I'd like to know if there are any standards for using 'reliable' biased sources here?

Cheers. Spenk01 (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

if you read the report well,you will see that on the contrary,it reports the hills under rebel control,and here is another http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-braces-for-refugees-as-syrian-rebels-surround-druze-town/.so stop making biased edits,because there now has been repeated incident of appearence of multiple pro-government account with their only focus of imposing the pro-government narrative on the articles.Alhanuty (talk) 01:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"“Hader is now totally surrounded by rebels, who just took a strategic hilltop north of the village,” Observatory director Rami Abdel Rahman told AFP." cited a SOHR source which is not a justification for rebel advance. And i only have one account on wikipedia, don't bother to blame me for something i haven't made myself guilty to. I'm just guarding the integrity of this article and you are definately quoting pro rebel sources to justify rebel advance. last time i checked this wasn't according to the rules of this page. You should use a pro government source to justify rebel advance. And i don't agree with the way you are treating me either. Spenk01 (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR is a reliable source.PERIOD.Ask anybody about SOHR and they will give you the same answer so self-revert,plus you have breached the 1RR Rule,so i advise you to self-revert.Alhanuty (talk) 02:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR might be a reliable source but it's definately not a neutral source, it's biased towards the rebels. As i said you migh think a source is reliable but you can't use it to justify rebel advance if it's a pro rebel source. I could say the exact same thing about Al-Masdar news or SANA which i consider more reliable than 1 man managed SOHR. I have not breached the 1RR since i have only undone your edit, after that i have merely edited the status of this hill according to the article you provided but in a neutral point of view. Spenk01 (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you Spenk01, we should wait for the confirmation from pro-gov. sources. There is no need to hurry. Stharkov (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There's no rule on Wikipedia against using biased source as long as they are reliable. Pro-regime editors need to understand this. WP:NEUTRALSOURCE NightShadeAEB (talk) 11:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no standard for a reliable or non reliable source in this module, whereas pro-rebel supporters see SOHR as a relibable source, pro-government see SANA and al-Masdar as a reliable source but either one deny the reliability of the opponent's source. We have agreed upon the fact that we can not show opposition advance using sources in favour of them. pro rebel & pro government need to understand that. Spenk01 (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't wiki's Usage_by_other_sources consideration come into play at some point? Again, this specific SOHR claim is being cited widely by various outlets.. Bloomberg, Vice News, Times of Israel, ynet news, Daily Star, BBC. The situation is being discussed in the Israeli parliament; Israeli Druze communities are staging rallies over the developing situation.. The Israeli Druze community would not be so galvanized if the SOHR claim was fabricated. Frankly, we seem late to the game.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all opinions are equally valid. Whereas SANA resorts to making up information, the SOHR has been relatively accurate, to the point where some in the opposition have accused its runner of being an Alawite officer in the Syrian navy. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have caught SOHR multiple times on reporting a city being taken over while soldiers on the ground said that wasn't true. SOHR is also making up random numbers of casualties i do not consider SOHR to be reliable. the fact that various news outlets are quoting SOHR does not make SOHR more reliable since these outlets have commited themselves to biased reporting about the syrian civil war and since SOHR is one of the few reliable and relatively known rebel sources which report in English they quote that. Even though I was sure that editors of this map agreed upon the rule that you need a pro rebel source to justify SAA advance and pro SAA to justify rebel advance, this has nothing to do with reliability of a newsoutlet. And your argument about the guy behind SOHR is also made up and irrelevant to this subject. Spenk01 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It is irrelevant, but it goes to show that the SOHR doesn't kowtow to appease anyone, not even the opposition. As for Western media, if you're gonna argue that it's biased, one can easily see that it's biased against all sides in different ways. But for example, when rebels occupy a Christian town, the media goes crazy over minority persecution, but when the regime retakes a Muslim town, the media describes it as a strategic victory. Compare Maaloula versus Qusayr two years ago, as an example. But the sensationalization and misinterpretation aside, major media outlets are usually factual, and they give as much weight to claims as they are probable of being true. For example when there are videos of rebels inside Idlib city, the media can only ignore regime denials while still playing it safe, ex. "This video cannot be independently confirmed." The next time you notice the SOHR was wrong, please share it in the discussion as it'd help us ascertain credibility. NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:22, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB Boredwhytekid There has been a various POV vandalism edits since Hanibal is blocked. The same editors just revert back when i revert their edit. How to report someone ? I never did this before so i don't know DuckZz (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Me neither DuckZz. I've been looking around on this, and found this section [15]. I think since it's not clear what is happening is edit warring or vandalism, we can use this one [16] to simply get the attention of an administrator and see what can be done. Don't forget to notify users you bring up to admins. NightShadeAEB (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Bashkeuy (south of Tell Jibbin)

Bashkeuy was cleaned from Assad's Army: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1C2nDJVkf0&feature=youtu.be 88.226.73.222 (talk) 19:13, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

1 you cant use a video as source. 2 the buildings you see are outside of bashkoy, they are afghan buildings outside of the town rebels have not managed to breach into the town. Spenk01 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The area in the video http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=36.332850&lon=37.128414&z=18&m=b which is confirmed by pro SAA source https://twitter.com/watanisy/status/611256652780716032 It's on the outskirts of the town which is already marked as contested.Spenk01 (talk) 01:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

You reverted the edit which led to the whole Bashkuy dot disappearing. Does that mean Bashkuy wasn't on the map before? NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

No someone added Bashkoy with his unsourced edit, I just undone it. if you look closely you can see the village is still on the map though but not as a dot. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/51/Rif_Aleppo2.svg Spenk01 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

SAA recaptured al-Afghan Block. Source: SOHR [17] Stharkov (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Blocks

I've just blocked three different people for violating 1RR sanctions on this article in the last ~24 hours.

Everyone, please be careful not to edit war but instead to consistently use the talk page. If you see anyone violating 1RR, please report them rather than just violating it yourself to get your preferred version back.

I realize it's not ideal, and not all edits come equal, but it's the way that the rules are written, and for good reason: it helps keep sanity around here.

Thanks. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

what can be done with the disruptive pro-government accounts,they have to be informed with the editings rule.Alhanuty (talk) 22:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

@Alhanuty: in my experience in such situation, the accounts are usually not as fire-breathingly evil as it might seem at first glance. The best way to handle things is through dispute resolution. I also recommend you:

• Abide by the rules
• Report rule-breaking
• Are cordial to other parties even though you dislike them (I can't stress this enough)
• Follow the dispute resolution process

When people do this, it will usually work in their favor. Usually the bad apples manage to rot themselves enough that they get removed, and only the good guys are left. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm having an issue understanding what constitutes a revert and what doesn't, because as the nature of this map is, unless you're adding a new location, every single contribution counts as a "revert". At some point, like I did two days ago, you may notice no less than three areas needing fixing, but I can only fix one per day because I don't know whether I'll breach 1RR or not. I've written about the mistakes on the talk page but no one has fixed them themselves. Does this mean we're confined to a literal one contribution per day on this map? NightShadeAEB (talk) 13:08, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

@NightShadeAEB: I would not personally consider it a revert unless it is regarding the same dispute. If someone made a change two months ago due to a movement, and now there is a totally different set of circumstances, and there was never a dispute, then I would not consider that a revert. Does that answer your question? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:15, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose it does. Thanks. But there's always someone who edits as soon as a glimmer of new information is found, making an original edit next to impossible to find. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you block the person who reverted the Damascus area map to the old inaccurate map? Why was this done? It is an obvious violation of the rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Tuloul al Hemer

Acc. to pro-gov sources, Army "has captured Taloul Al-Hamr (Tuloul al Hemer) in Al-Quneitra" and "Hadar is no longer besieged" Sources: [18] [19] [20]. No confirmation yet from pro-rebel sources. Stharkov (talk) 19:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

al Masdar too. Let's keep eyes open for more sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 19:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

The location of this hill is wrong. According wikimapia this hill is north-east of Hadar, between Hadar and Beit Jean. According pro gov source SAA control also Ibra Joudeh Hadr Hills south of the village 217.99.132.128 (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2015

Acc. to pro rebel source Abdel Rahman SAA captured one hill north of Hader but I can't find any hill north of Hader on wikimapia (except the Red Hills)....SOHR report about "advancement in the area for the last mentioned party (SAA) and taking control over a hill in the vicinity of Hder". Stharkov (talk) 08:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no other hill north to Hadar, next is Mt Hermon and Tell Harboon, but this is far far away 217.99.132.128 (talk) 11:21, 20 June 2015

Ariha should be grey or grey / green

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/11638630/Al-Nusra-Front-rebels-take-Idlibs-last-Syria-regime-bastion-in-pictures.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.219.34 (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

We already had a disqussion about this. These sites are using SOHR as a source, but obviously wrong, because SOHR clearly said "Jaish Fatah" and named 5 groups, together with Al Nusra, not enough for joint control. DuckZz (talk) 22:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with @OP that we should change the town to mixed control. According to this source [21] the offensive was lead by al-Nusra so they do have significant influence over this town. more sources that quote 'al nusra front & allies' taking Ariha: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] And this is only a fraction of the sources that claim al nusra took the town. We can't simply ignore the fact that al Nusra has a stake in this. Spenk01 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz You are arguing that the lime-yellow dot´s inside Kobane Canton should stay that way because that was the way they where reported captured. In the same way, if you follow your own logic Ariha must be marked under joint control (lime-grey). "SOHR clearly said "Jaish Fatah" and named 5 groups, together with Al Nusra" exactly, together = joint control. I don´t know if you are pro FSA and I don´t really care, but i serenely look like you are if you argument like this and you should at least pretend to do neutral edits. I think you are the most stabile editor since Hanibal was blocked (btw: why the FU** was he blocked? was he not the most nerd-loyal to the rules there is?). Well so please DuckZz keep up the good fight against the vandalizing. Rhocagil (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhocagil Spenk01 Ariha was a compensation for Idlib town. What does this mean ? We had a really hard disqussion about Idlib town, few days after it fell. SOHR and other rebel sources named groups which participated, and numbers, we used JAN sources and rebel sources. All of them stated that Al Nusra was only like 35% involved during the clashes. Which means that the joint control rule wansn't there, but still Idlib town stayed under joint control. Hanibal was the first person to change Ariha town, and he marked it as under rebel control, probably realizing his mistake for Idlib town.

Now some users like to use old sources to change some locations, which is fine, but the thing is, they use websites with articles, and those articles want to say "According to SOHR", but that's tottaly wrong. SOHR never said "Al Nusra took control, or Al Nusra and another group", they clearly said "Jaish Fateh took control, named Al Nusra and 5 other groups", and that's just not enough for joint control. 5vs1 is clearly too much.

Yes i do follow this logic, and yes Kobane town is not marked as under joint control, obviously YPG did like 70% of the job, but i marked a lime icon because of YPG statements that FSA helped them, also SOHR said that FSA captured the hospital inside Kobane etc.. I think the joint control should be removed from Soluk town, not a single source showed FSA groups, and the user who made that edit was doing POV vandalism action, nobody reverted it. Remove the joint icon from Soluk first, Kobane too, but things in Idlib are pretty much clear. DuckZz (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz, you're a seriously massive hypocrite.You're marking areas as under FSA control, that should be marked as under joint control (Islamists and FSA), but you get pissed off and start reverting edits made to Kobane Canton, when people start raising valid points, regarding whether or not FSA still has any presence at all in Kobane Canton.

I'm taking this issue up with Banak. If he agrees with me, I'm marking Ariha as under joint control of the FSA and Jabhat al-Nusra. If you revert my edits, I'm reporting you for vandalism of both the savable version of the map, as well as the more detailed one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaJesuZ (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Please be careful to understand what Vandalism is. "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you misunderstand this you risk believing you can revert an edit as being "obvious vandalism" only to discover it doesn't count and breaks the 1RR, and end up being blocked. Please make sure you fully understand what vandalism is not. It appears to me that you mean that you think that DuckZz is violating NPOV. I do not wish you to be blocked for misunderstanding this. There have been 41 blocks listed as being for 1RR/3RR on syrian civil war and iraqi insurgency modules/templates in less than 2 years.

Less importantly, but more what you were asking for, the usage of the grey colour has been debated, in particular when, if ever a mix of grey and green should be used. Roughly speaking green is "generic rebels" (any rebels that aren't JaN, IS or Kurds). However, people have said in the past that there needs to be a significant JaN presence to make it mixed grey/green, which leads to a whole load of debate about what constitutes it. I personally try to avoid such arguments. Banak (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz I thought Jaish Fateh was an operation room witch included JAN. As for Kobane the FSA forces are about 5% maximum 10% of joint the operation room there and the only place that is de facto under joint control now is Tal Abyad and especially it´s border crossing. Witch the kurds argued to maintain that way to try to calm Turkey. Probably maybe Ayn Issa will go under joint control, if and when it´s captured.Rhocagil (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhocagil Regarding your edits - nobody disputes that Liwa al Tahrir and Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa participated on the eastern front which took Suluk - to say nothing of the fact that Suluk is the second largest Arab city in the area after Tal Abyad. It stands to common sense that the FSA is there. Since we don't know how the city's gonna be administered, we should use the information we have, namely that the FSA, used by the YPG to gain legitimacy in an Arab area, participated in the overall campaign, and thus has probable presence in Suluk. Everybody says Suluk was captured by the YPG-FSA coalition, nobody so far has specified which specific factions claimed or administered the town. We can only judge based on what we know within reasonable expectations. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As for Jabhat al Nusra - the fact that it is being equated to the combined might of the rest of the opposition's factions, doesn't seem balanced at all. Ariha's area in Jabal al Arbaeen is a traditional stronghold of Suqur al Sham, now subsumed into Ahrar al Sham, making the non-Nusra Islamists more powerful than ever. Why would Nusra be treated as an equal here? Even for Idlib, Saraqeb, Maarat al Nuuman and Khan Shikhoun the colours don't make sense. Jisr al Shughour makes sense because of the presence of Jabhat Ansar al Din and Junud al Sham which lend weight to the Nusra-Jund al Aqsa Salafi-jihadi brotherhood. But this trend of turning every city where Nusra makes headlines into Nusraland is very biased. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Actually why didn't we think of this before. Change all joint-control towns between Nusra & other opposition so that Nusra is a smaller grey/blue icon embedded in the green icon. Just like Kobane. We should do the same for Tal Abyad and Suluk. That way we remain fair and consistent towards all parties, recognizing those who make up the majority. NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:49, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB (The Suluk edit) It does not stand to common sense that FSA was there when captured. The FSA that joined in with YPG from the east front was merely a hand full. And I don´t care "common sense" since that is something existing very rarely in here. I do care sources and and discussion about them. And now a source was provided for the Suluk take over, trustworthy or not I don´t know but it was a source. I´m sorry for my edit and I stand corrected. As for the Tell Abyad situation this is one of few, maybe the only situation where there is de facto a joint control over a town or parts of it between YPG-FSA as the Kurds clearly said that this is the way AranewsRhocagil (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, every source says the YPG-FSA coalition took the area, Suluk included. The source provided for reverting your edit doesn't really satisfy me, but mainstream media and YPG spokespersons mentioning the battle for Tal Abyad, including its rural areas and not just the city itself, includes FSA allies, should be enough for us to consider the FSA a partner. I found an approximate source that could be used: [29]

"The Kurds who dominated the battle in Kobane have been joined by several Free Syrian Army units. They are fighting as a coalition called Burkan al-Furat, or Euphrates Volcano. Forces with the coalition also have advanced from Kurdish-held territory to the east of Tel Abyad. On Saturday, they encircled the town of Suluk, to the south of Tel Abyad, further pressuring the Islamic State."

This shows the FSA participated in the siege, at least. Or rather, "the coalition" participated. The key here is that the media doesn't distinguish between subfactions of the coalition; it's basically "YPG et al". NightShadeAEB (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Changing Al-Rastan to contested

Al-Rastan should be changed to contested based on this televised report from Al-Mayadeen from inside the city where they state that the syrian army still controll the northern neighboorhoods of the inside city.

http://mayadeen.trafficmanager.net/Newscast/nJGsr09A,EGmTaJfAN_SlA/6/2013-10-22

http://www.almayadeen.net/news/syria-HKAjFbEGsk6hxaS5ANS9RA/الرستن-واحدة-من-أعقد-مناطق-تواجد-المسلحين-في-شمال-حمص (Ali bachir (talk) 10:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali bachir (talk • contribs) 10:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) 

While I agree, this source cannot be used since it has a fairly pro government stance. It's not extremely pro, like Leith, but we should still look for better sources. For now, it's likely best that Rastan keeps the red from the North. MesmerMe (talk) 11:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

This is not about some random claim from Al-Mayadeen, i know they are pro gov, but this is a tv report where they are reporting from INSIDE the city, their reporter concluded the report by a video message from inside the city northern neighboorhood where SAA soldiere are positionned so it should be changed to contested. (Ali bachir (talk) 12:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC))

Or it should be changed to three way held (Nusra, FSA, SSA). There is an icon for that. Rhocagil (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Some will say this is a pro-government source that can't be used, despite the readiness of the scientific method (geolocation). I would agree with it, but I don't think the video is from inside Rastan. The conclusion of the video said from the northern entrance of Rastan. There's a bridge that they do not cross, and a valley in between. It's probably located here: [30]

There's a clear discontinuity between the northern ridge, and the city itself. It doesn't seem to be considered part of the city according to the map, although the extent of the municipality's authority on the ground could very well include it. Still, this to me seems similar to the situation with Jisr al Shughour and Idlib's outer checkpoints, which were marked separately from the cities themselves. I don't think it should be marked as contested. NightShadeAEB (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

In the report they talk about defending the rastan damn which means they are south of the damn thus inside the city, a city should be put as contested evn if one side controll only one building.

I have been following this page for months now and there where always report from SOHR about clashes inside the city of rastan but they would be ignorent because there where not providing any evidence and the editors where afraid it was a mistranslation or a misenterpretation of the situation.

Now i am providing a proffessional video evidence from inside the city the city of Rastan, the position of the outlet who made the video is irrelevent, because they have actually provided a sybstantial evidence for their claim.

In the end it is the editors choice, but to refuse to change the city to contested, based on actual evidence not random claims, would reflect the wrong direction this map is taking since the editors are now ignoring undisputable evidence in favor of their political oppinion or the fear of being blocked after the recent events. (Ali bachir (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC))

The editors refused my videos before. I'm not refusing yours, but did you even look at the map I posted? South of the dam is still outside the city itself, your own video shows them north of the bridge which they do not cross. Calling it a "professional video" doesn't change the fact that you are misrepresenting it. With a simple geolocation, I can show them as being outside the city, and if they were inside, they'd control perhaps a few buildings - hardly enough for a change in a city the size of Rastan. In Homs the opposition controls a whole neighbourhood - Waer - and the city is still considered red. What does that say about the wrong direction of this map when you complain about Rastan, but no one complained about Homs, or previously Idlib during the battle?

Please open this link and check for yourself the area between the dam and the bridge: http://wikimapia.org/#lang=en&lat=34.934391&lon=36.736779&z=16&m=b Ali bachir NightShadeAEB (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Skakh

SAA forces recaptured Skakh (Sakaka), west of al-Tha’la military airport. Source: SOHR [31] pro-gov sources: Rook and ElectronicResistance stharkov (talk) 11:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Reports

Reporting user LightandDark2000 for using rebel sources for rebel advances, kurdish sources for kurdish advances here1, and here2. I don't want to revert those edits because that obviously doesn't make any sense, the user will do it again. DuckZz (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Damascus map? Why was it reverted to old inaccurate map?

It took a long time to have the Damascus map updated with the information from the Pentagon linked ISW reports. Now the map has been reverted to the inaccurate old map. Why is this? The top left corner is Purple and the bottom left corner is mostly government except for one besieged city. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

You should ask Tradedia. Rhocagil (talk) 22:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

ISW maps have been found in our past experience to be approximate. They should not be used as a source. In fact, there is a good reason why “Copying from maps is now strictly prohibited” (see #Important message from creator of map: Please read). So the April 2015 ISW map shows the rebels in control of only the town of Khan al-Shih?! Clearly in the past, they had a large area around it including the towns of al-Dirkabiya, Zakiyah, al- Mqelabiyya, al-Taybeh. So did the gov recapture those towns back? There is no such news anywhere on the internet (not even from pro-gov media)! A check like this needs to be done before changing our map. This is not the first mistake from ISW map (and likely not the last). In fact, on June 13, 2015, SOHR reported “The regime forces opened fire on areas in the road between the towns of Khan al-Shih, Zakya and al- Mqelabiyya in west of Rif Dimashq and on areas in al- Mqelabiyya town, information about injuring of some people in al- Mqelabiyya town.” So our map was correct, and we made it wrong by copying from an approximate map! Please stop copying maps and stick to real sources (news reports). We never know when maps are approximate, guess-work, or worse…

Concerning "the top left corner", it will be made "purple" soon, but this time based on a real source (http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-cut-water-supplies-feeding-damascus/). Tradedia^talk 02:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Shulah

This pro government map show more closely how the current situation is in Shulah, the Oil Field East of the city is SAA held, but the city is IS/SAA held. My suggestion is to keep it like it currently (or possible a read half circle) and put a SAA held SAA Oil Field. Moreover, this map shows Akram Oil Field, North of Palmyra as SAA held, since this is a Pro Government map no changes should be made, but it's an interesting note.MesmerMe (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Please see #Important message from creator of map: Please read Tradedia^talk 10:44, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not copying anything, Leiths' map simply confirms the map since the current wiki map already indicates that everything east of Shulah is SAA held. I simply suggest to to put the Shulah Oil Field on there as SAA held (same as Thayyam), which will clarify the situation there. MesmerMe (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No, the current wiki map does not indicate that everything east of Shulah is SAA held. There is the Deir ez-Zor city small map that indicates that the east of the 137th Armoured Brigade is SAA held. Then to the west of the Deir ez-Zor city small map there is a white space, then there is Al-Shulah contested icon. We do not have information about the white space between the Deir ez-Zor city small map and Al-Shulah. Leiths' map shows SAA in control of the area south of the the Deir ez-Zor city-Al-Shulah road (which includes the Shulah Oil Field). How do you know that SAA does not instead control the area north (not south) of the the Deir ez-Zor city-Al-Shulah road (which does not include the Shulah Oil Field)? In this case, ISIS could be in control of the Shulah Oil Field. Tradedia^talk 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

That is actually a really nice map, Can you find the original size? I found this hasakah map which is a close of of the one you provided, but I'd really like to see other areas close up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumada (talk • contribs) 13:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go: http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/battle-map-syrian-civil-war-june-2015/ MesmerMe (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

This pro-government map says that the areas south of Palmyra and east of Suwayda are not government held. Our map shows government towns and positions there. I don't think there are any. What is the status of these areas? Who holds and controls this terrain? Is there a significant army presence in these towns and on those mountains to warrant red icons? 2601:C7:8303:22DC:80FF:CA06:FCEA:9BC6 (talk) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

If this map is accurate, al Asaylem, Faraj, and Abwah need to change from YPG held to IS held. It also confirms the edits I made in Easter Hasakah and that whoever is vandalizing it is wrong. Tgoll774 (talk) 23:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

New map by Al Masdar is a disgrace

Al Masdar has started a new map obviously based on copying our map without even giving us credit! So after DeSyracuse copied our map and put his name on it, now Al Masdar is copying our map and putting their name on it. I wonder if there is a way to sue them for copyright infringement... In any case, their map is a clear violation of WP:CIRCULAR (“Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”) There is no way to know if the differences between their map and our map (or the additional things on their map) are based on information or guessing. Tradedia^talk 18:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Tradedia^talk Every map showing the situation in Syria looks almost the same, as it's not really hard to find out which town/village is under control of what group. A better idea would be to somehow better publish our File:Syrian civil war.png map, using a watermark, and maybe ask some reliable twitter user to publish it after we make the weekly update. We would get more attention to this map, while other users on twitter & co. will compare it to other map users and then warn them if they copy us.

Something else. I understand the rules, but the rule for map usage as a source is not really good in my opinion. I know that anyone can make a map, and claim this and that, but we really have few good, quality and realiable map users on twitter, pro-government/rebel/kurd, maybe we can make a list of what maps are acceptable to use as a source ? DuckZz (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

A list of valid maps is a damn good idea! I would also like a list of recognized "neutral" sources. Rhocagil (talk) 21:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, a list of sources with when we can use them would help. We could also make a blacklist. Ofc, the question becomes where to put these lists, and how to decide them. It probably won't change much for you frequent contributors, but it might help those of us that don't know your sources so well. Banak (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

We have been looking at reliable media & amateur maps for years now. None of them is “good, quality and realiable” and all of them made our map wrong many many time. There is not one map out there that meets Wikipedia standards for sources. Every map maker is approximating or guessing. Why should we copy the approximations or guesses when we can base our map on real information? We are working on an encyclopedia that has standards for reliability. None of the other map makers have such standards. Reliable media just need their map to give a general idea (approximate) to their readers. Amateur map makers can do what they want without ever having to show verifiability/sources. We gain nothing from copying maps other than pollute our map with mistakes.

Every element on our map should be verifiable. Our map was designed to represent the information in Wikipedia articles. Notice the “link=” parameter in the map code. This is supposed to link to the part in the Wikipedia article that contains the source and talks about the events in the town. Unfortunately, these links are not being maintained because of laziness because it is easier to just dump a source in the “Edit summary” rather than to write something in an article and then link it to the dot on the map. However, one day these links could be added after the fact and obviously copying from maps will not allow making these links.

Copying from maps has just become an easy way to do POV pushing, and this is what Wikipedia administration does not want anymore. There is a phenomenon of “map shopping” where our map becomes a sort of a video game between biased editors who shop for a map that is classified anti their favorite side and then look to see if some town colors are different from our map. They then just mindlessly copy the map without worrying about what sources were used on our map in the first place. In this case, they are not updating our map, but rather replacing correct information by the guessing or approximation of some map maker.

Before our map became popular on the internet, there were very few other maps. Now there are plenty of maps, and the main reason is that they more or less copy from us. Most editors here don’t have a real appreciation for our map and what it has accomplished. We built our map based on sources up to Wikipedia standards. Many of the early editors who have built this map to what it is now, have left for one reason or another. Newer editors have come and do not seem to have the high standards of previous editors and have just engaged in cluttering the map with a pile of icons copied from here and there… Our map is supposed to set the standard for maps on the internet, instead of bringing itself down to the level of forums and twitter junk. Tradedia^talk 03:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this going to be enforced at all? I mean, just since the last time I logged on, 1, 2, 3 (a map is referenced, but not even provided here), 4, 5, 6, 7, etc..! edits just straight from other maps. Not to mention the unsourced edits.. 1 2, 3, 4,.. Are the rules being enforced or not? Because 1RR makes it impossible for editors to push back a tide like that.. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

to be fair Al Masdar map uses Islamic World News and Peto Lucem sources for their map, with IWN releasing maps earlier than we edit. I dont think they care much about wikipedia map. Placing the maps over each other there are major differences. While I dont use Al Masdar due to its bias pro-gov stance, it has its own sources and this is evident from its articles, we cant say that they copy our 'wikipedia' articles too... Jumada (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don’t know how much they copied from Islamic World News and Peto Lucem. However, when I look at the map, I can clearly recognize that they are using our template map: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_location_map3.svg. They are also using the same kind of dots for towns and the same exact colors. They also have the same border posts with similar icon shape (not a standard shape, so they clearly copied it from us). So they obviously started by copying (literally print screen) our map then made modifications to it. Islamic World News and Peto Lucem do not have a Syria wide map with the level of detail of our map. Tradedia^talk 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Biyarat, Homs

Reports of the SAA taking Al-Biyarat, Homs, 10km from Palmyra Daily Star, The Sun.. both citing SOHR and al-Watan. Location of Al-Biyarat? Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Also al-Masdar is reporting the SAA recaptured Jazal and the Jazal gas fields. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Both Al-Biyarat and Jazal also confirmed here [32] to be recaptured by SAA. Is Al-Biyarat the place marked as Al Bilat on the map? If so than mark as SAA-held please. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Advances south of Tal Abyad

Ali Bajliya and Brigade 93 have reportedly been liberated. However, I can't find any original source for everyone else's claims aside from Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa. Given the wild claims made by LTR before, especially regarding the fall of Ayn Issa and the capture of Tel Seman, Khunayza and Hazima, I request that nobody changes anything from black until it gets confirmed by SOHR or other reputable sources. NightShadeAEB (talk) 15:23, 22 June 2015 (UTC) SOHR confirmed that they captured huge parts of it.Alhanuty (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Brigade 93 is already taken by YPG/Burkan. There are reports about the town of Ayn Issa (Bozanî) being captured by YPG/Burkan, but I suggest to wait untill ANHA confirms. Roboskiye (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000

What are you doing? Why are you using maps? Why are you using pro-rebel/YPG sources for rebel/YPG advances? here "Since the Free Syrian Army is the primary combatant in the Ayn Issa region, using "lime" color for non-town/village symbols." Source? Stharkov (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000 Please engage in the discussion section. Wikipedia is edited based on consensus, not solo work. If you continue to avoid engaging users, we will have no choice but to bring this to the attention of administrators. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB No use. This user is doing this for a certain period of time, last 2 weeks. I already reported him on this talk page but no answer from the administrator while he is more busy explaining to us how using maps or other similar sources are bad for this article, while on the other hand this user and others are doing more than just POV vandalism edits. I think it's better to just edit something without providing any source than providing sources against the rules. The best example is the area around Ayn Isa (north Raqqa), on our map it was rebel held, kurd held, contested, then again rebel held, then lime-kurd held and now again under IS control. According to some users, these edits were just fine, no sources but still OK ... unbelievable DuckZz (talk) 19:20, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I believe I responded to the previous discussions. I don't know what you guys think I'm doing, but I do provide sources for all of my edits. If you don't see it in my edit summary, then it means that I provided the source in a previous edit. LightandDark2000 (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000 You don't just have to respond once or twice, but regularly. As a regular contributor, it should be your responsibility to check the talk page for discussions and consensus. It feels like you're just going it alone most of the time. Try providing sources here in the talk page instead. This is not just you, but applies to most other people too lazy to document changes, but at least they engage in the discussion, so we can reach a common ground through dialogue. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

User:LightandDark2000, I think the issue here is the disregard for Tradedia's explicit instructions "Copying from maps is strictly prohibited" - outlined in the above section "Important message from creator of map: Please read". Your edits [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc, etc, are in blatant violation of that rule. And since 1RR binds other editors' hands from reverting these edits as fast as you're making them, it seems to be getting under peoples' skins, as vandalism. Self revert, please. Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

This is the latest news from "trustworthy" source (SOHR) on Brigade 83. It clearly states that battle is still ongoing inside the brigade, it should be marked contested. THis is also somewhat proof to user LightandDark2000 that maps shouldn't be used as source. It also shows that YPG are in the battle backed by FSA. Witch means that personal assumptions like 'Free Syrian Army is the primary combatant in the Ayn Issa region are ridiculous. I could edit this but I´m not sure if we use to use the same contested-icon when a military complex is contested as a town. This also raises the question if we need a new type of contested-icon when joint forces are engaged with ISIS. Further more if we need new icons for military and industrial complex under join control. Rhocagil (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhocagil! Your source has an update now: https://twitter.com/syriahr/status/613091777457881088 YPG and Burkan entered Ayn Issa after capturing Brigade 93. Roboskiye (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Roboskiye Sorry I don´t read arabic.Rhocagil (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

LightandDark2000. He does not get it, he´s on vandalizing again. Rhocagil (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

NightShadeAEB if you check LightandDark2000 edits than you will see that his edits are only his POV pushing here some of them:

1 edit,Unjustified edit,No source provided, 2 edit,using a pro-opp source, 3 edit,using a pro-opp source.PapaDock547 (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

This is another one vandalism edit<--- he made containing five changes. Three sources were given 1, 2 and 3. Not a single line in this sources provide any information about two of the changes in the edit; one Abwah and two Surab Sharqiya. LightandDark2000, you have to stop this personal campaign of yours. I do not understand what you are trying to achieve, but it´s getting very messy.Rhocagil (talk) 23:37, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Does the 1RR actually apply to the module under general sanctions

I know it has been used as a justification for 1RR blocks, but is this actually allowed?

Per WP:GS/SCW#Remedies,

All articles related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed, are placed under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume an edit is related and so is a revert.

Per Wikipedia:What_is_an_article?#Namespace,

"Articles" belong to the main namespace of Wikipedia pages (also called "article namespace" or simply "mainspace").

As this page isn't in the mainspace, and therefore isn't an article, I cannot see how the 1RR applies. Did I miss something? Banak (talk) 19:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it does since it is transcribed into Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War? I'm not sure. It's difficult to edit this with 1RR since almost all edits involve reverting, given how fluid the developments and information flow are. NightShadeAEB (talk) 19:55, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Brigade 93

To the user that made the edit from green to contested, do NOT use English SOHR reports as there have been issues with those reports, like wrong info (yes, I have seen the debate here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War/Archive_46#Dear_editors.21.21.21) . I ain't going to revert out of fear of the one revert policy and get myself in trouble for it.

Only Arab SOHR reports allowed. Besides, the base IS retaken by the YPG-Rebels per: http://www.syriahr.com/2015/06/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%88%D8%AD%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%83%D8%B1%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D9%88%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%A7%D8%AA%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%AF/.

To back it up (via news, that is neutral):

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/06/22/us-mideast-crisis-syria-kurds-idUSKBN0P21HV20150622

Regards.--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 22:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

According to this Al Jazeera reporter, 93.brigade is captured and the town is contested. Some users find him pro-rebel but he states on his twitter wall that he follows the rebel uprising but not supporting anyone. Maybe the same as Eliah Magnier. I find him useful, maybe we can list him as an reliable source ? 100% of his reports are at the end confirmed as true DuckZz (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional reliable source also explains the same: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/11692813/Kurdish-forces-capture-Isil-military-base-near-Raqqa.html. I will probably expect more reports about this by the time being. I didn't see any update by Elijah since June 17th on Twitter. Thoughts on my sources anyone?--Damirgraffiti |☺What's Up?☺ 00:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Haaretz reports it too --Ahmetyal (talk) 11:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR English reports that Ayn Isa is captured by YPG/FSA. I'm going to change both the town and the brigade to Kurdish/Rebel controlled. Ahmetyal (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Finally ANHA confirmed that both Brigade 93 and Ayn Issa are captured by YPG. Roboskiye (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Sarrin

Pro-YPG sources claiming there has been a renewed offensive towards Sarrin from a Kurdish offensive in the north and an FSA offensive in the east. The map also shows Mistras to be under YPG control. Are there any neutral sources to back this up?

http://imgur.com/UYw7Gpn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 11:27, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Abwha

I would like to change Abwah (east of Al-Qantari) back to ISIS-hold. Pro kurd map and pro SAA map shows that it´s still under ISIS control and there hash´t been any map or source that I can find that have shown the different. Ok we should not use maps for edits, but in this case it would be a reverse-edit (as I do not know who and with what (if any) source this edit was made with). What say you Roboskiye, DuckZz, Boredwhytekid, NightShadeAEB, Tradedia ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhocagil (talk • contribs) 15:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The edit was made after a massive push toways Tel Abyad earlier this month, but you are right. There was nothing regarding the status of those villages and the YPG was concentrated in the North. Jumada (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We can always use maps on the talk page to request some change. In this case, i have not see any reports about Abwah only for Qantari and Faraj (to the east), so it's probably still under IS control.

Something else. This pro-government map shows Kabir village (near Kassab) under rebel control, and away from the clashed area. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 18:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well it´s Peto Lucems map, I don´t know his sources but they/ he are usually right. And since he is pro gov, I think it´s safe to say he is right in this case.Rhocagil (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree on Abwah. If @sylesjusz hasn't marked it on his map, then it's still ISIS held. Most of the other gains we marked back then turned out to be hoaxes too. As for PetoLucem, he's generally very biased, so if he's conceding something to the opposition, then it must be for good reason. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Concerning Abwah, I am OK with the change, since it is a reverse-edit. Concerning Peto Lucem, the fact that he is classified as pro-gov, does not mean all the rebel areas on his maps are correct. For example, many months ago, he had the area around Al-Tulaysiyah marked as rebel held (you can read all about it in the archives of this talk page). However, I was able to find a source that showed that in reality it was gov held. We informed Peto Lucem of his mistake and he corrected it.

Concerning Kabir, I found out that it was added to our map on 16 July 2014 with a source talking about “violent clashes” in the town. After that date, I couldn’t find any news about the town. Before that date, I found a source (from 22 mars 2014) that seemed to indicate the town was rebel-held (“…regime forces bombarded…”). Overall, I am OK with the change (although there is a small risk). Tradedia^talk 22:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Qamishli map?

What do you think about making a map of the city of Qamishli? I think its a good option, as Qamishli is as big as Hasakah, and its on a similar situation (part on Kurdish hands, part on Syrian gov. hands), so it would be a non-sense & a double standard not making it. I think the main problem 'till now was the absence of control zone maps of the city, but in the last weeks some maps had been released, and they show mostly the same (the only difference seems to be the extension of the shared control zone):

• Agathoclesdesyracuse map: http://www.agathocledesyracuse.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Qamishli-19-June-2015.jpg (19 June)
• Cizirecanton map: http://i.imgur.com/KYVc7Tj.jpg (1 June)

So, waiting for yout thoughts on this issue.--HCPUNXKID 23:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

If someone is on to make it.Rhocagil (talk) 01:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Brigade.93 & Soluk

This is what i think.

Soluk should go yellow, as there are no reports that FSA members or Burkan Firat coalition took part during the clashes. There would be some statements, tweets on twitter, photos etc as there always is when FSA or Burkan are participating like for example Tell Abyad. No source was provided from the user who made the edit.

Brigade.93 should go under rebel control. Only rebel accounts were providing information about the situation during the clashes. Thuwar Raqqa group on twitter announced the liberation after they took control of here1 and here2. Jaish Thuwar rebel group said that rebels took control both of the town and the brigade.93 here. This video shows the FSA Kataib Shamal group inside the brigade and the town. I have seen enough reports from reporters that FSA groups are launching a solo action to capture these areas, and that was last week and few days ago. YPG supported them because of the airstrikes. I belive there aren't many YPG members inside the town and the brigade, as YPG doesn't have much interest for Raqqa town, unlike rebels.

So my request are. Soluk yellow, brigade.93 and maybe Ayn Issa to green. If YPG/FSA do make more gains south of the town, then we can mark the town back to joint control. Opinions ? DuckZz (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you know my opinion. I think all of the towns should go yellow except Tell Abyad. Maybe also Ayn Issa should go under shared control as it was FSA that initiated the battle (kurds still helped and are helping them) and FSA probably want to maintain a large number of their forces in Ayn Issa as it for them would be a prioritized front. Maybe Brigade 93 should go green, but I do think it´s under equally shared control (according to SOHR). The question you should ask is how many boots FSA brigades have on the ground, how much control can they impose? During the siege of Kobane there where about 200-250 FSA-people fighting with the kurds. Rumor says they after the siege they recruited 200 more (from where, through Turkey?). And I don´t like the concept of marking places as by whom they were captured, I´d like to mark them as by who are in control (you know this from the Idelb-disgustion). Showing FSA presence is better maybe with the rural icons or similar to the green dot in Kobane (as they probably have an office there or something like that).Rhocagil (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I shared this before in the previous discussion: [33]

"The Kurds who dominated the battle in Kobane have been joined by several Free Syrian Army units. They are fighting as a coalition called Burkan al-Furat, or Euphrates Volcano. Forces with the coalition also have advanced from Kurdish-held territory to the east of Tel Abyad. On Saturday, they encircled the town of Suluk, to the south of Tel Abyad, further pressuring the Islamic State."

Since neither the media nor the YPG coalition have broken down for us which faction controlled Suluk, we'll have to assume, based on Suluk's size, that a little of each was present there. Suluk is a huge Arab city, I highly doubt the YPG would administer it alone without FSA presence. Either keep Suluk half green, or put a small green dot in the middle of the yellow one since we have less information about it than we do about Tal Abyad and Ayn Issa. Brigade 93 should also be joint control, but we don't have an icon for that, so I'm open to suggestions. I doubt they'd have fallen without YPG support, but whether YPG is the one controlling it or not is unknown. Ayn Issa is certainly a priority area for the FSA, perhaps they conceded Suluk since the YPG needs a supply line to Kobane, and are instead focused on the south. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Although to be sure, Burkan al Furat came from the west, not the east. However, in the east we have Liwa al Tahrir and Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa. Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa is part of Burkan al Furat. So Wapo isn't completely wrong. NightShadeAEB (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I need clear answers here.

Soluk to yellow, yes or no ?

Brigade 93. to green ?

Ayn Issa to green ? DuckZz (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

DuckZz (talk) acc.to SOHR, Ayn Issa is still contested; however it should be marked as under joint control (rebels and YPG). IMO Brigade 93 to green, Soluk to yellow. Stharkov (talk) 21:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Suluk yellow yes, I do think so! The source for the green+yellow edit was however this one. But probably not any conformation from the FSA-groups themselves. Ayn Issa stays mixed. Maybe it´s ok to mark brigade 93 green. If edited to green it will signal that this is the "main interest front" for the FSA-brigades, witch is not untrue. And in that perspective it´s ok for me (but that´s just me). Maybe there will be more discussion when other editors realize you have changed it, and if so we could always debate it again.Rhocagil (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Why is everyone ignoring the Washington Post source I posted on Suluk? This is the second time I post it and the only reason I agreed to keep Suluk green. That tweet was never a credible source. Suluk should at least have a small green dot inside it. Liwa al Tahrir and Liwa Thuwwar al Raqqa participated and we have no reason to believe they are not still there. NightShadeAEB (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Al-Tal

For the Damascus map - al-Masdar says that Al-Tal is under truce, with pro-gov't checkpoint surrounding, but no presence inside the town. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yup, acc. to this map: [34] (archicivilians, he is pro-rebel), Al-Tal/Al-Tall is under truce. mangalorean and msn reports about a truce between gov. troops and rebels forces in Al-Tal city. Stharkov (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

btw. SOHR (June 24, 2015) reports about truce around Wadi Barada between the rebels and SAA. Stharkov (talk) 15:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Maskar Al-Hesan (east of Homs)

Al Masdar article here indicates town Maskar Al-Hesan is under SAA control. Anyone heard of any other source confirming this or mentioning the same battle as referred to in the article? Rhocagil (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Changes to Ayn Issa frontline

Because of this report: https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/613831088356655105

and this map which we are not allowed to use: https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/613839485021888512/photo/1

would it be reasonable that, on the map, the village al-Mustrihah has been captured by the Burkan al-Furat forces? It seems likely that Burkan al-Furat came to the village Mughira (Maghar) from Ayn Issa, not from Sarrin. Additionally, it is unlikely that ISIL would want to hold such a small village in a now-unimportant area. I want to gather consensus for the changing of control of this village, as it was not directly mentioned, even though it is right next to the other village whose capture is confirmed. thoughts? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well I trust "sylezjusz", but does he qualify as neutral for edits like this?Rhocagil (talk) 01:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah city clashes

According to pro-government source Ivan Sidorenko ISIS is in control of Tal (Hill) Baroud and is sending reinforcement to attack Hasakah city from there so it should be changed to black:

https://twitter.com/IvanSidorenko1/status/613874120137289728

It is unknown whether the villages south of it are still under govt control, but according to a map from pro-kurdish source sylezjusz from 3 days ago, it seems clear that they aren't:

http://i.imgur.com/5VIDyXa.png

I will leave it to you to decide whether the sylezjusz data should be applied but the first one seems legit enough, what do you think?

190.67.146.112 (talk) 01:41, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR reports about the clashes between SAA&NDF and ISIS inside the city of Hasakah: "IS advanced more and more after seizing the two neighborhood of al- Nashwah and al- Shari’ah, the children’s hospital and education collage reaching to the Sport City’s street that separates IS from the central prison and the criminal security branch." cnn, albawaba, almasdarnews. here is a map from deSyracuse Stharkov (talk) 12:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Halab city map update

Halab city map needs to be updated. unfortunately I don't know how to do it myself. there are many sources on the talk talkthat Al-rashidin should go green. also 123 claim that al-layramoun is green . though all of them are pro opposition. the problem is I digged in pro regime sources they don't confirm nor deny. what do you think about that ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helmy1453 (talk • contribs) 13:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

IS presence on Israeli Golan and Jordanian border

The map shows there to be an IS presence in the area where Syria's border with the Israeli-controlled Golan and Jordan meets (In the villages of Tasil, Jamla among others). I can't find any reference to IS being in control here on any news sites or other places when searching for information about it online, what is this claim based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuelMaglor (talk • contribs) 14:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

This was the source provided for changing Jamla to black, but more informative would be this report and this wiki page. Specifically the Carter Center report - "In late 2014, the Shuhada al-Yarmouk Brigade became the first group accused of affiliation with the IS. Following a series of low intensity clashes...Southern Front member groups...sequestered the Shuhada al-Yarmouk Brigade to its base in the towns of Jumlah and al-Shajarah" Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sidebar - Tasil is shown as rebel held, not IS held, on this map; the label is offset to the left is all. Boredwhytekid (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Barkh Batan

Eaworldview al Masdar, yahoo, SOHR, BBC all reporting IS executing civilians in Barkh Batan. Personally, since the village is so small, I doubt IS could carry out executions without at least momentarily being in control. Barkh Batan has been reverted to YPG/rebel control though. Opinions? Contested maybe? Boredwhytekid (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2015 (UTC) I think that it should be under YPG control. ISIS control means a lot more than 30 people in a small village holding control for a few hours. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

When did IS get back into Kobane?

I see Kobane City Contested. Unless Turkey let IS attack from across its border or IS infiltrated through a large portion of YPG held territory. I think someone made a mistake Tgoll774 (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

It's the headline pretty much everywhere: Daily Star, SOHR, al Masdar. While I have you though, I'd like to bring up some of your edits over the last week: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 - you never provide any sources. Boredwhytekid (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

My Edits are sourced, I was reverting a sourceless edit to the last Pro-Kurdish and Pro-Regime Sources we have. As far as we know the Towns are under IS control and no source has arisen to show otherwise despite my demands for it to be provided. Now here I asked a question to a surprising turn of events. You answered with a source, something the person vandalizing Eastern Hasakah has failed to do, if they had shown just one source as asked I would have left it alone. Tgoll774 (talk) 22:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ISIS fighters managed to infiltrate the city by disguising themselves as YPG fighters however it looks like the real YPG forces took out most of the attackers and have the remaining ones contained to a single house http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/25/middleeast/isis-syria/index.html. The city should probably be put back to full Kurdish control for now. 76.99.189.128 (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we should wait for confirmation that the ISIL hostiles have been neutralised, before setting it back to Yellow/ Green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prohibited Area (talk • contribs) 18:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

What's probably going to happen is the media will only report the attack and never report "YPG now in full control of Kobanî", and the town will continue to be shown as contested, never changed back. I think we should change Kobanî back to yellow. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

SOHR may say something, as far as I know clashes have been ongoing in the city as of this morning. Furthermore I am sure that Kurdish sources will report if and when the city is liberated. Prohibited Area (talk) 20:17, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

IS is not contesting Kobane, what's going on in Kobane is a bloody suicide terrorist attack, and that's not enough to mark the city as contested. --8fra0 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Souq Wadi Barada, Barahliya, and Kafr al-Awamid

ISW map shows all 3 as rebel held. Poking around, SOHR reports the area being barrel bombed on June 21st; SOHR reports the SAA shelling the area June 23rd; same fromJune 3rd; pro-op Syria Direct from the 25th and 23rd also claims the area is rebel held (with links to opposition organization's announcements from Wadi Barada and its environs); another pro-op source cites the same. Thoughts? Boredwhytekid (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I do not think we can use ISW maps. ISW maps show for example that the top left corner of the Damascus map is in truce and that much of the "green" area in the left bottom corner is red. However the "founder" of this map says we cannot use them, so he has reverted it to the old map. However maybe it is okay to use ISW maps if they show rebels gain, just not regime gains. Is that the thinking? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is ISW map of Damascus, which the "founder" of this wiki page does not trust. He erased the accurate new map of Damascus loaded last week. Clear POV with no evidence to back his change up. http://iswsyria.blogspot.com/2015/06/the-regimes-offensive-campaign-damascus.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.25.10 (talk) 07:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, we don't use other maps as SOLE sources - and I'm not advocating that we start. I linked the ISW as a supplemental resource to go with the other sources, to foster conversation on the topic. Boredwhytekid (talk) 12:09, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, the new Al Masdar map shows the Khan al-Shih area as our map is showing it now, and not like ISW map is showing it. You can notice at the top of the Al Masdar map the town of Zakyah (which is right to the east of Khan al-Shih) marked as rebel-held. So now go to the Al Masdar website and tell his editor that he is doing "Clear POV"! Tradedia^talk 13:29, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hasakah

I think the city map needs to update following the situation there or not! here.PapaDock547 (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Pro-government AlMasdarNews confirms the following: - IS enters Hasakah City from the southwest on 06-25 and takes the two south-western districts Al-Nashwa and Al-Liliyah. Pro-opposition sources (e.g. the map linked to by PapaDock547 above) claim that IS today also entered Hasakah from a second direction (the east) and advanced up to the "red villas"; also pro-opposition maps have most of the villages to the south and the east of Hasakah (such as Watutiyah, Fahd as Sayyid, As Sakhrah, Abu Amshah, Faraj Abu Bakr) under IS control. I would suggest to change at least (western parts of) the Al-Nashwa district to black; regarding the assault from the east, one should probably wait for further confirmation by neutral or pro-government sources. Situation looks dire for SAA in Hasakah.91.20.97.162 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Eastern Hasakah Province

The only region I'm not sure of is the Tell Hamis and Tell Brak area, were the map shows the YPG advancing. However, I haven't seen any sources or twitter records of another YPG offensive in that region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.24.43.183 (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, who edited that area? What were thir sources since the last source and a Pro-Kurdish one showed that area under IS control. Otherwise I'm reverting the change at 10:00PM my time after checking for a source for Tell Hamis and Tell Brak. Tgoll774 (talk) 20:59, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When for a few months ago YPG cleared the area between Tel Hemis and Tel Brak, a certain editor got angry and added dozens of black dots to imply that ISIS still has a presence at that region. Since, as usual, there were no sources to mention all that petite villages have been fallen to YPG, much of those dots remained black giving the impression that ISIS is still controlling those villages. This also affected many of those maps on internet who take Wikipedia as one of their sources! In reality Pro-ISIS sources regularly claim are involved in hit and run attacks against unbelievers (i.e YPG) at villages south of Tel Brak, such as Rajm Tufayhi, Qobur Fazil, Tel Heyder, Um el-Rus etc. I really has it hard to believe there are any ISIS presence at least north of the river. Roboskiye (talk) 05:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

That still doesn't justify a revert of the corrective edit I did as pro-Kurd sources themselves that I posted showed the areas I corrected last night as IS held when that area was last edited prior to last nights changes with no justifying source. No source has again been posted so I'm reverting back to black what I corrected last night in east Hasakah.

Hello, Tgoll774, I reverted your edit because you did not provide a source in the desription of your edit. Had you given a link to your source, I would've let the edit stand. Where are these pro-kurd sources you speak of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbfreespace3 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It was on here till someone deleted it and threw this under Eastern Qalamoun instead of astern Hasakah. Plus I reverted a sourceless edit which has since expanded with no source again and to which I gave time for whoever edited it to post their source. SO the burden is on them to post their sources or I'm taking it to the admins. That said this is the latest information from the Pro-Kurdish Source we have http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#9/36.5747/40.7401 If Cizire Canton had liberated those areas he would have known. Nor do we have anything from ANHA or other pro-Kurdish outlets. I'm reverting back to what it was Tgoll774 (talk) 12:56, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

The Vandalism was fixed except for Tall Muhammad Ali which I missed but should go black. That said, whoever vandalized the map needs to post his sources as asked or stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgoll774 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/PetoLucem/status/610485669840949248 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.70.96 (talk) 13:54, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I give up, no matter how much I point to our last up-to-date pro-Kurd sources confirming Tall Muhammad Ali', Al Shukur as IS controlled and Al Sakman Regime Controlled it keeps getting changed to YPG control. Whoever is doing go ahead and vandalize to your heart's content. Its not worth brain cells over. Tgoll774 (talk) 00:48, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Source for Al Sakman and Kubaybat being YPG held when Kurdish sources say they are regime and IS held respectively, and sources that show Al Sabat, Kaka Said, and Abu Azalah as being contested. Its common courtesy to post sources so at least I see what you are basing a change on. Tgoll774 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet again this portion got vandalized without a source justifying it despite repeated demands for a source meaning I have to waste my 1R to fix this mess at noon. Tgoll774 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Tgoll, it's an unsourced edit, not vandalism. Please don't mix them up, because there's an exception to the 1RR for actual vandalism. Banak (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

They did it it again. No source and all recent Pro-Kurdish sources we have show these as IS controlled, not YPG or contested. It is blatant vandalism. I have to use my 1RR again to fix it at noon again. Tgoll774 (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/twittercizirecanton-tap-the-map-for-information_36481#12/36.4252/40.7030 Latest updated Pro-Kurd Map shows Kubaybat, Kaka Said and Abu Azalah clearly under IS Control. It also shows IS Hail Mary into Hasakah Tgoll774 (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This part was vandalized again by Pbfreespace3 here now that I know how to see the edit histories. I have sourced my edits here, he has not provided any sources despite demands. The burden is upon him to source or I take this to Magog. I have a Pro-Kurdish Source that shows these villages under IS control and we can use such a source to show IS advances. He has been blatantly vandalizing the map for over a week. Tgoll774 (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Map vandalism whenever IS makes advances.

This is the second time I'm making a post about it, but it's still clearly a major problem.

That problem being outright vandalism whenever IS launches a successful offensive.

Even when numerous pro-Kurd or pro-Government sources admit that towns were taken from them by IS, the moderation to this page still refuses to cede those towns to IS. I'm not pro-IS. I just think it's absurd to misrepresent the situation into being something that it's not. And if this map can't cede territory to IS when it's been literally confirmed by all parties, than this map is propaganda and cannot be trusted. End of story.

Something really needs to be done about the vandalism because it's a massive problem that should be dealt with immediately.