User talk:Beshogur: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 11:48, 20 October 2016

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Beshogur! Thank you for your contributions. I am Rubbish computer and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Rubbish computer 20:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Beshogur (talk) 00:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 18 September

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

On the BRICS page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my bad. Beshogur (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Iraqi Kurdistan. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose editing privileges. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a loss of editing privileges. Thank you. MPS1992 (talk) 09:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kirkuk Governorate. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 19:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noman Çelebicihan Batallion.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Noman Çelebicihan Batallion.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:58, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained revert

Could you please explain this revert here [1]? A Turkish source gave an updated claim on Turkish losses, and a Kurdish source gave an updated claim on Kurdish and Turkish losses. So, I updated both the previous Turkish claim on their own losses, and the previous Kurdish claim on both sides losses that was already in the infobox. We have been presenting both sides POV on the matter of losses per Wikipedia's policy on neutrality. EkoGraf (talk) 03:37, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changing "PKK members" to "Kurdish fighters" is not neutrality, and please check your sources. Beshogur (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did check my sources, and if you did as well you would see the source was referring to dead YPS members as well, not just PKK. Even though the YPS was born out of the PKK as their youth wing, and considered part of the PKK by many (such as Turkey), they are still at least officially separate from the PKK and we have listed them as such in the beligerents section of the infobox. THAT is why I changed it from PKK members to Kurdish fighters, so it would include all Kurdish combatants. If that was your whole problem it wouldn't warrant a full revert of my whole edit. And I don't see how that change is not neutrality, and implying that I am non-neutral is a bit offensive and not per WP policy on assuming good faith from your fellow editors. EkoGraf (talk) 16:03, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dersim massacre/rebellion

The point is the article is called the Dersim massacre. You can't just change the content without a change in name. Go to Wikipedia:Requested moves and follow the procedure there. I've just done that very thing. You also reverted sourced content, you didn't just replace the word massacre with the word rebellion. I've got no opinion on this, but the editor I first reverted is a new editor with a number of problems. Doug Weller talk 19:06, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Caucasus

Do not move Armenia to partially or unrecognized, it doesnt make sense. Partially means only in part; to a limited extent. How is one country out of close to 200 partially? Ninetoyadome (talk) 04:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia is partially recognized, they're not recognized by Pakistan.

Pakistan was the first country along with Turkey to recognize Azerbaijan after its independence. Pakistan does not recognize Armenia and will never do so. We speak with one voice on NagornoKarabakh. On 14th March, 2008 we together passed the first Resolution 882 on Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijan has supported us on Kashmir and we are thankful to you for that.

Senator Mushahid Hussain Sayed

Beshogur (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are deliberately ignoring the definition of the word partial. Pakistan is the only country out of close to 200 that doesnt recognize Armenia. http://defence.pk/threads/pakistan-the-only-country-not-recognizing-armenia.298703/. If you change the page again i will report you for vandalism to the mods. Ninetoyadome (talk) 16:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that.. Beshogur (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:13, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those villages were before sourced. Beshogur (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You already said that, and I asked you where that source is. Ref. diff. Note that the burden is on you to demonstrate verifiability. Erlbaeko (talk) 14:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way,

You may be blocked from my Talk page without further warning the next time if you bother me again. Beshogur (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AA2 advisory

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at Mosul, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete things about Muslims on the Mosul article. Beshogur (talk) 21:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you add unsourced material to Wikipedia, as you did at Mosul. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit

Hello Beshogur,

why exactly did you revert me? Îlan/Yilanli was mentioned in the article I cited. But apart from that, I didn't change it, since it was only a claim by SDF. What I changed was the sign for Mankubah. This village north of Manbij isn't by far at the frontline anymore and there is no reason why the fighters of the SDF should have left it alone, especially if you regard the fact that it was already contested before.

Apart from that, thanks for your contributions on the map modules, they are definitely helpful.

Cheers, Ermanarich (talk) 23:37, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I have an fault. Thanks anyway. Beshogur (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish-Turkish conflict

This is a Turkish news agency (Anadolu Agency) and says 5,000 killed. This is an article in Turkish, distinguishing between killed, wounded and arrested, and says 5,000 killed (7,000 neutralized). I may be wrong, but that was also the stable version before your edit. If we are not understanding correctly, please explain on the talk page. Thanks, Nykterinos (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I can understand you, but Turkish agencies uses Neutralized instead killed. There are big mistakes. Beshogur (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So? Can I revert back to killed? Nykterinos (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do it. Beshogur (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian civil war map edit

Please check the talk page Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War, I've given my reasons for the change. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August 2016

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ref. [2] Erlbaeko (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mare' was captured by rebels in June, stop vandalizing.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]

There is a section on the talk page, here, where we are trying to work out that dispute. You can add your souces there. Further information: Achieving consensus through discussion. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Tuz Khurmatu

According to your own source there is an agreement to withdraw all forces and hand over town to local police. So why should that be marked as red? If anything the town has always been administered by kurds and the mayor is kurdish. So if one color is chosen it should be yellow. Best option is to mark as joint unless you want to make a new color to explain "local police force". Mozad655 (talk) 16:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't Kurdish police in Iraq, so the local police is the police of the central gov't. Beshogur (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is kurdish police in all kurdish areas. Why do you assume its the local police of the central gov't and not the KRG? Mayor is kurdish and town has been under kurdish adminstration since 2003. If they are under central gov't there would be no point in an "agreement" from a peshmerga perspective, as it would constitute surrendering the town to the central gov't which is unheard of. The local police by logical intuition must be local, non-partisan and seperate from main iraqi-police which is really just a formality as Iraq is not organized and army/police/millitias are all the same. Millitias might aswell not have left then. Do you get my point? Mozad655 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of the Syrian Civil War sanctions

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

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

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

Erlbaeko (talk) 17:30, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits on Jarabulus offensive (2016)

You've now added information that is not in source for 2 times. Your recent addition of Ismail Ahwaz as commander of FSA in Jarabulus offensive is not in source. The source you used doesn't even mention Jarabulus nor that Ismail Ahwaz is the commander of the offensive. In actual it's mentioning Ahwaz being the commander during the battle for al-Rai. I ask you to please revert your edit as it is effectively unsourced. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Beshogur (talk) 18:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Next time please don't add something until the source actually says what you're adding, otherwise it will be effectively unsourced. If you want to add an FSA commander for the Jarabulus offensive, I suggest you find a source that explicitily says which person is commanding the FSA in the Jarabulus offensive. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Civil War

Merhabalar kardeşim büyük ihtimal Türksün biliyorum.Bu amk kekolarına göz açtırmayalım. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyline12399 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Be warned on edit-warring!

I've noticed in recent days you are engaged in an aggressive edit-warring and frequent reverting and in some cases distorting of sourced material. Consider this as a warning, as you may be in danger of being blocked (hopefully not). Roboskiye (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you can't hide the Turkmen nationality in Syria. The name of the village is in Turkmen language, so it has nothing to do with Kurds. Kurd means wolf, not Kurd. Beshogur (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beshogur, do not call others racist especially without giving satisfactory evidence that clearly shows any sign of racism. Making false allegations against others and calling them racist can get you blocked. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarabulus offensive (2016)

I just wanted to say that I did not add the content you undid and told me about on my talk page. User:Berkaysnklf did add that info. Applodion (talk) 21:45, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my fault. Beshogur (talk) 21:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;) Applodion (talk) 22:07, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Hasakah (2016)

Beshogur, as I already stated, it doesn't matter what we think. The sources say it is a Kurdish victory, so it is a Kurdish victory. That is how wikipedia works; all statements have be based of sources. The sources for the Battle of al-Hasakah (2016) clearly state that this was a Kurdish victory, so we HAVE to mention it. I do not want to dispute your opinion on the matter, or if the battle was really a victory. As long as the sources state it, we have to include it, even if we disagree with them - especially if (more or less) neutral sources like SOHR and Reuters say it was a Kurdish victory. So please refrain from undoing the "Kurdish victory". Applodion (talk) 13:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blind reverting

This sort of thing [3] is not conducive to proper editing. There is an ongoing discussion about this content on the article's talk page, and sound reasons have been presented as to why this content is unsuitable, Yet you chose to ignore that, chose to make no contribution to the talk page, chose to not even give an edit summary explanation. If you are not already aware of it, editors on all Armenia related topics can be subject to sanctions beyond that of other articles if their editing behavior falls below acceptable standards. I suggest you revert yourself, and present your arguments on the talk page. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter as a source

Re [4]. What makes you think that "Sultan Murat Tümenis" twitter account is a reliable source? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious or are you joking? Those guys are on the frontline, they know the situation there. You're just a clot that believes in the kurdish nationalist propagandas. Most of wikipedians did same thing on the amarinah village but i was right. Beshogur (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that is a reliable, published source, and if they are on the frontline, as you say, their claims can only be used for edits that are unfavorable to their side. I am not saying you are wrong, I am saying you lack a reliable source to back it up. And btw, you have made two reverts on that article today. If that was a mistake, you should self-revert your most recent reversion, ref. WP:3RR. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish military offensive in Syria Map

Hello, thanks for updating the map I've created. However, I see you changed the name of 'Khirbat al-Turkmen' to Lilua. This village is referred as either Türkmenköy or Türkmenkubbe in Turkish sources, including Turkish Armed Forces reports. I kindly ask you to use its common name. Thanks in advance. Berkaysnklf (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC) Berkaysnklf (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Öncelikle selam. Wikimapia'dan bakınca Hirbet Türkmen köyünün Sacur barajının sağında değilde, sol altında olduğunu farkettim. Yani Hirbet Türkmen aslında sol altta, Lilua ise tam sağ altında. Eğer hatam varsa kusura bakma fakat o yuvarlağın olduğu yerdeki köyün adı Lilua. Beshogur (talk) 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Qamishli

Hello, why you reverted my edits on Al-Qamishli article? What is wrong? Serchia (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qamishlo is not the official name of the city. If you want change anything about al-Qamishli, see the talk page. Beshogur (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who say it is official? I only add the name, the original name. Please do not more undo my edits. Serchia (talk) 11:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Orginal? Do you have any proof that Qamishlo is the orginal name of the city? In fact Qamishli is a Turkish word, not Kurdish. Please see the talk page of Al-Qamishli article, it was been discussed before. Beshogur (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have problem with Al-Qamishli name, and I don't change it. I only add the name which was used by the majority of the city. But maybe there you have problem with this name, please don't change my edits any more. Serchia (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Qamishlo is already added, but you can't add a unofficial name on the article in bold. Beshogur (talk) 11:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by official when most people say Qamishlo, names cames from the people of the city not another sources. Serchia (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"What do you mean by official" Arabic is the official language of Syria, not another name allowed here. Qamishlo is added in the article but you can't add it in bold because it's not official. Beshogur (talk) 12:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I told you before, I don't want to remove or change of Al-Qamishli name, and you have to know this is not Syria government, this is Wikipedia, which need the right information and sources. There is not the place which countries can do things by force, and now I will edit the article, please don't revert it. Serchia (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"this is not Syria government, this is Wikipedia" Are you serious? I can't take you serious sorry. Beshogur (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tell Abyad

Hello Beshogur,

what exactly does the ethnic composition have to do with the ethnic composition of Tell Abyad? Apart from that this is obviously the ethn. comp. for the wrong town, your addition doesn't cite any source and writes Turks instead of Turkmen, which is simply wrong.

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source: http://www.kurdwatch.org/pdf/KurdWatch_A011_en_TallAbyad.pdf

In the newly captured areas around Tall Abyad, only ten percent of the population is Kurdish, and around fifteen percent is Turkmen. Beshogur (talk) 16:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was already an intense discussion about this. There are many different numbers from different sources and also, Kurdwatch isn't an authority. Furthermore, you wrote Manbij instead of Tell Abyad. And as you say, it says Turkmen, so you can't simply make Turkmen to Turks.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

I noticed your recent edit to Syrian Turkmen Brigades does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Please always provide an edit summary, especially when reverting the previous change(s). Not being able to see clearly which edits have been reverts makes it much harder for the rest of us when trying to figure out which are good and bad edits. Thanks. Murph9000 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September 2016

Please stop attacking other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. "Pro-Greek racist vandalizm"? This had better be the last time you say something like that. Athenean (talk) 05:50, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 20 September

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

On the 2016 al-Bab offensive page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 21 September

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

On the 2016 al-Bab offensive page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Your addition has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. Étienne Dolet (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1rr

There is a one revert rule per 24 hours on all Arab-Israeli articles.[5]

You have repeatedly violated this and are refusing to get consensus at talk pages and instead resorted to edit warring. If you do this one more time I will file an arbitration enforcement complaint. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Golan Heights

In your recent edit at Golan Heights, you shall not used de facto = Israel and de jure =Syria. Reason to it is de jure Syria claims it to be Syrian territory but the agreement signed between Israel and Syria established a Purple line, hence western 2/3 of Golan Heights is under Israeli administration and de jure Golan heights is in Israeli territory as per Golan Heights Law, making Golan Heights de jure Israeli and Syrian. Internationally the Purple Line is recognized. Hence de facto and de jure status cannot be used. Currently Administrated by Israel/Syria must be used to define the actual administration of Golan Heights area, which is the de facto status in other words. ה-זפר^t@lk 21:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have violated 1RR

Beshogur you have reverted my edits twice in an hour that too while disregarding a very reliable source. But the source is not the problem it isyou reverting twice in a day. You know it well that you cannot revert more than once in a day. Ot is against the rules. Please revert your latest revert of mine. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:53, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Violation? You made me laugh. Liveuamap is not a reliable source, everyone knows that. Get some sources and you can revert it back. Beshogur (talk) 11:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes violation. You have reverted twice in a single day. The sanctions only allow once. Besides this is not about Liveuamap, but let me inform you, Liveuamap even presents which source it gets its information from including the war observers which even you use as well as other reliable source. And it is regularly updated by the people running it. You have termed it unreliable without any proof. But the main point is 1RR violation. No one is allowed to revert a logged-in user more than once. Instead of being uncivil, please self-revert your violation. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according the reliable liveuamap is SDF near 2km north of Markadah, Peshmerga controlls half of Hawija plain, Peshmerge is some kilometers above Al-Baaij, Tuz Khurmatu is under Peshmerga controll, there isn't PMU of Iraqi forces in Bashir and Taza khurmatu.

Is this reliable? Beshogur (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt it seeing that maps on Wikipedia are regularly not updated. Besides Peshmerga does control Tuz Khurmatu: (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/peshmerga-forces-foil-isis-attack-near-tuz-khurmatu/) and captured Bashir: (http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2016/May-01/350092-iraq-forces-recapture-isis-held-town-officials.ashx). Now as for the PMU, it were actually the Turkmen natives from PMU who assisted thr Peshmerga according to the source. So it won't make sense to show PMU when Peshmerga was the main force who captured it. Your claims about reliablity are answered.

Asides from that, you keep forgetting that this isn't about a source. No matter what reason you have, you cannot violate 1RR. Please revert your violation. Newsboy39 (talk) 12:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are again conducting WP:OR based on reports of people fleeing and sectarian tensions. None of the sources you added say the PMU is in sole control. Infact, the source: (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/peshmerga-forces-foil-isis-attack-near-tuz-khurmatu/) is much more recent (less than 10 days earlier) and says Peshmerga are controlling it as well. I will ask you to revert your edit as it contains pure Original Research. If not, then I will have to later. Newsboy39 (talk) 13:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please check your sources. Peshmerga didn't repelled IS attack in the city center but in outskirts of the city. Peshmerga has no controll in the city center. [Peshmerga withdrew from Tuz Khurmatu officially and left the city to the local police Same with Bashir. reuters

The Peshmerga are not here to take the village, but to support the Shia Turkmen fighters with heavier weaponry such as artillery. The village is Turkmen, so the job of taking it falls to the Hashd Shaabi. (https://warisboring.com/pissed-off-turkmen-want-their-town-back-89d59db228c8#.q9nljr26j) Beshogur (talk) 14:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you evrn read the source? The attack was on the city. There are no outskirts mentioned. Do you even read befofe responding? The Turkmen are the natives of Bashir. The Kurdish fighters usually form a coalition with the natives of the place to capture it (including Yazidis and Christians) and let them govern it. Besides all (https://warisboring.com/pissed-off-turkmen-want-their-town-back-89d59db228c8#.q9nljr26j) said was Turkmen of PMU are involved in capturing it. And actually the source you (http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0XO2EW) and (https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/peshmerga-hashd-al-shaabi-officially-withdraw-tuz-khurmartu/)

cited actually said both Peshmerga and Shi'ite PMUs withdrew because of clashes between the two groups. Try reading the source before commenting. The Liveuamap uses the same observer sources you use, and by the way it is regularly updated and gives sources for all its reports of the conflict as I already said. So calling it "unreliable" is nonsensical, it is far more reliable and accurate than Wikipedia's maps. And as per the much more recent source, the Peshmerga is still there.

Now instead of stalling, please revert your violation. As I already told you, this isn't about any source. This is about following rules. You have violated the rules by reverting twice, there is no disputing that. There is no justification AT ALL for violating the 1RR limit. Please follow the rules and revert yourself. You can be banned or blocked for such behavior, the notice in the module clearly says that. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No! Because the local police is part of the Iraqi government. The red dot on the template is gov't and gov't allies, so? And about liveua.. Everyone know that liveua is not an reliable source.. and the website is based in Ukraine, not even Middle East. Beshogur (talk) 18:04, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wilful violations of rules will only lead to a further strong case for your block. You deserve to be blocked. And Instead of presuming and giving out baseless claims, you should try to read about Liveuamap. Liveuamap is actually based on reports by local citizens and observes of various conflicts, it covers various conflicts, not just Ukraine. Who do you think you are talking about when you say "Everyone know" Liveua is not a reliable source. Irrationally claiming like it is unreliable because it is based in Ukraine won't make it unreliable. Besides here are sources detailing how it began, is sourced from observers as well citizens and its use as a global media resource even by the news media (http://www.citylab.com/politics/2014/07/citizen-journalists-are-live-mapping-the-crisis-in-ukraine/375178/), (http://www.uadn.net/2015/01/21/liveuamap-how-an-interactive-mapping-tool-became-a-global-media-resource/). Ever since then, Liveuamap has relied on observers as you can see from its updates. It is ironic that you who even isn't in a conflict derides those who source their information directly from those observing it. Your claims only prove that your edits are based solely on your beliefs and do not follow proper Wikipedia rules. If you do not revert, then I will revert myself. And if you keep violating 1RR and reverting, then that will be blatant edit-warring and disregard for rules. This can get you blocked, I have informed you of what will comr out of your violations. But I'm sure you already know that. I will not allow you to violate the rules and do what you want. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me, what do you want from me now? Beshogur (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And your claim that "local police is part of the government" isn't even remotely true to reality. The "local police" are actually militias formed civilians of the village:

With the aforementioned forces withdrawing from the town today, the civilian militias will now govern the city and immediately adhere to an open-ended ceasefire. Al-Masdar News

Both the civilians and even PMU are Peshmerga allies (which is also a government ally) like in areas of other ethnicities.

Clearly you have no idea on hoe to properly edit per rules. As you will not revert your edits ehich blatantly violate rules, I'll do it so myself later on. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another map as proof for area around Qayyarah being under Iraqi control: (http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2016/newsspec_14912/img/2016_iraq_syria_control_976_v4.png?v=1.10.0). This is from IHS Jane's which specialises in these kond of topics and is a highly regarded source about them and is used by news companies. It's a few days old (before capture of Al-Shirqat by Iraq). The map shows an unbroken strip-like area of Iraqi control separating ISIL territory around Mosul in north from territory around Hawija in the southeast. Newsboy39 (talk) 23:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i fixed it long time ago, stop with posting maps. Beshogur (talk) 10:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The KURDISH NAME

Hi , we can discuse here you must answer me there Kurdistantolive (talk) 17:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Çobanbey

Sorun yok. Yalnız Türkçe adını kullansak daha iyi, burada gördüğüm üzere kürtler özenle en ufak köyün bile kürtçe adını kullanıyorlar. O yüzden mümkün oldukça her yerde Türkçe/Türkmence isimleri ve varlığını ön plana çıkaralım derim. Kolay gelsin. Berkaysnklf (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jawban Bayk (Arabic: جوبان بك; Jūbān Bik, Turkish: Çobanbey) Bunu sayfaya ekleyen benim zaten. :) Beshogur (talk) 19:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge Project

Hi Welcome to WP. Maybe you'll be interested in Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Turkey).(By the way your move on Karboğazı ambush was without a discussion. I would be best if you'd start a discussion.) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 06:35, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks, I'm I'm interested in. About the Karboğazı ambush; It's actually a ambush not a battle, therefore a discussion is useless. But if you're disagree, I can revert my edit. Sorry if I'm wrong. Beshogur (talk) 09:26, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Just to mention, ambushes and battles are things that happen in real life. On Wikipedia, disagreements about content happen. Some of these disagreements about content, relate to things that were ambushes or battles. When disagreements about content happen on Wikipedia, it is required to have a discussion. It is still required even if the opposing point of view seems to be untrue. MPS1992 (talk) 19:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Turkmen

I woke up to find the article changed, which isn't necessarily a bad thing - I would like others to help make it better - however, it looks like another "population" war whereby they continuous misrepresent what the sources say. Please do take a look. Best, O.celebi (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Kurdification. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're cool

Your like the coolest guy ever!. Most of the time when I edit somethings g I get kicked from Wikipedia. Glad to know there are cool guys on here like you :D The2016 (talk) 10:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Étienne Dolet (talk) 16:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop abusing me. Beshogur (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question

May I ask, why did you do this? Étienne Dolet (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't saw your comment sorry, I will revert. Beshogur (talk) 10:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.almasdarnews.com/article/rebels-advance-rapidly-amid-full-scale-isis-retreat-northern-aleppo-map-update/

[2] ttp://qasioun.net/en/news/show/28405/Opposition_break_the_siege_by_ISIS_on_Mare%E2%80%99a

[3] ttp://www.syriahr.com/2016/06/08/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%81%D8%B5%D8%A7%D8%A6%D9%84-%D8%AA%D9%86%D9%81%D8%B0-%D9%87%D8%AC%D9%88%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%85%D8%B9%D8%A7%D9%83%D8%B3%D8%A7%D9%8B-%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%85%D8%AF%D9%8A%D9%86%D8%A9/

[4] ttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-northwest-idUSKCN0YU0PT

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 330: / Line 330: @@
 :I didn't saw your comment sorry, I will revert. [[User:Beshogur|Beshogur]] ([[User talk:Beshogur#top|talk]]) 10:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
+== October 2016 ==
+[[File:Ambox warning pn.svg|30px|left|alt=|link=]] You currently appear to be engaged in an [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit war]]. Users are expected to [[Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus-building in talk pages|collaborate]] with others, to avoid editing [[Wikipedia:Disruptive editing|disruptively]], and to [[Wikipedia:Consensus|try to reach a consensus]] rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.<br>
+Please be particularly aware that [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|Wikipedia's policy on edit warring]] states:
+# '''Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made'''.
+# '''Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.'''
+If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page]] to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents [[Wikipedia:Consensus|consensus]] among editors. You can post a request for help at an [[Wikipedia:Noticeboards|appropriate noticeboard]] or seek [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution|dispute resolution]]. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary [[Wikipedia:Protection policy|page protection]]. If you engage in an edit war, you '''may be [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]] from editing.'''<!-- Template:uw-ew --> [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]], [[User talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Uqaqtuq (talk)]], [[Special:Contributions/CambridgeBayWeather|Sunasuttuq]] 11:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)