Editors who violate any listed restrictions may be blocked by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
An editor must be aware before they can be sanctioned.
With respect to any reverting restrictions:
Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as clear vandalism.
Clear vandalism of any origin may be reverted without restriction.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors that are not vandalism are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria
Nulla Taciti seems to be adding every defensive statement of the Nustra/al Qaeda group as fact, while questioning every statement by the Druze villagers, based on a single source. That is POV and not acceptable. FunkMonk (talk) 05:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were only 3 references in the entire article before I added the NYT one. And I put "according to JaN member Mohammad Freezo" (i.e. not stating it as a fact). And this article has the WP:POV title "massacre" when most references call it a shoot out. Nulla Taciti (talk) 05:26, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'm quite baffled that you're so concerned about defending al Qaeda's Syrian branch (similar style to Sopher99, interestingly). Second, the NYT is very tendentious when it comes to Syria, especially the writer of your article, Anne Barnard. She's kind of like a still functioning Elizabeth O'Bagy. FunkMonk (talk) 05:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm using the available references to fully elaborate upon the event in question. And while I don't know why you are so enthralled with defending a state sponsor of terrorism like the Assad regime, I also don't know who Sopher99 is, but that was an apparent WP:PA accusing me of being a WP:SOCK. Last of all I couldn't care less what your opinion of certain journalist is, at the end of the day, you are just some user on Wikipedia and she gets paid to work at a WP:RS like the NYT; draw your own conclusions. Nulla Taciti (talk) 12:02, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FunkMonkNulla Taciti FunkMonk's edit is factually correct when he categorises this article as a terrorist attack because despite the opinion of any of us Nusra is considered a terrorist organisation (branch of Al-Qaeda and on the State Department's list). EkoGraf (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nulla, countering pro-Nusra/Qaeda bias is not being "pro-Assad". As for Barnard being "paid by an RS", sure, so was O'Bagy. Isn't exactly a stamp of approval. And as Eko has demonstrated, you have selectively filtered out the Druze villager's account from Barnard's account, and only presented the Nusra claims. Very tendentious indeed. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
