User talk:Ракал

Rules of edit

Stop made edit without reliable sources and stop made edits on based clear biased pro-ISIS sources. Here main rules for edit: 1- A reliable source for that specific edit should be provided.
a) A well-known source that has a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) for all edits.
b) A well-known source that does not have a reputation for neutral (not biased) territorial control coverage, can be used (is deemed reliable) only for edits that are unfavorable to the side it prefers (favorable to the side it opposes).
c) A source that is not well-known (or that has proven inaccurate for all edits) cannot be used (is deemed unreliable) for any edit. This includes all maps (see item 2- next).

2- Copying from maps is strictly prohibited. Maps from mainstream media are approximate and therefore unreliable for any edit. Maps from amateur sources are below the standards of Wikipedia for any edit. They violate WP:RS and WP:CIRCULAR.
WP:RS: “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
WP:CIRCULAR: “Do not use websites that mirror Wikipedia content or publications that rely on material from Wikipedia as sources.”

3- WP:POV pushing and intentional misinterpretation of sources will not be tolerated. If you are not sure about what the source is saying (or its reliability), post it on the talk page first so that it would be discussed.here

You must not breake these rules. You made edit without reliable(not biased) sourcehere and on based clear pro ISISS source[1] We can't do such edits. Only well-known and unbiased. So we all must edit only on based these rules and not break them. Sûriyeya (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source which you usehere a bised ant-SAA source but according to the our rules we can't use biased sources. We not use pro-opp. sources in conflict between SAA and ISIS and we not use pro-SAA sources in conflict between ISIS and rebels(FSA or Nusra). SO that I ask you not violated a rules. Sûriyeya (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: ). SvEcHpInXID (talk) 06:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ракал, if you don't reply to this complaint it is probable that you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please listen to these warnings. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: Blocked). EdJohnston (talk) 00:05, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of sanctions about the Syrian Civil War

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. EdJohnston (talk) 00:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Hello Ракал,

it is necessary that you follow the rules of Wikipedia to continue to edit at these maps. To add a new point to the map, a source isn't necessarily needed, if the point isn't surrounded by points of another colour. But you need to prove that the point exists, if you add it. This counts especially for Loshar oil field.

But to change the colour of a point, you need to cite a reliable source. You know that it's not allowed to use other maps as source. In conclusion you should act reasonable and abandon the tries to change the map based on what other maps say.

The thing is, if you continue to act like this, everyone at the map will be against you and directly revert your edits. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to change the way you work on the map.

Otherwise it's likely that you'll get banned.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and please show where you got the coordinates for Loshar oil field.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ракал: I do advise you to listen to user:Ermanarich. However, I have a correction to make to what he said. The rules say: "A source, reliable for that specific edit, should be provided." This applies to all edits, including additions of new objects on the map. Therefore, the edit adding "Loshar oil field" should be reverted. Wikipedia is based on Wikipedia:Verifiability. We cannot verify that "Loshar oil field" is ISIS-held, so it should not be added on the map. We do not use "judgement" or "common sense" to add objects, because that would constitute "original research". Wikipedia:No original research is allowed. Tradedia^talk 16:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Ракал: Also rediable sources said ISIS take large parts of Shaer Gas field but army still controll some parts.[2] [3] You use antigovernment sources whch opposes to army but this break of rules and good sources said not take all. And I ask not need push my updates.Լրագրող (talk) 17:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: ). SvEcHpInXID (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@SvEcHpInXID: I have corrected your report... I hope you don't mind... Tradedia^talk 19:16, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tradedia I don't mind. SvEcHpInXID (talk) 19:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The outcome is:

Page protected by slakr as indicated by Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive315#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: page protected). Tradedia^talk 19:45, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: ). SvEcHpInXID (talk) 11:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Ракал reported by User:SvEcHpInXID (Result: ). SvEcHpInXID (talk) 07:42, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like your only activity on Wikipedia is edt-warring on maps. You should consider responding to the above complaint. If not, you may be indefinitely blocked from editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for WP:1RR violation of WP:GS/SCW @ Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, as you did at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. slakr^\ talk / 04:05, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Bbb23 (talk) 19:42, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]