User talk:AOnline

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ariha under the control of the army![edit]

Thank you that you have corrected the changes Sopher99! source that drives Sopher99 it states that Ariha was previously under control of opposition fighters while in the fighting army has taken control of her (Ariha was previously controlled by the Free Syrian Army, is seeing ongoing clashes after control was wrested by forces loyal to Assad. Credit: Reuters) (talk) 15:14, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sayyidah Zaynab under the control of the army![edit]

Please note that any changes made ​​in respect of Sopher99 of Sayyidah Zaynab they are not correct and is not valid178.93.226.63 (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey. I am aware of that but since he added a source i can't change it back unfortunately. If you have a reliable source which shows "Zaynab is under full control of the Syrian Army" i can do that. AOnline (talk) 11:51, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

But this source of September 9 and there is no word on what the city dispute or that it stolkonoveniya go there just saying that he was killed by Iranian commander working with the Syrian troops and no more. can read for yourself. And before all of the changes from this source were called not correct and not reliable source called when it was about the success of the army so why are using it in questionable changes178.93.226.63 (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2013 (UTC) Here is the map for September 15, the news said a change in 9! And a map with Wikipedia pages (talk) 12:54, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 again treats the news as he wants to say that he was killed by the militants of Al Nusra but there's no word on whether that in fact there are fights in Rakkaa continuing reports of killings FSA fighters and civilians but simply because no one changes the city of Raqqa in the contested card and I gave you clearly said that the city in the hands of the army, and the fact that the fighters of Al Nusra nazodyatsya on its outskirts and can sometimes penetrate the city is equipped with a green circle around the red! (talk) 13:31, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


The army soldiers reportedly captured the strategic town of Shaba’a near Damascus. (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I changed it yestarday. AOnline (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 changed city using the disputed Sheba on opposition sources, and not one of the valid sources upomenaet about it, and even if we start from this source then you need to change and Al Malihah according to sources, that government snipers are present there (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And there is not any reports of clashes in the city or in this source in any other, and Sopher99 does not pay attention to it because it makes all your changes in favor of the opposition. This is a real vandalism (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


Sopher99 engaged in vandalism, he cites an article for a change half a year ago, and with all of the obscure sources178.93.226.63 (talk) 13:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

What he is trying to do is vandalism(as you sad). I just hope someone will take measures against this. AOnline (talk) 13:48, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

All the editors,including me,in the beginning of the battle of Aleppo,agreed to which sources we use Alhanuty (talk) 00:56, 22 September 2013 (UTC).

Pro-government media including Sana,Al-Manar,Al-alam,and press tv and russia today are unreliable,also Pro-opposition including the LCC,Gulf media (etc..Saudi) alarabiya are unreliable,the reliable media are the western media like Reuters AFP,and media that doesn't Side with any side ,and also aljazeera English is a reliable,and Syrian london-based SOHR,so try to bring your info from neutral sources.Alhanuty (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and Al Arabia can not be neutral sources as Al Jazeera belongs to Qatar and Al Arabiya belongs to Saudi Arabia, these countries are the main sponsors of the opposition. (talk) 07:45, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I said aljazeera English and America are reliable.Alhanuty (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Ghabaghib (Darra) under the control of the Army[edit] (talk) 13:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't use this map as a proof. I need certain source. AOnline (talk) 13:49, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Deir Salman[edit]

Deir Salman again changed to the contested party Sopher99 and he used to change the two-week-old article and the article states that the information from the words of opposition activists! This can not be a reason to change. (talk) 06:33, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Sopher99 changed the status of the city of Hama on the basis of questionable video for Al Jazeera on September 18 at the time with no information about clashes in Hama and there is no saying only that the militants allegedly seized several security checkpoints on the outskirts of the city! And by the way Al Jazeera is not dependent on the source. (talk) 14:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

And in the video was not talking about the city of Hama, a city of Kafr Zita province of Hama37.55.208.242 (talk) 14:10, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 has not once held unjustified change it or anything else as vandalism37.55.208.242 (talk) 14:15, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

No one source is not writing that in Hama have been clashes or something like that, so if you are not hard you could not fix it. After all, if the capital of the province was fighting it would not not go unnoticed by other sources37.55.208.242 (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

How do you react to this information? Under this section Morek city and Suran under government control as marked on the map46.201.104.110 (talk) 20:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

As i said before. I don't think map proves anything. We need certain proofs. And by the way, i would glad if you could send your mail to me. We have lot's of things to talk about. AOnline (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

1 revert rule violation[edit]

You reverted 3 times on a 1 revert rule page. I suggest self-reverting before it leads to consequences. Sopher99 (talk) 15:42, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I think you are the last person who can talk about "rules". I am just trying protect the map from vandalism. AOnline (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
The quote I gave wasn't in the video - it was written. Plainly in the article which happened to contain a video. Sopher99 (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 you accuse all of vandalism who is not the same as you are a supporter of the opposition and does not share your views but Wikipedia is not your personal website and your opinion is not important, so that accept the fact that there is still sdes neutral people who are eager to show the true picture95.135.204.242 (talk) 16:00, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

and in the video of which you are so hard to talk the talk about security checkpoints near the town of Kafr Zita! Carefully wipe off the video, as if fighting was on the outskirts of Hama or in the city would have mentioned this to many sources, not just Al Jazeera95.135.204.242 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


Rankus city in the province of Damascus can not be controlled by the opposition as there is today, there was a terrorist attack killed at least 20 dead and many injured, it means that the city has the government troops. (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2013 (UTC) Rankus not under whose control!

Mohammed Saeed, an activist in the eastern Damascus suburb of Douma, and the Observatory's director Rami Abdul-Rahman both said the town is held neither by the rebels nor by the regime in Syria's civil war. Abdul-Rahman said residents have an agreement with the rebels not to bring weapons into Rankous in order to avoid government shelling. (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


City changed to the dispute without specifying the source from which conducted the change! in this article on the basis of which changed the border crossing in the province of Darra no mention of Nasiriyah (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The report said At least 19 regular soldiers were killed and dozens wounded by a rebel attack on regime centres, warehouses and strongholds in the al-Nasriya area of al-Qalamoun at midnight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Sopher99 again changed the status of Nasiriyah not using a reliable source that says! A statement by the Syrian National Coalition (SNC) said Saturday the Free Syrian Army (FSA) fighters had destroyed four tanks and captured another five in the assault on the 128th Brigade in Nasiriya. This is the same as editing the words of the Guide Syrian army or referring to agency SANA! (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Darra border crosing[edit]

I think it would be not correct to change it to green given that its fighters captured Al Qaeda fighters and not the FSA and there hoisted the black flag of Al Qaeda. It is better to mark as disputed. Syrian rebels, including members of an al-Qaeda-linked group, have captured a military post on the border with Jordan after four days of fighting, according to an activist group. The Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said 26 government soldiers were killed in Saturday's battle as well as a number of rebels, including seven foreign fighters. "So it definitely won't be opened by Jordan now, especially that the rebels who captured it are not part of the Saudi-backed military council in Deraa, whom Jordan had some security coordination with." (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)


Facebook does not like must use a source for change and those who do so are engaged in vandalism! After all, has repeatedly stated that Facebook is not a reliable istochik about it not once mentioned Lothar von Richthofen. (talk) 12:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Al-Nashabiyah Contested![edit]

Meanwhile, the bodies of 14 pro-regime militiamen killed in Zamalka east of Damascus were transported to their native city of Homs, the Observatory said. The army said it killed “a large number” of rebels in Neshabia, north of the capital. Violence has raged for months around Damascus, as the army has fought hard to keep the rebels out of the city.


EllsworthSK changed the status of a city on the contested even though half the city under the control of the army and the other idkt collision, so that the previous version was correct can get it back! (talk) 11:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

EllsworthSK again changed the status of Darra to the contested but again, partly , I think it is extremely illogical and like I said you can either leave as it was before then, or to allocate all Grod as contested , and not like that part of it which is in the hands of the rebels as a green but , as the part that is in the hands of the army marked as challenged and even some of the disputed areas as identified separately and looks like complete nonsense and insanity! But I personally think as the capital of the province of Darra then it should be left as it was isolated . That part which is under the control of the army and the red that is controlled by opposition fighters green respectively and of the contested areas. (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Then as now highlighted Darra I think the compromise version!Thanks to the author for his objective change. (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Al Aziza (Aleppo)[edit]

the village of Aziza, which is under the control of forces loyal to Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, in the southern countryside of Aleppo. (talk) 09:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Al-Sheikh Hadeid[edit]

Since on the basis of the changed status of the source Kernaz means and this information can be used. Village of Al-Sheikh Hadeid is under the control of the army.;_ylt=A2KJ3CfUm1FS3WYAK4HQtDMD37.55.208.218 (talk) 16:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Coordinates: 35°21'10"N 36°28'59"E37.55.208.218 (talk) 17:59, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Вы на этом сайте—заблокированы! Это значит, что вы здесь НЕЛЬЗЯ изменять страницы, ни с настоящим аккаунтом, ни с анонимным IP-адресом. Понятно? Нельзя! А участники могут удалять ваши вклады без наказания, это не "вандализм" когда я удаляю ваши комментарии. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Хорошо я согласен с тем, что я заблокирован и не могу тут изменять! Но вы меня извините просто иногда тяжело смирится с изменениями карты участником Sopher99 и если вы внимательно изучите его изменения то вы поймёте, то что он проводит изменения за частую не брезгуя использует как про-правительственные источники так и явно про-оппозиционные! А также страницы Facebook либо источни где вся информация со слов командира повстанцев! Просто если вы как я посмотрю боретесь за то, чтобы отражать объективное положение здесь то просмотрите какие источники использовал Sopher99 и поймёте, что он всё же занимается вандализмом и это вам подтвердить могут еще некоторые участники. (talk) 18:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ну, это правда, что есть некоторые проблем в карте. Я согласен с тем, что источники как SOHR (и тоже как SANA!)—плохие источники. Но в этом войне наверно нет "нейтральных" источников, у каждого источника есть определенное предубеждение. Это—реальность. Это тоже правда, что вы не единственного участника, которому не нравятся некоторые вклады участника Sopher99. Другие участники могут справляться с ним.
Я вам советую—если вы хотите тут изменять в будущее, пожалуйста не изменяйте сейчас. Когда вы используетесь другие аккаунты или IP-адресы чтобы изменять пока заблокированы, это зовут "кукловодство"—очень серьезная проблема здесь. Через шесть месяцев, спросите на User talk:Deonis 2012 с шаблоном {{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}. Это—"standard offer" (по-русски). Если администратор думает, что вы должны опять изменять, он разблокирует вас.
Но мне кажется, что вы не говорите по-английски. Правда, что нет каждого участника на англоязычниом Вики говорит по-английски свободно. Это все-таки важно, что участник на этом Вики умеет говорить немного по-английски, чтобы другие участники вас хорошо понимали и чтобы вы других участников тоже хорошо понимали. Может быть, это лучше, если бы вы только на русскоязычном Вики вносили вклад? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Reverted your Deraa edit[edit]

Dear AOnline, I have reverted your Deraa merge edit for 2 reasons: 1. It was merging the boarder crossing (recently rebel held) with the urban Deraa area. 2. It removes regional details, more importantly the army base in south east. I believe that the edit would be more successful if the Al balad and Deraa north, as well as the two dots were merged, in a contested symbol (until a detailed map becomes available), instead of overlapping the nearby base and border crossing, which have more negative effects on the increased detail purpose of the map. I agree that red and green dots for north and south are mostly inacurate and not that representative of the dense urban area situation.Ariskar (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiple reverts[edit]

Dear AOnline, I agree and thank you on your recent reverts on Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map, but beware that it has a '1 revert daily per user' policy on the Syrian Civil war articles. It is a vandalism case that you reverted correctly, but multiple reverts in short term may get you in trouble.Ariskar (talk) 11:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Ariskar, Thanks for the warning. Seems like no one really cares about the rules(including the user who has the title of "moderator"). Since there is a concious act of vandalism someone has to show reflection to protect the map. But again you are right about the rules and once again thanks for the warning. AOnline (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice[edit]

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

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

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

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

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at WP:SCWGS.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

1 Revert rule[edit]

Don't break the 1 revert rule, as you did just now, self-revert.

Also the news about rebels taking the town completely is false - which is why I din't put it to lime. Sopher99 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind your 1 hour past the 24 hour revert. Sopher99 (talk) 13:14, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you. AOnline (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hafir tahta[edit]

Just add back the town,and put it gov-controlled,but the source mentions the town.Alhanuty (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Done AOnline (talk) 09:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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. Thank you. Sopher99 (talk) 17:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for violating WP:1RR at Template:Syrian civil war detailed map,
you have been blocked from editing for 48 hours. You are welcome to make useful contributions once the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and then appeal your block using the instructions there. Kuru (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.

Request for unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

AOnline (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

I don't understand the reason of the block. It was an act for saving the map from vandalism. "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert" (WP:3RR). For the description about consecutive edits by User:Bbb23 see here. And for another example. I think this is a clear injustice. I am requesting from administration to unblock my account. AOnline (talk) 17:54, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Clear violation of 1RR. See more detail below. only (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

I'm not sure you're understanding here; you did not commit "consecutive saved revert edits...with no intervening edits by another user":

These are non-consecutive reverts. Sopher99's 16:34 edit is in between the two reverts. only (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This case is pretty straightforward (some get complicated). As Only stated, you reverted twice.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the vandal POV-pushing edits, as usual[edit]

Hi, can you revert this POV-pushing edit from that vandal? I dont want to break 1RR, as that element is distorting the sources and manipulating, as always. You can see more about this issue here. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

pd: I forgot it, here is the original link I used, wich states clearly, quote "“A supply operation has begun through a surprise attack against regime forces, who have control over the villages of Al-Sheikh Saad and Adwan".--HCPUNXKID (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I will revert it after 3 hours(because of the same 1RR issue). It's really strange to see Sopher as an active editor after everything he done. He should have been banned long time ago. AOnline (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


Hi, as you may have seen, I had reverted several times unsourced edits by Sopher, as he was adding towns to the map without any specific source, only using an August 2013 country map without towns on it (except the 5 or 6 major Syrian cities). The problem is he reverts my edits constantly with poor excuses, even trying to blackmail me by asking me to revert other user edits to revert hes own ones. I've tried dialogue to make him understand he cant do that, but he refuses compromise unless the compromise is accepting his vandalism. Furthermore, some naive users seems to accept that behaviour, but if other user do the same, they revert him, a clear double standard. As we all know, 1RR in enforced on the map, so I can only revert one time every 24-hours. So , due to the long historial of vandalism & POV-pushing by that user, I propose you to coordinate between us to revert all the vandal edits he made (adding towns without specific sources, misinterpretate sources, etc...). Our union could be our force to avoid the destruction of the map by that editor. Cheers and thanks for your time, --HCPUNXKID 15:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Plase self revert. These were the villages I removed, all without sources. Sopher99 (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)


Pro-regime Press TV


And Reliable source

I am not sure what more you could want. Sopher99 (talk) 18:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


Good day! I see that you also sometimes edit articles about the war in Syria, and so you can help me corrected mistake in this map On this map, the city of Mayda'a marked under rebel control but reliable source Reuters confirmed to that the city under the control of the army. And based on this source the city Mayda'a was marked under the control of the army but one of the editors of supporting rebels revert this change.The only source that tells that in the city was only a clashes between the rebels is SOHR. But SOHR is a anti-government source of and its data may not be entirely correct. And I think that the data from Reuters is more reliable.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2014 (UTC)