User talk:Amensnober91

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amensnober91, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi Amensnober91! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! TheOriginalSoni (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyash

Carefully read your source because he only said about the Ayyash district in the Deir ez-Zor and not about the village Ayyash. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

no, it's clearly says the TOWN of ayyash, not the district. there are no rebels in the district.

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/f089d901-7c21-4ae1-9ba8-d7e85d5a3983

Amensnober91 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We can use only the English version of Al Jazeera because an Arabic version is based on the data of only opposition activists. This is the same in Iranian sources. In the Arabic version Al Jazeera mostly information is also questionable of as and in most the Iranian sources. I urge you to compromise. Hanibal911 (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

its the SAME network. there is no difference, only that the Arabic version is more detailed about the Syrian war.

and the iranian sources are not considered global as Aljazeera, they are just domestic Shiites sources, so they are not the same thing.Amensnober91 (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You guys seem to be missing the point. Al Jazeera quoted SOHR's report, and SOHR's original report said AROUND the villages not in them. So, Al Jazeera didn't translate into their story what SOHR originally stated. Just that makes it unreliable as a source. EkoGraf (talk) 22:57, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

it didn't mention SOHR, so.Amensnober91 (talk) 04:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think all news agencies get most of their information on Syria? Answer - SOHR. Who else reported the fighting beside SOHR? Nobody. Who repored it first? SOHR. In any case, seems at least one editor has agreed to the compromise solution (read discussion). So while personally I am of the opinion that it should be completely red, a lime ring will be put. I would ask both you and Hanibal to refrain from further edit warring. EkoGraf (talk) 11:20, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo province

Your source only said about villages Deman, Husseinia and Brazilian but not the village Al-Barzaniyah. Your source only said about villages Deman, Husseinia and Brazilian but not the village Al-Barzaniyah. Why you pointed Al-Barzaniyah the under rebel control. Hanibal911 (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there is no village by the name of Brazilian. clearly they mean Al-Barzaniyah. and the others sources says Al-Barzaniyah, not Brazilian. so its the same village with a different pronounce.Amensnober91 (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Listen up, if you want to edit on Wikipedia you need to follow the rules or you can get banned. First, your speculation they check the claims/reports and confirm if it was true then they report it on the channel is just that, speculation. That is your personal POV which is in violation of Wikipedia's rule on POV pushing/editing. The report does not say anywhere the corespondent confirmed the report, actually the source literally says that according to the corespondent the rebels announced their takeover of the villages. NOWHERE does it say he confirmed it. As for SOHR, they also never confirmed it, they reported fighting AROUND the villages, never in them. If you want to edit on Wikipedia you need to follow its rules and they are clear. No edits based on our personal points of view (POV), no edit warring, no insulting language against other editors. All three you violated. As for editing this particular map, the ground rules have been made established long ago by editors of this map. Opposition claims can not be used when reporting opposition advances (your source), government claims can not be used when reporting government advances, opposition claims can be used when reporting government advances, government claims can be used when reporting opposition advances, journalist on-sight claims can be used, SOHR has been declared an exception to the rules and used for all claims of advances (due to their high level of trying to be neutral even though they are opposition), SOHR facebook sources are not allowed on this map but sources from their official site are allowed (I don't agree with the ban on the facebook sources but the others decided against them), youtube videos are also not allowed per Wikipedia policy. 15:25, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

Aljazeera is a reliable source. its says that the rebels has taken control of these two villages. and if it wasn't confirmed according to the channel they wouldn't report anything. and that's all enough to make the change. unless you have a reliable source saying the opposite of this, then stop ruining the map.16:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

Al Jazeera is reliable but their corespondent didn't report it himself, he reported what the rebels claimed. You are aware that Al Jazeera reported on hundreds of SANA claims as well? Are you going to say that just because they also reported what SANA says than SANA's claims also must be true? 16:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

What? No response? 16:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

once again, Aljazeera don't just copy rebels claims. they check the reliability of the source and confirm it by their OWN reporters on the ground. go to the following link and read. 17:04, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/8f02c648-1e2a-4604-a156-a8b0008ce68c

Your source clearly says the claim came from a rebel corespondent. Read it carefully. once again, Aljazeera don't just copy rebels claims. they check the reliability of the source and confirm it by their OWN reporters on the ground. That is your personal opinion, which I respect, but which Wikipedia does not accept. But than again, if it were true, wouldn't that mean Al Jazeera confirmed all of the hundreds of SANA's claims they also reported on since the start of the war? Listen, per Wikipedia policy I am trying to compromise here with you. We put lime rings around the towns (since there obviously is a rebel presence in that area) until things become more clearer. And that would be what all of the other editors also agreed to. And than, in a few days, when we both cool down, we revisit the situation to see if any new news has come to light and if they have we make the appropriate changes. Ok? As for Bosra, thank you for providing the SOHR source confirming the shelling, that is all I asked from you, thank you for the source on Bosra! 17:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)EkoGraf (talk)

then the two villages should be contested at least, because there is no source says the two villages are under total control of the army.17:42, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Amensnober91 (talk)

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. Thank you. 17:21, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

You have broken a rule 1RR

You have broken a rule 1RR and I notified admins about your actions.her 17:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Hanibal911 (talk)

Syrian civil war sanctions notice

As a result of a community decision, broad editing restrictions apply to all pages broadly related to the Syrian Civil War. These sanctions are described at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions and a brief summary is included below:

Sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process.
If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or a topic or article ban.
A one revert per twenty-four hours restriction applies to articles broadly related to the Syrian Civil War, with the wording listed here.
Please familiarise yourself with the full decision at Talk:Syrian Civil War/General sanctions before making any further edits to pages related to the Syrian Civil War.
Sanctions imposed may be appealed to the imposing administrator or at the appropriate administrators' noticeboard.

Sanctions may only be imposed after the user is notified sanctions are in effect. 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.

This notice is effective only if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged at Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications.

--Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bosra Asham

And I have to you a great request in the future carefully read your sources before going to edit map. Here is the source indicates that the city is under the control of the army.Al Akhbar While the source Al Jazeera tells the headquarters was mined and blown up from a distance but does not report about clashes in the city.Al Jazeera Hanibal911 (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

SOHR reported about the clashes in the city on their official site and facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152301968613115&set=a.10150329947968115.393926.326766683114&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf

المرصد السوري‏

محافظة درعا- المرصد السوري لحقوق الانسان::قصفت القوات النظامية مناطق في بلدتي النعيمة و الحراك ولم ترد معلومات عن سقوط ضحايا،في حين تدور اشتباكات عنيفة بين القوات النظامية مدعمة بقوات جيش الدفاع الوطني الموالية لها من جهة ومقاتلي الكتائب الاسلامية المقاتلة و الكتائب المقاتلة من جهة اخرى في الحي الجنوبي لبلدة بصرى الشام وانباء عن خسائر بشرية في صفوف القوات النظامية والمسلحين الموالين لها

and Aljazeera too reported about the attack which is inside the town:

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/93c95791-0b15-4d81-b159-915e504bc36c

so this all means the town is contested. SOHR report is sufficient. as for your source, i am the one who have to tell you to read carefully what the source says because your source is outdated. its published in Wednesday, February 19, 2014. and now we are in Mars 6, 2014. you consider this source as a new source? anyway how the hell the rebels would conduct such operation without being inside the town or without having clashes with the army?! its contested.Amensnober91 (talk) 11:01, 6 March 2014 (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. Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

March 2014

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating WP:1RR in contravention of WP:SCWGS, as you did at Template: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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Bbb23 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kesab

Your source does not say that in the city Kesab are fights but these sources clear say that the city is under the control of the army.Reuters The Daily Star Hanibal911 (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian News Channel says there are clashes in the city and Aljazeera too, so contested.Amensnober91 (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.aljazeera.net/news/pages/6138a3b2-8120-4e15-a606-d466f3106226

A cousin of Syrian President Bashar Assad was killed Sunday during clashes with rebels near the town of Kasab on tyhe Turkish border, Lebanon's Daily Star reported.Jerusalim Post Fighting continued Sunday as rebels wrested control of the crossing but were unable to advance to surrounding villages. The government has mobilized large numbers of pro-government forces to retake Kasab crossing.Chicago Tribune Hanibal911 (talk) 08:22, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And your source distorts the facts because Syrian state media and The Daily star said that A cousin of Syrian President Bashar Assad was killed Sunday during clashes with rebels near the town of Kasab on tyhe Turkish border.Jerusalim Post Hanibal911 (talk) 08:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait new data who can explain the situation. because even Reuters clearly said that clashes was going on around town.Reuters Hanibal911 (talk) 08:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

those are old news from two days ago, the rebels actually have captured much of the town. there is even a clip if you like to see:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nw1wYkJZZ7Y&feature=youtu.be

allah Akbar!!!

Youtube is not accepted as a source by Wikipedia and please keep your personal POV to yourself and stick to Wikipedia policy/guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 14:48, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the regime members here are expressing their POV too, so I am doing the same. tell that to them not me. Amensnober91 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Palmyra

Violent clashes between fighters of the Front victory and several battalions Islamist fighter on the one hand and the regular forces of the other hand on the outskirts of the city of Palmyra this does not mean that the fights go around the city.SOHR Hanibal911 (talk) 12:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One clash does not make the city's outskirts contested or the city surrounded by the rebels. If more ongoing clashes are reported than yes a ring would be appropriate. EkoGraf (talk) 15:32, 24 March 2014 (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. Thank you.GreyShark (dibra) 19:27, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for violating, again, WP:1RR contravening WP:SCWGS, as you did at Template: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 adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. → Call me Hahc21 21:15, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You were already warned about the outstanding community sanctions, and this is your second block for violating the 1RR enforcement placed on Template:Syrian civil war detailed map. If, after your block expires, you violate the 1RR restriction for a third time, I will have to formally topic ban you from the template. Discuss on the talk page, and make edits that are only backed up by consensus. → Call me Hahc21 21:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EA World View

This source EA World View is a pro opposition source of and can not be used to display the progress of the rebels. So you have do not break the rules. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that. what makes it a pro opposition source? Amensnober91 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EAWorld it is pro opposition source and we not use pro opposition sources to display rebel advances. You must Self revert your editing or provide a reliable source that confirms the capture of 61 Brigade military base. Hanibal911 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Jabiyah

You have been warned by other users that amateur activist YouTube videos are not accepted as reliable sources, but it seems that you chose to ignore that. And about the Al-Jabiyah issue, you should learn that Tall Al-Jabiyah is a hill, while Al-Jabiyah is a town (inhabited or ghost town, but not a hill). And finally, as its obvious if you followed the Syrian civil war detailed map talk page, you cannot change the status of a town, base, etc... based on an amateur activist YouTube video. If you find a journalistic source stating that Brigade 61 had fallen, its OK, but if not...so I suggest you to self-revert that change or perhaps other users will start to use NDF videos as source, following your behaviour...--HC PUNXKID 21:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i am not using youtube videos alone, the youtube videos are just an Additional evidence to the source I put, just to see with your own eyes that the source is saying the truth, nothing more. and about Al-Jabiyah, are you kidding me? have you seen the map? Al-Jabiyah is just a HILL, and a small one too, there is no houses in it whatsoever.

http://wikimapia.org/#lang=he&lat=32.941781&lon=36.009182&z=17&m=b&show=/21975158/Al-Jabiyah&search=%D8%B9%D8%B1%D9%89%20

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. Thank you. Hanibal911 (talk) 19:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]