User talk:Tradedia/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sakultah

Hi! Since you were able to give Sakultah a 72h ban a couple of day ago. He´s now back worse then ever, giving 7 sources-less edits the last 24h. The only reason I don´t report him myself is because I´m not 100% confident in how to do it.

Please help me/us out.

Regards/ Rhocagil (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Rules for editing the map / Syrian Civil War Map

Greetings Tradedia! I came here beacause of an issue regarding the rules of editing the map on syrian civil war map,I also posted this issue on the talk page but nobody responded so I came here to you and ask if i am right or wrong about the rules for editing the map,I hope you respond on my issue.Lists129 (talk) 15:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Roads For Iraq Map request

hey you are the user that added the roads to the syria map arent you, if so i would like to make a request that if you could find the time, maybe you could add the roads to the iraq map, it would be incredibly beneficial to the map, and greatly appreciated. the road additions to the syria map has been an incredible addition, probably the biggest addition to the map in years, great job! :D keep up the good work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Iraqi_insurgency_detailed_map

Midgetman433 (talk) 15:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Kurdish-Rebel color (SCW)

You are the one making the last decisions, I guess. I think we have a major problem as how we mark areas in the SCW map. The problem I see here is the "New" color used on the map. I think 2 users agreed to change the yellow color to basically represent anyone who is inside the SDF coalition. This idea came up after some users were anoyed about how we mark villages in Hasaka province as under joint rebel-Kurd control, even thought we know that rebels don't have much influence there. Because of that, another discussion section has been opened and some people agreed that It doesn't make sense to mark joint control in Hasaka province, because the major YPG influence, that's why they changed everything to yellow, and then action is described as "The new color, not representing Kurds but the SDF". What happened after that is that someone else changed the entire Raqqa province to yellow, even thought there were villages primarely under rebel control with their HQ's there. This is highly against the rules and here's why :

1) A color can't represent a coalition, neither a group, because that changes the entire meaning of this map.
2) According to that logic, we can remove the grey color from the map, because Al Nusra is inside the Jaish Fatah coalition which consists of 70% Rebel soldiers (IF/"FSA")
3) Map is being edited without sources, instead of finding who actually captured something, we use only sources indicating that is has been captured, and mark it as how we want. Isn't that contradictory to the idea of this map ?

Most people who are looking at this map consider "yellow" to represent Kurdish forces like the YPG/YPJ, and not rebels at all.

The Raqqa province has been edited for more than 8 months, every town, village was backed by several sources and talk page sections. You can't now revert everything with only 1 edit ... What will happen if Rebels capture Raqqa town, will it also go under "yellow" control ?

My opinion is,

Keep the Hasaka area as it is, because the idea was only for that province.
Revert Raqqa province and change it how it was (Previous SCW maps will help), leave these recent areas (Tishrin etc) as under yellow control until we find other sources.

What's your opinion ? DuckZz (talk) 01:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Could you at least give some opinion ? DuckZz (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Faysal Mill, Azaz

You recently removed Faysal Mill from the Syrian Civil War Template on the basis that its location was unreliable, given that it was uploaded from co-ordinates obtained from Wikimapia. [[1]] This source here specifies that it is located on the Azaz-Aleppo road and having looked on Google Maps it looks like there isn't any other logical place that the site could be located. Additionally multiple locations have been added using references from Wikimapia and therefore I think it is unfair to remove Faysal Mill on that same basis. The mill is also important as it is located along the front-line between the SDF and rebels in Aleppo and hence think it should be readded to map. Regards, Prohibited Area (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, Prohibited Area, I just put it back. However, to clarify, my problem with it was not that "it was uploaded from co-ordinates obtained from Wikimapia" per se. But rather my problem was that the name "Faysal Mill" was put in Wikimapia 4 days ago. This means that the location was placed on Wikimapia in reaction to the war events related to the "Faysal Mill". You have to know that there have been fraudulent additions made on Wikimapia in random places in order to be able to put objects on our map for the purpose of POV pushing. Remember that anyone can edit Wikimapia without specifying sources. Tradedia^talk 20:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and I agree. However in this scenario I deemed that the location of Faysal Mill was most likely accurate and hence therefore justified to source Wikimapia to upload it to the template map.Prohibited Area (talk) 20:33, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Facebook and twitter

In the last days (or weeks) uncontrolled use of facebook pages or twitter sources not accepted as reliable has been growing exponentially. I should spend all my time undoing editings. I cannot (and do not want to waste my time) because of 1RR rule. Examples: user Bruskom, Tr19ss and often Sûriyeya. Could you do block these editors for some time at least? Or address me to who can block them? Otherwise the map is becoming useless. Paolowalter (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Sources on inter-rebel news

This is a recurrent theme since I began editing the map; whenever I use reliable sources to ascertain whether or not Nusra controls something, I'm told that it doesn't count because it's an opposition source. In this case it's SMART News Agency. Is this actually true? Because if we don't use opposition sources to report on inter-opposition splits, then how do we do it? Foreign news agencies don't really know what's going on, they just say "al Qaeda coalition" or affiliate for anything involving Nusra since they lack specific details on who else is there. And waiting for sources to prove a negative (i.e. for Nusra to confirm that it is NOT in city X) is just ridiculous. In the case of Maara, we may find confirmation from Nusra that it withdrew but it's a struggle to confirm whether they withdrew from their own buildings as well and not just Division 13's HQ's. SMART says they abandoned their own buildings too, which makes the whole city lime green, but with Nusra's ambiguous statements only, we can only make the city half grey. NightShadeAEB (talk) 08:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Crediable sources

I see that you are a seasoned editor so I ask you to take part in this discussion about the sources from Twitter.here Sûriyeya (talk) 16:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

ANI

Just a suggestion, you might want to edit this comment you posted at ANI, to temper and significantly shorten it. You complain about the impact of another editor's actions on the reputation of Wikipedia without considering your own. You wrote several personal attacks and insults that were uncalled for or went too far. You could dial that entire post back by more than two-thirds and still get your point across without sinking to the level of those you are railing against. IMHO - ^theWOLFchild 22:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Violation rules of editing

User DuckZz said me that you can help decide a problems with violate rules of edit on map. These guys frankly ignore main rules of edit. What we must do in this situation revert these edit or something els. Here is data from DuckZz:

Here he added the Abu Kashab village west of Markadah. He used a Kurdish source (against the rules), and he pretented that Abu Kashab district and Abu Kashab village are the same, even thought geo.maps show them with 20km seperation.
He then hahahahah puts the Abu Kashab district on the correct position but puts a source which shows the Abu Kashab village 20km away from there.
He then basically reverts my edit, says bad source is provided, and then puts his own sources which doesn't mention Abu Kashab village at all, but he still removes it, and ads Abu Kashab district, which again can't be added bec. Kurdish sources are used.
He then tries to be polite but talks nonsense, it's like he is their commander and not an wikipedia editor.

And these data from me:

he used maps as a source
edit without source Sûriyeya (talk) 07:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

You can help me as some editors used unreliable biased sources from Twittr and maps for edit. But these edits violate a Rules #1 and #2.here here here here I realy think that all editors must observe the rules of edit or we will get a chaos and lot of unjustified edits which flagrantly violated the accepted rules for editing. We must strictly prevent such actions. Sûriyeya (talk) 10:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

Note

I have removed a portion of your comment at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Proposed decision. Please do not repeat allegations based on suppressed edits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

And another note: this comment is a month old; had I seen it then, I might have blocked you for personal attacks and gross incivility. As it is, I hope this warning will suffice. If you can't say what you want to say in neutral terms, without insults, it shouldn't be said on-wiki. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

"Jawalik" in Homs

Qasioun News (admittedly pro-rebel) says it is held by the rebels, as does video evidence recorded by rebel activists. A pro-government map (by Islamic World News) also shows is as under rebel control, to back up these sources. The founder of Raqqa is Being Slaughtered Silently, said Jawalik was hit by a Russian warplane last year, along with the Local Coordination Committees of Syria. Along with all of that, we have the fact (admitted by Al Masdar News) that the rebels attacked Khirbet al-Sawda, in which most reasonable people would agree that the rebels attacked from the northeast axis. Do you think that is enough evidence to mark the town as rebel-held? I think it is. I cannot revert more than once on the Syria Map, so I'm not going to revert you today. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Polite request

Could you please stop reverting my edits? I am already dealing with one editor who reverts every edit I make. The Masdar source I cited made it clear the Shaddadi area is controlled by SDF, and the area to the south of that is controlled by ISIS. These are major towns I added, with thousands of people. Now they are erased simply because the article didn't mention every single one by name. I feel this is unfair. We know ISIS controls this area, and yet we aren't allowed to show it. How does that make sense? If we only kept towns that had a non-map reliable source that mentioned them by name, most marks on this map would disappear. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pbfreespace3: First of all, I didn’t revert towns that you marked ISIS-controlled. I reverted your edit (with SDF villages) because the statement in the sources is not enough to assert who controls for example “Jirmaz Janoobi”. The source says that ISIS took ziyanat then kashkash jabbour then aazawi. This doesn’t necessarily mean the every village to the north of these is SDF held. Why? Well, what is the size of “Jirmaz Janoobi”? Can you show it to me on Wikimapia? For a small village like this, it is possible that ISIS took it during the same attack but the source did not mention it because it is too small and there was no news about it. It is also possible that this village was abandoned/destroyed and therefore no one controls it. So basically we didn’t know who controlled this village. In this case, we do not put it on our map. Villages that no source mentions in name might be abandoned/destroyed or insignificant. If no source ever mentions a village how do we update it if there is an attack by some party that changes the frontline?

There is no point in putting villages on the map ahead of an attack. Just wait for sources to mention them and then we will put them. If no source ever mentions them then it means they are probably not important/notable or abandoned/destroyed. Our map should not be more detailed than the sources. Otherwise, we will not be able to update them by using the sources. There is fog of war. And fog is white. So a white area on the map does not necessarily mean that the area is empty. But it rather means that there is no information from sources. Tradedia^talk 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Your recent editing history at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map 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.
This article is currently subject to WP:1RR sanctions as noted at WP:GS/SCW&ISIL. Your reverts have exceeded this sanction. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I strike this and sincerely apologize. I misunderstood the consecutive edit portions of the WP:3RR policy and overlooked that fact when I initially posted this. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You must be new around here ;) As the person in charge of enforcing Wikipedia rules on the module, I appreciate your hard work and vigilance. Tradedia^talk 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:14, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I made a mistake and sincerely apologize. -- Dane2007 ^talk 22:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You must be new around here ;) As the person in charge of enforcing Wikipedia rules on the module, I appreciate your hard work and vigilance. Tradedia^talk 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Iraq location map road overlay

Hello Tradedia,

first of all, thanks for your great contributions on Wikipedia and especially around the Syrian Civil War. There are currently some requests for a road overlay for the Template:Iraqi Civil War detailed map. I would actually do this, but I'd need the information, how you created the road overlay for the Syrian map and where you got your information from. I know that you only created a png-version, while the svg one was created later by another user but based on your map.

Kind regards, Ermanarich (talk) 19:42, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ermanarich. There are Iraqi roads on Template:Syrian and Iraqi insurgency detailed map based on the png file: File:Syria-Iraq location map1.png (also available here: http://fs5.directupload.net/images/151108/3bso28xj.png). The png file was drawn by hand after looking at an Iraq map with roads on it. Tradedia^talk 06:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll start creating a svg overlay version of it for the Iraqi civil war map then, should be finished in a few days.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

1RR

Hi Tradedia ,I wanted to inform you that editor Ahmedo Semsuri just broke the 1RR on the S.C.W.M! first rv second rv.Lists129 (talk) 14:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Tradedia. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

i need your help

users on wikipedia are using unreliable Al-Masdar with no visual confirmation to claim that all of Suwayda including northeast is under Regime control,in the meanwhile a neutral source named Bosno Sinjic confirms that FSA desert groups control the area of northeast suwayda https://twitter.com/BosnjoBoy/status/846352394808180738,and bosno is not pro-rebel,can you please revert Iwan123Iwan edits on the module.Alhanuty (talk) 18:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Your AfD of Al-Masdar News

Don't forget to put your "argument for deletion" - without it the AfD might get snowballed! Batternut (talk) 22:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

@Batternut: Thank you for the reminder. I am working on it as we speak and will create the discussion page when i am done in a few hours... Tradedia^talk 23:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Sakultah

Firstly Hi. If you look at my edit about the Syrian civil war, you will see that not a problem. Other rules, especially not knowing I was out of Sakultah account. Without further ado I want the opening of the block. Good or bad I'd appreciate it if you make a turn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pöh1923 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

@Pöh1923:

If from now on, you always edit while respecting all the rules that I just posted on your talk page, then I will no longer seek to block your unblocked accounts. On the other hand, if you break the rules, even once, then you will get blocked.
According to Wikipedia procedures, to get user:Sakultah or other blocked sockpuppets unblocked, you need to put Template:Unblock on the talk page of the blocked account:

The following should be placed on the talk page of the blocked account:

{{unblock | reason=your reason here ~~~~}}

Remember to replace "your reason here" with why you think you should be unblocked.

Your request will be reviewed by an uninvolved administrator (not me) who will decide whether to unblock the account, or keep it blocked. Tradedia^talk 13:54, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map

Need your help because Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map at now looks like a shitModule:Syrian Civil War overview map. Niele~enwiki tried to find a good solution with an overload it module but for now it all does not look very good! You can help make it a wotking or we must restory "Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map" in its original form? Mehmedsons (talk) 18:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Tradedia. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)