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 template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Arab world, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Arab world 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.Arab worldWikipedia:WikiProject Arab worldTemplate:WikiProject Arab worldArab world articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This template 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 articles
This template 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 articles
The edits to this section to remove fairly fundamental descriptive words ('israel', 'airstrike') are difficult to understand. It's a list of Israeli airstrikes, in the template for foreign involvement in syria, the israel section, about airstrikes, because that's the articled isreali involvement. It's not complicated. 78.144.20.105 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Whether Israeli or not, those alleged events (half of which are also claimed by various rebels) are not spillovers and hence do not belong to this campaignbox.GreyShark (dibra) 17:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@EkoGraf: Your behaviour here has some bad faith pattern - you are changing the article name, its content and title - just the way you like with no appreciation of others' efforts to make Wikipedia better. I'm afraid this is a WP:OWN behaviour, thus please refrain from edit-warring with unilateral changes like you have done earlier. Come on - let's find a solution here to satisfy us both. What do you say?GreyShark (dibra) 17:53, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the way I like it. Its simply how we have used this section since the start of the war four years ago. This section was always dedicated to cross-border and international incidents related to the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please, explain those edits [1],[2],[3]. I find it hard to deal with the fact that such a great editor like you is falling into this inappropriateness. If you started an article named foreign involvement, you cannot change topic and title without discussion. This is a typical WP:OWN.GreyShark (dibra) 21:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a matter of inappropriateness. At the time, I honestly didn't even think the title of the template mattered since the section in the main war campaignbox it replaced was always dedicated to cross-border and international incidents related to the conflict. And also since at the top it said Syrian War spillover and international incidents like it did before in the said section when there was only the main Syrian war campaignbox. If you want I can change the title of the box/template to the full title of Spillover and international incidents of the Syrian Civil War (although I think its too long). PS I have no objections to the Foreign involvement box you created and added to the main war box and I think its great. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply and the WP:GF; i really appreciate it. I think that with the Syrian conflict becoming so widespread and internationally affecting, it is logical to relate separately to foreign involvement and spillover (which we agree to be separate topics). I've recently taken an initiative to make some order in the Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War article and in the Spillover of the Syrian Civil War in order to reduce overlapping, effectively concentrating all border incidents in the "spillover" article, while keeping foreign involvement topics like rebel/gov-t support and foreign airstrikes in the "foreign involvement" article. Do you agree with such an order?GreyShark (dibra) 13:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see your message at the talk page here because you yourself did not respond to my message for a week and I simply stopped checking the talk page. I could compromise for the moving of the Israeli air-strikes and US operation to the foreign involvement box and for us to only leave any border incidents in this box. However, that means for us to leave the Turkish air-strike and Mazraat Amal incident because they both happened on the border. EkoGraf (talk) 14:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Going back to the original problem - please stop changing the heading title of the box! it should correspond to the title of the article, otherwise it creates troubles and misunderstandings. If you want to change one of those please make a suggestion and let's discuss, otherwise it's a a mess.GreyShark (dibra) 06:07, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: I already told you several times. This box was made to reflect the section of the original campaignbox for the war which covered all border incidents. I really do not get why you are making such a big deal over the name of the template. But in any case, at this point, I don't really care about the name anymore. However, with your last revert, you did not just change the title, you removed two border incidents without any explanation. I am not going to change the title again, but I am going to reinsert the two incidents which are clearly border incidents. I think I have already compromised a lot on this issue (removal of Israeli strikes and US operation and not touching the title) and have been, and still trying to be, understanding. And your assertion that I am making changes without discussing is untrue because I have been discussing this issue on this talk page for more than a month now. EkoGraf (talk) 07:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removal of Hezbollah involvement from campaignbox[edit]
@EkoGraf: the removal of Hezbollah (one of the most involved foreign parties in the Syrian Civil War) from the campaignbox may be interpreted as a pure WP:POV act. Deliberately not mentioning Hezbollah is basically undermining the conventions of specifying belligerents at template:Syrian Civil War infobox. Please readd Hezbollah at once.GreyShark (dibra) 17:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: Huh??? I really don't understand what you are talking about? I'm not sure even of what box you are talking about? Syrian Civil War infobox has Hezbollah as a belligerent in it (hasn't been removed). This box (of this talk page) never had Hezbollah. If you are referring to the campaignbox on Foreign involvement that you created that's another matter. I removed the Hezbollah involvement link because it was improperly placed. It was placed in such a way that all of the sub-articles (individual incidents) being exclusively Israeli air-strikes against both Hezbollah and non-Hezbollah (SAA) targets. So please refrain from accusing me of a POV act, otherwise I could say that omitting the fact all of those incidents were Israeli air-strikes (Israeli involvement) was a POV act. Now, back to the matter at hand. If you are referring to THAT box, than I will re-add the Hezbollah involvement link (didn't think it would bother you so much) but the overhead for all of those air-strikes being Israeli air-strikes stays. I think that's fair. Besides, it was how we arranged it in the first place in the original civil war campaignbox with consensus from other editors years ago. EkoGraf (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Additional information needed Please tell where you would like to see that link. Also, I don't think that would be appropriate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong talkpage, whoops. Look at the foreign involvement part for the syrian civil war. I'll post a request there. 2601:85:C101:BA30:C17F:3BBF:929F:6EFA (talk) 20:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=small}
Additional information needed Please tell where you would like to see that link. Also, I don't think that would be appropriate. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)