Hello, Tradedia and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Guillaume2303 (talk) 06:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply] Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: Edit a page • Upload and use images • Create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Help desk: A Wiki Styled page to ask questions on Help directory: A comprehensive list-style help contents page Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Simplified manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review • Featured content Miscellaneous User pages • Talk pages Awards a registered contributor can achieve and award Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for writing Randa Kassis; it's a fantastic article :). Keep up the good work! Ironholds (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone ahead and asked for an admin to intervene, see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Syrian Civil War (2011–present) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for putting my attention into this. I have added my comments and will abide by a restrained approach to this. But what is clear to me is that discussion has not been closed, so the original status quo and the original title should prevail for now until an admin, not an individual colleague, decides. Please see the new notice board created above where I have put my comments. werldwayd (talk) 03:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your timely intervention at the right time and in the right manner in this regard and putting my attention to this very grave matter. My faith is reinforced in that accuracy almost always wins (as it should) against "popular" and short-sighted ideological approach of some. I am very satisfied with the outcome and reverting to the very accurate title Syrian uprising (2011–present) rather than "civil war" that did have majority voting in discussions but was erroneously based on subjective look into things rather than the international media that continuously refers to it as an uprising. My firm conviction that even majority votes on talk pages should not be binding. I nominate that this discussion becomes a precedence to other talk pages where we don't automatically follow majorities but we rely basically on reliable and objective outside sources. Talk page votes may be taken into some consideration, but should never be the basis of final decision. Again thanks for you for your efforts and not descending into a war particularly with colleagues I7laseral and Doncsecz. werldwayd (talk) 20:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is acceptable. And do not yell. Doncsecz^talk 05:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the article Syrian uprising (2011–present) to be move protected and while I am in favor for the name change, I think that the article needs another week at least before this (A move discussion) should be brought up again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of areas currently held by Syrian opposition until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the "no areas" from the list. A list of areas currently held by the opposition should not include a list of area not held by the opposition. Zenithfel (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the problem? You can click on the source and show by yourself that both Arhar al sham and Sukur al-Sham are fighting against the Syrian army. I have demonstrated on talk page that they were notable and among the strongest forces on the ground. Be constructive , not disruptive. --DanielUmel (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Checkpoint and Battle of Aleppo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tradedia. You have new messages at Al Ameer son's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the ((Talkback)) or ((Tb)) template.

--Al Ameer son (talk) 01:48, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tradedia, Zozo2kx has provided some very relevant information regarding the administrative divisions of Damascus on my talk page. --Al Ameer son (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tradedia, whenever you have time, could you fix the wikilinks to Basatin al-Assad, al-Bayda, Tartus Governorate (site of recent massacre) and Marqab in the uprising map of the Cities and towns of the Syrian civil war article? I tried a couple days ago, but wasn't successful. Cheers! --Al Ameer son (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tradedia (talk) 03:21, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being so quick ;) Cheers --Al Ameer son (talk) 04:12, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Village Abel: 11 May, rebels recaptured Abel, potentially easing the movements of opposition forces between al-Qusayr and Homs.^[1] However, the military captured it once again the very next day.Homs province 5 92.113.70.0 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tradedia (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aleppo province: On 6 May regime forces took over the village of Harbeel. Regime forces took over several villages in south Reef Aleppo last night, after violent clashes particularly around the village of Hadadeen, which caused the death of several fighters on both sides.https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/366598120115199 92.113.70.0 (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been working on a solution to the current mess in the Rif Dimashq area. I've taken what we have currently and adjusted it to be closer to the actual geographical positions, you can see it here. Right now I'm collecting sources to fill in the Eastern Ghouta so as to avoid the controversial "star", maybe a few other towns in the region if sources can be found.

As I've been creating this, I got to thinking: Perhaps for overcrowded provinces, we can make enlarged maps to better show the finer details that can be accessible by clicking the capital names on the main map. We'd remove all but the nahiyah seats and maybe a few key bases/towns on the main map (satisfying those who think the map should be stripped down and/or kept the same size), and transfer all the fine details to the larger provincial maps (satisfying those who want detail and/or an enlarged map). It would also make editing easier, as one wouldn't need to sift through as many points to add new places. We could break it down as follows: Damascus/Rif Dimashq ; Aleppo ; Homs ; Hama ; Lattakia/Tartus ; Quneitra/Daraa/Suwayda ; Raqqa/Deir ez-Zor/Hasakah. Thoughts? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progress continuing here now. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the “new” Rif Dimashq area! It could not have been done without the size increase, so I am sold on that. I volunteer to adjust aleppo area (soon after the size increase is implemented) and other areas as needed (over time). By the way, have you seen this? It has a map on it that might be useful as a source…

I prefer to have everything in one map. There is already a simplified map in the main article for those who want that. Sometimes, I like to see the border area between provinces (like hama-idlib with Khan Shaykhun & kafr nabudah; or daraa-Rif Dimashq to see how rebel push in daraa might spillover into damascus; etc…) Also, if we have a simple main map and another detailed provincial one, then if we want to change the status of an important town, we have to do it in each map. And if we do it in one, but forget in the other, then we end up with inconsistencies… Tradedia (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that ISW report, but I have to say I'm a bit sceptical of it. I have not seen reports of clashes in the districts of central Damascus that it claims are contested, nor are they backed up in the report itself. Likewise for rebel control of upper Wadi Barada (upper left), which is too close to major military installations to be believable.

Fair enough. I may retain some provincial/regional copies in my userspace so that I can better organise points.

I'll enlarge it now, as I'd like to get the peanut gallery off my back quickly on the Ghouta matter.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:03, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• cite web|url=https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/411545698953774 |title=Idlib province: Rebels (from Ahrar... - Syrian Observatory for Human Rights |publisher=Facebook |date= |accessdate=2013-08-
• |[[[Homs District]]

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the reasons for deleting it from the Cities and towns during the Syrian civil war article, but the link is not enough, a schematic general map of Syria must be included to have a first and general vision of the military situation. Perhaps a map showing only territorial divisions (SAA and allies-held, FSA and allies-held, YPG and allies-held, and contested areas) without cities, towns, military bases or other infrastructures.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't break the 1 revert rule, as you did just now, self-revert. And this source Yalla Souriyapro opposition blog and is not a reliable source.Hanibal911 (talk) 07:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may be partly wrong. But I added a 14th Regiment correctly as there is now an army offensive and the area near the town of An Nabk under army control.Hanibal911 (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're a bastard Pro-Assad. YoYou're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.ur mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of deatYouYou're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.'re a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.You're on the verge of death.h.You're a bastard Pro-Assad.You're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge ofYou'rYou're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.e a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. YYou're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.ou're on the verge of death. death.You're a bastard PrYou're a bastard Pro-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.o-Assad. Your mother ate my penis. You're on the verge of death.

ok Tradedia I will leave it to you. Thanks. --Barcaxx1980 (talk) 09:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! I want to ask you why you revert my changes on two villages in the province of Latakia, although I noted a reliable source confirming all my edits if the reason is that my source cites agency SANA then you need to also remove the village Bayt Ablak which added Alhanuty editor using the source data is based on opposition media. Also its source pointed out that the rebels occupied the city Bayirbucak but editor Alhanuty added on the map the village of Bayt Ablak argues that source was referring this particular locality. Hanibal911 (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! The reason is because when SANA talks about "qualitative operations" it frequently means just air attacks or artillery strikes. This is not enough to make a town contested. This is especially that we don’t have other indications that the town is contested, in fact this is known to be a rebel stronghold and if it was contested, more news about that would appear in more media outlets. By the way, Turkish weekly is just using a Xinhua report. Xinhua is the state press agency of China. China state has been on the side of Syrian government. It is not a neutral source (see Xinhua_News_Agency#Credibility) and should be put at the same level as PressTV, Russia TV, etc… Tradedia^talk 13:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But then we need to most Turkish media, Qatari channel Al Jazeera and the Saudi Arabia media classify as pro opposition sources, as these countries are supporting the opposition. And thank you for your detailed answer. Hanibal911 (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this applies to state press agencies only. Many Turkish media are independent from the state and have a good reputation. Al Jazeera English cares about its reputation and is not so bad, although it is not as neutral and high quality as good reputation media, so we have to be careful. On the other hand, Al Jazeera Arabic is worse and has to be used with great care because it might overstate rebel successes. It is the same with the Saudi Channel Al Arabiya. Tradedia^talk 17:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you. Hanibal911 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, regarding your revert on April 2, i would like to bring to your attention that the map with thick lines #3 was modified and should now contain thin province borders (as required by yourself), see this. For some reason however, the system doesn't show the update yet. I will remove alternative on the template, when the system is loading map #3 properly. Thanks for your understanding.GreyShark (dibra) 21:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:21, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]