No edit summary |
→Notification of Syrian civil war general sanctions: new section |
||
Line 71: | Line 71: | ||
[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] |
[[Image:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.--[[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]] ([[User talk:HCPUNXKID|talk]]) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
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 [[Wikipedia:Edit warring|edit warring]]. <!--Template:An3-notice--> Thank you.--[[User:HCPUNXKID|HCPUNXKID]] ([[User talk:HCPUNXKID|talk]]) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC) |
||
== Notification of Syrian civil war general sanctions == |
|||
As a result of a [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|editing restrictions]], described at [[Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions|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 [[Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions#Log of notifications|WP:SCWGS]].--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:24, 28 November 2013
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Criminal categories and BLP
I reverted a couple of your edits. Please see WP:BLPCAT, specifically "...Category:Criminals and its subcategories should only be added for an incident that is relevant to the person's notability; the incident was published by reliable third-party sources; the subject was convicted; and the conviction was not overturned on appeal." Sean.hoyland - talk 17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you confirm that you understand what the phrase "the subject was convicted" means in the WP:BLPCAT policy ? Your edits violate mandatory policy so they have to be reverted. If you are unable or unwilling to comply with this policy for any reason, please just say so. I will then report the matter at WP:ANI where you can argue your case with the site administrators. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Stop your POV Vandalism
If you continue vandalising WP by breaking its rules (use of Facebook as a source, use partisan sources presenting them as neutral ones, etc...) you will be reported for vandalism. I suggest you to review Wikipedia policies and rules after making such damages to WP credibility.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC) per all editors,we use use SOHR,because it is a reliable sources all western and neutral sources as Reuters ,and CNN and others use sohr as a source,and it publish its report on it page on facebook,and your sources are unreliable.Alhanuty (talk) 23:41, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Rif Dimashq offensive (March 2013–present)
The reliability of the source you provided is questionable. This source is the only one that has mentioned a major offensive by the rebels. Not to mention that this dubious source is citing a youtube video as proof of this rebel offensive, which in itself is not allowed on Wikipedia. None of the highly reliable sources likes Reuters, BBC, AFP, AP, Guardian, Telegraph or even CNN have made mention of a major rebel offensive. In fact, most are reporting of the Army still being the one who is on the offensive, with Barzeh, Jobar and Qaboun being reported by the opposition SOHR to be under continues attack by the military. EkoGraf (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
But the website is a very reliable,with military experts and analysts,and there were news that rebels were able to counter-attack government forces and reach back to the abbaseyeen squareAlhanuty (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I have not seen evidence of its reliability, in fact, this was the first time I ever saw this site. The source itself actually cites other news reports as its sources so it is in fact second-hand reporting, while Wikipedia requests prime sources. Plus, the site cites for its sources youtube videos (not permitted on Wikipedia), one never-heard-of opposition news site (reliability and neutrality in question), in one instance even Russia Today (also not allowed on Wikipedia), etc... However, the main point is, nobody else, not one of the major news sites, reported a major rebel offensive in Damascus, they are all actually reporting on continues government offensive, which in itself contradicts and invalidates this dubious source. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
The sources which your source quotes for a major rebel offensive are these [1][2], none of which is permissible on Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
Lets discuss the issue with other editors than ourselves,put it on the talkpage and let the editors react Alhanuty (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
NOW Media is a known pro-Syrian opposition news website. The news they report is almost exclusively about Syria and not neutral. They have had a few news reports about events outside of Syria, some about Lebanon and Yemen and so, but most of those again were in some way Syria-related. And you again ignored the discussion on the talk page for which you also called for, where one other editor already agreed your sources are unreliable and not meeting Wikipedia standards. So, I will repeat again, the only sources of a big rebel offensive you have are a youtube video (which Wikipedia disregards outright) and a pro-opposition (non-neutral) news site. Not one report by AP, AFP, Reuters, BBC, Guardian, Telegraph or even CNN has reported or mentioned a rebel offensive. In fact, they have done the opposite, they have reported on continuing Army offensive operations. Even if it did maybe occur, the lack of news on it via reliable sources makes it non-notable per Wikipedia standards and not worth an article being created for it. EkoGraf (talk) 20:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Ariha
Ariha under the control of the government in that the source word that she disputed it said about what it used to be in his hands, but after heavy fighting took control of the government! Please carefully study the source when making changes37.55.213.139 (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Ar Rastan, Syria Civil war template
Dear Alhanuty, thank you for your edit. I added a comment as follows on the Template talk section.
I would appreciate your comment. Regards, Ariskar (talk) 01:40, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Reported to administrators board
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Всезнайка ДБР (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Syrian civil war
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/24/us-syria-crisis-damascus-siege-idUSBRE9AN09420131124
Read the articles tell me where is the mentioning of the towns you put as contested because Eastern Ghuta is a large place and you only put Gov. held towns as contested not opp held like Irbin Kafr Batna and others and they are in eastern ghuta as wellDaki122 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Eastern Ghouta
I think the situation is at this point highly unclear. We got opposition political commities and the rebel leadership claiming victories, opposition activists on the ground fiercely denying the victories and saying they are still besieged [3] and the rebel units involved in the fighting and most importantly SOHR being silent about what has happened or has in fact not happened. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Should we then put them contested till further news appear Alhanuty (talk) 23:49, 27 November 2013 (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.--HCPUNXKID (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Notification of Syrian civil war general sanctions
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) 01:24, 28 November 2013 (UTC)