User talk:EkoGraf

ok Jaiyen29

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, EkoGraf! I am Marek69 and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. Thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Marek.69 ^talk 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Question.

Question. Umm, maybe.. so 'Commanders and leaders' is right..? Thank you. --Idh0854 (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Citations

When providing references, please avoid using bare citations if possible. Secondly, while I upon re-checking the source fully acknowledge my mistake (I had read it before, but evidently too fast), please avoid comments like "read the source before...", which, even if that was not the intention, can be perceived as hostile and not assuming good faith. Regardless, it appears you've been adding some good stuff to various articles and I hope you'll continue. Cheers, 62.107.209.191 (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Pontificalibus's talk page.
Message added 15:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

300 killed as if fact in the info box

Please don't replace this edit again. - http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Libyan_uprising_%28Tripoli%29&diff=417156166&oldid=417150388 if you want to add it as claims and according to harry and according to john in the body of the article then I can accept it and add reputals , for discussion but please do not replace it as if a fact again. Off2riorob (talk) 00:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution

Please stop adding content as if fact - as in 3000 troops and 300 dead - these are unconfirmed claims only and they need attributing to the sources - they are not facts at all, please stop presenting them as such. Actually therer are no confirmed claims at all. Please attribute correctly. Off2riorob (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

As you seem to not going to stop revertting, I have templated the article - it is not NPOV - as I said, there are no confirmed facts and they need attributing correctly and until they are the article is not neutral. Off2riorob (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Battle of this and battle of that

Please take your time - As an uninvolved person , as I see it the naming under battle is a complete exaggeration - totally a false representation - I can see you are involved but please consider a neutral reporting of the issue - I will be back tomorrow and there will again be no battle for here or there, please take the long term position , thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I have made my issues clear and you have moved to you favoured position but I still clearly dispute so I have added dispute templates and will discuss more tomorrow, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 01:50, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

info box unconfirmed claims

Its best if you don't ever add unconfirmed claims to any infobox. Add your claims and attribute to article body, especially when they are completely unconfirmed. Please stop edit warring. Off2riorob (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011 Libyan uprising (Tripoli). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. _ Off2riorob (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

claims and attribution

Add death claims to the body of the article and attribute as close as possible. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am unsure , but you seem to have copied my warning to you to my talkpage, so I deleted it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

cautious reporting

I am uninvolved in this - I care less about it, but lets take care on what we report, 100 dead , 1000 dead, claims, please err on the side of caution, and step back if you are involved on one side or the other, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

one last time

I'll tell you this one last time, I think most of the things both sides are claiming is rubish and propaganda, I think the number of 3,000 dead or 6,000 dead is fantasy. I myself belive that no more than 1,000 people have died, and 200 of those were probably loyalists. However, it's not up to us to insert our points of view where we think that things the BBC or CNN say are rubish or propaganda (which they most probably are). Our job as Wikipedia editors is to present both sides views and claims and stay neutral. There are no facts in wars, only claims, which can never definitely be confirmed, especialy in this conflict where we will never have independent observers on the ground, at least not until the war is over.EkoGraf (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

One last time - stuff off. Just attribute and use strong citations - and add to the body of the article - please do not present your claims as if fact.

I will be here tomorrow and the day after, I am a neutral wikipedia editor. The battle of Tripoli is the fact, bigoted fantasy, false claim . As per wikipedia users - the battle of Tripoli is a wikipedia editors fantasy...bla di bla di bla. Off2riorob (talk) 03:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Off2riorob, please learn how to indent your comments. You are not following proper Wikiquette by not doing so. I've indented them here so you may learn from it.

Second, since I'm here, I remind you that your opinion has nothing to do with it. If a reference clearly states that something is fact and it's a legitimate reference, you must accept it regardless of your opinion on the fact. Good day. CycloneGU (talk) 03:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

You're Wasting Your Time

Off2riorob is a user with a lengthy block record, meaning that this will just be another shiny medal for him. He has a history of being extremely contentious with what he believes is correct, regardless of what others say.

I hope in the 3RR situation that you yourself did not reinsert information three times in identical fashion, that others were also involved in the reinsertion of that information. As long as is the case, you should be safe; otherwise, they might nab you also. I hope given this user's glorious history that it takes precedence.

As for why I happened upon this, I was curiously checking into whether the user had any interest in communicating with me regarding his opinions on the Pending Changes discussion, which I obviously disagreed with him on by removing a flawed poll that he felt it necessary to add to a page that would take two days to read to even reach the poll. His poll was a total catastrophe before, and this user is demonstrating that he is more than willing to ignore whatever he feels like ignoring. Hence, as I noted, you are wasting your time. Just let 3RR work itself out. Cheers. CycloneGU (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This post copied from CycloneGU's talk page to maintain conversation in one location.

I know I'm wasting my time, I saw his block record. I did undo his edits, but each time I didn't revert to the last version before him, instead I tried to make changes that could be considered compromise solutions. However, he pushes his POV without any regard to how it can hurt the neutrality of the article. I don't know what to do or who to turn to.EkoGraf (talk) 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

For starters, there is the noticeboard for 3RR violations. I am also going to make a quick check of things and confirm whether the information he is attempting to remove is actually legitimate, if I can make a determination either way. Having a second editor confirm also helps keep you out of trouble for 3RR and edit warring. Also, please remark here; per the notice attached to my pages, I am watching your page for any replies. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I can't find the information on a force of 3,000 in the second reference as you refer it. I did find the source for the 7,000, saying 6-7 thousand. Still checking other refs.

Source #3 now claims over 20 people - 4 in one, 19 in another I think I saw in that.

The problems are the three articles on the Tripoli clashes, the Battle of Brega and the Battle of Ras Lanuf.
Tripoli - In the Tripoli article, I myself stated that I am for it to be renamed because it wasn't a military battle, however he attacked me that I am not for renaming it and is constantly deleating the number of killed. I tried to insert in the infobox the claim by the IFHR that by February 24, 275 were reportedly killed, and the opposition claim that on February 26, 25 people were killed. For the sake of compromise I noted that both figures were claims. He deleted those sourced figures along with the references.
Brega - He constantly claims that it was just a minor skirmish and not a battle, even though every major media outlet is describing it and calling it a battle. I asked him for a source where it says it's a skirmish he plays crazy like he didn't hear me. And says that media claims don't count. He also constantly deletes the number of dead from the infobox because he says the BBC only claims 14 died in the battle/skirmish so it doesn't count if it's not fact. Again deletes both figures and sources.
Ras Lanuf - Same story as Brega. I tried to compromise with him and for the sake of stopping the edit war I renamed the article to Ras Lanuf clashes. But that term is simply too much POV, since these kind of things are and are being called battles.
I realy don't know what to do, I am at a loss for words.EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the sources confirm 3,000 or 7,000, he doesn't want to include them in the infobox because, according to him, if it's a claim it has no place in the infobox. o.O And this is the source for 3,000 [1]. It doesn't matter to him if it's sourced, because they are according to him all just claims and if they are not facts then they don't count as sources for the infobox. And I tried and asked him what are facts according to him, he said independent observers, when I asked him what are the BBC and health groups if not independent observers, he just ignored me. EkoGraf (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

The problems are the three articles on the Tripoli clashes, the Battle of Brega and the Battle of Ras Lanuf.

Tripoli - In the Tripoli article, I myself stated that I am for it to be renamed because it wasn't a military battle, however he attacked me that I am not for renaming it and is constantly deleating the number of killed. I tried to insert in the infobox the claim by the IFHR that by February 24, 275 were reportedly killed, and the opposition claim that on February 26, 25 people were killed. For the sake of compromise I noted that both figures were claims. He deleted those sourced figures along with the references.

Brega - He constantly claims that it was just a minor skirmish and not a battle, even though every major media outlet is describing it and calling it a battle. I asked him for a source where it says it's a skirmish he plays crazy like he didn't hear me. And says that media claims don't count. He also constantly deletes the number of dead from the infobox because he says the BBC only claims 14 died in the battle/skirmish so it doesn't count if it's not fact. Again deletes both figures and sources.

Ras Lanuf - Same story as Brega. I tried to compromise with him and for the sake of stopping the edit war I renamed the article to Ras Lanuf clashes. But that term is simply too much POV, since these kind of things are and are being called battles.

I realy don't know what to do, I am at a loss for words.EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking at Ras Lanuf right now. It might help to mention the rebel's name from ref 7 (Marai), I don't know what ref 6 is referencing but ref 5 doesn't give the two day information, only "earlier in the week". That needs to be better referenced. Ref 8 matches two others; I'll help you fix references later once everything checks out. Neither refs 9 or 10 mention the 20 executed soldiers.

So in summary, some editing is needed and I will not question Off2riorob on questioning the accuracy, as I found a few inaccuracies among the ones that do check out. I'll hel;p sort out citations later if you can fix it up. I am concerned about the triple-ref source, however; since it's constantly updated, information will vanish over time and have to re researched and referenced elsewhere. Keep an eye on that. =)

I do not know about the rule with claims. I know infoboxes are generally for facts. I'd stick claims into the prose; it deserves to be mentioned if referenced in the sources, but perhaps not in the infobox. But again, I don't know the rule for claims in the infobox. CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Cyclone, that's just it, there are no rules for the claims thing. When we don't have independent figures we at least mention in the infobox claims by both sides and note they are claims. This has been done everywhere, in the Iraq, Afghan, Vietnam and other war articles. And here is the 20 soldiers executed source [2], and I should note, that 20 soldiers executed claim was not originaly inserted by me. And I just saw that Off2 has tolled me to stuff of which is breaking the rule on civility, and I have said nothing to inslut him. He has broken at least 4 wikipedia rules by now. According to Off2 the BBC's figures and the health group figures are not facts but just claims. Than I don't know what figures are to him.EkoGraf (talk) 04:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I deleted his post. He added it in a very unusual way that made no sense, and I almost thought you were getting upset at me until I realized it was a trademark post relocating but in a very bad way. I've left a note on his talk page regarding it.

Regarding the content of your last post, I could find someone in the Wikiproject (if we can locate a proper one) and get an additional opinion from someone better adept at this style of article. For now, work on removing information that is not in the sources and of course add anything else relevant; we can fix the neautrality of the article, if necessary, as we go. CycloneGU (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No, he copypasted something I told him to my page. He was starting to constantly say blah blah blah instead of talking to me like a normal being and I couldn't take it anymore, but was still trying to be civil. Didn't say anything that was directed at you. Listen, the problem here is, I am adding sourced information, but he doesn't regard those sources factishes enough, even though it's the BBC, CNN, Guardian or whatever.EkoGraf (talk) 04:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am asking you now Cyclone, would this be ok to add to the infobox in the Tripoli clashes article? 275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim)[3], 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim)[4] I noted the figures to be claims for the sake of neutrality.EkoGraf (talk) 04:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize, can you give me 15 minutes? Not going away, just need 15 minutes. =) CycloneGU (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok.EkoGraf (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

All right, I'm back. Let me see where the article is and I'll comment further. Please keep posts to this page and add one extra colon to each new post so we have some kind of resemblence of sequence here, all right? For instance, read what I've typed and see the ":" - start your next post with two of them "::" and so on until an outdent is necessary. =) That's how to typically do it on most talk pages, but a one on one conversation can have exceptions. CycloneGU (talk) 05:21, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I just left a notice at the administrator noticeboard that he violated the 3 revert rule, and also noted if he tries to defend himself that I also violated it, that my reverts were not total reverts but edits in an attempt to find a compromise solution.EkoGraf (talk) 05:23, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. I did notice that and that bodes well for you as I don't quite call yours a violation, but an attempt to compromise (I'll add to the notice you posted), but as another piece of advice (I'm full of these today LMAO), please be careful with your edit histories. One looked merely like an invitation to arguing on your part ("Indicating it's a rebel CLAIM, happy now?") might be slightly further than you should go. I can see however you were getting aggravated and am overlooking it, but just be careful not to put something there without thinking; you can't EVER change the edit history.

Let's go back to what you want to add now while I find that notice. Which source gives what specific information you wish to add to the article right now? CycloneGU (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

275 killed (by Feb. 24/IFHR claim)[5], 25 killed (on Feb.26/opposition claim)[6] You can also check my last edit at the article here [7].EkoGraf (talk) 05:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Noting I've only looked at Ra's Lanuf so far, I read this in the source:

The figure is more than double the official Libyan government toll of 300 dead, and includes 275 dead in Tripoli and 230 dead in the protest epicentre in the eastern city of Benghazi, the IFHR's Souhayr Belhassen said.'

The Benghazi toll includes "130 soldiers who were executed by their officers in Benghazi for refusing to fire on crowds" of protesters, she said.

Thus, for that one, adding 275 dead in Tripoli's article and 230 dead in Benghazi's article are good additions (just include the source). It's important to note these are claims, not official numbers. The 130 soldiers is also notable, though that far differs from the 20 from before. for #6 as I see it now, refer to it as up to 25 people in the prose, it's not an exact figure.

As for the edit, it's a start. Tripoli looks like people want it redirected to another article while others say keep; if a redirect happens, make sure to update there. Once the decision is final it's not worth fighting to keep its own article. CycloneGU (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I myself am not able to add the 275 and 25 figure in the box because it would be an additional violation of the 3 revert rule and also he would just revert me stating that humanitarian group is not reliable and is only claiming and not stating facts.EkoGraf (talk) 06:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I never got back to you. Give it a little time and give Rob a chance to go away, then go ahead and do the editing that is necessary. If he's still watching the page and keeps trying to revert, then we might have a more serious problem. Besides, you have the existing 3RR complaint, but it appears not to have even been given any attention at my last check (everyone deserves a day off), but given that almost 24 hours have passed since the incident, I don't think anything is going to happen. Just give it a little time, then try making the edits again. After 24 hours, 3RR no longer applies and you can try again.

I would suggest reviewing the notes I made above and making sure improper material is removed, however. As promised, I will help with the linkage once the article is cleaned up a bit. CycloneGU (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

It appears the situation has calmed down, if you would check the discussion pages for the Ras Lanuf and Brega battles you will see a number of editors have expressed their opinion that what he did was not all right. At Brega the situation has totaly calmed down and at Ras Lanuf there is still a discussion going on about the renaming because one more editor voiced support with Off however others have voiced support for the name of the article to be Battle of Ras Lanuf. :)EkoGraf (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, glad the situation has calmed down. I haven't been checking any of the article talk pages today, so I wasn't up-to-date on the proceedings. I didn't want to make any edits since I didn't know anything about the subject, too, but instead leaving that work to someone who knows something about what they're researching...and my posts here were just advice on what to change, so I hope that also was constructive to the discussion. =) The 3RR warning still sits untouched, not expecting anything out of it but who knows? CycloneGU (talk) 04:25, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Diligence

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your work on Battle of Benghazi adding well cited content, generally improving the article, and maintaining a NPOV. All the Best, Mifter (talk) 18:58, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

the BBC

• - content cut and copied for educational and discussion purposes only not for publication. - It is a mistake to see this campaign as an outright civil war. In skirmishes like those around Bin Jawad and Ras Lanuf, as few as 100 men are fighting on each side. Most are lightly armed, and even the aircraft which are used on the government side are remarkably ineffectual in their bombing - for whatever reason. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12663513 - Off2riorob (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't know the purpose of your last message to me about the civil war thing since I wasn't talking to you about that at all, but I will use this chance and say that I support the change in name of the conflict to Libyan civil war like I have already did at the articles discussion page and this assertion of yours that as few as 100 men are fighting on each side is totaly unsupported since there are numereous sources where we have confirmation from reporters on the ground who say that for instance at ras lanuf there were 500-1,000 rebels against 3,000 loyalists. And on the western front Zawiyah has been reduced to ruble because of the fighting, wouldn't call that a skirmish. Two loyalist brigades are fighting against 2,000 rebels there, wouldn't call that 100 men eather. In addition, as of today CNN and a few other news media have started calling it a civil war.EkoGraf (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I will just make an edit here and there, as I am uninvolved apart from my usual concerns with policy and content - this issue is repeated as usual with such newsy articles and wikipedia needs to find a solution to the issue, but basically, the articles are all awful, often written by opinionated single purpose new accounts from one side or the other, with poorly formatted citations some of which are not wikipedia reliable and claims presented as if fact, all the usual editing standard are unable to be reviewed and any attempt to improve the articxle is reverted or removed and replaced with the next newsy claims. I think clearly when this is over, articles like the one you insist on calling a battle will correctly be merged to a couple of lines at a more correct location, all these minor spats don't warrant an individual article. Burt time will tell. Off2riorob (talk) 21:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah

I think you called the battle too early, see the source at Talk:Battle_of_Az_Zawiyah#Qaddafi_victory.3F. —Nightstallion 22:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Map

I was wondering if you have any knowledge on who fixes or updates the map on the Libyan uprising page? Zenithfel (talk) 11:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Never-mind, I found out how to find out who is editing the map, you use wikimedia commons. Zenithfel (talk) 12:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

attribution

Please try no to add weak claims, there are all sorts of false unconfirmed claims and you continue to present them as if facts, wikipedia is a neutral publisher please follow WP:NPOV and attribute who is is that is claiming the claim and who it is that is reporting who has claimed it. There is little to nothing verified regarding all these dead and so on. I see you commenting that in your opinion thousands have died but please don't add such unverified claims as if facts, they are not facts at all. The rebels claimed the troops refused to shot - well how come the troop sare all shooting now, the rebels claimed to have found 20 mutinous murdered troops, please attribute and take it easy - we are not a rolling news report, the editing on this section of articles is very opinionated. Off2riorob (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I have been following Wikipedia's NPOV rule, and all of my edits are sourced. Me and several other editors told you, your opinion that those are week sources, although I cann't see BBC and CNN week, is just your personal opinion and it doesn't count. We report based on references and strong references have been provided. I warned you before that removal of sourced information can been seen as vandalism so please stop, thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:VANDALISM - is something else entirely. Like I said attribute and take it easy, we are not a propaganda rolling news report. Off2riorob (talk) 18:03, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed the wording so it is reportedly and according to the rebels. Ok?EkoGraf (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

I haven't looked, I only look occasionally as the articles are so poor, but if you have attributed then yes better, thanks. IMO it would be a lot better if you stopped focusing on all these unverified claims, focus on the major verified or at least close to verified details. Such as , On Friday Gadaffi troops entered the town, there were unconfirmed reports from both sides of small numbers of injured and dead...which is plenty of detail, all will lster be verified and presented in an encyclopedic way, presently its a farce of unverified propaganda from both sides that you are adding to wikipedia - we don't need it - all the papers are full of different claims, wikipedia doesn't need to report them all. Off2riorob (talk) 18:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan uprising page

Can we get someone to establish a protection template on the page? Like the type where non-users are not allowed to edit. There is repeated vandalism Zenithfel (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising

The article Casualties of the 2011 Libyan uprising has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This page violates a number of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:CONTENTFORK and WP:No original research.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Abductive (reasoning) 04:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Second Battle of Benghazi

Made the page, needs a lot of info to be added.Zenithfel (talk) 11:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

They messed up the infobox on the Libyan uprising page again, i don't know how to fix it because i can't undo it due to other people editing after the editor who did it.Zenithfel (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Who caused poss. casualties?

I have removed the claimed casualties from Operation Odyssey Dawn, and believe it is only fair I provide an explanation: For casualties to be added to any of the specific country operation pages, we need to know that they really happened as part of that exact operation. Tomahawk attacks were by both US and British, and additionally British planes have bombed an undisclosed location (BBC). Consequently we have no way of knowing if these deaths, if they actually happened, were part of Operation Odyssey Dawn. Based on the information available in the provided source, they could just as well be the result of the British Operation Ellamy. Or for that matter a combination of the two. Regardless, I'll see if I can locate a source that provides some more specific information on this, and if I find it I'll add the info to the specific operation page(s) with the new ref. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 03:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You are entirely right that no casualties was not satisfactory when one side claims there were casualties. However, I do believe it is better to be accurate, so I have re-inserted the exact numbers that you added initially (no matter if it is "1 death", "some deaths" or "50 deaths" the source still does not say exactly what operation was involved), but provided a note that explains the uncertainty. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 04:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, I believe this change to "unknown" may be the best option for now. Though I probably would have said it more diplomatically than this user, claims by the Libyan Government easily fall under WP:RS#Questionable sources. RN1970 (talk) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. No one knows where these casualties are from or how they were injured. Could be due to rebels, as they are known to have aircraft as well and be using them. Having the support of international air supremacy may have given them a bit of courage to attack. Who knows. Given how much state media has been shown to be manipulated recently, it;s far from a reliable source. Unknown is far more reliable.--Terrillja _talk 04:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussion is here.--Terrillja _talk 04:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I see good points on both sides, but have to say I believe change to "unknown" is the best option for now. The Libyan Government and the associated national tv have a clear history of providing misinformation (it was only yesterday they announced ceasefire... only to move ~150 km and attack Benghazi). Please also see WP:GEVAL and WP:Balance. But I'm off to bed, so I'll leave it here for now. RN1970 (talk) 05:02, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:TP#Indentation. Fixing your comments is tiresome.--Terrillja _talk 05:14, 20 March 2011 (UTC) ^this guy. again. read it. learn it. do it. fixing your inability to format is pissing me off.--Terrillja _talk 07:08, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Operation Odyssey Dawn. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Terrillja _talk 06:43, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Terrillja's talk page.
Message added 06:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Language

I apologize for offending you. I'll refrain from using profanity. Let's not get distracted by it though, shall we? Swarm ^X 07:09, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

not 2S1 Gvozdika!

The destroyed self-propelled howitzers south of Benghazi are not Soviet 2S1 Gvozdikas but Italian Palmarias! You can recognize a Palmaria by bit of the gun which holds it in place - it has two steel protusions to the left and right that keep in place. Here is a good description of the Palmaria [8] noclador (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

you're welcome :-) noclador (talk) 05:06, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

and there was also a 9K33 Osa surface-to-air missile system ripped apart: [9] noclador (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya

On a different note, look out for news regarding Zawiya, through random statements and references to the city in recent days, it seems that the goverment largely withdrew from the city a few days ago, which would put it under rebel control or atleast unclear situation. I guess do the same for Zuara. The TNC also claims it has "representatives" from cities all over Libya including Zuara, which may indicate renewed resistance.Zenithfel (talk) 00:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That the government forces withdrew does NOT indicate rebel held territory. Not in Libya. In peacetime Libya there are local, more-less tribal, militia supposed to control of the public order. So the army withdrawing could actually indicate the opposite.Ihosama (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said on Zenithfel's talk page, the withdrawal of tanks from Zawiyah could just indicate that the city has been firmly secured by the government, the tanks moved on to fight another battle elsewhere and the loyalists left a smaller contingent of troops to guard the city, local militias like you said. EkoGraf (talk) 02:28, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Google

Here is a useful tip I just wanted to share with you in case you didn't know. You can quickly find relavent information by typing a word into google and then clicking "latest" at the left of the screen once you searched for it. Thus you can find the latest postings of info relevent to your word. You can also do it for 24 hours 1 day, 1 week month year ect

example [10] or [11]

Zenithfel (talk) 02:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

In the casualties box on the Ajdabiya page it says up to 154 rebels killed, and uses the video given by Al jazeera as a source. However the vidoe states that those 100 killed were civilians. The info box is quite a mess and i can't change it without breaking it, but if you can change the info box to state over 100 civilians dead as referenced from video, it would be much appreciated. Zenithfel (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Ajdabiya

One of the reasons why there may be so much confusion regarding Ajdabiya, is because when you look at the city it self up close using google maps, it is really hard to define what makes western eastern or central Ajdabiya. On top of that there are several "east gates" and a couple of western gates. Check yourself using google maps satellite image up close on Ajdabiya. Zenithfel (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Marsa Brega

Marsa Brega definitely recaptured.

http://www.france24.com/en/node/5156407

France24 correspondent philip crowther at Brega himself and says and shows rebels have captured it.

He later tweets that he himself later went past brega and found that they have established a checkpoint 15km west of Brega too. Though this is not a proper source for wikipedia.

http://twitter.com/#!/PhilipinParis

The use of Twitter

I noticed that another user has placed Twitter as one of the sources. While the account is genuine and definitely belongs to Nic Robertson, I would caution against using Twitter as a source, as after a while the information on the source becomes lost due to new tweets. For example in a few weeks no one will be able to find that info in the source. Sopher99 (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega

As it turns out, i have discovered that neither the Rebels or Gaddafi's troops are in Brega at all. While the rebels are in the outskirts, Gaddafi;s troops are in the unvieristy, where they are using heavy artillery to keep the rebels away. The univeristy actually happens to be half a mile away from brega.

http://bbs.keyhole.com/ubb/ubbthreads.php?ubb=download&Number=966752&filename=20101218113707-4d0d0d63008916.38970247.kmz

If that link doesn't work for you

http://wikimapia.org/2062806/Bright-Star-University-of-Technology

If it is possible, i wish to make a note of this on the third battle of Brea page, but unfortunately i fear it counts and independent research. If you can find a way to add this info it would be appreciated.

Zenithfel (talk) 19:39, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war‎

Good evening. Sorry at casualties of the 2011 Libyan civil war‎ I made a mistake, I do not know why I put Mahmoud Gibril when I meant Ali Hassan al-Jaber. More strangely, there are two Mahmoud Gibril. Sorry for the confusion. Regards --Youssef (talk) 18:46, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

talk page etiquette

Hi - What part of this discussion id finished here don't you understand - I have closed or requested you stop posting on my talkpage so please follow that request. Off2riorob (talk) 14:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah right, the rebels are lying and making up propaganda by saying 700 of their men were missing so to damage themselves. Nice way to lead a propaganda war. Whatever, we already noted it is unconfirmed. Also, they did not say 700 were killed, they said 700 were missing. By all accounts they were captured, which has been since then confirmed with independent investigations that have concluded several thousand members of the opposition have been rounded up and put in prisons in Tripoli and Sirte. EkoGraf (talk) 14:45, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Second battle of Ajdabiya

I'm glad that we found a good solution. The next time, please dont accuse someone who changes your edits of vandalism. Regards 62.178.177.37 (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The Algerian man was likely a migrant worker, according to the source. Stop writing false information in the article, or you will be reported. 62.178.177.37 (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Tanks

When Nato says 11 tanks around Ajdabiya, they mean from Brega to Ajdabiya, a span of 50 miles. the 6 armored vehicles were just in the 1 or 2 mile proximately. Nato strikes tanks heading from sirte to Ajdabiya, but those can't be confirmed because correspondents simply can't travel there. So just because a correspondent sees only 6 vehicles doesn't mean there aren't more destroyed vehicle 10 or 20 miles further in Pro-Gaddafi territory.Zenithfel (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Misrata casualties

I know its frustrating trying to differentiate between propaganda and facts, but i personally think there is no intentional propaganda going on here. Each report we get is just from one doctor out of dozens. Each doctor is obviously keeping a mental record, and because they are human, there are bound to be mistakes. You should also remember that the number dead are only the ones brought to the hospital. In all likelihood there are alot more dead due to artillery shellnig in area that the rebels have a difficult time getting to. It would appear that most do get brought to the hospital, as it seems the rebels are making a conscious effort to reach every place hit. You should also remember that not all doctors were there from day one, or were keeping records from day one. People also die from their injuries, and I don't see the doctors saying "today 2 people died from their injuries" ect, so that could make the difference. Zenithfel (talk) 01:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Destroyed loyalist BMP in Misrata.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Destroyed loyalist BMP in Misrata.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Al kufra

Al kufra is next to Al jawf, which is on the Jalu road Zenithfel (talk) 01:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Ref

You also forgot to change the death count at the 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests page, but you did change the refs. Pass a Method talk 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The Saudi soldier is part of the Gulf Cooperation Council meaning he is considered also a policeman. The soldier is being called a policeman because he was sent as GCC police enforcement. You're getting specific terminology mixed up. I'd appreciate if you self-revert unless you can find a source saying theres 4 policemen killed plus 1 soldier. Pass a Method talk 18:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you please specify which source says that "all four were run down by cars" ? ThanksPass a Method talk 19:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

nafusa mountains

About 100 dead Civilians or rebels in Nafusa mountains past 24 hours. http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-18 Zenithfel (talk) 18:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at PassaMethod's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

The video

Here is an exclusive video of Misratan rebels fighting a gun battle of the school. In the video you notice that they killed 6 or 7 Gaddafi men thus far because you can clearly see the corpses in green armor lying around. On a daily basis the rebels do not report how many they kill, just how many cvilians and rebels died. Should we count the loyalist corpses in the video and add them tot he death toll? http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-19-0 Zenithfel (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The video is at the 1:35 PM section

The vidoe is a blurry one, let me get the uncensored one. Zenithfel (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tank video

Here is some evidence that at-least 10-15 of the 35 tanks Nato claims to have targeted were actually targeted.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvaCEmP2TWc&feature=player_embedded#at=98 Zenithfel (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

brega situation

The NTC has ordered rebels not to attack Brega for the past few days, claiming that NATO told them they would take out artillery so that rebels can enter. I lost track of which source said it, but see if you can find something on that. I know for sure that NATo took out the telecommunication systems from Sirte through Brega yesterday, and that there have been no shelling or attack by Gaddafi's forces from the brega road, and within 40 miles on brega road there are no Gaddafi forces. (perhaps there are a few on Jalu road still) Musa Ibraham also agrees that NATO is going to intentionally start a rebel offensive, though he is crazy to begin with. Basically i do not believe this is a stalemate, but an intentional calm. I have read source saying this, so thery are out there. Zenithfel (talk) 00:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

re:Map of Misrata

I was thinking of doing that. The only problem is that I can't find resources for a good map like this one. If you know of a detailed map of the city with street names then I would gladly use the info. Otherwise it would be a waste of space to create one that only contains Tripoli Street. the Airport and the seaport.--Rafy talk 02:38, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I will see into it. Hopefully I will finish sometime after Easter.--Rafy talk 00:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Simply stating that i don't get Wikipedia's rules is not helpful. Please refrain from personal attacks, which i beleive is Wikipedia policy :) Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus? Whatever happened to 'Wikipedia is not a democracy'? Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:16, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

You use the word 'majority', again; Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's worth pointing out that this vote was before this battle, and as such only applies to battles and conflicts before it. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The majority of an outdated vote; let Wikipedia's newly founded democracy vote on this new battle. They may very well decide to mergae it, but don't assume. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The battle of Wazzin happened after this vote; ergo the vote was not about this battle. Maybe outdated is the wrong word, but my point stands Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Your 'see you after the merge' comment is just jejune; you're acting like you have some personal stake in this merge. Please either debate or leave the issue alone. Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Jejune means childish. Wikipedia doesn't need to be boiled down as much as you may like. Cheers for what? You're really not making sense here Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm British. Cheers is British for 'thank you'. You keep saying 'bye bye' in increasingly jejune ways yet you keep replying to me. Politeness seems to be too much to ask so can i just request consistancy? Fancyflyboy (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Yifrin? Yafran? Yefren?

I started a move request Talk:Yifrin which you might want to weigh in on. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

regarding the maps

As of today rebels have now reached the airport in Misrata, and on fighting for it. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/04/2011428101929477818.html

Also rebels lost control over the border post http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-28 Zenithfel (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Pretty clear which side they are on

When you said that could you motivate your input ? It's not that clear for me. Zil (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria

I noticed in the page's history you update the casualty numbers. I tried updating but only messed it up. About 50 civilians/antigovernment dead today. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/04/201142993412242172.html Zenithfel (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. You re-added the lower death estimate although the source for this claim dates back to 2 months ago, so is out of date. Pass a Method talk 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Per WP:CITE policy Pass a Method talk 07:35, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read the Wikipedia:No original research policy which is one of the three core content policies. Pass a Method talk 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

If you disagree with certain sources because of "propaganda purposes" (as you put it), you need to go to WP:RSN. Otherwise, your claims are null Pass a Method talk 09:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

All references disagree with you

Almost all news reports of the last 2 weeks give a 10 000 - 30 000 count : Libya death toll: References from last 2 weeks

Why should i take your word over recent prints by dozens of notable/established newspapers, tabloids and magazines? Pass a Method talk 10:07, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Your thoughts?

I'd like you to weigh in on this AfD, if it's not too much trouble: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tajoura airstrike. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Brega–Ajdabiya road

From today's AJE Live Blog:

9:36pm

In a live interview with Al Jazeera, a Libyan rebel commander claims rebels have killed 57 pro-Gaddafi soldiers and destroyed 13 military vehicles during a major battle in Ajdabiya, a city in west Libya.

Hamed al-hafi said fighting happened on the periphery of a small outpost half way between Ajdabiya and the strategic oil port of Brega, where Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's forces control.

Over the past 20 days, we had reorganised our forces. The real clash happened two hours ago, on the outskirts [of] al-Arbaeen[, the outpost].

Al-Hafi said two rebels were killed in the fight, during which Moatassem, one of Gaddafi's sons, was leading the government forces in Brega. His claims could not be independently verified.''

What do you make of this? A new battle? Or continuations of the old one? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I responded to both of your latest messages on my talkpage. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Libya Alhurra

I really don't think the Libya Alhurra tumblr is any more reliable than al-Manara, Wefaq Libya, libyafeb17 or any other rebel website. You added it to the Battle of Misrata article here, and I am wondering what your reasoning was behind it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I removed it today here. I see you have now removed it again, which is good. All is in order. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: end date

I think that the battle for the city proper is over at this point. The shelling is dying down at this point, from what I gather. We should check what the sources are saying, though.

"Pyrrhic" carries a strong negative connotation, so I would say no to that. Plus, we don't know if more loyalists were killed, since we only ever got sporadic estimates, never an official death count. "Decisive" would be much more appropriate here; this is a huge victory for the rebels. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:06, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I put in a note to Rafy at the Commons talkpage.

Yes, rebels lost a lot of man and saw most of their city destroyed. However, if they can consolidate their massive gains from the past days, then this would really be decisive. Gaddafi and his forces is getting weaker by the day. They still have some fight left in them, too be sure, but I think we are starting to see the beginning of the end of things here. Misrata was a battle with huge symbolic significance for the rebels. It is like their Stalingrad: more casualties than the enemy (maybe), but a very important victory on a symbolic and strategic level. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think this time it may be for real. Gaddafi's "well-trained" army is becoming ragged and demoralised, by most accounts, while the rebels are in high spirits and becoming more professional by the day. His money is slowly but surely being siphoned off to the rebels, who are gaining ground diplomatically as well as militarily. Tripoli is not quiet in the air or in the streets; acts of civil disobedience are growing bolder and bolder. Mu'ammar himself is getting increasingly dodgy; his latest "appearance" was just his voice. Sure, it's possible that his forces will make gains, but it's only a matter of time until everything starts falling down around his head. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I have given the matter some more thought, and I believe firmly that the battle should be labelled as a decisive victory, as it was the biggest battle of the war with tremendous significance for all involved. There don't seem to by any counterattacks on the city, and though the rebels have (wisely) not decided to overstretch themselves in advancing further, they appear to maintain a firm grip on the city and have consolidated most of their gains. Sure, the rebels lost many fighters and the city was ravaged, but we don't know for sure if it was greater for fewer losses than G-unit suffered; what's more, this victory has shown the world that the rebels can fight effectively enough on the ground to win a major battle. What do you think? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

Oh, of course. NATO was the factor that tipped the scales heavily in the rebels' favour. But so would the loyalist air force have been for G-unit had NATO not stepped in. Also, the fighting on the ground was also a very important factor as well. Regardless, NATO is listed along with the rebels on one side of the infobox, so it is fair to include them as one with the rebels in deciding decisiveness. But the only situation where this victory is not "decisive" that I can think of is if the rebels lose most of Misrata again. I really don't see that happening, since the loyalists seem to be wearing out in materiel, morale, and manpower by the day. We can wait, but I predict that when this is all said and done, the biggest battle of the war will be labelled as decisive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't discount the loyalist air force entirely. I recall many reports early on that said that the rebels were absolutely terrified of the Gaddafist planes, even though they didn't always hit things. Taking them out of the skies certainly improved the confidence of the rebels. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Nafusa

I don't mind a name change. Start a request if you wish.

The thing with Yafran is that I only see references to a "siege". This would be a very odd word to use to describe loyalists occupying the city. Indeed, Gharyan, which we know to be under occupation, is not described as being under siege. There are bulletins like this which make me think that the city could still be held by rebels:

"The revolutionaries [in Yafran and al-Gal'a] are patiently waiting for the help of the revolutionaries of the Nafusa Mountains to break the siege on them and provide them with the weapons and food which they are in dire need of." (Sunday 15 May, 12:00 h)

I think that original report of the city's loss was premature; what really happened was probably that G-unit surrounded the city, cutting the rebel fighting force in two and severing communications. But since the reliable sources are scant for this, it is best for Yafran to remain as "situation unclear". ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

AJE Live Blog has this update which seems to indicate that Yafran is under heavy siege and in a very dire situation, but still in rebel hands, as it talks about G-unit shelling the city, not being shelled in the city. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:48, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

I said that Gharyan was occupied by loyalists, did I not? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No worries. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Casualties

Alright, sounds good. I've been more focused on the military aspect of the war, but I'll see if I can find some sources to help with that

But in the meantime, User:Reenem has been adding daily updates to the main article, often using Libyafeb17 as a source. I've put in a message at his talkpage for him to stop, but I'm not sure if he got the message. These updates need to be reliably sourced and moved to the Timeline; if sources can't be found, they should be deleted.

Also, the Human rights violations in the 2011 Libyan civil war article is an absolute disaster. It needs to be restructured and expanded with some of the recent news from the ICC regarding loyalist crimes. As it stands, the article is grossly slanted towards some isolated incidents committed by rebels. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:27, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilains

Good idea. Make sure to make it clear on the casualties page that the table covers armed combatants only. I should also point out that you appear to have made a mistake on the table, where you put 358 as the Misrata rebel death toll. 358 is the loyalist one, not rebel death toll. Zenithfel (talk) 16:16, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

bad map

It was some glitch in commons... refer to the talk page we might have to re-upload that image with a different name if it persists.--Rafy talk 10:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: info

Oh wow, that sounds bad. At least we have a definitive verdict on the current situation. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:22, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrata

It's the 1-week anniversary of the rebel recapture of Misrata, and loyalists have not yet launched a strong counterattack. What say you — decisive or no? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

No not decisive, not until Zliten or Sirte falls if they do Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Yefren

Within a week thousands are probably going die in Yefren, as that is when they estimate their food will run out. Gaddafi's forces surround the area, and no supplies come in.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391197/Time-running-starving-Libyan-town-Yefren-Gaddafi-offers-ceasefire.html

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/05/21/libya.small.towns/index.html?eref=edition_africa&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fedition_africa+(RSS%3A+Africa)

I just thought i would give you the heads up, so that if thousands do die, you can add them to the casualties table without hesitation. Suddenness is often paired with doubt and restraint when editing wikipedia. Shouldn't be that sudden if I already warned/prepared you of the idea.Zenithfel (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Most major news sources still report Yefren as under siege so I think it should be kept blue until a clear evidence is found.--Rafy talk 09:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rafy on Yafran; there are simply too many conflicting reports about it. Rebels have claimed its loss before, only to be contradicted by reports of intense fighting. This report may be referring to the loss of the city centre, who knows? The situation is not clear, thus the full blue circle is best. Rayayan is certainly in Gaddafist hands, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Zinjibar

I'm seeing a lot of reports of heavy fighting between Yemeni government troops and Islamists in Zinjibar. Should a Battle of Zinjibar page be created? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just about to reply when I got your message. I'm not sure what the best title for the battles outside of Misrata would be; I was thinking maybe 2011 Libyan rebel advance from Misrata, but that seems a bit cumbersome. As for Yemen, we should wait a bit to see if the fighting spreads. Right now it seems to be centered in Sana'a and Zinjibar, and these are not 100% affiliated with the protests. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sana'a clashes are most definetly affiliated with the protests. They were a response by the tribes to Saleh not wanting to give up power and attacking protestors. As far as Zanjibar goes...well...that one isn't 100 percent connected, but it is connected somewhat because of the reports that Saleh gave up the city so he could prove a point to the protestors. So in essence Zinjibar is a result of Saleh's attempt at staying in power from a certain point of view. And I do belive this will go the way of a civil war if Saleh doesn't step aside, and, if it will be like what we saw in the last week, than it will be most definetly more bloodier than Libya. EkoGraf (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I had meant to say "protesters", not "protests". Both battles are reactions of certain groups to the uprising, but they do not constitute a general movement towards an armed revolt that is consistent across the majority of the dissenters, as happened in Libya. See for example some of the pictures here. Also, there are no clearly delineated zones of control here, just conflict hotspots in a few cities. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Saleh; if he doesn't step aside, we may see things become more violent. But we should hold off on renaming until the situation becomes clear. Many battles had occurred in Libya before reliable sources started calling it a "civil war" and consensus to move was achieved. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Taiz?

If this happens to be true, we might find ourselves with another battle-page to create. That is, of course, unless this happens first... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:16, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime, I've created an article for Sadiq al-Ahmar. I'd appreciate any expansion that you could help with. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 18:08, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

Assuming, only assuming, that Saleh does not return, dies, or gives up power, should the page be renamed 2011 Yemeni revolution? I do not believe the acts of violence would degrade that title, given the dozens of bloody revolutions in the past but still called revolutions. It should be noted that the protesters themselves were never took arms into the street, just the tribesmen. It should also be noted that the page gets changed to revolution when the head of state resigns/captured/killed, even if his government is still in place, as that is what was done with Egypt and Tunisia, as well as eastern Europe. What is your take on this? Zenithfel (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Misrata

Update misrata casualties, Lots of opposition fighters deaths today mostly due to rocket attacks. Opposition in Misrata getting more impatient so they are trying to push closer to Zliten, and so Gaddafi's forces responding more intensely due to the threat.

http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/06/june-10th-updates/

Zenithfel (talk) 17:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah Part II?

What do you make of the resurgent uprising in Az Zawiyah? A second battle? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:17, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, though I had been under the impression that the rebels were only ever in the western part of the city, not the east or centre. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Combining all of these battles, many of which are occurring hundreds of kilometres away from each other, would be a bit cumbersome anyway. In the meantime, I've created an article for the 2011 Sabha clashes. You should have a look at it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Still don't think it's a great idea. If you can find reliable sources that say all of these battles are connected, then it would be fine. Otherwise, your interpretation of "coincidence" is pure WP:OR. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Weak agree for Zawiyah. Disagree for Zlitan, as it is still ongoing (see Zenithfel's link on my talk). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Your update to the Timeline of the Libyan Civil War 2011

I'm just reminding you that Wikipedia takes pride in being as neutral as possible. It is important to write from a neutral point of view. In your June 12th update to the Libyan civil war timeline, your information was very biased towards the loyalist cause and excluded the claims by the rebels they were still fighting in the west and you also excluded the fact that foreign reporters were not allowed to tour the entire city, being barred from the west where the rebels say they are active. The timeline has been edited accordingly. Though the contribution is appreciated, for the sake of all, please try to be as neutral as possible when editing the encyclopedia. Thank you. Daniel Musto (talk) 00:53, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd be awesome to keep the conversation on one page but it doesn't really matter. I told you I felt that your information was biased and that I felt you may be writing it from a biased perspective. I did not outright accuse you of spreading propaganda. However, I have been reading articles about Zawiya since it began and never once have I come across an article that said they believed that the city was back completely in Gaddafi's hands. Perhaps the best response would have been to step back, analyze your work, realize how favorable it was to one side, and then more politely tell me that my words were harsh. I didn't set out to offend you, I merely do not sugarcoat things. I also told you your contribution was appreciated and ended with a thank you. Assume good faith, as I did in you. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, what is wrong with the term revolutionaries? They are fighting for a revolution. The root of the word is 'revolt.' They could be revolutionaries if they were uprising for the sake of neon-colored cars. It is still a revolution. Also, I've seen Reuters use this term. Revolutionaries is not a positive or negative term, as I could name many revolutions which were/are regarded as detrimental. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Link=

Can you give me the link which The Syrian observatory confirms the soldiers deaths. I know several hundred soldiers died. Defectors said "hundreds" were killed by the Syrian army itself, particularly in Rastan. The syrian government does not release the bodies or even show the bodies to any officials, which make it difficult to believe that human rights can confirm, as in contrary, HRGs can see bodies of protesters in general as well as reports. Sopher99 (talk) 18:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yefren

If you don't have a number yet for how many loyalist soldiers were captured in Yefren, this video may help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVIZDIKxFSA&feature=related , i counted 15 captives, at least in that one room. Zenithfel (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Bdama

I'm seeing a lot of news coming out recently from Bdama in Syria (for example here). Does the government action here warrant another "siege" article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also see here. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:06, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli

Just by being against gaddafi doesn't make you a rebel, (even though that is what Gaddafi claims in his speeches). Reporters report 90% of tripoli is against or gave up on gaddafi. Does that mean that 90% of Tripoli residents aren't civilians? Most of the population of Benghazi is against Gaddafi, and at Benghazi's protesting height there were 300,000 protesters, doesn't mean there are 300,000 rebels. Protesters are civilians unless they take up arms or knives. Zenithfel (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Also given that this is the first time NATO struck a regular house (though not the first time civilians died in NATO strikes) i would say it is weapons failures, especially after 3000 strike sorties. On the first day there was mechanical failure, and a jet crashed landed in Benghazi, the first day. Given that NATO is hoping for a Tripoli uprising, I highly doubt it would want to eliminate the civilians they hope to help overthrow gaddafi. Though with NATo striking a rebels again in Brega, this would make it the 3rd time NATO messed up a brega assault, so i guess anything is possible.Zenithfel (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Responses...

After parsing through what you left on my talk page, I have a few things to respond to:

• Bdama – I'd agree with your assessment. The news reports that came out seem to have overexaggerated the scale of what was going on.

• "Stalemate" – People have been saying "stalemate" for months now, and then one side or the other makes advances. The conflict moves at a stop-and-go pace.

• Misrata – I suspect that the low number of fighters is a big reason why the strategy seems to be to holding the line from Dafniya to Tawargha.

• NATO and the West – Yeah, I've kind of lost patience with them at this point. I suppose it's better than Muammar "Zenga Zenga!" Gaddafi retaking the country, but it's pretty clear that their current "bomb the crap out of Tripoli and hope that Gaddafi gets scared while simultaneously hindering rebel advances by denying funds/weaponry and bombing convoys" strategy isn't turning out so well.

I think it is still possible that the conflict can still end in a rebel victory, but for that to happen, the rebels and especially NATO and the EU need to refocus their efforts. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

"crushed" uprising

I think you are conflating the earlier crushed uprising in zlitan with recent fighting, your BBC article merely confirmed the former.174.91.109.171 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Libyan generals

Hey, I'm new to wikipedia (though i been editing without user on and offer 2 years) but I am already engaged in article creation. I am working on creating a wikipedia page for each of the 9-12 Libyan generals left, and seeing that you worked on the Libyan civil war for a quite some time, was wondering if you can help find some references in your spare time.

Generals already wikied: Abdullah Senussi, Akbar Younis Jaber, Massoud Abdelhafid, and Mahdi al Arabi ( i created his page).

Generals without wiki page:

Khouidli Hamidi

Al Rafi al Sharif

Awad Hamza

Bashir Huwwadi

Mustafa al Karoubi

Thanks I7laseral (talk) 23:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) -

Sabha

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Yalens's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re:CIA memorial wall/Apologies

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at SilentBlues's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

=Sudan invades Libya

Sudan has invaded Libya today, they have taken control of Al kufra/Al jawf. I am not sure which side they are on, but rebels, if they were even in al kufra, didn't resist. I am clueless about why they did it, but they did. They didn't take any oil at all, they just invaded al kufra. Weird. I am not sure if Sudan is for or against Gaddafi. Sudan has not criticized nato or called for a "political solution" yet. During the arab summit they voted "neutral" to the no fly zone, the only country to do so, instead of voting against it like Syria Algeria and Yemen did. Gaddafi supplies arms and finance to Darfur rebels, I know that, and Darfur rebels have in fact attacked Libyan rebels one or two months ago, besides the Sudanese mercenaries. How should we change it on the map, if we change it at all?

Here is the source:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8611199/Sudanese-army-seizes-southern-Libyan-town.html

I should mention not one other source reported it other than the guy that wrote the telegraph article. NTC has not yet responded to the claims, nor has even been asked about that situation. NATO did not yet alert anyone publicly, so i'm not sure how that guy learnt it.

The article in one of the lower paragraphs, seems to imply that the sudanese army is providing security so rebels can restart the pipeline that Gaddafi's forces dismantled. Every time they turn it on Gaddafi forces cross the desert to bring it back down again.

Zenithfel (talk) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah here we go: "The last attack on the Mislah and Sarir oilfields took place on June 12, just days before the deployment of Sudanese forces to Kufra." So around June 15 they went into Al kufra, and the rebels haven't said anything about it... I guess that means they are acting as a security force for the rebels, which is why loyalist have not attacked it recently. Zenithfel (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently the deputy chair of the Kufra council (the local NTC council responsible for representing Kufra and making its local decisions) has published this interview on June 27: http://twitpic.com/5k4jor It needs to be translated, but i see two Africans, implying that the interview was conducted with the Sudanese army, could provide us the answer on whose side they are on. Zenithfel (talk) 22:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

According to the guy who tweeted it, the article just talks about how they need more supplies and food though. Zenithfel (talk) 22:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sudan says it is not in Libya, not that we can trust Omar bashir's regime any more than Gaddafi's. http://www.sudantribune.com/Sudan-repudiates-reports-on,39419 It is also worth noting that Sudan supports the NTC because Gaddafi supported the Darfur rebel movement. Zenithfel (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Big WTF moment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14035281

It seems both the rebels and Gaddafi are SHARING the same lie. There is no "thousands" of troops in Brega". There is just a few sporadic military pieces of equipment in some hangers and hidden in some houses, and then a few artillery pieces to keep rebels "away". Looks like both Gaddafi troops and rebels are making up the situation in Brega. It has become clear to me that rebel "disorganization" is not disorganization but a literal refusal to move forward. The NTC has not given orders for the "5000" troops to move into brega, and instead occasionally a group of a few dozen people attack it but quickly withdraw. With NATO striking rebel vehicles every time a larger proportion tries to attack brega, i think is has become obvious that the NTC and NATO both agree it is not in their best interest to take Tripoli, let alone sirte. Otherwise they could have done so long ago, with coordination alongside nato, or just simply braving the artillery like the Misratan's did two months ago. NATO uses its heli's to destroy what vehicles gaddafi has, only to allow more to come from Sirte the next day, to then destroy them again. Is the report applicable to the wiki page on the battle? Zenithfel (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Press tv

Just curious, do you think it's a reliable source?.76.64.45.184 (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Current situation map

Is anyone involved in the Libyan articles capable of turning that in to a moving gallery, a timeline image so to speak, showing the images one after the other with a short delay, so that people can see how the situation has unfolded form the start? Chaosdruid (talk) 04:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Libya NLA

The article lists Haftar as CiC and Younis as CoS but the articles on both men seem to contradict that.Maybe these "official" tittles are just forced/premature?. 206.210.107.27 (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Sana'a

Things seem to be warming back up a bit in Sana'a: [12]. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Al Qatrun to Rebels

It would seem like the southern desert is warming up with the fall of Al Qatrun to rebels: 1 2 3. Perhaps this should be combined with the Sabha clashes article? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

News does not travel too well through the desert, as I have said many times. Kufra was never all over the news either, and Brega IV seems to be taking up a lot of the attention of the international media at the moment. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is the full text of the WSJ article, which says "Due to poor communications networks, lack of Internet and its remote desert location, southern Libya has received scant attention during the Libyan uprising. Reaching residents in southern Libya remains tremendously difficult." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

O britanskom avijatičaru

Ako je tako očita izmišljotina samo stavi na stranici za razgovor detaljno obrazloženje i obriše. Inače ne bi trebalo referencirani materijal tako olako da se isključuje iz članaka. On je dao nekakvo obrazloženje ali sudeći prema tvojim i rečima izvora koji si naveo to je čista izmišljotina i treba to razjasniti na stranici za razgovor a sadržaj članka dopuniti.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[13] Takođe u ovom članku na RTS-u se spominje da je u borbama oko Zlitena poginulo u prethodnih 24 časa 16 a ranjeno preko 100 pobunjeničkih boraca što bi trebalo uključiti u članak.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 06:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

TB

I hope you pull back your false-claims!!!

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Adamrce's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

~ AdvertAdam ^talk 04:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Responded

Responded to your comment , Click here to return fire. Goldblooded (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Brega

I am going by what Reuters says. I understand where you are coming from, but sourced material trumps unsourced opinions here. If a reliable source says that the battle has been ongoing, then that is what is put into the article. If you can demonstrate a reliable source that says otherwise, by all means change it. But until then... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There have been times in the war when nothing was reported on on the Nafusa front. Did we arbitrarily end the campaign and put the result as "Inconclusive" when that happened? Of course not. Whether or not there is ongoing fighting in the town itself does not mean much; the rebels made an initial thrust and were repelled, but they weren't sent squealing back to Ajdabiya. Far from it, they continued to slowly continue moving on the town. The statement "The battle for Brega has been grinding on for weeks" has a fairly clear meaning. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If anything, the battle is a stalemate, just like the Brega-Ajdabiya one was. The initial thrust was repelled, but so was the loyalist thrust into Ajdabiya a while back, and rebels have not completely backed down. There is still military action occurring there, though it isn't a big newsworthy bloodbath. Anyway, other sources (e.g. AFP) are reporting fighting in the area of Brega, so something is ongoing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that's fine. I guess I'm just a bit reluctant to have so many pages for Brega battles; it seems a bit ridiculous. The inability of the rebels to produce conclusive results in that area is getting obnoxious. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Kharkov was a bit different than Brega is, IMO. There was not as much ambiguous semi-fighting and general stagnation going on then, if I remember correctly. But anyway, I think your solution is the ideal one. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Clashes in Zawiyah

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Yalens's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(also, the reason I included the bit about the rebels in the city rising up was because, at least judging by the way the AP put it, it seemed to me like this was possibly planned- that there were rebels in the city waiting for this time)

RS

I would have thought that you of all people would know better than to source a statement in this manner... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:19, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah deserves a mention in the box because it is a direct consequence of a Nafusa-based offensive; it is unquestionably tied to the campaign, if not "part of it".

Libyafeb17 is libyafeb17: an unreliable source. You can't cherry-pick parts of it just because you believe that the rebels wouldn't lie about their own difficulties. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk)

That site is used for rebel propaganda to boost their morale, they use it to post only gains and victories. It is highly unlikely they would put up that kind of statement that could backfire on them, logic dictates it must be true in some part and deserves at least a mention. As for Zawiyah, when I included that raid from two months ago into the campaign you yourself said it isn't part of the campaign so we removed it. It's 80 kilometers from the mountains. It deserves some mention in the article yes I agree, but not in the box since its not part of that campaign. EkoGraf (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not how things work, sorry. It isn't even a professional source, just a sort of blog. It's like citing some Tumblr post or tweet: unreliable. Just because a news bit on there reflects poorly on them does not magically make it worthy of inclusion. Besides, most updates there are (supposedly) sourced to news outlets, so if you want to include it, hunt it down in reliable sources. Otherwise, keep unreliable sources off the page, lest it start to look like that Battle of Wazzin abomination.

The Zawiyah raid was a comparatively minor event. 2nd Zawiyah is part of a massive offensive launched from the mountains. It's just plain dumb to omit it while simultaneously including Gharyan and Aziziya, which are targets of the exact same offensive. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying to include it in its entirety in the article, just to have a linked note in the infobox and a few lines of text. It's not unreasonable at all. Omitting 2nd Zawiyah from the page outright would be nonsensical – it is being attacked as part of the same offensive as is gharyan/aziziya. Heaven forbid we show relationships between events.

The article for Libyafeb17.com was speedily deleted back in May. It's not an official or professional blog, just some rebel sypathisers with computer access. By your line of thought, we should include tweets as well. What the commanders say (primary source) is valid to include when it is reported in a reliable secondary source (i.e. mainstream media). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 04:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

You still don't get it. See WP:TRUTH and WP:NEWSORG. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:08, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Gharyan

What is your opinion on the existence of this article? Personally, I think it should be partially merged to the Nafusa article (like Wazzin). ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Here Moussa Ibrahim says that government troops will retake Gharyan "in a few hours". I think this is zenga zenga for "we lost Gharyan". It seems like an implicit recognition of the rebel recapture of Gharyan. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Губици у Либији

Јуче сам убацио податке у вези са губицима у бици за Брегу, ти подаци су прво објављени на РТС-овом сајту a претпостављам да су их (као обично) преузели са Ројтерса. Добро си поступио што си уклнио податке без референци, никако нећу убудуће да правим такве пропусте.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[14] У овом чланку је објављено да је у среду у Завији погинуло 18 побуњеника, што вероватно потиче из неког западног извора (вероватно Ројтерс, ваљало би проверити). Такође претходних дана сам приметио да постоје знатне осцилације у извештајима о губицима у такозваној Обалској офанзиви, првобитно је стајало преко шездесет мртвих до 15. августа а потом се број спустио до 40 (јуче). претпостављам да то потиче од различитих објављених извора а ситуацију је готово немогуће конзистентно пратити из дана у дана. Свака ти част на напорима да испратиш ова дешавања и освежаваш све бројеве. Поздрав,--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 08:06, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Primetio sam da u članku 2011 Libyan rebel coastal offensive stoji da je ranjeno 109 ustanika a u članku Second Battle of Az Zawiyah stoji 126 ranjenih što se ne slaže.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:40, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Može da se ukloni, a takođe može i da se stavi taj broj koji je naveo komandant kao minimum a suma iz svih izvora objavljivanih prethodnih dana kao drugi broj uz napomenu da je tu možda reč i o ranjenim civilima. Ne znam da li si pratio glavni članak 2011 Libyan civil war tu je zaista jedno rasulo kada su podaci u pitanju. Najproblematičniji je onaj broj od 1,618–3,144 nestalih pobunjeničkih boraca, ni u jednom kasnijem izvoru nisam pronašao obrazloženje da li se ovaj broj izmenio, to jest šta se sa dotičnim osobama desilo (ranjeni, dezertirali, poginuli, zarobljeni, vratili se u borbu). Nažalost, nezavisnih posmatrača je vrlo malo pa se dosta manipuliše i sa brojevima i sa dešavanjima na obema zaraćenim stranama.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

What to make of this?

According to the UN (via a Guardian article) Syrian officials themselves confirms 1900 protester deaths by mid July.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/18/syria-un-assad-officials-icc-prosecution?CMP=twt_gu That information is near the middle of the page. Zenithfel (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

Yemen government status contested? National council formed. Should we make Yemen page like the Libya page, with both governments listed?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/middleeast/18yemen.html

Zenithfel (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Zliten uprising merge?

Was that done? If it was, it wasn't by me, unless you're just referring to the way it was organized in the campaignbox. My understanding was that the discussion and tag concerned whether the article itself should be merged into the Battle of the Misrata frontline, which I also disagreed with; if the organization of the campaignbox was also a matter of dispute, I didn't notice that and I apologize if I jumped the gun on that in any way. -Kudzu1 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Zawiya confirmation

For instance, [15] “Government forces appeared to have fled those strategic positions and others in the eastern half of the city they still held on Friday. An Associated Press reporter visited those positions all of which are now under rebel control. In the distance, the rumble of shelling could be heard to the east.” Unless you have some reason to doubt the reporter? Seleucus (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Brega

Ne znam odakle je ali na RTS-u je objavljena vest o povlačenju pobunjeničkih snaga iz Brege zbog artiljerijske vatre: [16]. Ne znam odakle je vest ali vredelo bi proveriti. Pozdrav, --Vojvodae please be free to write :) 20:55, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your bi-partisan and thorough contributions to historical content as the history is happening =D Zenithfel (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli & endgame...

Haha, I lose internet for two days and what happens? Rebels take most of Tripoli almost overnight, capture at least two Gaddafi sons, and seemingly bring the war to an explosive end. I feel like I am going to lose a major source of Wikiployment now that this looks to be over. It was nice working with you. You have made probably the biggest contribution of any of us in chronicling this conflict, and I applaud you. Regards, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Pretty much why I rewarded him/her with the barnstar. Its still not over, most generals still under gaddafi have not been caught, and khamis brigade is still out there and apparently even coming to Tripoli. The rebels will be gaining and losing territory in Tripoli itself until the Benghazi army somehow arrives.Zenithfel (talk) 21:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah pretty weird too. The saif al islam not being captured actually does not surprise me, thats fog of war. What is really shocking is the ICC claiming that they "confirmed it". I guess what they mean by that is that they were assured by a rebel person they trusted. Also Mahmoud Shammam Olbeidi (new cheif of staff, x-commander of Tobruk) says that "he will reveal the saif al islam story tommorow in Tripoli", whats is that supposed to mean? Saif al islam is pretty supicious to me anyway. Everytime he makes an appearance to journalists it is a pretty believable and gut wrenching (if your a rebel supporter) story.

1st time we ever saw him he claimed Libyans wanted to divide libya and succeed and create emirates, also that 200 billion worth of projects will be canceled. He claimed drugs were responsible, and that 100,000 will die before he gives up. This was scary for us because at that time the protesters were not attacking other cities, and so we did not know if a real rebellion could succeed. We were also scared that people would buy his crap.

Much later in June he clamed that "france was going to force the NTC" into a ceasefire. Total BS but kinda worried us.

Then in August He claims he formed a "secret alliiance" with islamists to kill all the liberals and make libya and islamist state. That wasn't worrisome, that was embarrassment for him.

Now he and the NTC all pulling off this charade. Whatever. Zenithfel (talk) 02:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I realise that the war will continue for a bit, but the regime seems to be on its last legs. I was shocked when reading about how fast rebels took over Tripoli; I had expected more of a siege situation. Gaddafi still has some fight left in him, and the rebels are not a perfect fighting force, but I think we are entering the final chapters of the war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

---

I also think that Tarhuna should be green. Please revert and put your sources in the talk page, I wouldn't imagine anyone arguing against that.--Rafy talk 13:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Syria

I see your reasoning, but i have two points to make. the first is that the sources i used such as Xiuana states 2200 civilians.

The second is that UN has announced that they miscalculated the deaths, and that the true death toll is 2600

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/sns-rt-us-syrial5e7kb0nc-20110911,0,5276141.story

2600 - 400 soldiers = 2200 civilians. Makes Sense. Either their earlier reporting was not including the soldiers, or was not including the Hama massacre/prison deaths. Keep in mind that these are only reported deaths. The unreported accounts make the true death toll far higher. Sopher99 (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Response

The 700 insurgents are NOT part of the 2600 number. The government clearly says that only 700 soldiers and 700 insurgents died. That makes 1400 people dead. The UN only mentioned civilians and soilders, not insurgents. So 700 is a separate number. You also have to mention it is government claimed. You dont have to do the same for the civilians and soldiers, because the UN confirmed both were killed.

If you noticed I had already put the insurgent fatality, just relocated it, to make it more clearer, and to point out that the Government claim is NOT part of the UN/SOFH claims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2011_Syrian_uprising&diff=450821093&oldid=450820283

By the way, you have already violated the 3 revert rule, if you count yesterday's edits, not that i feel like reporting you.

I am going to ask the others users to revert it back to where the fatalities list INCLUDES the insurgents, just NOT AS PART of the the civilian casualties. Saying (700 of which claimed ot be insurgents) implies that the Syrian goverment is adressing the 2600 number directly, which they are not. The Syrian government fully rejects the UN reports as a conspiracy. Sopher99 (talk) 16:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

First of, I wasn't in violation of the 3RR rule because there is a limit to it. You can't revert 3 times within 24 hours. Second, even if I reverted 3 times I am not in violation of the rule because I was the one who initialy made the edit. Per the terms of the rule the one who is in violation is the one who reverted the edits of the initial editor. Third, the government obviously doesn't admitt any civilian casualties and regards those classified as civilians by the opposition and the UN as insurgents. That is clear as day. Don't know what's so confusing about that. EkoGraf (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sidra

I have no objections. Go right ahead. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Wondering

Just wondering, what motivates you to keep extremely specific figures on the amount of deaths that happen in the arab spring? You could save yourself a hell of a lot of time using references instead of this painstaking research. Pass a Method talk 22:31, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Im saying that the death toll figures are too peculiar. The arab spring article curently has numbers like 2,981 and 1,638 which i find pretty retarded. Newspapers usually give rounded numbers whereas your figure methods are unprecedented. Pass a Method talk 00:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Wording

Might I ask about this. Wording more complicated than necessary or something else? I don't see anything wrong with the grammar and it means exactly what the citation says (goal of NATO is to protect civilians; according to some the bombings are counterproductive in achieving that goal). A second and minor issue: I'm sure that edit summary was meant in a humorous way and I took absolutely no offence of it, but I have seen comparable edit summaries perceived as incivility. Especially when "better wording", "clarity" or alike was entirely sufficient. Cheers, RN1970 (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. It is appreciated. On an entirely unrelated matter, you might want to 3rr warn this fellow using the template

{{subst:uw-3rr|Battle of Sirte (2011)}} ~~~~

on his talk page (I haven't, because I'm not involved in the matter). Of course that is entirely up to you, but in general WP:AN3 are more favourable to requests if the person has been warned on his talk page and still continues. RN1970 (talk) 00:09, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Bani Walid

The article finishes on September 30th. What is your source for saying that today the second phase started? I should put the battle as finished on 30 September and wait until a new offensive into Bani Walid is launched to put the second phase. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

However, I should wait some days. Maybe there is another week without news from there. Also, I`ve reverted your edition in Battle of Ghat: I think consensus must be reached before doing that. If you want, propose it in the discussion. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

You´re right. I thought it was based in realible sources, but, as you say, they aren´t. About Bani Walid, I support you, but I am still not sure if a great scale offensive will start this days. The two towns mentioned (I think they´re [17] and [18] are far away from Bani Walid and I have fount no independent confirmation saying (this) airport has been taken by Rebels. But, let´s see. --Ave César Filito (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Sirte execution claims

I see you have moved from "anti-Gaddafi forces claim" to "it happened" with regards to two accusations of executions by pro-Gaddafi forces. You based that on medical team's report in which they were confirmed as civilians (not sure how can he confirm that, but OK). However there is NO WAY FOR A DOCTOR TO FIND OUT WHO EXECUTED THEM! Unless he was there... (Though, then it is a claim too.)

Basically, I would see it OK to claim they were executed (which can be proven). I would even be OK they were civilians (harder, but OK). But we shall under no circumstances be the judges here on who did it. 94.113.101.38 (talk) 22:46, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I have modified the text (as little as possible) to clearly state that currently it is only an allegation by one of the warring parties. When there is a proper forensic investigation with weapons identified etc. Then I am all for removing the "alleged" part.94.113.101.38 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Khamis Confirmed dead

Arrai TV (Gaddafi's last television station, which he has been using to release messages) has confirmed Khamis Gaddafi's death. He had died on August 29 in Tarhuna.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/16/us-libya-khamis-idUSTRE79F30Y20111016

Zenithfel (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

+1 for Papa Mu'ammar. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Re: Sana'a

I think that calling it a "second phase" when it happened 3 months later is a very big stretch. Personally, I think it should be made into a separate article; there is too much time separating the events to have it reasonably called the same battle. The fact that it is happening in the same city is irrelevant: for example, Brega I, II, III, and IV are all treated separately even though they all happened in and around Brega. My thoughts.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Inter-factional

The name sounds a bit wordy and cumbersome, but I can't think of a better one at the moment.

With regards to BW, interior minister Fawzi is saying that there were no "loyalists", just riots over housing or something. I'm not sure if I believe him, but it's worth waiting a bit for conclusive information.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it's kind of a lame excuse.... but with Mu'ammar dead and his family and officials imprisoned or in exile, loyalists are not really going to do much. They'll be a pain in the ass for a little while, but I really don't think they won't succeed in bringing about any widespread counterrevolution. They have less popular support than the NTC and no real leaders. The biggest threat to the NTC is the rebel gangs that control most of the cities who can't seem to grasp the notion that a central government actually gets things done. W/e, revolutions never immediately bring the change desired. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

People also generally didn't try any funny business under Hitler. Strong dictators tend to have that effect on a society. I don't think Libya will be like this forever. Maybe a few years will go by before a truly stable government comes into place, but that is not at all uncommon with bloody revolutions (cf. France, America). We'll see. In the meantime, we'll keep chronicling its progress (or lack thereof).... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 05:49, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bani Walid

Tribal elders in BW are now expressly denying any loyalist involvement in the events in their town: But elders on Tuesday disputed that account. "In the Libyan revolution, we have all become brothers. We will not be an obstacle to progress," said another elder, Miftah Jubarra. "Regarding allegations of pro-Gaddafi elements in Bani Walid, this is not true. This is the media. You will go around the city and find no green flags or pictures of Gaddafi."

Looks like I may have been right in waiting a bit for a verdict.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

RT

Russia Today is a state-controlled media source from a country with worse freedom of press than Zimbabwe that has the worrisome tendency to cater to NWO theorists and the like. The fact that it's so popular in the US means nothing; allow me to be the first to say that I live in a country of idiots who consume sensationalist news like they consume fast food. It's not the worst source you could use (e.g., that trash heap known as "Mathaba"), but it is not strongly reliable, either.... ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:15, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

See my proposal to resolve our disagreement

Please see here.Greyshark09 (talk) 18:23, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote on Syrian Talk page

I set up a vote on whether to include alqaeda in the infobox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2011–2012_Syrian_uprising Sopher99 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

From the looks of it User:ChronicalUsual has been pretty feisty recently, he even got himself banned for a week, one for breaking the 3rv rule, and second for calling an admin an idiot. I want to also point out that he has been banned before. If you might recall our old friends User:Geromasis and User:FreemanSA. I am almost 100% that ChronicalUsual is FreemanSA, who created FreemanSA immediately after Geromasis was banned. FreemanSA then got band, leading to the creation of ChronicalUsual. After a quick look at the revision history of the 2011 Syrian uprising, it looks like ChronicalUsual created another account to escape his band User:FavorLaw. I don't know how to report sockaccounts, but I am sure you do. Zenithfel (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Geromasis , noticed Geromasis's page was deleted, so heres this instead. Zenithfel (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of references

I actually did explain why I removed the wordpress one. Blogs are not considered reliable sources. I'll try to find a reliable source and replace it. Jeancey (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

Just a light comment I would like to make - the LCC promoted a death of of 7200 on Feb 5, and as you noted, one of over 9000 at this current. This is in fact believable if you taken into account that over 1000 civilian have died in Homs and its Bab Amr area within the last 3 weeks. The fact that even to this date the Syrian army has been repulsed during its ground sieges on Babr amr, when there is only supposedly 200-300 fsa on the ground in Bab Amr also indicates high unreported casualties on the Syrian army's side.

Whenever there are battles, the situation appears to be more deadlier than the ones in Libya. In libya a huge proportion of the local population fled, in Syria not so much. In syria, civilians have been encouraged to intentionally go outside to face the security forces, in Libya that did not occur. Then again there was no internet or phones active in the battle front sections of Libya, or any elaborate activist network like the LCC so the true death toll there is probably much higher.

It is very conceivable that the death toll has accelerated to 100-120 a day now. For the past 11 months the Syrian army has rarely ever used artillery shelling. Now they are using it in mass. Artillery shelling is the deadliest conventional weapon that they have.

In conclusion I believe the civilian death toll to be at least 9000 (definitely much more because the activists don't know everything that happens), along with over 3k syrian army casualties (hit an run attacks in urban area can do alot of damage, and elements of the Syrian army are committing sabotage on themselves frequently, due to sympathy for the anti-goverment section) and 900 FSA deaths reported. Shabeeha, secret police, and informer deaths are almost never reported by either side too. In conclusion in all likliness true death toll is 12-13k, not including prison massacres or captive executions we don't know about. Sopher99 (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Another comment

it is worth noting than almost the entirety of Avaaz's contacts are civilian soldiers. I am not sure how or why, but in someway Avaaz was able to establish large-scale connections with the Insurgency. Because the insurgents civilian don't identify themselves as rebel, and rather identify themselves as just civilians with guns, Avaaz too identify's the civilian insurgents as just ordinary citizens. Avaaz elaborate reports of deaths and humanitarian disaster strives from their personal contact with civilians whose life goal right now is to investigate and record these things. The insurgent civilians have more mobility than the regular ones as well. Civilians carrying weapons are immediately executed, as are defectors. I am just explaining the disparity between Avaaz and the UN, where the UN collects individual reports from generally neutral, stay at home citizens, Avaaz collects reports from citizen insurgents, which Avaaz identifies as just regular people, but who defend themselves. Sopher99 (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think using the Syrian government as a comparison is too wise. The SOHR is a small group with connections established by the British government to political institutions (even state-controlled) within Syria. The SOHR is a dozen people who get info from a few dozen people heading community organizations within Syria. The LCC and Revolution commission (Shuhada) are the same group, and are made up of several thousands associates on the ground in Syria who lede demonstrators. The LCC and such uses a nexus of cellphone users who report the death toll in each neighborhood and town in Syria, excluding Tartous, much of Latakia, several dozen villages in the Deir Ezzor provinces, and the towns directly north of Damascus. Avaaz gets its info from insurgents and what the insurgents report. The UN gets its info from a (very) few LCC activists, SNC members, Human Rights Watch, maybe Avaaz, and comitees established to oversee and reports events in Syria, and above all the Human Rights Council (Navi Pallay). Sopher99 (talk) 22:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The 44-47 soldiers executed

These soldiers, allgedly killed for trying to defect were still part of the Syrian army. Remember, not every soldier killed in the fighting is a loyalist to the Syrian Baath party. They are waiting for an ample time to either flee the country [19] or defect to the opposition. Technically, since they hadn't offically "defected" yet they were still part of the Syrian army, many soldiers, ESPCICALLY Sunni conscripts, aren't loyal to the to army, still trying to find a time to escape when they won't get executed, like the 44-47 soldiers were here. If you REALLY insist on putting them on the FSA casualtly list instead of Syrian army AND feverently insisting on putting the highest number possible instead of taking it from both groups claims, then you need to take Wikipedia 101 again. Take a look at combatant 1, please. Armed groups are FSA and SLA. They were not yet part of either group. And for all you know, THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN "trying to rebel", they might have been trying to go home. Goltak (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian page

The bytes on the Syrian page are starting to rack up fast. It may be reasonable to create a separate page called timeline of Combatant deaths 2012 onward, and use the info on that page as a single reference, rather than adding a series of references every day for new combatants killed. Sopher99 (talk) 00:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 insurgency in northern Mali

Discuss the issues on the talk page...as many editors are doing. ANd refrain from attacks in edit summaries which cause wars not onsensus discussionsLihaas (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

New Barnstar

I awarded you a new barnstar. Congrats for your dilligent work, Jacob102699 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:FSA sniper in Homs school.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

New Bombing

New bombing in Hama. Looks like a new page to create. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The sort template

If you don't know what the sort template does, then why are you screwing around with it on other people's pages, eh?
Varlaam (talk) 19:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you be fixing that page, or shall I? Varlaam (talk)

I got tired of waiting for you to fix your thoughtless mistake on a page which has been under daily development for 2 months. Varlaam (talk) 18:50, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

reply

Sorry, no. You have been here plenty long enough to carry your own water. I am a bit suspicious of your motives, frankly. If you want it deleted, find out how and nominate it yourself. See WP:AfD. Good day! Gtwfan52 (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I have regretted getting involved with the first article you mentioned and I made the mistake of answering something first thing in the AM. It was wrong of me not to assume good faith and I apologize. It is my intention of staying as far away from anything concerning the Middle East as I can. Good luck with your first AfD. Remember that opinions don't matter there only policy. Make sure you reference policy whenever you weigh in at AfD. Gtwfan52 (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The lede

The new report finds that the Syrian government deliberately kills children. I think its safe to put "by government forces". When the source says in the 12 months of violence they mean during the 12 months of violence. Also why bother putting "the government contests" if they already contest everything and the UN confirmed all this? I7laseral (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

lie

"And we do not engage in edit wars (reverting dozens of times other peoples edits)", - i dont think thats right ekograf 'dozens of times'- please don't paint me in a deliberately exaggerated light by lying. nasty. Sayerslle (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

New toll

This article today at the "angry crowds" subsection says that UN monitors now put the death toll at 14,100 (not too surprising considering their last death toll of "at least 10,000" dates to mid-April).

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2012/06/201261313238664240.html I7laseral (talk) 22:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian uprising (2011–present)

Hey EkoGraf, I read your comment over at Talk:Syrian uprising (2011–present) about the use of the {{Infobox military conflict}} and {{Infobox civil conflict}}. I've looked over each template documentation and decided that you were right. I think it is safe to assume that this will become a war in the future and the use of {{Infobox military conflict}} is justified. Thanks for improving the article. -- Luke (Talk) 23:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi again

Good to see you still around, so the point is that have a look at your previous subject Libyan civil war sometimes and the edit history[20] because it's once again slandered by the childish edit warriors. Thanks Clarificationgiven (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Syrian foreign fighters

Eko, don´t know if you read what I wrote on the discussion but these are the quotes from the very source either you or someone else who wanted to emphatize presence of foreign fighters in Syria.

Although the trickle of foreign fighters into Syria seems to have picked up in recent months, they still comprise a very small portion of those battling the Assad regime. Any verified evidence of such fighters no doubt plays into Assad's rhetoric, but he has grossly exaggerated a small phenomenon -- all estimates indicate that well over 90 percent of the fighters are Syrian and non-jihadist. foreign fighters in Syria have yet to have a known force-multiplying effect on the level seen in Iraq

The source itself says that number and strenght of foreign fighters in Syria is minimal and not on level of Iraq or Afghanistan. It is the same source which you use when you quote the numbers. If the source itself attacks notability of giving them bigger importance than there really is (WP:DUE) than, to be completely honest, saying that they simply are notable seems to me like OR.

Regarding Fatah al-Islam

Lebanese group Fatah al-Islam and the multinational Abdullah Azzam Brigades have also crossed into Syria; they are not fighting under those banners, however, but simply as "mujahedin."

I don´t see how that needs any discussion. Besides, we are talking about 30, yet they are in same infobox as 200,000 strong Syrian army, tens of thousands FSA, Shabiha which number are unknown to us but they have presence in most government-controlled Syria etc. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Syrian Uprising! Fanzine999 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

SOHR number

SOHR is the only group I know of that has admitted to deliberately doing this. I don't think that note should be in the infobox because we don't include SOHR's count for rebel fatalities and we don't have any reliable evidence to say that other opposition groups do the same. (Aside from Nir Rosen, who is allegedly a contact with the Syrian Government). We have his allegations that opposition groups, such as SOHR, are falsely presenting rebel deaths as civilians in the article already. For the sake of neutrality, change the the wording or remove it beacause it literally implies all opposition does this. "Number possibly higher due to the opposition counting rebels that were not defectors as civilians." Goltak (talk) 15:53, 5 July 2012 (UTC) I didn't know that other opposition groups were allgedly doing this. Ok then. Anyway, do you think that the recent events in Khan Sheikoun warrant an article?Goltak (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox and belligerents

Since you have decided to bring Soviet war in Afghanistan as an example as which sides to include in the belligerents section, i would like to point you attention to the rediculous fact that the data belligerents in the article is mostly based on popular holliwood movie Charlie Wilson's War (it is also boldy sited as a source). Not withstanding that, some editor of the article is defending it against any changes, clearly violating WP:OWN (also WP:RS, as the sources say "India refused to support Afghanistan", and he says it did). Even though you are mostly concentrated on Syrian uprising articles, i would still ask your help on making proper order at the Soviet war in Afghanistan article (since you have mentioned it yourself). Later let's discuss Syrian uprising belligerents and supporters. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 11:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria unrest

And do you find the sources of the Iranian and Hizbollah involvement are reliable??? I am going to remove them as well, considering the sources unreliable.--Preacher lad (talk) 21:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

EkoGraf, I would like to express my gratitude for your recent edits on the Tremseh massacre to develop a neutral article. Thanks indeed, Egeymi (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources, comments

I apologise for my abrupt manner.

I checked the history of the article very carefully before i commented, to fid out at what point the words "in line with" were introduced, and by whom, which was why I commented on your posting, rather than make a general comment. Quoting the bbc directly on saying that the figures were "in line" with other figures given is fine. But given that the statements as they were quote were not "in line" with each other, then saying that they were was an "interpretation".

If one is writing about a book, a rock group or a computer game, and expressions which are interpretive or not strictly accurate creep in, then it doesn't really matter all much. But writing up news stories for an encyclopedia really does tax the Wiki editor to do it just right. I do realise that it is not easy.

One of the problems that must beset you fairly frequently is that people do come along and add sentences, or an extension to a sentence that interrupt the flow and can disrupt the sense of either consecutive sentences or a whole section.... They do it even to the sort of art articles which I generally write, and the problem is obviously much more acute with news articles. Amandajm (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

an article for Tremseh killings

Hi EkoGraf. I have lost my desire to edit this article, although I follow it. Today I have found an article from The Daily Star. It may be helpful in your attempts. Maybe you can easily find it, but please regard it as a good faith. Best, Egeymi (talk) 18:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-16/180726-tremseh-from-village-to-syria-killing-zone.ashx#axzz20oJ7FEtq

Damascus

Do I didn't, at least not intentionally. I'm trying to place everything in an order that makes sense. Sorry if I reverted any of your contribs. Goltak (talk) 19:39 , 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I get why. I reverted one of your edits once that seemed to have deleted some of the article. Goltak (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

For your consideration

To copy-paste on the end of here...

[[Richard Haass]] has argued that one way to encourage top-level defections is to "threaten war-crimes indictments by a certain date, say, August 15, for any senior official who remains a part of the government and is associated with its campaign against the Syrian people. Naming these individuals would concentrate minds in Damascus."<ref>{{cite web |last= Haass |first= Richard N. |date= 16 July 2012 |title= Into Syria without Arms |url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/into-syria-without-arms |publisher= Project Syndicate |accessdate= 18 July 2012 }}</ref>

... and to copy-paste this into this section somewhere:

[[Richard Haass]] has said that "the crisis in Syria warrants outside intervention, but mostly with tools other than arms", arguing that arming the opposition only militarises the conflict and prepares a post-Assad Syria for a violent expression of differences.<ref>{{cite web |last= Haass |first= Richard N. |date= 16 July 2012 |title= Into Syria without Arms |url= http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/into-syria-without-arms |publisher= Project Syndicate |accessdate= 18 July 2012 }}</ref>

Up to you, just you seem active on these articles. Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 13:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If you think this is worth copy-pasting onto the end of this section, feel free to do so:

According to the [[Committee to Protect Journalists]], 13 journalists were killed in work-related incidents during the first eighteen months of the uprising.<ref>{{cite web |title= Journalists Killed in Syria since 1992 |url= http://www.cpj.org/killed/mideast/syria/ |publisher= Committee to Protect Journalists |accessdate= 19 July 2012 }} [[Nota bene|N.B.]] According to the organisation, no journalists were killed in Syria between 1992 and the start of the uprising.</ref> During the same period, [[Reporters Without Borders]] said a total of 33 journalists were killed.<ref>{{cite web |title= Thirty-Three Professional and Citizen Journalists Killed since March 2011 |url= http://en.rsf.org/syrie-thirty-three-professional-and-07-07-2012,42982.html |publisher= Reporters Without Borders |accessdate= 19 July 2012 }}</ref> Many, such as [[Marie Colvin]], were killed by government forces,<ref>{{cite web |last= Wardrop |first= Murray |date= 22 February 2012 |title= Syria: ''Sunday Times'' journalist Marie Colvin 'killed in Homs' |url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9097762/Syria-Sunday-Times-journalist-Marie-Colvin-killed-in-Homs.html |publisher= telegraph.co.uk |accessdate= 19 July 2012 }}</ref> but at least one, French journalist [[Gilles Jacquier]], was killed be rebel fire.<ref>{{cite web |last= Malbrunot |first= Georges |date= 17 July 2012 |title= Jacquier: l'enquête française pointe les rebelles syriens |url= http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2012/07/17/01003-20120717ARTFIG00525-jacquier-l-enquete-francaise-pointe-les-rebelles-syriens.php |publisher= LeFigaro.fr |language= French |accessdate= 19 July 2012 }}</ref>

Skirtsy ^{My talkEdits} 12:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Damascus bombing move proposal

Hi, could you voice your opinion on this matter Talk:18_July_2012_Damascus_suicide_bombing. I don´t want to get into another edit war with that "editor" and consensus about it should be easily made. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo {2012}

can you help me writing this article .(Alhanuty (talk) 00:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC))

Syrian Kurdistan

Hi, Eko. I want to start working on article Syrian Kurdistan campaign (or something similiar). Given how little attention this area gets in the majority of media (beside one article in CNN which was full of "ze evil Kurds are gonna kill Turks" mongering), I will be probably using rudaw.net as primary source. We already have name of those joint PYD-KNC milias (Popular Protection Units), we know that three cities have fallen and there is ongoing battle in Qamishli so I invite you to help with its creation. Who knows, maybe it will bring some attention as well. EllsworthSK (talk) 09:03, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, beginning is done. 2012 Syrian Kurdistan campaign Since I do not have large experience with creating articles, rather just editing them any help is welcome. EllsworthSK (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Midan street fighting.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Midan street fighting.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails the first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Consensus shows civil war

The vote has ended leaving 6 opposes to 45 supports.

Subsequently an admin must change the title to such. Sopher99 (talk) 00:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding table markup

Hi. I removed some non-standard markup from the death statistics tables in the Syrian Civil War article. You've put it back again, with the comment that it "looks better to distinguish this way". I'm sorry, but I disagree. This sort of layout is non-standard for a good reason. There's no need to "distinguish" anything in this context. Words and numbers are perfectly clear enough to hold their own, without being made bold or put in CAPITAL LETTERS, or even -- as was the case here -- BRIGHT RED CAPITAL LETTERS. "68 deaths" is easier to read than "68 deaths" -- so why use the latter? "Total" means just the same as TOTAL -- again, why use the latter, when the first suffices?

Other tables of deaths in other articles (and, indeed, the several other tables of deaths in this article that didn't have this markup in) manage quite well without typographical flourishes: the serious subject of human death needs typographical restraint, not the visual equivalent of shouting. -- Chronulator (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Wikipedia conventions are to use the least possible markup, unless there is a specific convention that it's acceptable in a specific content. Consider this: if "TOTAL" is better than "Total", wouldn't "TOTAL" be even better? Perhaps putting the deaths in Comic Sans would make them even more "distinguish"? Maybe we should put "dead" in a Fraktur font to make it look more sad? Or would that just be silly? Yes. Yes it would be silly. Or at least very jarring, and I this is how it looks to many other people. -- Chronulator (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I support converting all controversial words/sections into Windings font. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria

As many as a quarter of 300 rebel groups

Some rebel groups, such as the farouk brigade, has 10,000-15,000 personnel.

Please do not try to contrive a number out of Mike Roger's statement. Sopher99 (talk) 02:28, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

They simply counted 300 groups. Doesn't mean they make up 1/4. Its original research. Please wait until an official or inclusively investigated number comes in. Its not urgent is it? You can wait. Sopher99 (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

I don't think you get it - the Muhafaza, Khalidyah and the Sabhan districts ARE the "city center". They are where the rich people live, where the military court is, where the justice palace is, where the baath hq is, where the airforce intelligence is, and where the city hall is. Northwest aleppo IS the city center. South Eastern Aleppo (where rebels destroyed police stations today) is known as OLD ALEPPO. Sopher99 (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Then can we please remove these lame percentages altogether? Rebels don't use checkpoints, they are an insurgency. They don't control things and are constantly on the move. Very vague. Most streets in rebel held districts don't have rebels on them because they are busy fighting on front lines. Using percentages is a very poor choice. Sopher99 (talk)

Whenever Syrian army forces retreat from an area, it becomes "rebel held". There are only 4k rebels for a city of 4 million. Think about that for a second. Sopher99 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

USA in infobox

I hope you realize their support is non lethal only. Not military support. Medical supplies and radios. Sopher99 (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Confirmed by name?

What do you mean by confirmed by name?

I saw that you added the 50 killed in Salaheddine written in the Reuters report but why don't you add the 16 killed in Daraa that were in the same report?--DanielUmel (talk) 13:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds

I'm going to quote the source directly - Sopher99 (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al Berri

There is no proof that the al-Berri tribe is Shabiha. This is a stupid thing to say, how a whole sunni tribe could be member of an Alawite militia? This is non sense. Pro governement gunmen are not all Shabiha. This is an big mistake. Also they deny to be Shabiha so we have to go with that. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The "whole sunni tribe" is not a shabiha organization Zaino is just the leader of the aleppo shabiha. Sopher99 (talk) 17:49, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Al-Berri members say that they are not Shabiha. It is not because they are loyalist that they are Shabiha. Shabiha are new Alawite paramilitary groups, not an old sunni tribe. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:54, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Most shabiha are alawite, but Sunnis shabiha exist. They are not a "new" group either. They existed for 30 years. The article in which you were referring to tells of how a specific berri family were name-called as shabiha, despite not being. Sopher99 (talk) 17:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So the al Berri tribe is not Shabiha, point proved. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Most shabiha in Aleppo hail from the Barris, but the tribe is not a shabiha tribe, as shabiha "tribes" don't exist. Sopher99 (talk) 18:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So at the very least, the al Berri tribe must have a Syrian Flag next to them and not a * putting them as a subgroup of Shabiha --DanielUmel (talk) 18:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I never said they shouldn't have a Syrian flag next to them. Sopher99 (talk) 18:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

But they are considered part of the Shabiha by most reliable sources thus their fighters are a sub-category of the overall Shabiha. EkoGraf (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have yet to see these "most reliable source". And by common logic, a tribe can not be Shabiha. This is non sense. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the multiple sources in the article. All are pointing to the al-Berri tribe being a pro-Assad tribe whose tribesmen are Shabiha militiamen. EkoGraf (talk) 18:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you a concrete exemple? Like I said, I have a source with al-Berri members denying being Shabiha. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-823087 Heres one thats stands out to me. Sopher99 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would deny too if I was about to be executed. Anyway, read the sources in the article in the section on the Shabiha executions. Here are just a few examples Fierce clashes took place today between gunmen loyal to the regime, including the Al-Berri tribe and others,[21] Zeino al-Barri, a politician from a Sunni clan loyal to Syria's President, is killed publicly in Aleppo.[22]. But I don't have time to list you all the sources, look them up they are in the article. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Being loyal to Assad does not make them Shabiha. I am sorry but this is the reality. And don't say that I am edit warring as you both made much more reverts than me on this page today. Much more. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the sources, not the titles, including mine. Anyway discussion over. Go add a flag to the barri clan if you wish. Sopher99 (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The other sources are explicit in calling them Shabiha, what is there not to understand in that? Like Sopher says, read the whole article not just the titles. They are stated to be part of the Shabiha. EkoGraf (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• 1) Sopher, your source looks like a random blog

• 2) Some members are maybe Shabiha, even if I doubt that, but there are no proof that all the gunmen of the tribe are Shabiha, this is unsourced and original search. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It's original research when you say Some members are maybe Shabiha, even if I doubt that, As for proof, for the 3rd time, read the sources. Quoting again for you [23] But the term "Shabiha" has broadened since the uprising started 17 months ago in Syria. Now it covers all the "unlicensed" enforcers doing the dirty work of the regime. EkoGraf (talk) 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

So Shabiha are Shabiha even if they are not Shabiha members because they are pro governement? This is going too far. --DanielUmel (talk) 18:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Any person hired by the Syrian government to fight for them without given license (military, police, ect), is a shabiha, (a word translating to Ghoul). There is an upper ring of shabiha that works as a mafia organization. Sopher99 (talk) 18:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Even if you or me think that is going too far that is how the mainstream media regard them and per Wikipedia regulations we go with that. EkoGraf (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

If you read all the Damascus page and you count and sum all the rebels casualties, you find the 476 number and that it is why it is more sourced. --DanielUmel (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kurds

http://www.rudaw.net/english/science/columnists/5063.html

Explains that the PYD/PKK want neither the FSA or the regime in their territory. They don't want to fight either, but have to if either one comes into their territory. They don't want conflict with the gov, so they can;t have the FSA in their territory, but they don't want to be under gov control either. Sopher99 (talk) 13:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"There were also claims that the PYD slowed down the FSA’s offensive into Aleppo by refusing them entry. For its part, the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade prefers to stay out of internal Kurdish disputes and focus on Assad’s security forces." It even names the group, the Kurdish Salahaddin Brigade (Salahaddin is a famous Kurdish warrior - does not refer to the district, which is named after the Kurdish Warrior) Sopher99 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Rudaw.net is the most reliable source when it comes to Kurdish activities. Even the PYD leader gives many interviews with Rudaw. You cannot rule out that the NY times made a mistake, particularly because the NY times was the only source for that incident at the time, and there story was very vague. Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Guardian

Oops I was looking at the August 9th's blog. I didn't know the Guardian starts a new blog for every day. Sopher99 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Syrian civil war

Hey. Any chance you and a few others can get together with me to get the mention of US support back in. Sopher99 is quite obviously American, and seems to want to portray the US as the good guy in this. I'd like to put in about my country's support too. Hairgelmare (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Eko! Hairgelmare (talk) 21:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Recapture of Salaheddine

I agree that we shouldn't include the LA's news in the infobox abut rebels recapturing the neigbourhood until all sources, including government's forces confrime that they pulled back or that rebels succeeded to advance. We also waited confrimation of rebels and other reliable sources to confrime the Army's recapture, and we should do the same in this case. --Wustenfuchs 18:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess I agree too. No one is reporting the current situation in Aleppo other than Thursaday's events, so lets leave the infobox the way it is. Sopher99 (talk)

(Re:Salaheddine) Tottaly agree with you on that one. Anyways... we don't get enough news these days. After army recaptured Salaheddine, nobody gave any significant news about the battle, only the diplomatic relations. Clinton visits Erdogan, Army clashes with Jordanian troops/rebels... etc. --Wustenfuchs 18:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Salaheddine

TIme for a separate Battle of Salaheddine page? We sure have enough info for one, it will help make the article easier to navigate. Sopher99 (talk) 17:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

siege of homs

i was adding right information EkoGraf,there was an incursion and minor fighting in al shamash district in homs,so i thought of putting as a third offensive for the regimes army ,secondly I ONLY ADD RIGHT AND SOURCED ONES ONLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alhanuty (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Maps

This map gives a completely different detail. I think this confirms to us that maps from news sites many a times do not concur with eachother.

Can I have your permission to change it to South and Eastern, rather than just northeastern?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/07/syria-rebels-verge-seizing-aleppo I7laseral (talk) 23:42, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"Fall"

I can't help but feel that the "Fall" part of the section title is inadvertently POV pushing. War and conflict articles label the battles simply as battles, regardless of whether one side crushed the other or not. Even as early as this year. Battle of Tripoli, not fall of tripoli. Battle of Brega, not fall of Brega. Battle of Idlib, not fall of Idlib. Battle of Zabadani not fall of Zabadani ect.

Saying Fall of Salahaedne gives the impression that one belligerent completely wiped out the other. But this is not the case, as the FSA are still in Salaheddine as a insurgent force. I would like it to be changed to battle of salaheddine.

Furthermore its kind of ludicrous to say "fall of Salaheddine" when rebels only held salahedine for a period of 10 days. Its not a fortress, or a long term rebel bastion. ts just a district. Sopher99 (talk) 14:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Really appreciate it thanks =) Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army

I don't really see a problem in your edits in this article. If you sourced the informations properly they shouldn't be removed. On contrary, I think that removing of those informations is pushing a point of view into the article. --Wüstenfuchs 02:03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Rebel advance

I made a revert on the BoA article because User:Alhanuty erased the 19 August info. Nevertheless, I left a message on his talk page to return the information with detailed informations (oppoistion claim, verification); but you already did it yourself. --Wüstenfuchs 19:40, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia workshops (online and face-to-face - expenses paid for)

Dear EkoGraf,

We are a team of researchers at the University of Oxford and AU Sharjah, researching the experiences of editors of content about the Arab world on Wikipedia. We are interested in your experiences of editing Wikipedia and are organising two events that we think you would be an excellent contributor to.

First, we are hosting an online wiki focus group about contributing to Wikipedia in Arabic and to articles about the Middle East and North Africa. We are interested in what barriers you perceive to exist in Wikipedia, how articles can be made better and generally what can be done to expand and improve Arabic Wikipedia and Wikipedia articles about the Arab world. This discussion will take place on a MediaWiki hosted at our institution and be available in English and Arabic. We will allow users to create their own discussion pages in addition to our discussions.

Second, we are hosting face-to-face workshops in Cairo from 21st-22nd October 2012. If you are interested in this we should be able to pay travel and accommodation costs for up to twenty participants. This workshop will cover similar themes to the online discussion but will allow participants to meet one another and benefit from being together.

We will take care of the organization and planning and all you have to do is show up and be ready to discuss. But if you would like to help shape some of the discussion themes in advance, please let us know. We have booked time in the workshops for Wikipedian-led discussions.

More details can be found by expanding our “Frequently Asked Questions” below.

We would be delighted to welcome you to either (or both) event. Please let us know (wikiproject@oii.ox.ac.uk) if you would like the opportunity to participate and we can send you more details.

Sincerely,

Mark, Bernie, Ilhem, Ali, Ahmed, and Heather

Dr. Mark Graham, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Bernie Hogan, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Dr. Ilhem Allagui, Department of Mass Communication, American University of Sharjah; Dr. Ali Frihida, National Engineering School of Tunis; Heather Ford, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford; Ahmed Medhat, Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford;

Frequently Asked Questions

* What is the purpose of this project? This project is about who represents the Arab World on Wikipedia, and how the Middle East and the Arab world is represented on Wikipedia. We are studying Wikipedia through statistics, edit history data and personal experiences. Our ultimate goal is to help Wikipedia grow in size and fairness and do academic research on this topic. You can read more about the project here. From this page, you can also find a biography of the researchers. You may also want to see our interactive visualizations about Wikipedia. Who is funding this project? This project is funded by the International Development Research Centre (http://www.idrc.ca). This organization is funded by the Canadian government to improve infrastructure across the world, including online content. We have been working with the IDRC since June 2010. Why did you contact me? Because you’re awesome. In all seriousness, we have been looking through Wikipedia for active editors based on user activity in either Arabic Wikipedia or articles about the Arab world. We have not contacted everyone we could, but we contact people that we think will help to balance the discussion and help us (and each other) learn more about the state of Wikipedia. Do I need to participate in both events? Not at all. You are welcome to participate in both or just one. We recognise that it will be more convenient for some people to have online conversations and for others to speak in person. For some people it will not be practical to fly to the Middle East, but we still consider their contributions important and want to give them a voice in this work. Can I use my Wikipedia handle in the online discussion? You do not need to use any particular name on the online forum. All we need is a valid email address so you can register. You can post using your real name, your Wikipedia name or a completely different nickname, whatever allows you to speak your mind most effectively. What sort of travel funding will you supply for the face-to-face workshop? We have funding for travel and accommodation costs for approximately twenty participants depending on where they are coming from. If you would like to join us in one of the face-to-face meetings then we will do our best to get you there. The exact amount of support we can offer will depend on how many expressions of interest we get and their distance from the chosen venue. Can I get involved and help to organize sessions? Yes, but this is completely optional. Our first priority is organizing a space for people to attend, talk about Wikipedia, and discuss how to expand and improve it. However, if you want to help organize discussions, advise on venues or facilitate specific conversations, please let us know. The discussion we have already organised/planned will focus generally on barriers that people perceive to exist when editing Wikipedia either in Arabic or about topics related to the Arab world. But if there is any particular angle of conversation that you’d like to focus on and start a discussion about then please let us know and we can either incorporate it in the programme or let you lead that part of the conversation. Will the face-to-face meeting be public? The meeting won’t be open to the broader public in order to facilitate focused discussions about the topics of greatest concern. We will compile a summary research report of the discussions. People can choose how/if they want to be identified, and a draft version of this document will be circulated to everyone who participates. What if I don’t live in the Middle East or North Africa? We would still very much encourage you to participate in the online discussion. However, we think it is unlikely that we will be able to fly you in for the in person workshops. If you can pay your own way, we may still be able to provide you with hotel expenses. In short, talk to us and we will see what we can do. Will these events be in English or Arabic? Both events will be designed to accommodate English and Arabic speakers. The online discussion will have tracks for both languages and the workshops will have simultaneous English and Arabic sessions that you can choose between (as well as coming-together sessions to share experiences). Three of the researchers speak English as a first language and three speak Arabic as a first language.

OIIOxford (talk) 15:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC), tidied 11:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this message was meant for you, ekograf, but was also sent to Tachfin as someone who edits Arab world articles, so I'm sorry for the confusion. Would you be interested in attending our workshops to share your experiences? Many thanks. OIIOxford (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's great! If you want more details about both workshops you can email the team at wikiproject@ooi.ox.ac.uk and they will let you know how to join in! :) OIIOxford (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: Vandal

Indeed. I've blocked two of their IPs already. I have also semi-protected your user page for a couple days. That will prevent anons from reintroducing the flag. Cheers, Resolute 23:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

Oops I tried to undo the ip - ended up undoing the other guy. Sorry. Sopher99 (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

SANA

I agree with you, it's good proposal. --Wüstenfuchs 13:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could drop out parts like "many of them were killed" and add only at the end that during the day larger number of rebels was killed. Also, we should mention all of the clashes in one santence, for example: "the Army clashed with rebels in Salaheddine, Saif-al Dawla, Children Hospital in the Old City..." after which we should add that large number of rebels was reportedly killed and if there was any arrests or arms capture we should add that at the end. --Wüstenfuchs 13:40, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Is it good so far? This is how I think we could summarize the SANA paragraphs... --Wüstenfuchs 13:48, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I think so to... good work. --Wüstenfuchs 14:21, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Civil War

What the hell happened there? The rebels' supporters were removed... --Wüstenfuchs 13:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. --Wüstenfuchs 13:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

About copyvios

Removing major copyright violations outright is an appropriate course of action. They are not taken lightly around here at all. There have been cases in which even top content contributors and bureaucrats have been indefinitely blocked for repeated violation. Obviously it is good to reword things, but given the severe legal implications, blanking is entirely acceptable. You should read up on WP:Copyrights: "If a page contains material which infringes copyright, that material – and the whole page, if there is no other material present – should be removed." [emphasis mine] ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

September 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Battle of Aleppo (2012). Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. بروليتاريا (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

KIA rebel commander (SOHR)

That part was added by l7laseral I think. The SOHR report mentioned them as "one rebel commander" and "rebel im his group". SANA reported that rebel commander was killed and gave his full name and the rebel from his group was named by SANA as a gunman of his group.... But I really haven't read the SOHR's report. --Wüstenfuchs 15:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, I know that, but if you compare the reports - rebel comander (unnamed)=rebel commander named; rebel from his group=gunman from his group... I just thought it's to similiar to be otherwise. --Wüstenfuchs 15:29, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

connection to zionism

you are a zionist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.208.70 (talk) 20:47, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Damascus

Sorry Eko... I had a lot of work in my faculty... I couldn't read your message. --Wüstenfuchs 14:12, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Damascus reverts

Considering the Arabic name user... pardon me again... I haven't noticed your message on my talk page. However, I did help, I hope...

Cheers.

--Wüstenfuchs 17:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm 90% sure he would be the only one who would continue to claim that the battle is still ongoing... --Wüstenfuchs 17:29, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm able to help only today and monday... tommorow I'm busy with the election the whole day. --Wüstenfuchs 17:34, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

General Municipal election, Bosnia and Herzegovina. :) --Wüstenfuchs 17:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Tu smo dakle... haha, pa hvala. --Wüstenfuchs 17:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Closing remarks on splitting procedure for "Battle of Al-Qusayr"

Dear user, you have participated in the splitting procedure for the article "Battle of Al-Qusayr". Please check the talk page of this article for closing remarks at Talk:Battle_of_Al-Qusayr#Split. Thank you.Greyshark09 (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Disruptive IP users on the Syrian civil war talk page. Help?

[24] There are 2 IP users who are clearly angry over having PKK in the infobox. Help? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:19, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your thoughts are requested

I’ve started a move request to change the title of the article Al-Nusra Front to Protect the Levant to Al-Nusra, per WP:commonname. Your input is appreciated. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Someone is stealing my work!

Check this out: [25] A pro-Assad Iranian news website is using my Highway map. They shifted the image and didn't attribute the work to me! LOL. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Not official

The death of Khamis Gaddafi today is not official at all. The news about his capture and deaths have been going on for more than 6 hours and the promised photography did not come. Now officials are saying that no valuables former Gaddafi loyalists have been arrested.

The Guardian may have been fooled by the rumor. By exemple, Mussa Ibrahim just released an audio proving he was not captured. I would be a lot more cautious before changing Wikipedia. --Sibbinbubbles (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Al-Qusayr, still under siege?

What do think of this: [26]? It says the town is captured by the rebels and it's still under siege, with people fleeing last week. Should we change the status on the Battle of Al-Qusayr article?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:49, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide some insight into this discussion?

The debate at the Talk:Syrian civil war#Third row for Kurds section is getting heated. Can you shine some light on this issue?-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Award

		Syrian Barnstar of National Merit
		Awarded for contribution to WikiProject Syria, and for you work and contribution in the articles related to the Syrian civil war.

P. S. - You made 800 edits only at the Battle of Aleppo... :) --Wüstenfuchs 01:42, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Fatah al-Islam

Hi, I´ve sat down and finally read most parts of this IOW study [27]. You know that I´ve been bugging about the Fatah al-Islam for a long time, but this time on page 33 and further (Jabhat al-Nusra chapter) you can find out that Fatah al-Islam fighters are fighting under Jabhat Nusra banner. Does this suffice for its removal? EllsworthSK (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that, it isn´t there anymore. Should´ve checked it out, will try to be not that lazy next time. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Come and join the discussion about updating the map. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Libya factional fighting article

Hi, I´ve been thinking about this for a while and would like to discuss this with you. As you surely know, article is anything but WP:NOTNEWS so I´d like to talk over these few points

1, Is it really necessary and shouldn´t it be merged with Aftermath of the Libyan civil war article? Outside of wikipedia I never saw one article which would refer to events in Libya in past year as separate event from the Aftermath in general. Also see point 2

2, We have too many informations and article is now archive of any news regarding Libya in past year. We should identify relevant major events such as fighting in Kufra and Bani Walid and separate it from various shoot-outs which lasted for few hours without any real effect on future events. What should we keep and what should we remove per NOTNEWS? Also if we manage to shorten article to sufficient length won´t it be better to merge per point 1?

Thanks for your opinion. EllsworthSK (talk) 21:26, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Aleppo

In Aleppo on Monday were released from armed groups the areas adjacent to the roundabout Liramun the north of the city. http://www.itar-tass.com/c45/563859.html Any other sources for that? And by the way is this outside map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.84.86.14 (talk) 12:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Re: User talk:EllsworthSK#Libya

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at EllsworthSK's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

EllsworthSK (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Damascus (November 2012).
Message added 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please comment on this. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Kosovar killed in Syria

Are there any articles related to the Syrian-Turkish border clashes. An Albanian from Kosovo was killed yesterday. [28]. I think you'll find this interesting, nevertheless, if you haven't read it earlier.

Cheers. --Wüstenfuchs 23:30, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Deonis 2012

Please comment about this user: WP:ANI#User:Deonis 2012.-- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

He's just ****** the battle of aleppo map . He should get kicked outta here Amedjay (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Title change?

Can you comment on this? Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive#New name -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo discussion

What about my argument there at the talk page, any thoughts? --Wüstenfuchs 11:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts about removing the same line in the Syrian civil war article? --Wüstenfuchs 12:09, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Third Column for Kurds

I've come up with possible compromise here: Talk:Syrian civil war#Simplifying the infobox?. Unfortunately, some are still demanding a third column. What do you think? -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Re

Duly noted. --Wüstenfuchs 15:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Syria - Presentation

Hi,

I am a contributor to French wikipedia, I see your work for several months, If you do not mind, I'd like to help with the following in regard to the civil war, the atmosphere on the French wikipedia was bad ...

Maurcich (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, EkoGraf. You have new messages at Futuretrillionaire's talk page.
Message added 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Watch this [29]. The rebels have apparently surrounded the academy in Aleppo, but I can't quite decipher their exact locations. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Homs

According to Lebanese sources, the district of al-Jurat Chayyah be resumed by the army. A check. Maurcich (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I find this article to update the article http://www.independent.co.uk/hei-fi/news/homs-is-calm-for-now-but-the-fear-remains-8405423.html Maurcich (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Aleppo

The Prime Minister is visiting Aleppo http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3434.html?m=0 and http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3435.html?m=0 And finally http://www.breakingnews.sy/en/breakingnews/3435.html?m=0 Maurcich (talk) 16:44, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Abdelqadir al-Saleh

I'm the one who put him as WIA. And he was wounded for sure. A pro rebel Youtube channel showed him wounded in a hospital bed. I checked the pictures of him interviews and the one in the bed and it was the same person. However, there are not "neutral" sources to confirm it, or the other rebel commanders fate.--Andres arg (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Casualties

Sure, use the 10k SOHR report to replace the other estimates of rebel casualties. Sopher99 (talk) 02:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Free Syrian Army article

Can you comment on this? Talk:Free Syrian Army#Operations: split? delete?. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Title change

Can you comment on this also? Talk:Rif Dimashq offensive (November 2012–present)#Damascus offensive. -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maarrat al-Nu'man

Hi, a video posted today announced that Maarrat al-Nu'man and around the base of Wadi Deif ontété "cleaned" the presence of rebels, what do t-us? http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=363_1356271251 Maurcich (talk) 19:37, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, you have a way to have sources on this battle because it is true that a simple video is not enough Maurcich (talk) 23:13, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Congo

Can you comment on this? Talk:2012 East D.R. Congo conflict#Title -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Palestinian casualties

if you have problem with the edit i done in Casualties of the Syrian civil war in the Foreign civilians killed part you can talk with me about that

in the 'talk' page,i already explain the reason ther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.65.169.176 (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Douma

Hi, I read the article "Battle of Duma" and I think that the result of the battle is not good. It is written that:

"FSA regains control of the district by late October."

This is correct, but the article is about the battle that took place from 21-30 January 2012, but the FSA takes control of the city in October. The result of the battle should not appear because it does not relate what took place in January. What do you think ? Maurcich (talk) 23:30, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I'll be there to support you Maurcich (talk) 09:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nationality of Palestinins

I really don't know the problem with this IP, I told him once, but he only repeated his argument. I'm really out of comment. Until he shows any source he has nothing to comment. --Wüstenfuchs 21:06, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

And yes, all the best in this new year. Cheers. --Wüstenfuchs 21:07, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Casualties of the Syrian civil war "dispute"

I left a message in the IP address' talk page, recommending that they go to WP:DR/N if they feel the discussion so far hasn't been fair, etc. I have the page in my watchlist, just in case I start seeing contentious edits; ultimately they can be reported to WP:AN and a soft block of a few hours usually serves to defuse the situation if an admin thinks it's warranted. Requesting page protection would also be useful if the issue continues, but we'll see. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 21:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

washington post

the source you brought say literally A government official said regime forces had taken much of Daraya, an area on the edge of a major military air base just south of the capital,so not confirmed,and assad officals don't allow independent jounalist to enter the country and is even no proof of them retaking most of darraya,and for the sohr,it say literally Rami Abdul-Rahman, who heads the Britain-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, acknowledged “the army has entered most of Daraya’s neighborhoods.” He added the number of casualties on both sides was high after weeks of fighting. they say it entered, not recaptured most of the city,so sayin recaptured is so pov,lets stick with entered . Abdo45 (talk) 21:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Ras al-Ayn

I'd be inclined to just re-open it. Not much strategically has changed since then, and I got intense déjà vu just reading the news reports—they read exactly like something that would've come out back when the battle opened. Maybe break it into phases, though. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. I think it's also likely that the stalemate in the city is deliberate. I recall that al-Oqaidi stated in an interview that the rebels realised they weren't going to get anywhere in the city, so they've made a strategic shift to taking control of Rif Aleppo to suffocate govt troops in the city (e.g. Base 46, Sheikh Suleiman, infantry school, Base 80/airport, Kweiris). I'll try and find the link to it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:50, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Found it: [30]. Quote: "Oqaidi, who leads between 25,000-30,000 troops across Aleppo province, said the rebel strategy had shifted from fighting Assad's forces in the cities to surrounding his bases in the countryside - aiming to encourage defections and weaken the sites so they can be stormed." ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:04, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo

Ok, Eko. I'll help you with the article whenever needed. Though it seems to be fine now... you made last edits. --Wüstenfuchs 18:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Lol, do you mind checking my talk page? Anonymus will not forget us. We're in deep shit now :D --Wüstenfuchs 19:15, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011–present Libyan factional fighting for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011–present Libyan factional fighting 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/2011–present Libyan factional fighting 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. EllsworthSK (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Aqraba(Rif Dimashq)

According video media Syrian city of Aqraba was taken up by the army and the people are spirited revenr in the city, do you have the above information ? Maurcich (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is true. I found these two videos showing the army in the city [31]and [32] but it is only the version of the army and I did not find anything else in the French press for the moment Maurcich (talk) 17:39, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 14:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Situation in Darayya

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rif_Dimashq_offensive_(November_2012–present)#Situation_in_Darayya your thoughts are welcomed Abdo45 (talk) 15:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

karnaz

Kernaz is in Hama province, not damascus