Moester101

Let Freedom Ring!

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 06:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Syrian National Council

Can you please self revert your recent additions to the infobox on the Syria page. Please use my last additions as a template, if not you are hurting the case for a spilt-infobox. The coat of arms, etc. are in fact WP:original research; they are trying to make out that the existence of the SNC itself it. Don't give them excuses. Sans culottes 14:17, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Syria Flag

I would be interested to get your input on the Flag of Syria talk page. حرية (talk) 15:10, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Libyan flag

We had a discussion on the talk page quite a while ago. The reason it is the old flag is because the events occurred in the OLD Libya, not the post-Gaddafi Libya, and therefore the old Libyan flag is used. You wouldn't change the Nazi flag on a WW2 article to the current German flag simply because it has been changed for a while would you? It is the exact same situation. If you think it should be different, please bring it up on the talk page, but don't just change it without consensus, especially since there is a specific reason for having it be the old flag. Jeancey (talk) 02:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The map

You made the map similiar, but still it has a lot of mistakes. For example, what about the Christians and Yezidi in Syrian Kurdistan, Chrisitans at the south of Syria and on the territory of the former Alawite State? Could you just upload this map with minor edits? --Wüstenfuchs 08:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

This [1] map is also almost the same the one I added. You can use this one as a source. Druze near the Golan Heights have inhabited much smaller area then you showed. --Wüstenfuchs 08:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, your claims are baseless, as I may assume. The ethno-religious maps of Syria that I saw show Christians as majority in area of Daiz ez-Zor and Hassake in Kurdish area. Yezidis are majority in this certain area of Kurdistan, no matter which percentage of the total population they represent, but if we speak about this small part of Kurdistan then they are majority there. You can't simply ingnore them. Second thing - Aleppo. You add it 100% Sunni, while the map shows they are mixed there with Christians. About the Druze area at the south they are also mixed with Christans from all sides rather then Sunnis. And you allways label Christians with stripes even though they are a majority in some areas (parts of Kurdistan, Alawite State). You also didn't added Druze at the north, just at the boundary with Turkey... Many mistakes. It's hard to mention all those small groups in all of the Syria. You also mentioned the Golan Heights being empty - it's not truth. As you may notice the southern Golan Heights are Jewish-populated, the northern Golan Heights are Druze with significant Jewish population. Please also nitice Alawites and Sunnis being mixed at the coast of the Alawite State etc. Why don't you just use the map I showed you and fix it a litlle bit. Now, you also said that I'm only criticizing your map; let me explain you. There were no other ethno-religious maps in the Syria article, there was only an image of Syrian Jews (which I removed as they are only inhabited in the Golan Heights - a disputed area). The ethno-religious map is very delicate thing, one must be 100% correct as such things can irritate people and can be use for propaganda purposes, and I believe it's not your attention to spread propaganda. Also note that what you are doing is WP:OR (original research). Like stated above, your claim that there is only small number of Christians is absolutely baseless. I tell you again, the ethno-religious maps must be 100% accurate, otherwise they might be considered a propaganda. --Wüstenfuchs 09:17, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I edited the map I showed as an example a little ([2]). The ethno-religious map must be the same as almost every map shows it like that. Well, considering that the Yezidi are acctualy Kurdish, you don't need to add them at all, they may remain yellow. --Wüstenfuchs 09:29, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Latakia

Thanks for restoring correct French colonial flag. AnonMoos (talk) 15:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moester101. You have new messages at Rafy's talk page.
Message added 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Rafy talk 16:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

POV removal of content

Hello Moester101. I understand that for you, as a Syrian American, the issue of the French colonial flag might be a sensitive one. I also understand that anyone who supports the anti-Baathist opposition might not wish to prominently display the fact that the opposition flag was introduced by the French colonial authorities. However, this is Wikipedia. Here we have strict policies (WP:NPOV) against removal of accurate content for the purposes of WP:POV-PUSHING. The articles where you have blanked information arguably unfavorable to the opposition - are under discretionary sanctions. Please refrain from edit-warring, and if you have a valid reason for removing the information (and I have seen none), then bring the matter up on the talkpage. But if you merely wish to remove it because its "bad press" for the opposition, then there is no way I could possibly agree to such content blanking. -- Director (talk) 20:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Broader contributions

Marhaba Moester. I'm glad we've crossed paths over this flag thing, as you seem one of the (dare I say, few?) level-headed editors involved in the Syria articles at the moment. You also seem genuinely interested in broadening coverage on Syrian topics, which is badly needed indeed. I hardly ever contribute to the articles related to the revolution, not only because of my strong POV on the subject, but also because it's a futile exercise in a very hostile and poisoned environment which eventually leads to a very quick burnout. I understand that it may be your main area of interest at the moment, but I'd also urge you to diversify your contributions a bit, or else WP will quickly become a rather unenjoyable place.
There are several areas in WP:Wikiproject Syria (where you can add your name as a participant) that are in a bad shape. There's an ongoing collaboration (for months now) between myself and Al Ameer son (talk · contribs) to increase coverage of Syrian localities (ultimately we want to have an article for any Syrian village or town that has over 2000 in population). The idea is that all these places that are being bombed and depopulated are ones with history and they should not remain nameless (see for example, Darkush, Tell Shihab, Tafas, Tell Aran, all which appeared on the main page in the DYK section). I'm also working on increasing coverage of notable ancient Syrian artefacts in world museums (Statue of Ebih-Il, Baal with Thunderbolt, etc.). Syrian art/artists/literature/writers are also in a bad need for articles, and so as Syrian modern politicians (mostly of the mandate, istiqlal and early-Baath periods, where we're working on bringing Shukri al-Quwatli to GA -the draft is here). I imagine articles on Syrian expats are also in a bad shape.
What I'm saying, I guess, is that it would be great to have an extra content contributor. Plus, there is a satisfaction in creating an article and nursing it to a decent shape, that you won't find with long shouting matches on talkpages ;) Salamat! Yazan (talk) 07:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Homs Control

It isn't all of homs, but government aligned forces DID just take a district in Homs (see here). Jeancey (talk) 10:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Guidelines and advice

Moester, you seem to be new to Wikipedia, and there are some things you should know if you don't know already.

For image uploads or updates such as the uploads you made at File:Arabic Dialects.svg, please do not upload the image multiple times, as it wastes storage space and bandwidth. You only need to upload it ONCE, as it will save after you click on submit. The reason why it looks like the image hasn't changed is because your browser stores a locally cached copy on your computer. To refresh the browser cache and see the new image, you need to bypass or clear your cache to update it to the latest copy of the image.

For file talk discussions, please do not post duplicate messages or comments on both the Commons and English Wikipedia (or another local one). Please post a message on ONE of the two - either the Wikipedia talk page, or the Commons talk page - so that we can keep discussions centralized and not fragmented. I've merged your comments on the Commons to the Wikipedia file talk page. Next time please keep these guidelines in mind. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo map

I don't think your partial undo of Sopher's revert on the Aleppo map worked quite right. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

thank you for letting me know.Moester101 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Nairab military airport controlled by forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.http://live.aljazeera.com/Event/Syria_Live_Blog/9165361737.54.28.110 (talk) 05:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Clashes broke out last night in the al-Sakan al-Shababi neighbourhood of Aleppo city between YPG fighters and rebel fighters, intermittent clashes are still ongoing between both sides. http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_news&nid=899&Itemid=2&task=displaynews#.Uk0c_6Dd03Q

30 September,Rebel fighters launched several domestic rockets on regime strongholds in the A'ziza village.https://www.facebook.com/syriaohr/posts/42764941401006937.54.28.110 (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

@ IP: I appreciate the notes, but all these things are already reflected in the current map. No need to change anything. Moester101 (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Arabic dialects map

In case you haven't seen the talk page about the Malta conversation, their is more to that discussion (not by me) and I have a suggestion on the page.—SPESH531Other 01:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the note. Moester101 (talk) 06:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Aleppo map

Updated pro-regime map shows areas west of both layramoun and the military research center are rebel held, not contested. Also regime doesn't control that much of mahamel, and areas west of baloura are not contested, but rebel held. http://www.syrianperspective.com/2014/04/battle-map-of-aleppo-updated.html Sopher99 (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll make some changes based on mislabeled map portions. However, I don't think it would be fair to use this pro-regime map only to show rebel positions without taking their word on the SAA advances. Moester101 (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Rashidin district to lime green, taken by al nusra http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/04/syria-rebels-advance-aleppo-city-2014412101712303691.html

Aziza contested (4th paragraphs before the last paragraph) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-01/251892-syrian-army-claims-seizure-of-key-latakia-position.ashx#axzz2zB0MyViY

Rebels are in the Zarah residential district, please turn it from red to olive http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/syria-aleppo-offensive-rebels-jabhat-nusra-regime.html#

Lastly area surrounding hanano base to contested, likewise Bab al Hadid to lime. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2014/Apr-17/253683-syria-rebels-attack-army-barracks-in-aleppo-ngo.ashx#axzz2zB0MyViY

Sopher99 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The source for Aziza does not say the town is contested. The source says the ambush happened in the Aziza region (this would include areas around the town). Last reports we had, including opposition ones, said the Army had regained control over the town. But fighting has been continuing on its outskirts. The source for Bab al Hadid, makes no mention of Bab al Hadid. The north-western part of Zarah, since the rebels attacked Zarah from the nort-west, should be marked as contested, not the whole district. EkoGraf (talk) 20:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok then, I'll see what I can do with these new sources. Since Rebels haven't claimed control of the large Benjamin Neighborhood, we can't make Rashidin green yet. Aziza is still in government control, but the rebel attack shows it's in control of Sheikh Lutfi, and balloura which is sparsely populated should be olive. I'll also make Wafa olive because of the new rebel offensive in the area, along with area surrounding hanano. Hopefully that should be it. Moester101 (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I would urge you to revert Baloura back to red and Sheikh Lufti back to contested because none of the provided sources indicated Baloura has become contested and we have no source saying rebels took full control of Sheikh Lufti, your assumption that because they attacked Aziza than they must have captured Sheikh Lufti is considered Original Research by Wikipedia and is not allowed. So I would kindly urge you to revert the southeastern front situation to back as it was. Also, same goes for Al-Waffa, we have confirmation of fighting around the intelligence building and palace of justice (north of Waffa), but not in Waffa itself. The youtube videos that were provided on the talk page can not be used per Wikipedia policy and are forbiden. So return that also back to red please. The area northwest of Waffa should remain contested. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

He wasn't using youtube. We have confirmation fighting is occurring in the residential zahra district. http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2014/04/syria-aleppo-offensive-rebels-jabhat-nusra-regime.html# Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I just noticed that Hanano was also marked as contested, despite that no more fighting has been reported there since the rebel attack on the barracks was repelled a few days ago per an opposition source [3]. So that also should go back to red. EkoGraf (talk) 15:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fighting at the hanano barracks less than 24 hours ago. http://al-shorfa.com/en_GB/articles/meii/newsbriefs/2014/04/18/newsbrief-04 Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Uploaded a new map. Moester101 (talk) 05:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The new consensus map is great, good work. EkoGraf (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Regime Forces progress in Sheik Najar raea and captured a number of militants. Clashes continue between Regime Forces and Armed Opposition Groups in Dowar Alborj in Allyramon area in north Aleppo and Regime Forces progress in the region.Hawar News Hanibal911 (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Sheikh Najar is unfortunately outside the perimeters of the map, so can't do anything there. As for "Dowar Alborj" I have no idea where that even is. On top of it all, "HawarNews" is very much a questionable source which I don't think can be used to make solid changes to the map. Moester101 (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ramouseh

You can self-revert your ramouseh edit and turn it back to contested. PressTV (heavily pro-regime) a few hours ago said syrian army "is advancing on militant positions in ramouseh" http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/05/01/360808/syrian-army-inflicts-losses-on-militants/ Sopher99 (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Bustan al Basha

Bustan al Basha should be contested

Pro-regime Iranian state tv says "operations against militants" occur there http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/04/13/358457/syria-army-conducts-successful-operations/ Rebel affiliated source says syrian aiforce barrel bombs being dropped there http://www.shrc.org/en/?p=23497

Sopher99 (talk) 13:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Both sources are from April. The first source I can't trust because it is PressTV afterall, and the second source can't be used to make changes because it only mentioned bombs being dropped. Moester101 (talk) 04:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Ahl Al-Sham

Could you please upload an image of the organization's logo so that it can be added to the battle of Aleppo article? A perfect one can be found here:https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/440852277016788992/8o7GnsUR.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.121.72 (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Aleppo map

I revert you update the Aleppo map because need confirmation from a reliable source that the Military Research Center captured by the rebels because the EAWorld View it is pro opposition source and can not be used to show the success of the rebels! But you can again update al-Assad Suburb in Hamdaniya according data from SOHR sourcesourcesource Hanibal911 (talk) 15:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Also why you ignored the my data that I have provided. Pro opposition source confirms the presence of the army in the Kallaseh district.ARA News Also SOHR inform about clashes between the two sides in Bustan al-Qasr.source Hanibal911 (talk) 15:14, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, how do you expect me to use pro-opposition sources sometimes and ignore it other times? So only if the pro-opposition source benefits the govt. can it be used? That's double standards my friend. Also, I have no idea where Kallaseh's army bases that your source talks about are. I looked over it many times and it's entirely civilian district, no bases whatsoever, kinda makes me doubt the source more. As for Bustan al-Qasr, there's always clashes on there between troops stationed to the north and rebels in the south, I want to see actual troop movements across front lines for it to be an offensive, otherwise it's useless. Finally, I messaged SOHR to post an update on the military research center despite it appearing in FSA hands now, hopefully they reply. Moester101 (talk) 07:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Understand we use pro opposition sources that would show the army advances and also we use progovernment sources to show the rebel advances. But we do not use sources of opposition to display success rebels and pro government to show progress army as they distort the information either in favor of the rebels or the army. So if this data not confirm reliable sources we need noted military research center under control of the army. Hanibal911 (talk) 09:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

al Haidariah

On the west, the rebels made a push last week to capture the city’s military academy, the major government-held installation in the city’s western quadrant. But attack, however, ended in catastrophe, exposing the rebels to repeated attacks from the air, even at night, that made it impossible to move men and weapons freely. Also government already controls, the industrial zone and the al Haidariah district in the city’s northeast. Ledger-EnquirerCharlotte ObserverThe TelegraphSun HeraldVC StarMcClatchly DCIdaho StatesmanMiami Herald Hanibal911 (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The same source states that Haidariah is government controlled. The area where fighting is going mentioned in the source on is likely to be that between Hanano and Owaja.here Because reliable source said that government already controls, the industrial zone and the al Haidariah district in the city’s northeast but rebels are battling to keep government forces from taking the area between two zones which the government already controls.sourcesource Hanibal911 (talk) 10:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Bustan al-Qasr

SOHR reported that clashes took place between regime force and Islamic battalions in Bostan al-Qasir neighborhood.[source] Hanibal911 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Yuri Mraqqadi

Hello, Moester101. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Yuri Mraqqadi, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Yuri Mraqqadi to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Vanjagenije (talk) 21:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Moester101. You have new messages at Vanjagenije's talk page.
Message added 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Vanjagenije (talk) 11:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mayada El Hennawy

The article Mayada El Hennawy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

subject is non notable

While all constructive 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. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Meatsgains (talk) 05:29, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Khayyi Moester101. Colleagues proposed deletion of Mayada El Hennawy because it was a one-liner and the reference given a commercial download type site. But why wonder? Can you imagine English Wikipedia doesn't have pages on Riad Sunbati, Mohammed al Mougy either which I discovered today, so we have a long way to go... In any case, kermal ouyounak, here a revamped fully referenced article of Mayada El Hennawy. Yuri Mraqqadi's article was also bound to be deleted, then I intervened because I love so much his songs "عربىٌ أنا" and "المرأه العربية", for me great songs of his. On this occasion a song for you: Canadian Pakistani singer Irfan Makki in "Mabrouk" to celebrate saving the article. ... All the best werldwayd (talk) 18:33, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

You sir are made of awesome. Thank you for saving another article. Salam. Moester101 (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Moester101. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Moester101. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)