Zenithfel

Since you are better at references than me can you fix them when I add them? I appreciate your help.--!!2011WorldProtests!! (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Its very simple you have </ref> for the closing ref

notice the " / " for the closing one Zenithfel (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:

Its okay the old infobox was restored anyways, the military one I could see casused problems. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Hi! I haven't removed anything from the 2011 Libyan protests article (even though I probably should), but you should really try to find some good sources for the information that you've been adding to 2011 Libyan protests#18 February. It may be beneficial to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (I suggest at least skimming it). Blogs and pages mirroring tweets are generally not acceptable sources for information added to Wikipedia. Remember that we're not a news organization ourselves, we should simply be recording what actual news organizations are saying. Good work so far, though. Keep it up!
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 03:27, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Ill see what i can do, thanks. Going to keep those up for now though, there are 0 journalists reporting from Libya right now, so first hand accounts are all we have. Zenithfel (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Right, which is why I haven't removed anything myself. I expect that reporting will occur within a few days however (especially newspaper reporting. The Sunday papers should be full of summary information, I'd expect), at which point the entire section should be rewritten. I'm certainly reasonable; As the Syrian army orders the live firing on protesters, soldiers refuse, and are in turn executed by the Syrian army itself, in a similar scenario to the Libyan civil war. Defectors report the killing of hundreds of soldiers refusing to fire on protesters. Civilians leaving Syria report that Hezbollah is largely aiding the Syrian army, and are the ones carrying out much of the mass executions of soldiers refusing to kill. Defected soldiers report mass raping as well.I don't expect a rewrite within hours, or even days. I do expect that the blog and twitter references should be removed within the week though, and replaced with reliable and verifiable sources.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Arab world protests

• Yes, I would appreciate it if you would stop messing with the map. Go read the discussion. The Scythian 19:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I did, it is also common knowledge that you don't revert before you create a discussion. Zenithfel (talk) 19:03, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have been in the discussion since yesterday. The consensus was to rename the article from "protests in the Arab world," to protest in the Middle East. Until that time, a map showing Iran is not appropriate, as it is not a part of the Arab world. What part of that did you not read or understand? The Scythian 19:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The part where it says 16:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC) ------Zenithfel (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

(Warning deleted by Dinkytown)....

Its not incorrect. The source says so.Zenithfel (talk) 17:12, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Zenithfel - You were correct. A number of sources are now stating this. You are jus ahead of everyone. However, at that time the source you quoted didn't state this now fact - take care... Dinkytown talk 18:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Ill be more careful.Zenithfel (talk) 18:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of deaths during 2011 Libyan protests

Please note that WP:V is a fundamental policy of wiki:
"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."
In other words, if the reference says 300-2,000+ deaths, that is what we have to use. The only way it can be changed is if another reference is provided that explicitly states other numbers. Given that the BBC is very highly rated under WP:RS, I suspect it will be difficult to find a better source at present (and note that we cannot choose to only use the upper figure provided by the BBC's article, and then find another source for the lower figure, thus disregarding the lower figure provided by the BBC's article). Regardless, I see you've been providing a lot of info for 2011 Libyan protests and other articles, and hope you'll continue; please just remember to follow the previously mentioned wiki policies. Cheers, 62.107.209.191 (talk) 15:37, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Amy Harris (Australian athlete)

I have added a wl for bronze medal and replaced a hyphen by ndash. Looking at heat (disambiguation) there is no suitable wikilink for "Heat, a preliminary race". Please review the article again and either remove the wikify tag or explain what further changes you think are necessary (or of course improve the article yourself, all contributions welcome!)

You added the uncategorized tag even though four categories were already specified: 1980 births | Living people | Australian sprinters | Australian athletics biography stubs. Please remove this tag. I don't see what other categories are relevant to the current content, but you are welcome to add more if you think they are needed.

Please remember to add the date parameter to maintenance tags, otherwise a bot does it in a separate edit. --Mirokado (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Dalton Moraes Jr

One speedy deletion template is enough. I have removed the "test page" template and left the "non-notable person" template. In the future, please pick the best one. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Map

I understand what you mean, but yellow means "ongoing fighting", regardless of who appears to be in control of the situation. This seems to be the consensus among the map-people. --Interchange88 ☢ 20:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya casualties

One source states 3,000 killed in the whole country the other 6,000. But not one of them identifies all of those killed as protestors. In fact, the sources just say 6,000 killed. This in all likelihood may include several hundred loyalists. Also, the 6,000 number may include many regular civilians who were caught in the crossfire and were not on anybodies side. And because of that we have separated the overall toll in the casualties3 section up until now. So please do so, and leave only the confirmed number (733) in the opposition side of the box. Tx. :)EkoGraf (talk) 03:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I get what you are saying, I put in standbyers as an alternative, I also noted that the 733 is the only confirmed number Zenithfel (talk) 03:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Again you reverted without a discussion. The sources don't say that all of the 3,000 killed are protestors! It just says 3,000 dead in Tripoli. The protestors fought back in many cases and there have been loyalist casualties. Listen, I saw that you have been contributing to Wikipedia for only three months so I will try to explain this. Please you need to discuss before reverting again. The 3,000 number is an OVERALL toll and those are put in the casualties3 section, the casualties1 section is reserved for only those apsolutely identified as killed opposition members. Check the Iraq war article for instance, there we put the overall toll of dead Iraqis, in the casualties3 section, that is what it's there for. Discuss before reverting again. Thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I left your 3,000 claim, but indicated that it is an opposition claim figure, since (although I myself belive hundreds have been killed in Tripoli) it's a neutral wording.EkoGraf (talk) 03:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The 24 number is from the article on the battle, check it before reverting. 20 defecting soldiers were executed and four rebels were confirmed killed by a rocket. Also, you removed the sentance that stated the rebels were pushed back to the city center in Zawiyah. This has been confirmed by the rebels themselves. Read the main article on the battle. Your constant reverting of my edits without talking first is bordering on POV-pushing. Please be more friendly. Thank you.EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The soldiers were trying to defect. To whom? The rebels. Thus they were rebels from that moment forward.EkoGraf (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

House arrest

Here you added that Abdel Fatah Younis escaped house arrest, but this information is not present in the reference you gave, and not mentioned elsewhere. When was this house arrest supposed to have begun? Other sources, such as this article indicate that another person, Abu Bakr Younis was believed to be under house arrest. --LA2 (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Zawiyah

The article you inserted from Al-Jazeera is in the Zawiyah section based on out-of-date information. The 50-50 estimate given by a rebel was in an article from late last night. And the article about Ras Lanuf as a battleground you inserted where Zawiyah is mentioned is from early this morning. The BBC, Sky News and Times of London reports are from this afternoon. There have been no denies of the city's fall by the rebels the whole day, in fact no new reports from the zawiyah rebels since before dawn.EkoGraf (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Just one report from one rebel claiming they still hold the city. Western/independent journalists visiting the center have confirmed the loyalists have won. No independent sources confirming the rebels claim.Add independent source if it shows up. Same ref states that a few hours later a pro-gaddafi rally was held in the center of the city. Stick for now with the independent confirmation of the fall of the city until we can get reliable sources. Besides the source claims that the rebels only just today retreated from Bin Jawad, while it was confirmed by independent sources the front moved from Bin Jawad to Ras Lanuf three-four days ago, so I wouldn't call this reliable. Also, I added one more source from Reuters confirming Misratah is the only larger rebel city in the west remaining. I am taking this stance because Al Jazeera has showed it is too much pro-rebel and biased so I am relying on independent sources like the Times of London, Reuters, BBC and others.EkoGraf (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Until there is confirmation from INDEPENDENT sources we state what the western independent media is reporting, we don't base our edits on rebel claims just like we didn't base them on government claims, need to be neutral, and the neutral reporters (except Al Jazeer which I wouldn't say is neutral) are mostly reporting now that the city has fallen.EkoGraf (talk) 17:41, 11 March 2011 (UTC)\

Never-mind you right, in the last minute aljazeera blog just said their journalists personally witnessed it.Zenithfel (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's that. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:52, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Article protection

I think that's possible, a request needs to be submitted to the administrators.EkoGraf (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya and Brega

The map needs to be changed. Everyone, rebels, government and independent media confirming Brega has fallen. And change Ajdabiya to yellow since the situation is unclear there at this time. EkoGraf (talk) 19:50, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry but i can only revert map to previous instances. Changeing the map requires software. If you want, click the map and then click "file history" you can then see who edits the map. contact them on there wikipedia talk page. Zenithfel (talk) 19:53, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. EkoGraf (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Benghazi

Please, there is no source for the four tanks, the only one who has reported this is a pro-rebel site, we need independent confirmation. So wait up a bit. EkoGraf (talk) 18:11, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Please read the updated source from the Star tribune, a rebel health official said 120 were killed, not including gaddafi loyalists. EkoGraf (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

In regard to the mess that you pointed out to me. I started a vote at the discussion page of the main article on the infobox to see if we include the Westerners as rebel allies or a third party. I for one am to put them in the box as rebel allies. EkoGraf (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya eastern gate

I agree with that user Plastelin, independent media are better than rebel claims. Besides, the al jazeera source doesn't even mention the attack that was repullsed. It only says a rebel said the eastern gate was taken. Also, the fidelity source you added as a confirmation the eastern gate was taken by rebels actualy says loyalists counterattacked and were still at the east gate. I also added a third source that confirms the rebel attack failed. I guess the rebels went ahead of themselves and declared prematurely they took the gate. EkoGraf (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Now about Misurata, the source clearly states that the loyalists have taken the main road, the source clearly states it, I qouted it to you. 200 soldiers have been reported to be on it along with three tanks. Also, you can't just copy-paste the sentance from the source, it's a violation of the rule on plagiarism. We need to say it in our own words. Also I will add a ref were it confirms Gaddafis soldiers are in the center. Ok? EkoGraf (talk) 22:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

When you find a source which does not quote a Libyan official or state tv, and it says that they are in center of Misurata, then put it up.Zenithfel (talk) 22:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Added the source about the center, and also wrote about the rebel attempt to send unarmed opposition supporters to clear the loyalists from the center in Gandhi style but were fired upon. EkoGraf (talk) 23:13, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Actualy a stalemate doesn't mean both sides have given up. It just means both sides are in no position to make any more gains than they already have. And it looks like this is true, Loyalists surround the town and control part of it, but cann't secure the center and cann't advance north to Benghazi anymore. And the rebels cann't break the siege and advance south. You still want to remove stalemate? If you want than ok, but if not than I think it wouldn't be that much missleading. EkoGraf (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources for the guardian were oposition from the city, unreliable in that sense, also they were saying about the situation during the day, not the evening, plus they clearly stated what was the situation 12 hours after the start of the bombing, which started at midnight. So they were talking about the situation at mid-day. Obviously the Guardian ran the story in the evening about the situation during the day. And I personaly doubt the reports of the tanks destroyed since in the report it is said the hospital was destroyed and it is still standing according to new reports and being used. Also previously they stated that they only hit a vacant parking lot at the hospital and of course there are reports of tanks showing up in the city attacking the hospital. But we agree the situation is clearly unstable and unclear so we wait until tomorrow. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:42, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is also some personal bias on my part. I view your edits as only searching for the pessimistic parts and not the positives, and by positive I mean anti-gaddafi. That is of course for the most part not true, but i guess it is a psychological effect. Zenithfel (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, ok, I am simply a realist, I don't put much belif eather to rebel claims or the government claims of success. I belive independent news media. Or when eather the rebels or the government give a pesimistic account than I know they are telling the truth, because they must be realy in a tight situation or desperate to be giving that kind of assesment. As for Zawiyah. I heard only one uncredited report of tanks pulling back from Zawiyah. However, that doesn't mean anything because...First of, wheather it be true or not the battle that was fought is over and the loyalists won. Second, if they withdrew the tanks it doesn't mean the rebels reclaimed the town, because most likely the tanks went on to fight another battle like Zintan or Misurata, and they left a smaller contingent to guard the town. So unless there is official news that Zawiyah has been retaken, which I highly doubt will happen, Zawiyah is at the moment government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. By the way, could you make an edit to the map please, I don't know how personaly. There has been a lot of discussion in the past about Bani Walid, however, today the government took journalists on a tour to Bani Walid and photos of loyalist milita were taken in the town. For confirmation look here [1]. The town is thus government-held. EkoGraf (talk) 02:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Only know how to revert maps, editing it requires extra software.Zenithfel (talk) 02:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok no prob. Tx anyway. Found one more image. Here [2] is another image from the journalist bus while they were traveling on the road from Tripoli to Bani Walid, government vehicle seen. Bani Walid than definetly held by the governmen. EkoGraf (talk) 02:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hun should also be colored blue, unclear situation. We have no news from Hun since day 1. Most maps from like NY tiems or al jazeera when they do show hun or Adiri it is listed as unclear.Zenithfel (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hun is most likely a government-held town. The reason is just that, there has been no word since day 1. If it was rebel-held the opposition would like it to be known they are in charge. There has been no word of demonstrations in the sub-Saharan region of Libya, the reason is most likely that the tribes there, a lot of them Tuareg, are almost all Gaddafi loyalists. Also, the Tuareg make up most of the mercenary volunteers. Actualy, there were reports that most of the reinforcements that Gaddafi got that helped him in the beginning were from this region, because they remained loyal. So I don't think any change is neaded there. That's the only part of Libya that is definetly loyal to the government and plus stable. EkoGraf (talk) 02:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The new york times asserts that small towns like Kabaw and Kikla are on the rebel side. [3] Adiri has apopulation of 4600, so i don't think it is even worthy of being on the map, we don't even know the population of Hun Zenithfel (talk) 02:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Both Hun and Adiri are capitals of their respective provinces/districts so they are worth mentioning. In any case, there have been no reports or any sources on which we can base our change of the map regarding those cities, however there is enough reason to change the status of Bani Walid. We need to back-up the changes with sources, no sources on change of status for those two cities but there are sources for Bani Walid. EkoGraf (talk) 03:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Misurata port

The port most definetly was captured at one point since it was a claim by the opposition themselves, but the source you yourself provided says that accounts were conflicting on weather the port was retaken by the rebels, I just wrote what is in the source, please don't change from what is in the ref. Source itself says reports are conflicting. I am trying to write per sources but to keep a neutral stand point. EkoGraf (talk) 13:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Like I said before, if the rebels give a pessimistic account than it most likely is true, if the loyalists give a pessimistic account than it most likely is true. But all positive accounts need to be double-checked because of the posibility of it being moral-boosting propaganda. EkoGraf (talk) 13:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, but what about the doctors?Zenithfel (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya

Al Jazeera corespondent stated that he got into the city with a rebel unit, but the number of the rebels so far seems not to be that much since almost all of the other news media reporting the city still largely loyalist controlled. Also, some media reporting that the loyalists still controll the western and eastern gates and some say they control the northern and eastner, some say they control the western and northern. In any case, it seems that most likely the rebels managed to get through the southern gate but the city is still very much for the most part under loyalist control and surrounded. The frontline hasn't moved yet. EkoGraf (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the video shown by aljazeera shows that neither side have a significant presence to "control" a city, and the situation is just about who runs form the guns. Zenithfel (talk) 12:24, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A reporter on the ground today for example says that rebels control the eastern half of Ajdabiya but now government forces control both the western and center, and that hundreds of rebels came after noon today to surround the city.

http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/25/situation-critical-in-ajdabiya-says-reporter/ Zenithfel (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

He says it based on what the rebels told him. And we cann't trust the rebels, how many times do I have to say it. They are unreliable as are the loyalists. Except Al Jazeera all the other independent media still saying the city is largely under loyalist control except the center. We can not rely on what the rebels are saying. I added that since some of them entered last night the situation has becomed fluid. The current wording is totaly neutral. Wait for more independent confirmation. Remember Misurata? You are overly positive trying to be here, the rebels themselves stated they only today managed to get to the center of Misurata, that means it was totaly under loyalist control up until today. We need more independent confirmation. Let me read the euronews article and asses the situation and the appropriate wording than I'll get back to you. EkoGraf (talk) 12:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok I reworded a lot on what I could gather what is happening. EkoGraf (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ajdabiya

He doesn't say 100 civilians killed, he says the hospital received 100 bodies in the previous two days, no mention they were explicetly civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 23:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

he doesn't say rebels either so it shouldn't be put in rebel section Zenithfel (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Your right, in that case I will note in brackets in the box, like we did in the Second Battle of Benghazi article, that the number includes some civilians. EkoGraf (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Syrian protest 2011

Please do not revert without discussion.--Kevorkmail (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Brothers

The source I added clearly identified the brothers as members of the rebel forces by the rebels themselves. The earlier identification of them as simple innocent civilians was most likely part of the moral-boosting propaganda by the rebels. We need to identify facts from propaganda. And there is a lot of propaganda by both sides. EkoGraf (talk) 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think so. But don't forget feb17info.com is a revolutionary site that isn't like wikipedia. They call everyone a rebel martyr.Zenithfel (talk) 00:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Libyan uprising map

The modern town of Al Jawf corresponds more or less with the historical Al Kufra. You can find more in the commons:File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg. The latest report indicates a defection in the Khamis brigade which was residing there, that means that the town was either under attack or under the control of loyalists. I would move it back to brown once that is confirmed by independent sources.--Rafy talk 19:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Brega

New sources have confirmed that the rebels did manage to get into the city and corner the loyalists at the university but in the late afternoon government artillery pushed back the rebels out of the town once more and they were once more preparing for a counter-attack. Source here[4]. So could you please revert your rever of Rafy's edit on the map for Brega to be blue again until we get definite confirmation from numereous independent sources what the situation is. Ok, could you revert please? EkoGraf (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The university battle was in the morning, in the afternoon they retreated, please read the article more carefully. EkoGraf (talk) 19:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the map. Zenithfel (talk) 19:18, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. The Reuters cameraman filmed loyalist bodies at the university before the rebels retreated, the article clearly indicates that. We need to wait for firm confirmation of the situation. EkoGraf (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Check time of day on this article [5] rebels had claimed to have taken Brega at 09:21 AM, and I also added another source [6] which clearly confirms the battle for the university was in the morning. EkoGraf (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it will be possible to point out the thing about eather of them being in the city or not without a source. However, this source [7] does state that loyalists are in the city itself so most likely, my point of view of the situation, is that the rebels aproach the town, the loyalist forward defence line (at the university) beats them back and they always retreat (4 times now in the last 3 days) and not once do they manage to get into the town itself, except up to the east gate. EkoGraf (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw them messing it up. Stating the rebels took Brega tonight. They were quoting Al Manara which has proven highly unreliable. Al Manara said four times previously Brega had been taken by the rebels, which ultimately been proven false. In any case, CNN, BBC, AFP and others confirming that as of tonight the rebels are still at Ajdabiya with the loyalists just 20 kilometers from the town. EkoGraf (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

2010–2011 Ivorian crisis

I'm afraid there has been some confusion over exactly what has been proposed with regard to a possible merger of the 2010–2011 Ivorian crisis article with Second Ivorian Civil War, on which you commented recently. To clarify this, I've relisted the merge request at Talk:2010–2011 Ivorian crisis#Clarified requested move / merger proposal. Grateful if you could state what your preference is. Prioryman (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NATO tank claims

Listen, the thing about NATO claims is that they are known to be highly unreliable after the Kosovo debacle. During Kosovo, they claimed to had destroyed 90 percent of Serbian tank units. But after the war ended, it was found out and confirmed by KFOR and the UN that only 9 or 11 tanks were destroyed. That was only around 1.5 percent of all Serbian tank units. Guess they forgot to remove the zero and the word percent after the number 9. So unless a newsreporter sees a tank destroyed and confirms it with his own eyes or a gun-camera video from a plane shows a tank (that is moving or firing before it is hit and destroyed because of the possibility it may be a dummy) everything that NATO claims must be double-checked. For as not to make the same mistake of reporting false numbers as back than. EkoGraf (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Aljazeera

Aljazeera has not retracted ANYTHING they misreported (the UK Ambassador has been quite active in meetings regarding coffee exports for Yemen), so imo their claims should have to be corroborated as well. I don't know of ANY responsible news source which refuses to print corrections. I am furious with them, as I have been using them as a reliable source for years. imo everyone involved there is making up facts wholesale, and nobody should be believed. I suppose I'm going to have to go to the BBC and check out Every Single Supposed Resignation, and mark those remaining as 'rumor'. At least the BBC knows to check out claims before reporting them as facts, and how to correct errors. This is an appalling situation. Flatterworld (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Brega

The sources don't mention anything about western Brega, we can not make these things up. The source you are referring to is unreliable since it is a rebel propaganda website. Also, the rebels at the front themselves said today they couldn't enter the town itself and are still on its outskirts. Quoting the article: rebel Suleiman said the rebels could see Brega but were not yet inside. The location of the university was discussed at the talk page of the previous article and was determined it is around 5km from the eastern gate of the town. EkoGraf (talk) 21:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand. But the thing is the brega they were seeing is western Brega, not the residential district. Look at the map. If you made it to the University, you skipped past east brega "new Brega". The source doesn't mention new brega, so we can't say it wasn't approached or that Gaddafi's forces weren't there.Zenithfel (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but we cann't make up edits that are based on our personal oppinions and not based on sources. Because that would constitute Original Research per Wikipedia rules. The source doesn't mention New (East) Brega, but it doesn't mention West Brega eather. We need to stick to the sources we have. Actualy, now that I look at the map a bit more, it seems that they most likely were talking about the whole town. Because the university is just beside the highway and has a strategic overlooking position over the crossroad that leads to East Brega, which itself is actualy several kilometers north from the university, not just before the university. And by the looks of it, they cann't continue north to East Brega until they secure the crossroads, and for that they need to secure the university. We need to writte per the sources. And once again, that rebel site is highly unreliable since it itself claimed during the previous battle for Brega they took the town five times. o.O Plus, except for Younise's claims of taking East Brega around midnight last night, none of the rebels at the frontline today claimed of taking East Brega. They just said they got to the university and were stopped in their tracks. EkoGraf (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

We will probably have a more clearer picture in the morning, but by all accounts from today, the rebels are still mostly 40 kilometers from Brega, with just some forward unites near the eastern outskirts. EkoGraf (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Only Al Jazeera reported quote Heavy gunfire can now be heard as anti-Gaddafi fighters clash with troops loyal to the longterm leader in eastern Brega. They were most likely talking about the university since except Al Jazeera no other media or even the rebels mentioned east Brega and the university is in essence in the east part of the city. Damn....why is this town so complicated to navigate. :( Why cann't someone make a map. EkoGraf (talk) 22:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Here quoute another report from Al Jazeera an hour or so ago. Meanwhile, NATO has continued its air assault on Muammar Gaddaffi's forces in the eastern town of Brega. Rebel forces are reportedly advancing on the oil town, as they push on from nearby Ajdabiya. So in fact they are still advancing on the town. EkoGraf (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-april-17. yeah looks like they are gonna return to Brega again. "doctors prepare for next wave of casualties". This is retarded, the rebel's can't win unless they get long range weapons to defeat the artillery. Zenithfel (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, too bad about that arms embargo extending to the whole country and not just the colonel. :D EkoGraf (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

They don't enforce the arms embargo on the rebels. Qatar's emir blatantly said they are beginning to supply he rebels. Rebels have anti tank missle from France and Qatar, armor from Britain, and regular guns from Egypt. Benghazi is also shipping regular guns to Misrata. Countries say one thing but mean the other, for example USA is still conducting 1/3 of all airstrikes, despite NATO. Zenithfel (talk) 23:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actualy NATO is at least enforcing the arms embargo. The UN resolution applies to the rebels also. And the Canadian NATO commander clearly confirmed this some time ago. The problem is Qatar is smuggling the missiles to the rebels in violation of the resolution, by saying it is for exclusivly deffensive purposes. Nobody is going to scold or reprimend Qatar since they supply the west with oil. Wouldn't want to loose that oil now would we. And the British are walking a thin legal line since they are only sending body armor and sattelite phones which couldn't be considered leathel weapons even though they can be used in war. EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Aye, so hopefully the nations will provide the rebels with long range to defend against the artilleries, and regardless Egypt broke UN rules before and after, as they supplied Gaddafi with illegal mines and now they are supplying rebels with some standard weapons. Zenithfel (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Will see....For long range weapons they would need a totaly new resolution or there will be hell to pay if someone is caught giving them Katyushas. And on the point of Misrata's casualties, I realy don't know what do to, the chief doctor of the main hospital is always giving the lower estimate for the whole battle while one other unknown doctor is always giving a higher estimate for the whole battle, they aren't just doing it hospital by hospital, they realy do say for the whole battle. Uhhh.... Need to sleep. Good night! EkoGraf (talk) 01:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

What country do you live in? I live in the USA. Zenithfel (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Serbia. EkoGraf (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Misrata

Will leave that the doctors also claimed, but the they are also part of the opposition and thus what they say can't be taken as a truth, since they are also giving contradicting casualty numbers. Also, you accidentaly removed a source for confirmed dead rebels in the notes section, please be carefull. EkoGraf (talk) 15:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

We should try to find someone who can do a map of the city. And mark the territory of each side in the city? For example, collor green the southern, western and northwestern part of the city for loyalists; collor red the northern and eastern part of the city for rebels; and color with blue Tripoli Street, city center and the road to the port and the port area for ongoing fighting for control. EkoGraf (talk) 19:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. The loyalist presence in Western Misurata is minimal if not none. Most of Gaddafi's forces have pulled out of the west and circumvented to the east in an attempt to bomb the port. The situation is too fluid for a map. Gaddafi's forces are not fighting for terriotory, they are fighting to evict and kill rebels. The are moving all over the place and are not in a bid to take territory but to position themselves to kill. Territory map is a very bad idea.Zenithfel (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Al Kufra

Yeah, but Jalu is much closer than Al Kufra which is hundreds of miles further south. And in most reports when rebels claim NATO destroyed tanks south of Ajdabiya they say tanks destroyed on the road between Ajdabiya and Jalu. You have to pass through Jalu first before getting to Kufra. EkoGraf (talk) 01:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good point on the True Finns in Portal:Current events ... see Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 "dramatic breakthrough".

Good point on the True Finns in Portal:Current events ... see Finnish parliamentary election, 2011 "dramatic breakthrough". 99.109.127.246 (talk) 02:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh 34 seats. I read 6 for some reason. Zenithfel (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Nafusa Mountains

Thanks for the update, will try and find more sources on that and update it accordingly. By the way, a doctor in Misrata today said 80 percent of those killed were civilians, so around 20 percent would be rebels. Since we confirmed that around 150-160 were rebel fighters that would mean that the upper number of 700+ would seem to be the more precise one but we will still leave for the time being the lower number also until they get their facts straight. EkoGraf (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget about the civilians on the outskirts and outer area of misrata who couldn't make it to safety. It is legitimately possible for thousands of deaths. Zenithfel (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We writte as is reported. EkoGraf (talk) 19:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Video

Try finding an unscourced one, I cann't see how many loyalists are dead. EkoGraf (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Some of them look just damaged and not destroyed. I counted 17, will change the number in the box from 2-35 to 19-35 and put destroyed or damaged. Also, I wonder if those tanks were even operational since they were bunched up together like that (strange since tank killer planes were hunting them) and all of them were old T-55s. In my oppinion, because it deffies military logic and common sence to bunch up that much tanks in one place instead of hidding them, which reporters have confirmed that the loyalists have been doing. And it has been confirmed by military annalists and reporters that a few hundred tanks have been deemed non-combat ready or operational since no parts were available because of the sanctions. EkoGraf (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

they were probably targeted incase they had an intention to use them. That way NATO can say "look how many tanks we destroyed! we are heroes and doing a great job" and "we destroyed their military without even taking a life, thats how skillful we are" Zenithfel (talk) 20:49, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hahaha, lol. :D "Nice of them for lining up for us like that in rows."...Yeah right. :P There isn't much that they can do except shooting at relics since all of the T-72s have been moved into the cities and the mountains on the border with Tunisia. EkoGraf (talk) 23:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Tunisian battalion

Your allegetions of another battalion of 100 going to Tunisia is totaly unsourced. The ref is clear that the 100 who came back into Libya are the same 100 that were expelled from the border crossing. Quoting source Tunisian news agency said one of Gaddafi's brigades has returned to Libyan soil after crossing the border on Thursday morning. The battalion fled into Tunisian territory after rebels took over the Wazin border crossing. Please stop removing sourced information. Also, there is no mention that they came back through the rebel-held border crossing. And most sources use the term surrendered or fled to Tunisia, very little sources, except the Tunisian press service, use the term defected. Their defection is dubious since they were still regarded as Gaddafi's brigade following their return. EkoGraf (talk) 17:03, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Wazzin

Me and Lothar von Richthofen need your help. I know in the past you agreed in essence on merging smaller-scale battles into one article so there wouldn't be a bunch of unnecesary articles. An editor with a single-purpose account is trying to fork of the battle at the border post into one small article. Which has already been explained in just one paragraph in the main article on the Nafusa mountains campaign. Another editor has already proposed the merger back to the main article. The discussion is here [8]. EkoGraf (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps

Yeah I know about both reports. Already told Rafy, he is doing the maps, to edit the Nafusa map to reflect that the rebels are now only holding the area along the Nalut-Zintan road. As far as the airport goes, we should wait another 24 hours to see if there is realy a battle for the airport. Since it could be only just skirmishes because it was only reported by the rebels, and they have only been reported to have advance to the southern tip of Tripoli street, not further, and there are still the southern outskirts before the airport that are still under loyalist control. Like I said before, I don't trust eather side when they claim success, because the rebels claimed they liberated the whole city last week, but it turned out they only captured the center and Tripoli street. EkoGraf (talk) 16:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Wow, this looks like it was a realy good day for the King of kings. Witnesses confirm loyalists have retaken Kufra in the southeast. [9] The retaking of Wazzin and Kufra is most likely the result of the withdrawal from Misrata. They freed up who knows how many thousands of troops for fighting elsewhere. EkoGraf (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Loyalists were not withdraw for that reason, and all of them are still present in Misrata. There are 3000 loyalists near brega, and there is a shortcut road which goes into the jalu road which leads to al kufra Zenithfel (talk) 17:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you didn't get me, I know they are still at Misrata, but they are not focusing on taking the city anymore. They are primarily focusing now on taking the port area, so a smaller area for the retaking. So I guessed they sent some of those involved in the attacks on the city center and Tripoli street elsewhere. In my opinion they made a mistake by trying to take Misrata. They should have instead retaken the mountains first and than focus on Misrata. Too much resources for only one city which they could have only surrounded and leave it at that, but both sides wanted a simbolic battle and so they got it. EkoGraf (talk) 17:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Syria

No problem, I'll update. EkoGraf (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Actualy, no. Better to leave it as it is, because that Human rights group updates the number daily. Before today's killings they said 617, while another group said 454. I left it 454-617. Better wait until tomorrow to see what they say. The only thing I managed to update from today were the security forces because their number of dead is not so often updated. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok then Zenithfel (talk) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk

Please don't do that: [10]. Even when editors are wrong that kind of language is not ok here. Ocaasi ^c 10:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

sorry then Zenithfel (talk) 10:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Source

Concerning this: [11]

it says: "At the most it was a massacre of 40 civilians; at the least a day of live-firing into unarmed protesters, "

So its not clear at all that 40 died, and it was published on 2 May, but it didnt happen on that date, which was where you added it in the timeline. And where did you get 1500 from? Source says: "Perhaps 4,000 of the Syrian Sunnis "

You can reply here. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

"at most" is figurative, it doesn't say at most 40 people died. It means at most it was a massacre and at the very least it was a day of torture and brutality, rhetorical. Also last time it said 1500, i guess they updated it when more came. Zenithfel (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

What about the date issue? It didn't happen on May 2.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ill change the tense by adding "previous day". Zenithfel (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

The 40

You are constantly adding those 40 to the toll. How do you know they have not been included in the toll established by the rights groups? Two rights groups are reporting that the toll at the moment what they have been able to establish is 580 civilians and 100 soldiers or policemen. The 607 dead toll you are adding says 607 people not protestors, by all means it most likely includes the security forces. There is no reason to think the rights groups didn't include those 40 into the death toll. The deaths were from April 27, at that time the rights groups were reporting something like 540 protestors dead. They are constantly updating the names. Unlike Libya where there are no official death counts and we have to do the job ourselves there are semi-official death tolls here in Syria thanks to the rights groups and we should stick to what they are saying and at the moment they are saying 580 civilians and 100 security forces, that is 680+ dead, well over the previous estimate of 607 people reported that according to that one source you were quoting. So please, stick to verified sources on the civilians killed. EkoGraf (talk) 05:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll leave it for now. Rights groups are almost always wrong. They can't just magically know how many people died in all those smaller towns where they don't even have people on the ground searching for dead bodies. The security forces have checkpoints, they don't allow people into the heavy conflict areas. The human rights groups are pulling out numbers from nowhere. Zenithfel (talk) 07:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Actualy they do have people on the ground. There was a report on BBC news where the opposition activists, who are based in Lebanon, have organised groups to report on the situation from within Syria. They report every day the names of all of those killed or presumed killed to the opposition center in Beirut. It's from those numbers the Rights groups are basing their numbers on. EkoGraf (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Misrata 100

When they said hundreds they ment civilians, rebels and military; not just loyalists. The 100 loyalist bodies collected all lay were they fell for weeks before they were picked up. Up until now 90 percent of the 300 killed estimate we have came up with for the loyalists was based exclusivly on rebel reports, which in this case are not highly reliable. The 100 loyalist bodies was confirmed by foreign doctors who are now working at the Misrata hospital. Like we have a lower estimate for rebels a lower estimate for the loyalists is also needed. For now the 300 estimate is by no means confirmed, while the lower of 100 has been definetly confirmed. EkoGraf (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

30,000 figure

When you look at google news it seems most results give 30,000. Libya death toll: Past 2 weeks (google).

But User:EkoGraf strongly disagrees with the 30,000 figure. What's your take on this?

Well most news sources say 30,000 because NATO says 30,000 I have always believed that a good fraction of these numbers actually refer to forced disappearances, which the anti-Gaddafi forces count as death. One thing Nato has is airplanes which they have 24 hour surveillance, and because we don't know what going on daily in Brega, Sirte, Zawiya, Zuara, Gharian, and even Tripoli, there could be more deaths than we think. We must also remember that fighting is for the most part under reported, and that people die from injuries. In this case I definitely believe the death toll to be over 10k, but a 30k death toll we must be cautious with. Zenithfel (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

When you take into account now the, previously unreported, 1,000 or so refugees who have died at sea since late March when their boats sank (which has been reported on in the last few days) our established higher death toll is now 5,500+. EkoGraf (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

True but they did not die from the revolution/war, just like the Tunisian boat captsizes are not listed in the death toll for the Tunisian revolution. Zenithfel (talk) 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Saying they did not die from the war is highly untrue, they died as a direct result of the war. They were war refugees attempting to flee from the war and their boats sank. One of them sunk just outside Tripoli's port. And you can not compare the Tunisian situation to the Libyan one. In Tunisia it was just protests, in Libya it's war. EkoGraf (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Huthaifa al-Batawi. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Highly, highly, highly offended

I was highly, highly, highly offended by your accusation that I put unsourced and made-up material into articles. First of, the CNN source [12]. You obviously didn't read it carefully. I will quote it to you. Meanwhile, on the front lines of the battle, bullets are whizzing past "like very angry hornets," Colvin said. At least 70 rebels have been wounded -- but they have held their line, "and meter by meter were able to advance," she said. As far as the other source goes, obviously it was updated and the old information was deleted. Here is the original info [13], and again I will quote it to you. The rebels, battling against Gaddafi's superior firepower, said government forces bombarded a residential area outside the Misrata on Tuesday and that 100 rebel fighters were wounded in a separate shelling attack. Please try to read the sources more carefully and re-check your evidence before you start accusing people of things like making made-up edits. :( EkoGraf (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well the first one i understood after re-reading it more carefully, and it just so happens i did revert my own edits. The second one the info simply expired, and wasn't present. I wasn't accusing you in particular as i did not check the history until later on. The only reason why i suspected false info was because in the second source i read through it 2 times but did not see that info (of course i was wrong) Zenithfel (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Huthaifa al-Batawi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huthaifa al-Batawi 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/Huthaifa al-Batawi 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 good 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. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties table

Going to attempt to make a new table in the casualties article in which exclusivly only civilian fatalities will be included. However, as far as Zawiyah, Nafusa and Second Benghazi goes, there we didn't have a civilian/rebel breakdown so those two will have to stay merged together. But we will note that those toll include possibly hundreds of civilians killed. But so we are clear those several hundred protesters that were killed in the first few days could not be considered civilians at this point because at the very least they can be seen as rebel activists now. Anyone after that that didn't have a weapon in their hands when killed is a civilian. EkoGraf (talk) 03:54, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

358 is also the number of rebels killed that we managed to confirm based on varrious reports, it's in the notes section of the infobox on the battle. Hell of a coincidance huh? :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Sana'a

What do you think Battle of Sana'a? Look good? EkoGraf (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Yefren

Will add those thousands if they are confirmed. Not before. Also, as of today the Zintan rebels confirmed that Yefren is in loyalist hands [14]. Quote On Saturday, Juma Ibrahim, a rebel spokesman in Zintan, said Yafran remained under Gaddafi loyalist control. EkoGraf (talk) 15:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Yemen

I am not for the term revolution. Because, unlike Egypt and Tunisia, there was heavy street fighting on the streets of Yemen. The tribesmen are also part of the anti-government opposition since they declared their support for the protesters. Also, in Tai'zz in the last few days protesters have took up arms and have attacked the military. Just today they attacked the presidential palace. And I personaly think Saleh is delusional as Mubarak was and IS going to go back to Yemen, and if this continues for a few more days this will be, if it already isn't, the second civil war of the Arab Spring. However, I do think Saleh is going to go down. Because, unlike Gaddafi and Assad, who are anti-American (don't care what the West thinks), Saleh is a pro-American dictator (just like Mubarak and the Tunisian) and so he will bow down to the influance of the West (making him to step down) which is trying to divert a major geo-political catastrophy if they loose Yemen. Saleh can not survive without the help from the West (which has already abandoned him).EkoGraf (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

True, but what about the fact that many revolutions have been bloody with protesters and oppositions fighting? some "revolutions" were actually military coups supported by the average people. Regardless, i guess we will just call it by what ever the majority of bipartisan media calls it. Also if a new leader (such as the vice president) would call it a revolution, a war, protest ect we will also be inclined to take his position as well. But i agree that Saleh is unlikely to give up. Zenithfel (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Also Misrata gaddafi soilder death toll is now atleast 545, as they buried 545 of Gaddafi's soldiers by today. See if you can find anything on that to see how accurate it is.

About 1 hour 30 mins ago

http://blogs.aljazeera.net/liveblog/Libya

Zenithfel (talk) 17:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Libyan Civil War

• Do not vandalize articles by removed sourced information or you will be referred to administrators for possible account locking. This is your only warning. Daniel Musto (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

please be more careful at the next Zenithfel (talk) 22:35, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You reply does not make any sense. Daniel Musto (talk) 01:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

YouTube as a source

YouTube is not considered a legitimate source for reliable information. Please do not use it as so in the future and thank you for working on the 2011 Libyan Civil War timeline article with me. Daniel Musto (talk) 17:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

2011 Syrian uprising

Hey, just wanted to let you know I'm not removing content, I'm just moving it out of the intro. Intros are supposed to be four paragraphs long maximum. I created a separate section entitled "alleged treatment of defectors" for that information. By the way, could you wikify the citations you provided for that section? Thanks. -Kudzu1 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Tripolitania

That seems like a very big stretch. Not sure if I'd support it. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

Hmmm, it just occured to me, that when combining the number of confirmed/possible killed with the number of confirmed/possible missing we have almost 11,000 dead or missing. Which falls into the paramaters of the UN estimate that 10,000-15,000 are dead. But based on at least what we have been able to gather, 66 percent of those killed or missing are eather rebel fighters/protesters or loyalists. Around 33 percent are civilians (not on eather side), and 50 percent of those were refugees who died/drowned while trying to evacuate from Libya. So based on this sample that we have it seems a lot less civilians have been killed than originaly thought. However, there is a high possibility that a number of civilian deaths have not been reported from the Nafusa mountains region from the towns that were/are under siege. So perhaps the number of civilians is somewhere around at least 40 percent of the total dead, and I think that the overall number of dead is no more than 12,000 or so. EkoGraf (talk) 00:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Your figures are smart, but keep in mind we don't know if NATO and the UN are using the same reports we use. Also keep in mind unarmed opposition members count as civilians to NATO and the UN. Also remember that opposition captured are sometimes counted as dead by the NTC, and even NATO sometimes, so they raise the death toll to stuff like 30,000. None of us know the death toll from Tripoli , Zawiya, and Gharyan nighttime fighting. But otherwise It looks like Human rights groups and Un death tolls are becoming more identical to our researched death toll. Zenithfel (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the thing, NATO and UN are claiming unarmed opposition members as civilians, even though they were part of the rebel movement, for propaganda purposes. And yes, I too think that thousands of opposition movement members that have been captured have been likely claimed by the rebels to be dead while they are in fact still alive most likely. If they don't raise the number from 15,000 by the end of this month our statistics should catch up to that number, or at least the confirmed/probable killed number (without missing) to 10,000. I personaly think that uncounted non-opposition or non-loyalist civilian deaths are most likely several hundred in the Tripoli area, several hundred on the eastern front and several hundred in the Nafusa mountains. Probably no more than 500-800 or something like that. Also, by all accounts, the UN/NATO are using data gathered from the opposition since their numbers are similer. I think when the war ends the real number of dead will be found to be much smaller than what is claimed at the moment. Since it was claimed in the first few days that the loyalists killed 3,000 people in Benghazi, but it was later confirmed to be just 300-400. EkoGraf (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

When we were talking about coordination between those raids that happened in Zlitan and Zawiyah. You asked for a source. Here it is [15]. Rebels confirmed they were coordinating the attacks. Want to talk about that joint article now maybe? EkoGraf (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Tripoli

Those three that were killed in Tripoli were protesters. And those protests were 100 percent certainly organised by the opposition thus they are opposition members/rebels. And the claim that 90 percent of Tripoli residents are against Gaddafi is coming from the opposition. If I remember correctly the opposition claimed at one point that Gaddafi fled to Venezuela and that three military battalions rebelled in Sirte and took over the city for the opposition. So I don't take rebel claims very seriously, just like I don't take loyalist claims seriously too. I mean...c'mon....rebels attack a village in the mountains and kill 45 soldiers and destroy six armored vehicles for the price of only 8 rebels dying? At least the loyalists don't make any claims on the numbers of rebels killed. EkoGraf (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In the most pro-gaddafi area of tripoli, abu salim, half of everyone journalist (who snuck out of rixos) spoke to were "tired" of Gaddafi. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/18/us-libya-gaddafi-neighbourhood-idUSTRE75H1KS20110618?feedType=RSS&feedName=worldNews, Your kinda right about the casualties figures though. Zenithfel (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In reality the NTC and NATO are screwing things up at the same time of saving thing. They only allow trained soilders at Breg-Ajd which number less than 2000 at this point. They should just mobilize the several thousand civilian fighter (who now don't fight), and according the hte NTC "NATO does not allow new campaigns". Even with that only a very small fraction of Benghazi-Tobruk is joining the fight. It seems most people in Libya can just accept either side. Zenithfel (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Re "can just accept either side": Sure, like most people in Europe could just "accept" Nazi occupation back in the Second World War. After all, not every civilian took up arms and joined a resistance movement. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Casualties and claims

Saying that only 9 deaths have been confirmed in the bombing is untrue since the Vatican itself confirmed 40 deaths by the end of March alone. So, please refrain from OR and your personal opinion. Also, the number of soldiers killed in Misrata or all of those loyalist deaths in the mountains are exclusivly based on rebel claims. But we haven't pointed it out, did we? We report as it is. EkoGraf (talk) 01:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Vatican confirmation was just an example. There were dozens of other confirmed deaths. Like the Brega imams that were killed. Some of the confirmations were even made by the UN, AU and Russia investigators. Best to just put Also, the number of civilians reported to had been killed in NATO air-strikes could be smaller because it was proven that some of the previous government-announced tolls from individual strikes were exaggerated. EkoGraf (talk) 04:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

YouTube video at Death of Hamza Ali Al-Khateeb

I'm not sure why your source is reliable, so I reverted it.[16] If it is a legitimate news cast without a copyright violation, please provide those details and re-add. Otherwise, I see above you've been cautioned against adding YouTube videos. Why do you think this one was OK? Plus, what does it have to do with Hamza? Shouldn't it go instead at the Syrian uprising page? Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 17:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Kufra

Wouldn't be so sure about them being security for the rebels. Because, the rebels are out of money and their oil production is at a standstill. If they were protecting the rebels oil fields there would be production, which there isn't. EkoGraf (talk) 05:12, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The Sahrir oil terminals was destroyed, so i doesn't matter if the Kufra installations are operative, they still won't be able to work. The European Union by the has given the NTC 100 mil this week, the first time they actually gave them the money. Zenithfel (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I updated the 2011 East Libyan Desert Campaign with the Sudanese intervention. Yes, you are right, the oil terminals were destroyed or heavily damaged, there will most likely be no oil flow for some time. The 100 million they gave them will run out preaty fast because they will first and formost need to use it as pay for their soldiers, policemen, workers, judges, etc. By the way, the Sudanese military was reported to had captured Kufra, there is nothing about them capturing the desert. The loyalist units did not vanish in the thin air. They are by all accounts still in the desert around Kufra, so please don't remove sourced information based on POV and OR, I warned you of this before, please stick to Wikipedia guidelines. EkoGraf (talk) 19:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

You forget that a portion of the Libyan population are also black, and especialy in that region there are a lot of blacks from Chad. Doesn't have to mean they are from Sudan. Will have to wait and see if it is true about the Sudanese, but since the start information has been hard to get from Kufra. Remember, it was initialy claimed that the rebels took Kufra in late February, but was later reveled it was only taken by the opposition in early April. EkoGraf (talk) 22:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw the thing about Sudan denying, somebody already updated the article with the news. I agree its not trustworthy, yet again.... EkoGraf (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The WTF moment :)

Yeah, I don't know what the journalists were thinking they would see. Of course they wouldn't show them the military. They are not stupid to blow their cover. If they got on TV NATO could have easily found out what their location was and bomb them.....heh journalists... But I do agree with you that NATO is holding back the rebels from advancing on Tripoli. That is the result of the rift and indecisivnes in NATO. I said that almost from the start. Man, everybody is waging its own propaganda campaign. Look at the rebels. Today they said that 11 people were killed and 50+ wounded and Misrata and they said that most of them were civilians. But later journalists went to the central hospital in Misrata and confirmed they were all rebel fighters [17][18]. EkoGraf (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

My personal feeling is we should wait until the foreign ministries of countries like Greece, Norway, Sweden, Morocco, and Lebanon issue statements before saying they've recognized based off what France or Italy has said. But worth keeping an eye on for sure. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

British?

I liked your edit comment at [19] William M. Connolley (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

ref'd

Hi,

Please don't tag language articles like Maung language as unref'd. They are ref'd through their ISO-code links. — kwami (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Zenithfel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Wipsenade (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

List of snakes of South Dakota

Could you please leave the article alone while I'm actually writing it? Subsequently, feel free to tag it up to your heart's content. I can assure you, I will be citing source(s) for the list; I simply haven't gotten that far yet (I've only been working on it for a few minutes). Thank you. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hey, this is just a friendly reminder for you to be careful with what you put in your edit summaries. Things like this are not in line with AGF rules, and may be construed as personal attacks. I do realise that FreemanSA started it, and I have warned him accordingly. Just try not to let yourself get sucked into these sorts of things. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Syria

Only report for now that the Syrian officials confirm civilian deaths. Nobody else reporting it. If nobody else reports on it in the next few days than it must have been a mistake and they needed to say in the article not officials but human rights officials. EkoGraf (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnastar

I just wanted to thank you on the Barnastar, I have tried my outmost to balance the articles to make a realistic representation of the situations during the war. Still, I belive we may yet still work on editing this war since as of tonight out of three claimed captured Gaddafi sons one escaped, one was proven never to had been captured, and the third's faith remains unclear. XD Not to mention the reports that loyalists were managing to push back somewhat the rebels in the western part of the town EkoGraf (talk) 01:27, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverting my edits on the 2011 Battle of Tripoli with the reason of vandalism when it was the opposite

I do not understand reverting my edits on the 2011 Battle of Tripoli with the reason of vandalism when it was the opposite. It seemed somewhat stupid but I excuse it. I will just readd it or let 1000 other people readd it.

International recognition of the State of Palestine

Though Gadhafi and lost, the official flag in Libya have not yet changed--analitic114 (talk) 13:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Dinky the Elf

Hello Zenithfel. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Dinky the Elf to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Historical false claims vs true claims?

Historical false claims vs true claims? I mean, realy? You realy gonna defend their PR campaign after all the lying during the whole war? You can't deny they often more lied than told the truth about their battlefield success. Case in point - Brega (captured 20 times), Khamis (killed 5 times), Saif Al Islam (captured), Mussa Ibrahim (captured, in a dress?), Sirte (captured 90 percent of the city 3 times), need I go on? EkoGraf (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

You misinterpret Brega. The opposition never claimed they had taken brega when they didn't. What they DID do was take eastern Brega, report that they captured it however, lose it within 30 mins of capturing it, and the news takes an hour. So When word spreads an hour later they captured it, the public doesn't know that 30 minutes after they captured it they lost it.

Khamis was killed 4 times.

First was a rumor on twitter about a kamikaze attack, and not ntc officials or commanders.

The second time he "was killed' was based off of information from captives

The third time they lied

The fourth time it is based off captives again.

Musa Ibrahim's brother was captured. But because most people only know Moussa Ibrahim, it was reported as Moussa Ibrahim.

Sirte I have only saw they captured it 80% 5 days ago, which was an exaggeration.

Otherwise there are over 25 cities over the span of 8 months, Meaning Hundreds of TRUE reports.

So even if you are right about the 25-30 instances, thats only 30/over 770. 8 months = about 250 days x fighting in atleast 3 cities at any given time (Misrata Brega Zawiya Zliten Yefren Zintan Nalut Ajdabiya) = 750 as the bare minimum reports. 30/750 they are wrong. 4% Zenithfel (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

They did claim total control of Brega several times, even the French foreign minister claimed it at one point, saying several times the loyalists had retreated from the town or were in the process of retreating. Regarding Mussa Ibrahim, I don't know where you got the information they captured his brother, since it was confirmed by the BBC and CNN that he was killed during the second battle of Zawiyah in a NATO air-strike two months ago. What the media did report is that they initialy claimed to had captured him which later turned out to be only his family members and not himself. Oh, yeah, forgot to include Mutassim Gaddafi on my list, captured wasn't he? Oooops seems they lied again. 90 percent was a typo, ment to put 80, but still, they claimed several times to had captured most of the city, On 16 September, they claimed they were only mopping up pockets of resistance in the seaside villas. Oh yeah, claimed at first that their commander Younis was killed by loyalists, turned out they themselves killed him. How these people are gonna run a country I have no idea. I don't belive one single word of what eather the NTC or the loyalists say because they lie at every chance they have, its just that the NTC has lied more than the loyalists have during the war. EkoGraf (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

The NTC lied more than Gaddafi's officials? Have you been drinking Nescafe again? Zenithfel (talk) 00:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

That was downright insulting and I would remind you of Wikipedia's rule on civility. Have I said anything to insult you? :( EkoGraf (talk) 02:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Nescafe is not insulting. It was a reminder of a hilarious attempt by Gaddafi's officials to undermine the at-the-time protesters. Zenithfel (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I could have said "are you crazy", but since according to Gaddafi Nescafe = Insanity, i said "have you been drinking nescafe". I'm not sure if English is your first language (as you said you are in Serbia), but here in America the phrase "are you crazy" is not insulting, it just states that the idea one puts forward is radical. Zenithfel (talk) 02:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of phrases. Such talk may be ok in your country, but here its rude. :( EkoGraf (talk) 03:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Well then I find you perception of rudeness rude. What do you want me to do for repentance? give you a box of chocolates?

here this may help: kitten. Stare at the kitten. You can't resist. Zenithfel (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't want any repentance, I was just pointing out you were being rude. And you still are continuing to be rude and I am once again reminding you of Wikipedia's rule on civility. And you finding my perception of rudeness being rude is nothing strange considering you are an American, and you guys are known for lack of civility on occasion. Please don't talk to me anymore. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 21:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Zenithfel! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 14:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello Zenithfel. You tagged "Linux Roi" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 07:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Abba Estifanos of Gwendagwende (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Ethiopian

Emilie Desjeux (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to French

Nguyen Do (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link to Vietnamese

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Ultimate dodgeball

Hi, I had considered nominating the article for deletion, but there are over 1.4 million hits for "ultimate dodgeball", so although it needs a lot of work, it probably doesn't merit deletion. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I beg to differ "it is a little bit like dodge ball and a little bit like paintball. there are many different kinds of games you can play in ultimate dodge ball. Here are the forms i have created so far" Zenithfel (talk) 03:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Umph, I missed that. Sorry. Though it could be fixed it somebody knew anything about the subject matter ... The Mark of the Beast (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Please note that a WP:MADEUP violation is not the same thing as a hoax. In the former case, the thing does exist (obviously, since it's a game with rules). -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Removal of material from the lede of 2011 Russian protests

In this edit you removed material from the lede of 2011 Russian protests. The lede is a summary of the information in the body of the article. Sources are not ordinarily put in the lede but at the location of the information in the body of the article, in this case here. Not sure if it belongs in a fair summary or not though. User:Fred Bauder Talk 21:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Inter-factional fighting

Since the Libyan war is tentativly over since late October I was thinking we should create an article about the inter-factional fighting between various rebel factions and also it seems resumption of hostilities with pro-Gaddafi elements today with the loyalist take-over of Bani Walid. Do you agree with this assesment? I was thinking of calling it 2011-2012 Libyan inter-factional fighting or something along those lines. If you got an idea for a better title please share it. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

it would be great if we made a page that included those events and the loyalist events as well, like post civil war fighting in general. Otherwise i think thats a good idea. Zenithfel (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Finished it, change the article name if you think of a better one 2011-2012 Libyan inter-factional fighting. EkoGraf (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Bani Walid fighting

Hey, I really appreciate you helping out to make sure that the article stays balanced and neutral, which can be hard when news is coming fast. Thanks! Jeancey (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Your Welcome Zenithfel (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

You think we should maybe change the name of the article from 2012 Bani Walid insurgency to 2012 Bani Walid uprising? EkoGraf (talk) 20:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Ya it might be him, sure looks like it. But sorry, I don't know the procedure to report a sockpuppeter. I knew before how to report 3RR violators and such, but have forgotten now (been trying to cut down on editing wikipedia XD addicted lol), but this is a much more serious thing. You should go to the administrators noticeboard and read about their procedures on these things. EkoGraf (talk) 13:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Moulana abdul aziz mollazade. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. An Illusive Man (talk) 00:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. I mistakenly read the diffs wrong. Please forgive this, I have reinstated your version of the page. Cheers! An Illusive Man (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Zenithfel (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Verject

This was not a hoax. Please be more careful when you're CSD-tagging. Drmies (talk) 04:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

The user in question

If you feel it is best to bring this to administrators' attention, I will second the motion. The editor's pattern of behavior is clearly disruptive and unhelpful. I hope that he/she will recognize this and correct course, but as it stands, it is clear that something should be done. -Kudzu1 (talk) 01:47, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I reported the situation here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring Zenithfel (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Libyan army article nominated for deletion

Hi, could I ask you for your view on this particular issue? Wikilink is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libyan National Army. Thanks. EllsworthSK (talk) 01:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Warn

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 03:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Mercenary & Libyan civil war shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarificationgiven (talk • contribs) 05:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

And also List of modern dictators. Clarificationgiven (talk) 06:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your recent edit to the page List of modern dictators appears to have added incorrect information and has been reverted or removed. All information in this encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable, published source. If you believe the information that you added was correct, please cite the references or sources or before making the changes, discuss them on the article's talk page. Please use the sandbox for any tests that you wish to make. Do take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thank you. —Hahc21 13:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

Thank you for your message. However, the article has been nominated for deletion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_areas_currently_held_by_Syrian_opposition so i will wait for the outcome before making any big changes (except those related to the AfD discussion). Cheers. Tradedia (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

November 2012

Hello, I'm Rafy. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Darayya massacre seemed less than neutral to me, so I removed it for now. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rafy talk 08:47, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Raqqa

You marked to black color some villages which controls the army on the basis of a source who said that Tabka airport is the last object under the control of the army. But it meant that he was the last military facility in the province of Raqqa but other pro opposition source indicates that the army still controls some villages.source Hanibal911 (talk) 08:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Mhardeh

Firstly opposition source confirms that the city under the control of the army source also SOHR claim that clashes near city Mhardeh.SOHR And SOHR not much reliable than archicivilians if we consider that SOHR consists of only a few people who live are in England.here And if you dont know SOHR it is anti-government source, and this is confirmed by many reliable sources. So it is not necessary to deform the data on the map. Here's confirmation that the SOHR is opposition source and this is confirmed by many reliable sources: read this article in Wikipedia, Also Reuters said that the SOHR it is anti-Assad grouphereand here Also Chicago Tribune said that the SOHR it is anti-Assad group.here and it also confirms First Post and ABC NewsJerusalim PostBusiness InsiderFree Malaysia TodayNews Week Hanibal911 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2014(UTC)

Also here new report from SOHR said that A soldier from the regime forces was killed in clashes with the rebel and Islamic battalions near the city of Mharde which is inhabited by Christians.SOHR This report came out an hour ago, and thus he put an end in to our issue. Hanibal911 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

Thank you for your edit to the ISIS page today. I have moved your para and given it its own heading in the section "As Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant". I think this is a more suitable place for it than the Lead (which is just an introduction to the article) and hope you agree. I notice your two footnotes are bare URLs; could you convert them to the standard wiki format, please? --P123ct1 (talk) 20:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the list of links beneath is a carry-forward from an earlier section here. --P123ct1 (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 24

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mukhabarat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Your recent editing history at Jesus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ISIS

You made an edit to this page today and thank you for that. You have added a bare URL footnote and converted a properly composed footnote into a bare URL footnote. Bare URL footnotes are susceptible to link-rot which makes them unsuable. Please would convert both to the standard wiki format using the edit cite templates. I notice that you have left bare URL footnotes before in ISIS (23 August above). I also see that you have edited in Wikipedia for some years, so this task should not be a problem for you. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)]

You can forget this message, as I see you have been reverted. I remember your edit on Hillary Clinton in ISIS was similarly disputed and reverted. --P123ct1 (talk) 18:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC).

---

Sockpuppetry charges by Fitzcarmalan.

Fitzcarmalan is accusing you with Sockpuppetry.Alhanuty (talk) 23:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Sopher99

Let him. Zenithfel (talk) 19:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at the Village Pump

Hello! This message is to notify you that there is a discussion at the Wikipedia Village Pump that may be of interest to you. -Kudzu1 (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)