User talk:Pbfreespace3

Hello, Pbfreespace3, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Happy Squirrel (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the snack. Yummy! Don't worry about editing while on holidays. Most editors here have lives and understand that such things come first. Enjoy! Happy Squirrel (talk) 02:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source when you add villages or towns on map. According to the rules of editing we can't add to map (villages, towns, cities or military base) without provide reliable sources which can confirm such actions. I hope for your understanding. Hanibal911 (talk) 07:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I understand. Will a map from Institute for the Study of War (somewhat pro-Iraqi) be enough? What map should I use to justify my edits? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I see you are adding lots of userboxes. You may find Template:Userboxtop useful. Look at my userpage for an example. Happy editing! Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HappySquirrel! I will try to clean up userboxes sometime within the next 48 hours. I will also try to create a few of my own. Thank you for your help! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your contributions at Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. A quick request: when responding to a post, please indent your comment with a colon (:), so that it is easy to differentiate one comment from the next. Wikipedia's talk page guidelines on the subject are at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation.

Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:09, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sorry, I forget sometimes. I'll remember to indent. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:32, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm going to leave that response unedited for irony. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I did not intend that! Hahahahaha! Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :-) --HCPUNXKID 21:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation community 1RR sanctions, as you did at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To explain:
  • Edit 1 Revert 1
  • Edit 2 Revert 2
• Magog the Ogre (t • c) 21:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your positive contributions on the Syrian and Iraqi Civil War Modules, your willingness to discuss edits/work collaboratively, and your efforts to counteract un-sourced edits Boredwhytekid (talk) 23:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, by referring to a Middle East conflict map, i was of course referring to Template:Syrian,_Iraqi,_and_Lebanese_insurgencies_detailed_map, which i guess you are already familiar with. It is not yet a full map of the entire Middle East, but as the Arab Winter expands instability a number of editors have integrated more and more maps - beginning from Syria, later joining with Iraq and adding Lebanon a few months ago. I guess there is a consideration to add also Sinai (Egypt) in the near future and depends on developments in Saudi Arabia and Yemen (Yemen already a battle ground, and Saudia experiencing border clashes), those may too be integrated.GreyShark (dibra) 05:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show that sources? And I suppose that they arent Kurdish media or Twitter pro-Kurdish amateur accounts, that would be so embarrasing...--HCPUNXKID 17:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HCPUNXKID, I have heard reports from pro-kurdish sources such as Chuck Pfarrer that some ISIS reinforcements have come on across the Euphrates as well is infiltrators from the south, but BaF has a pretty strong presence around the town. You can argue all day, but for the edit you made, I have multiple twitter sources:

https://twitter.com/sylezjusz/status/618473038871429120 https://twitter.com/ChuckPfarrer/status/618484971347550208 https://twitter.com/Feeney4Batman/status/617671230917705728 https://twitter.com/CizireCanton/status/617653868340604928 https://twitter.com/Karybdamoid/status/617031151358586880 http://ku.hawarnews.com/ji-ypge-opersyona-paqijkirina-bajaroka-sirin/

This list includes official YPG sources, as well as mapmakers and activists.

Whereas all you have is one guy on twitter who made a Google Earth map claiming that ISIS actually has some villages north and east of Sarrin.

https://twitter.com/_paulo34/status/618554063853101056

Who are we going to trust? One person, or a multitude of sources, even if they are anti-ISIS? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That "multitude of sources" are:

• 1st: Sources totally pro-YPG & anti-ISIS. Do I have to remember you that u cant use a pro-Kurdish source for Kurdish gains? Hope not, what would you say if I started using Peto Lucem, Al-Masdar, etc... for SAA advances? Would you accept it? So please, lets not have double standards...
• 2nd: Its funny to hear you calling that source "one guy on twitter", what are Chuck Pfarrer or Karybdamoid but "guys on twitter"? Or perhaps now they are worldwide-known academic experts on the issue? Come on, let's be serious and again, dont have different standards depending on our own POV.

So please, bring a neutral or pro-ISIS source stating that towns are under YPG control, otherwise they should be black, or at least (as a compromise solution until we can assure who controls them) contested (black-yellow). Regards,--HCPUNXKID 00:50, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider this a neutral source? He has been used for kurdish advances in the past. He is mainly pro-rebel.

www.twitter.com/arabthomness/status/616725447175442433

Thomas van Linge neutral? Really? Come on, the presence of the Kurdish & FSA flag dont say nothing to you? Would you consider neutral a twitter acount with the IS flag? That 18 years old kid is heavily biased, and if his maps or tweets had been used for Kurdish or FSA advances, that's a violation of the Wikipedia norms & rules we have agreed, and should be reverted. As I'm tired of having edit wars, I offer you again that good faith compromise solution, putting as contested the towns wich dont match on the maps (Kirat Kurdan, Mitras, Jabiriyah, Septe, Sabat Tahtani, Huwayjat al Alawi). Regards,--HCPUNXKID 17:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HCPUNXKID, let's say I start a Twitter account, put up a ypg flag as my background picture, and upload my own map that I made myself claiming that most of Kobani Canton is actually still held by ISIS: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4hMuKBMHGmsaWs5Q2RCSmRjVHM/view?usp=sharing

That's my map that I made. I have a YPG flag as my account picture. Surely I am pro-YPG, right? Or at least a neutral source if I didn't have a YPG flag and didn't speak favorably of the YPG? My point is: does that make me right? How do you know what I am saying is reliable? Do you see what I am getting at? The truth is you know we aren't allowed to used maps for the Syrian wiki map, and this is no exception. What is likely is that Res Publica just guessed who held what, or relied on pro-ISIS accounts to say that ISIS actually has control over several towns and villages around Sarrin. That's exactly why his maps which he made on Google Earth cannot be used as a source. So no. No compromise. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dont get it. Are you trying to say that Res Publica (wich perhaps could be biased, but it doesnt seems so 4 what I saw in his account) aint reliable but van Linge or Chuck Pfarrer (both having a heavy well-known pro-Kurdish bias) are reliable? Dont get it personal (sorry if u feel offended), but claiming that is a very hypocrite attitude, as its you who had affirmed that maps from very unreliable pro-Kurdish source Arabthomness had been used for editing Kurdish advances, in a total violation of Wikipedia rules. You leave me no option but to bring this issue to the talk page.--HCPUNXKID 00:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HCPUNXKID, I wasn't trying to say that all of my sources could be used to edit the map, I'm just saying that yours can't be used. We need to treat all of these sources with extreme skepticism, including van Linge and Pfarrer. I don't recall using their maps to make edits. Regardless, the situation at Sarrin should be kept exactly the way it is until a news agency reports a change. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The village of Al-Bayarat is located directly west of the ancient city of Palmyra; it is only 10 kilometers away from this aforementioned city inside the Homs Governorate and it currently contains no inhabitants, as most of the residents fled this area after the terrorist group took the city of Palmyra in late April of 2015".You have made a complete wrong edits were you changed 3 villages in east of Palmyra werer the source clearly says west of it,you have to fix your mistakes.46.99.57.114 (talk) 18:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I will revert. Please help me find this village west of Palmyra, I can't find it. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:05, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ISIS take checkpoints not near Air Base or Pumping stanion. So not need icons near this points. Saphyr66 (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA retake one of checkpoint yesterday. Also now SAA advance against ISIS so you need removed black icons near Air Base and T4 Station. Saphyr66 (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm pretty sure the al-Masdar source says that ISIS launched a failed assault on those bases, but nonetheless it is a pro-government source that said that ISIS attacked them and still has one checkpoint near the Tiyas base. We can't use the pro-government source to show government gains, but we can show them for losses. That's enough to warrant a siege icon, I think. If you still disagree, let the community vote on it on the Syrian Civil War Module talk page. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA advancing around Palmyra and captured 3 area in the vicinity of Palmyra. Anti SAA source reported that SAA advance against ISIS and take some points near city.https://www.facebook.com/www.documents.sy/posts/791817537584187 Saphyr66 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So not need black icons near Air Base and T4 Station. ISIS only shelled this area.https://www.facebook.com/syriahroe/posts/720517131389961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saphyr66 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA had established full control over Nazl Hayyal, al-Qadiri farm, and Thaniet al-Rajma in Palmyra’s surroundings. http://www.presstv.com/Detail/2015/07/08/419330/Syria-ISIL-Palmyra-Homs-Hasakah SAA advance.https://www.facebook.com/Hosein.Mortada.Press/posts/878645812204286 Saphyr66 (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SAA & Hezbollah are supposed to establish a demarcation line with ISIS at the gate of Palmyra city in few days.https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/619041230060519424 SAA & Hezbollah advance near Palmyra. The gas field in Bay'yarat have been recovered. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/619040987520761856 SAA & Hezbollah advancing from d western gate of Palmyra in ISIS land and are about 4 km from the city entrance. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/619040679457480704 SAF reopening the road for advancing forces. https://twitter.com/EjmAlrai/status/619041567072874496 Saphyr66 (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Army is 3.5km from Palmyra. SAA/Tiger Forces sit less than 5 kilometers from the Qassoun Mountains of Palmyra; meanwhile, to the south, the 67th Brigade sits less than 3.5 km from the last army checkpoint that leads into Palmyra. http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/syrian-army-is-3-5km-from-palmyra-how-did-they-do-it/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6V3r126z60 https://www.facebook.com/SyrianNewsCenter/videos/vb.742335999134054/972511969449788/?type=2& Regime troops advance near Palmyra. Syrian troops inched closer to the ISIS-held city of Palmyra. http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2015/Jul-11/306160-isis-attack-on-hassakeh-stalls-regime-troops-advance-near-palmyra.ashx I think now no ISIS forces near Air Base, T4 Station & Tiyas crossroads all ISIS fighters go to Palmyra. Saphyr66 (talk) 09:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 18 July 2015.

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 19 July 2015.

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"The purpose of the contested icon is to show 2 groups of soldiers fighting over control of a town, and that there is a significant number (100+) of troops inside the city actively holding territory. Not sporadic clashes. This icon is not warranted.". So, same measure must be applied on al-Shulah or Tall Malid, otherwise its simply a blatant bias and double standard.--HCPUNXKID 15:36, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit Shulah to ISIS, HCPUNXKID. And Tall Malid. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The request for formal mediation concerning Cities and towns in the war in Iraq and the Levant, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

	The Civility Barnstar
	Thank you for the good explanation regarding Soluk and the "contested-icon". Witch obviously I was not capable of. Rhocagil (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your post to my talk page there. Nice to see a conscientious contributor ... the page needs it :) André437 (talk) 02:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 9th Bomb Squadron, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FSA. 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) 08:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See sources about Hama here: [1] Regime forces advanced in Sahl al-Ghab and taking control over of al-Ziyadiyyeh(Zayzoun), Zeyzoun Power Plant, Khirbat al Naqus, Mansoura, Tell Wasit, Mansoura grain silos, Marj al-Zohoor, Tell A'war and maybe Tell Hamakah. SambucaHOHOHO (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listen,here,SOHR is a very reliable source and all news agencies say so,an is a neutral source,and it is not bias,and an agreement has been reached in 2012,3 years before you came here,that agrees that SOHR is a reliable source and can be used for editing,so stop breaching these agreements and ignore,because your actions has became very disruptive and these actions by you will be reported to an admin,and take the appropriate action against you.Alhanuty (talk) 14:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that, Alhanuty. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Masdar is a pro-government source,it can't be used in editing.Alhanuty (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alhanuty WHOA whoa whoa!! The creator and manager of the map disagrees with you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_Civil_War#SOHR_.26_Al-Masdar

Masdar and SOHR can be used for pretty much all edits. If you have an issue with a particular edit, please raise it up on the talk page.

Self-revert yourself,the source i brough for naymat hills is a very reliable strategy site.Alhanuty (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:54, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

no,you didn't,Self-revert https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&oldid=677663294,plus as what Tradedia stated,return Sha'riah and taff to rebel-held and also return Bahsa to rebel-hel,sources were provided for the edit nd were reverted by you.Alhanuty (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and revert those if you want to. I don't care. It was part of a larger revert, and a mistake on my part. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are reverting every edit i made , You cant take Haider sumeri as a source for pro ISF edit as i have seen you do many times Specially Regarding Ramadi and Falluja which am going to remove all your edits which you did with Haider sumeri as a source, And why did you changed Al Seniyah back to Red? Al Seniya and Al Sinai is the same village

I realized that some of the districts I added on the map are just districts, meaning not also towns. I haven't quite sorted out which, but do you think they should still be on the map? I'm thinking no, but am hesitant to delete them. --Monochrome_Monitor 11:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Monochrome_Monitor No they shouldn't. Only settlements should be marked. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:34, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. --Monochrome_Monitor 00:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the districts and now they are all also settlements (mostly city centers). This site was great.^[1] --Monochrome_Monitor 19:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you used this Map for editing this Template and discovred that Ar-Rashad,Heynas Airport,Al-Asfar,Al Raml,Khan al-Meleh are not the same as in the map that you used to edit.46.99.96.171 (talk) 12:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 I think this mapis reliable and could help you to fix the Template.46.99.37.126 (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have already used a similar map. The main difference here is the ISIS control of the Shingal road west of Shingal. I have no idea who controls that crossing, and from what source changed it to Peshmerga control in the first place. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well... I think the map has a lot of mistakes to.Editors are just editing they pro-side faction and so the map like this is not accurate!.46.99.97.2 (talk) 11:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time to include Iraq. [2] I've been off my game updating the map by adding more districts in North Kurdistan but marking places where actual combat is occurring seems more important. I really wish we had "rural presence" locations for PKK bases in Turkey and Iraq, and indicators for oil/natural gas pipelines which are sabotaged by the PKK. --Monochrome_Monitor 13:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please self revert your last 2 edits where you add villages in Abu Duhur area. Our plan is to clean the map, and before your edit, the area was perfectly fine only showing the villages which were contested around the airport and nearby, there's really no need to add more of them, the area is now fully under rebel control and far away from Gov. held area, and it's a desert basically. The size fixec and the rest is fine, but i think the situation with the villages was perfect before your edit. Thank you. DuckZz (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DuckZz, I don't see why "cleaning up the map" is justification for removing actual settlements that are controlled by a faction. In fact, I did "clean up" the map by reducing non-important village sizes based on population and actual size, as well as removing multiple location dots that did not mark human settlement.

Our goal here is to make the map as reliable and true-to-life as possible, and adjusting dot size based on population and geographical size is the best way to do that at the moment. I don't think any of these villages behind the front-lines of any group should be removed at all, ever. The goal of the map is to show territorial control of cities and towns in the Syrian Civil War, and we don't accomplish that by striking actual towns that exist from the map. But by removing villages that actually exist just because "Well they're behind the frontline now" is bad for 2 reasons: it makes it harder to find them if a counteroffensive occurs, and it understates the territorial control of groups. For example, removing rebel-held villages behind the front-line might make some people think "oh well they don't actually have that many towns", even when they have A LOT. Same with ISIS, government, etc. Also, we need to be as impartial as possible. I have added government towns, rebel towns, ISIS towns, and kurd towns, so I have no bias for one group that is affecting my editing.

It just seems so counter-intuitive when we're making and upkeeping a map about towns during the Syrian civil war, and you criticize me for adding towns. That's the whole reason why we are doing this map: to show towns.

These reports said that the FSA took control of Tell Abyad after YPG withdrawal: [3], [4]. If they are reliable, plz update. Cheer. 98.112.79.59 (talk) 05:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the reports mean the border gate. Even if they don't, that's not enough to change the town status. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But the 2 sources did mention the town as a whole: PYD left Tell Abyad and the border gate’s control to FSA, gained control of the Syrian border town Tal Abyad. 98.112.79.59 (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think the source is reliable enough to make the change. I think there's a good chance that a more reliable person or source would have reported this, such as PYD, YPG, Masdar, SOHR, etc. But none of them did. There was a similar rumor a few weeks back that the SAA was given control of Tell Abyad, but that was also false. Tell Abyad was actually incorporated into Kobani Canton: http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/syria/21062015

This somewhat contradicts your source. More importantly, I don't think the town is under Arab or Syrian National Coalition control.

So no, I don't think there is enough reliable information

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. SyrianObserver2015 (talk) 20:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SyrianObserver2015.

You really need to stop making unsoruced edits. If you think my edits are unsourced, then you should write about it on the talk page and gain a consensus to revert my edits back. If you look at my edits, almost all of them use the sources al-Masdar news, which is a reliable pro-gov source, and Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is a pro-rebel source that we are allowed to use for editing. In the case of the towns east of Homs, that edit was made using SOHR. That is a reliable source, which was backed up by Masdar maps and a pro-ISIS source. There is no reason why you should have reverted this.

Also, look at the edits near Latakia. Leith Abou Fadel himself, editor of al-Masdar News, a supporter of the government, reported that Sooda was being bombed. Do you really think it is controlled by the government? Why would the government be bombing it then? It must be at least partially controlled by rebels. Your revert of this edit was very biased, as I used a pro-gov source that you reverted!

I am not a supporter of ISIS, Nusra, Qaeda, or FSA, so you can stop with your partisan accusations. Calling me a jihadi fanboy or nusrat only makes you look like an idiot to all of Wikipedia, and it accomplishes nothing. You need to start sources all of your non-revert edits, and gain a consensus on the talk page for all reverts of my edits. I am fully willing to do the same.

Please, work with me, not against me. I want this to be a great map, accurate and detailing the actual situation. Since the beginning of this war, I looked at this map, and started to edit it. I wanted to contribute to the community and make the best map possible. I hope you want to do the same, and if you do, all you have to do is work with me and follow the rules. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked your account for a month. Factoring heavily into my decision:

• You have been told many times not to edit war, and decided to ignore it.
• You are well aware of the processes around here and decided to ignore them because you think you are right.
• Your behavior on my talk page has made it quite clear that you are operating under a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality which is incompatible with Wikipedia and you are wholly unwilling to listen to polite requests to desist.

In all, this all comes back to an intractable megalomaniacal point of view on your part in which might makes right and the ends justify the means. But that stops now, or you no longer are welcome on Wikipedia.

Thank you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre, I protest. The user I reported was a clear vandal: he didn't provide any sources for his edits at first, then cited wikipedia as a source, which violated the rules of the page. I do not think I am always right, either. But banning me for a month is hardly going to help anything! That is a very disproportionate punishment. I only edit warred 2 times in total, and the second time (this case), the user was clearly vandalizing the page in favor of the one side.

Also, where is the panel where I can appeal my block? When did you request that I desist the edit war with "Iraq man"? All you said was on your talk page: that I should not report people for bad behavior anymore. Nothing else. No warnings on my talk page "stop edit warring", etc. or anything like that.

Which processes did I ignore besides the 1-revert rule? I technically only reverted one edit on each map, because the edit was from the same user who made a string of edits right next to each other. Also, editors have violated 1RR in good faith and gotten away with it because they were right.

One of the reason you stated you blocked me was because I engaged in a "battleground mentality". If anyone believe in a battleground mentality it was the pro-kurdish editor I was reverting! He did not provide reliable unbiased sources for any of his edits! Not one! And yet I am the one who is pushing a point of view? Look back at all of my edits, and you will find I have reported government gains, rebel gains, ISIS gains, and Kurdish gains. How can I view Wikipedia as a battleground if I am the one stopping trolls from making POV edits? Ask anyone on the map talk page, and they will tell you I am a good editor who follows the rules and protects the integrity of the map.

I strongly protest this block and ask that it be removed. I never pushed my POV on the map, only stopped other people from doing so. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To appeal your unblock, type {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

As for warnings, you don't need a warning each and every time you start edit warring, especially when you have been told about 1RR before.[5] [6][7]

As for the other editor, please read WP:NOTTHEM.

As for WP:BATTLEGROUND, I told you numerous times that it was uncivil and incorrect to refer to other editors as vandals,[8][9], which you ignored until I had to ask you to stop posting on my page. You ignored that twice,[10][11] which could be considered harassment (although that wasn't the reason I blocked your account). As far as I'm concerned, you've shown amply that you have no ability to work civilly with other members of the community with whom you disagree. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:34, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pbfreespace3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked for reporting the behavior of another user and reverting that user's edits, and although the language I used to refer to them could reasonably be considered uncivil, it hardly warranted a month-long ban. The other user was not following the rules of the map, and the only reason I violated the 1-revert rule was because the other user split his unjustified edit into multiple parts, and I was unable to roll back to before his first edit without reverting each of his edits. If I could rollback, I wouldn't be here for 1RR violation. Also, there is a precedent set be other editors who have violated the same rule in good faith and gotten away with it because they were right. I don't see how a month-long ban is going to help Wikipedia, and I don't think I am an overall negative influence. I think if you ask other people, they will agree. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:02, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Far from giving any reason for unblocking, everything you have posted here, including this unblock request, gives further confirmation of some of the very features of your editing which led to the block. Your conviction that you were RIGHT and that anyone who disagrees with you must be WRONG does not justify edit-warring, and your continually posting aggressively about how wrong other people are does nothing to recommend the removal of a block which was imposed in part for showing a battleground mentality. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I will reduce your block to four days, including time served, if you can do the following:

• Read WP:GAB, and give me a summary of what it says.
• Tell me how it applies in your situation.

I'm not trying to patronize you, but I don't think you've paid attention to almost anything I've said. This is a your chance to prove otherwise; if you are able to show that you're able to listen, then you may be worth the community's time. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Magog the Ogre, It says that a block can be undone if the reason for the block was false (no reason for the block), no longer applies to the blockee (blockee has pledged to stop bad behavior and editor sincerely believs blockee), or it was a case of mistaken identity (the blockee was not the person making the bad edits).

The reason why it applies to me is because I did not violate the 1-revert rule in the traditional sense of it. The other user made a string of edits within minutes of each other that were essentially one edit. I reverted the edit because it had no reliable source or explanation. It is true that I knowingly violated the rule, however, I did it with the intent of preserving the integrity of the Wiki page. It's not good that people can edit without sources and they can't be reverted if they make more than one edit. That sets a very bad precedent, as it restricts reverts to one editor per edit, which if you have a persistent editor who doesn't use sources, makes it nearly impossible to revert vandalism or unsourced edits when they happen. All a person has to do is make 5 piecemeal edits in a row, and only have 1 or 2 get reverted because the other editors can't violate 1RR. I certainly agree with the intent of the rule, which is to stop edit warring, but when you get into technicalities like this, it just looks silly to block me for a month just for violating 1 rule in order to revert vandalism.

Even if you don't agree with my personal opinion, which is that the 1-revert rule should be bent in extreme cases of unsourced edits, I am still willing to pledge that I will not deliberately violate the 1-revert rule from this point on. I am deeply sorry for the trouble this has caused you, and I will try to work more constructively with other editors instead of warring with them or calling them vandals. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pbfreespace3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I only reverted unsourced edits, in line with the article policy (that unsourced edits can be reverted), and did not make any unsourced edits myself. Therefore, this block is not necessary. Also, I will no longer break the 1-revert rule in any scenario, and will no longer engage in edit warring with anyone. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Nowhere does any policy say that reverts of unsourced edits are exempt from the edit warring prohibition. Max Semenik (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pbfreespace3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. I only reverted unsourced edits, in line with the article policy (that unsourced edits can be reverted), and did not make any unsourced edits myself. Therefore, this block is not necessary. Also, I will no longer break the 1-revert rule in any scenario, and will no longer engage in edit warring with anyone. Max Semenik, it states directly in the page's policy that "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction." This is clearly an example of that situation, as the user I reverted severely changed a page without any sources or explanation whatsoever. The article that got me banned fits in that category of being able to revert obvious vandalism, and the editor. If you doubt that the user I reverted was engaged in obvious vandalism, ask the editors on the talk page of the page that got me banned, and if they agree that the editor I reverted was engaged in obvious vandalism, then it is fair that I should be unblocked. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

You're wrong about reverting unsourced edits. Also, in my opinion, the edits you reverted were not vandalism. PhilKnight (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PhilKnight, Max Semenik, the rules could not be any clearer. The source says reverting like that is OK as long as the edits are vandalism. Put it up on the talk page and let them vote on it to see if they think it is vandalism. I think the user was clearly biased in favor of one side in the conflict which the page was about, and included no sources. But what I think is irrelevant. What matters is what the editors of that page think. Ask them if they think it is vandalism. Indeed, there are now other editors who are also changing the page in favor of the same side. Banning me is not useful and doing nothing to improve the Wiki pages. Please unblock me, or at least reduce my sentence. I have already pledged to stop edit warring and reverting anyway, so there should not be a problem anymore. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

.

LightandDark2000 YokoHama : the pro-Hadi fighters appear to have captured the Bab al-Mendab strait along with the island per reliable sources:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2015/10/hadi-loyalists-claim-capture-key-yemen-strait-151001131134976.html

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/fighting-rages-yemen-strategic-red-sea-strait-34178484

Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... a policy which says that 'vandalism can be reverted does not justify reverting good-faith editing just because it is unsourced. Vandalism is editing deliberately intended to be harmful, and a failure to provide sources does not in any way guarantee that there si any such intention. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 09:33, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

JamesBWatson, Philknight, I understand that my actions were wrong and I ask that my time be reduced. At the time, I saw the edits as vandalism, but now I understand that I was wrong. I will not revert good faith edits in the future. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Pbfreespace3 (block log • active blocks �� global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It has been 7 months since I was permanently blocked. Considering that I never created any sockpuppet Wikipedia accounts during this time, and according to the Wikipedia six months waiting time for the unblock request, I ask to be forgiven under the condition that I promise to not edit war and never ever have sockpuppet accounts ever again. In the time since I was permanently blocked for sockpuppetry, I totally abstained from sockpuppetry (the other IPs banned since then simply weren't me). This should be a good indication that I won't sockpuppet again, and as such, my ban is no longer necessary. I want to do my best contribute to the community, and that is why I should be unblocked. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Unblocked with discretionary sanctions, as enumerated below. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To the blocking admin, assuming the user is telling the truth that they've been away for six months, I'd be inclined to unblock under the standard offer. I understand there's some dispute as to whether or not the editor has remained away for six months (ip addresses listed as sockpuppets, disputed here) and I'm not particularly familiar with the case. However, the unblock request at least addresses the issues head-on, and that's a good sign. --Yamla (talk) 12:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: to note this request in light of [12] (no attempt to prejudice the discussion). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 01:31, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Magog the Ogre: That same IP range was previousle blocked by Ponyo (see the full log). I just re-blocked because they continued the same behavior after original block expired. Vanjagenije (talk) 13:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Yamla: The IP that Pbfreespace3 edited from previously was used in February to edit a module talk page frequented by Pbfreespace3 prior to their block. There is also technical evidence showing extremely  Likely additional block evasion. I would decline the request until they abide by the terms of the offer, but it's your call. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:34, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will commit to an unblock, but with standard discretionary sanctions in place to prevent edit warring, personal attacks, and the use of multiple accounts (per WP:ARBIND). Do you accept? Magog the Ogre (t • c) 02:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I accept these terms. Sorry for the delay. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Magog the Ogre: The editor accepted your terms a few days ago. Are you willing to unblock now? The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• @JamesBWatson: Could you please e-mail Magog and notify him of this? He is active right now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Pings, as above usually result in an email. Magog will come by when they are ready to. This is a volunteer project - including the admins. SQL^{Query me!} 04:46, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could email Magog the Ogre, but so could you if you enabled email on your account. (You can do that by clicking the "Preferences" link at the top of the page, then making sure you are on the "User profile" tab, and scrolling down to the "Email options" section.) However, why use email? It's easier and quicker to just ping Magog the Ogre. Yo could ping Magog the Ogre just as easily as you have just pinged me. If Magog the Ogre got the ping that I put in my last post, and has not yet responded to it for some reason, then emailing him would would be pointless anyway,as that reason would presumably still apply. So far he has made only 3 edits since I pinged him, and it may be that he hasn't yet had much time to give to Wikipedia. I suggest waiting a while longer, and if he still doesn't respond, try pinging him again. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Welcome back (conditionally of course). Hope you are going to 'behave' and contribute further, as a very good editor. Let's do some work on the ME conflict maps later on.GreyShark (dibra) 19:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following sanction now applies to you:

* You are restricted to one revert per week on all topics under general sanctions (see the link for the list: list here: Wikipedia:General sanctions).

• You are restricted to one revert per day on all topics not under general sanctions.
• You are placed on civility parole.

• You may not insult other editors; ethnic epithets and religious in particular are forbidden.
• You are cautioned to assume good faith.
• You are cautioned not to refer to another editor's changes as "vandalism" unless it falls under the clear definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism, even if someone else does it to you first.

• You may not refactor another's editors comments on a page not in your namespace, excepting small whitespace changes. Even personal attacks and insults must not be removed; let an administrator do it.
• You are restricted to one account.

You have been sanctioned provided as a condition for unblock

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any violation of sanctions may result in a reblock. I believe this is not too burdensome. Let me know if you have any questions. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 23:31, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpreted words! Clashes outside these villages, no words in the source about clashes in villages..Source 1 SOHR provide Jubb al Jarrah under control SAA.source 291.124.223.221 (talk) 21:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denois2012/Hanibal911, I did not misinterpret the pro-government source (al-Masdar). "storming the towns of Jubb Al-Jarrah and Mas ‘Idyah" sounds like part of the towns came under ISIS control at one point. "Storm" is a pretty strong word; they could've said "attacked" instead to indicate that the towns are still under government control. But they only said that the towns were stormed. I cannot read the Arabic SOHR source, and the translation Google gave me (although notoriously unreliable) was not clear enough: "several mortar shells fell on the area in the village of Jeb surgeon under the control of the forces of order Brive Homs east." I'm sorry, that's not clear enough for me. I am looking into this issue, but will not revert my edit. Other editors apparently agree with me. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Masdar said that the Syrian Army repelled an ISIS attack on al-Mabouja and Akareb villages.

source 1 so why you add circle - it is incorrect and storming and clashes inside it is a same. SOHR said several mortar shells fell on the area in the village of جب الجراح (Jubb al Jarrah) map - controlled regime forces in east Homs, and clashes in area of village Mas'udiyah but not inside him.source 2source 2 these villages not contested. And need remove black circle near al-Mabouja and Akareb villages because source clear said that attack repelled SAA. Incorrect interprete of the data it is a first step to Vandalism. And need remove circle near Mare as source also clear said that rebels repelled ISIS attack.source 3 If you are good editor you corrct this! 91.124.223.221 (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Denois2012, I do not think you are correct in this circumstance. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
I saw you strugled to place a siege symbol, because you where using the .svg image name instead of the variables. You can place SDF-siege symbols by adding following variables:

• Siege South-east: m.SDF_SE
• Siege South-west: m.SDF_SW'
• Siege north-east: m.SDF_NE
• Siege north-west: m.SDF_NW
  

• Siege north: m.SDF_N
• Siege east: m.SDF_E
• Siege South: m.SDF_S
• Siege west: m.SDF_W
  

• Siege full: m.SDF_siege
  

Marksize of siege symbol needs to be several points larger then marksize of the place it surrounds.

Hope it will work now,

Kind regards,--Niele~enwiki (talk) 22:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 23:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on National Council for Freedom and Enterprise requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:38, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 I noticed you labeled and edited with Chuck Pfarrer as a reliable source,actually it is a pro-kurdish source as we sepak.Lists129 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although Chuck Pfarrer is a pro-Kurdish source, he is still a military expert (former US Navy Seal) who should generally be trusted. However he is no longer active at this time on Twitter, so we must rely on other combat reporters like Jack Shahine. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pbfreespace3,

I just wanted to say a big thank you for your sustained and diligent edits on the Iraqi and Syrian Civil War map modules!

Your work is really essential to make these maps more accurate. Keep it up!

Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ermanarich! I try my best to make these maps the best they can be. That's been my mission ever since I came here, and I will continue as long as I am allowed. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iwan123Iwan makes many changes without any sources. We must do the something. Mehmedsons (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As do so many vandals, he tries to avoid being noticed. I cannot really do anything about this now, however. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And still editing the article you started. Any requests on neighborhoods to add? The fighting as far as I know is concentrated in istanbul and ankara. --Monochrome_Monitor 01:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added the parliament which is still under AKP control. I can't think of a singular location controlled by the coup, since the coup is so quiet about their bases for obvious reasons. I can't think of any other place to add right now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting it from official Islamic State sources and i cannot unfortunattly give you this source because i'm afraid that the site will get banned or they will close it but the source is legit because in the source it shows Islamic State forces captures Al-Dandaniyah, Aqra Mountains, Qur'ah Saghirah, Umm Al-Saraj Mountain, Al-Hawshariyah and Umm Adasat Al-Farat and 35 SDF fighters killed and 45 wounded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamont Fleskani13 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? You're going to openly admit you support ISIS and are in contact with them?!? You cannot use Amaq News as a source for ISIS gains, only ISIS losses. If you continue to make edits such as these, you will be reported. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What he meant to say is.... DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE DIE!!!!!!--Monochrome_Monitor 06:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 18:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pbfreespace3,

for Wadi Hawran, I only took the data from geonames (http://www.geonames.org/maps/google_33.842_42.099.html), which may not be completely correct, to be honest. But on the other hand, Wadi Hawran is not only on exact place but rather an area/a valley. However, I think your edit was correct, since the geonames-location isn't exactly in this valley. Apart from that, thanks for all your contributions to the Wikipedia map modules!

Best wishes, Ermanarich (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am will not doit when this logical. Mehmedsons (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you saw my answer to your reminder, so I'll leave the message here.

Are you really sure, that Shamer/Shamir village is currently controlled by the Islamic State? As long as it is not completely sure I'd like to avoid my edit from being reverted, because it's very difficult to edit the Aleppo map. Reason for that is that it's a really big file which leads to lags and in some areas, the objects have incredibly many points, which make it awfully difficult and time-intense to edit the frontlines even a little bit.

Greetings, Ermanarich (talk) 20:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know that 5 months ago, ISIS controlled it, as Russia itself said so. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re [13]. Please, provide a source when you add or restore material. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 07:43, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were the one that gave a bad source here. You used an amateur map as the primary source, and that is not allowed. I simply undid your wrong edit. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop adding unsourced content, as you did to Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ref. diff and diff. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:52, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Please stop doing things I don't like, or else you might be blocked. Thank you."satire Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:19, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping you might wanted to be a part of this project, but keep on adding unsourced content and restore non-verifialble IS gains based on your assumptations, and we will see. Erlbaeko (talk) 16:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the arbiter of who is and isn't allowed to participate in a Wikipedia project. You are not a moderator, and neither am I. Please stop this harassing behavior. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not harassing you. I simply like you to follow our policies. If you do, fine. If not, I will have to get you blocked, or a least I will have to try to get you blocked or formally warned. Take that as a final warning from me, or keep on with your game. Your choice. Erlbaeko (talk) 17:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are spending most of your time reverting my edits and talking to me on this page, the Syria page, and the Iraq page. You have threatened me several times over the course of the week and intend to ban me from editing. You are harassing me, and if you report me that may not turn out well: you are the one who has edit-warred for a year, personally insulted other users, and caused much pain to me and many other people on this wiki. I can't stand it. Please stop. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

May I say some words here?

I actually think that you are both a vital part of Wikipedia, especially regarding your edits at the Syrian and Iraqi Civil War map templates. And even though you have different views on what's most important for the map, it's the mix of it what makes the map even more exact, at least most of the time. The thing is just, that who controlls one or two villages is not really a topic that should lead to an agressive dispute, since this is not about ideology. You should both consider slow a bit down and discuss the matter without being angry because the other one has another view. And if this isn't possible, we maybe should consider creating a mark for "situation unclear" (which could be something like an white point with grey border or whatever).

Greetings, Ermanarich (talk) 18:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I immediately see potential for abuse regarding the proposed "situation unclear" marker. But I will only discuss that at length if it is seriously proposed on the talk page.

About Erlbaeko: I think it's rather ironic that were having a dispute, because I'm pretty sure he supports SDF like I do. I think he thinks I'm for ISIS simply because I document their control over vast areas. Maybe if he understands this, it will reduce animosity. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:53, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit made by you on 16 August 2016 at 21:18 UTC is a revert of this edit. This edit made by you on 17 August 2016 at 16:53 UTC is a revert of this edit. That is two reverts within 24-hour. You have been informed about the Syrian Civil War and ISIL general sanctions before. Please read it again. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that I violated one revert. I thought the 24 hour period was up. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 19:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3, you can't use posts of Twitter users as sources. Twitter is usually not a reliable source as it is a social media network. In order for a post to be used, it has to fulfill the criteria of WP:SOCIALMEDIA. Please be careful from now on. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if the Twitter account belongs to a news source (say al-Masdar for example) that is reporting losses for their favored side (SAA)? Is it permissible then? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 13:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, Twitter post from news organisations can be used, just not from self-published and questionable sources like posts of Twitter users/individuals. Rules do not bar the use of posts fron news organisations. Newsboy39 (talk) 14:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also about your question regarding biased sources reporting losses for their favored side,it can be used. According to WP:BIASED, a biased source can be reliable depending upon the specific context and in your case of al-Masdar it does seem so. Newsboy39 (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3, you've used a Twitter posts by an individual as a source again, although it seems to be an IS sympathiser. Please notice that I was talking about biased news organisations, not biased individuals. Individual sources are self-published and cannot be reliable for information about a third party. Please do not use Twitter posts of individuals fron now on. Newsboy39 (talk) 02:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Newsboy39 did to days on a row 2 reverts in 24hours time. Including one revert where he reverts the edits of 3 different users It is clear he is the one violating the 24 hour rule, not Pbfreespace3.

Also User:Newsboy account is only up since 12 august 2016. It is most likely a sock puppit of a previously banned user, or a duplicate account of an other user. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Newsboy39 --Niele~enwiki (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he was a duplicate of Erlbaeko, since they both bully users to try to stop them from editing Wikipedia. I may be wrong. Nonetheless, this behavior and harassment of users needs to stop now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:25, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he is not a duplicate of me, and I am not trying to stop them (or you) from editing. I just like you (and him) to follow some basic rules. If you can't take a simple warning without accusing other editors of harassment and sock puppetry, then maybe we should ask an administrator to stop this. WP:ANI is this way and WP:SPI is for sockpuppet investigations, or maybe you prefer the edit warring noticeboard. It's here. Where do you want to go? Erlbaeko (talk) 13:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the 1 revert rule. You don't have to remind me on my talk page. Furthermore, you have violated this rule before. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 14:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"جديدة لحمر" is mentioned in the twitter source, which has a wikipedia page in Arabic Wikipedia [14]. It gives the coordinates to Judaydat Al Faras. --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also here:[15] --Ahmedo Semsurî (talk) 23:11, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since the title already fits: Your source (https://twitter.com/VivaRevolt/status/766811883726708736) says only, that Hamir Labidah and Maqtaa Hajar Saghir are under rebel control. I guess you only copied the wrong link, but I'd recommend to bring the right link, because someone will revert it otherwise.--Ermanarich (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see result of the edit warring case here. The complaint is being closed with no block, but with a warning for you to obey your unblock condition, which you agreed to on June 9th with User:Magog the Ogre. This restriction limits you to one revert per *week* on the civil war articles, including the map. If you have any question about the restriction, contact Magog. If you won't adhere to the condition, the original block may be restored. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realize this block may seem onerous, but I also note above that you are inserting sources which the community has deemed inappropriate. I cannot pretend any one size fits all approach will work in this situation, since we have been operating in an information black hole with regards to Syria for the entirety of this war. But on the other hand, is it so hard to agree to the community guidelines on sources? It might be better to avoid insertion if in doubt. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People haven't followed the community guidelines since right after their inception. You could say that I was following community guidelines by not following community guidelines. That really is the explanation. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 11:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 your edits are becoming troublesome now. I do not mean to say anything in bad faith, merely to inform you as a friendly advice. Not only are you using unreliable sources which you claim are reliable, but are deciding your own rules. I've seen you change the icons of several locations from contested to a faction in various modules just because you couldn't find any source for the fighting. Please note that there is no such rule that allows to change control icons just because you haven't heard reports of fighting. You've got to have a source (has to be reliable) for all your changes. If you don't have any and still change, it means your edits are unsourced.

About the former issue with your edits. You have been using several questionable sources. It seems you are terming the Twitter posts anybody who says they are an analyst and cover the conflict as "reliable". However only the Twitter posts those whose works has been published by a newspaper or newssite can be used as source per WP:SPS for eg., journalists and many of your sources do not seem to be ever have been published by a news website.

Another problem of yours is your self-interpertation of sources. Just because someone says this attack was launched from here by this faction on another faction. An area can still have presence of enemy fighters after conquest. That's why military operations of clear and hold are used, to clean an area of any militant presence. But regardless of that, if you simply show something as under control of a faction just because it launched an attack from there, you are doing self-interpertation of a source aka WP: Original research which is not allowed.

Last of all I want to talk about biased sources. This one's not about any wrong edit you have done but just to reiterate information about biased sources.. Biased sources cannot be used as reliable sources for information about loss suffered by a faction which they are against. I'll give you some examples of biased sources: Sputnik International, Kurdistan24, Rudaw, PressTV and ofcourse Amaq.

It seems you didn't clearly understand the sources. I hope you remember this from now on. Please follow the rules even if others don't. I will be monitoring all the modules from now on. Newsboy39 (talk) 17:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a lot of experience with the Syrian and Iraqi maps. I understand that most of the editors on these maps do not follow these strict guidelines, and that if we all obeyed every standard of reliability, the map would have 18 marks on it, most of them old and out of date. I know you have only been here for 10 days, so maybe you don't understand the culture and standards necessary to keep the map in a good condition.

First, let's talk about sources. What makes a source reliable? Let's say a Twitter account run by a pro-rebel person talks about rebel offensives, and days later major/respectable media outlets report the same information. If we see a consistent pattern over a period of time, especially one without a history of bad/inaccurate reports, that is evidence enough that the source is deemed reliable.

Let's take an individual example to further emphasize my point. Over the past few days, a variety of pro-rebel Twitter accounts were reporting that Turkey planned on facilitating a rebel takeover of the town of Jarabulus. Then, when the actual offensive was about to begin, they all reported in typical fashion "rebel offensive on ISIS-held Jarabulus about to begin!" Guess what? It happened. These sources, in particular Abdel Rahman and Nathan Ruser, knew what was going to happen, and indeed what was happening live on the ground. And all the major media outlets reported on it hours later. The media often uses these same sources to reports the goings-on in offensives like this. They know these sources are reliable, and so they use them.

Another example of this is Chuck Pfarrer's reporting of the conflict in Kobanî countryside. Although his maps had some minor errors, they pretty well reflected the situation on the ground. His maps relied on ground sources inside YPG. Does this mean they weren't accurate? No. They were the best source of information available on the front line. And we used those maps as our primary source, reporting daily on the YPG advance. It turned it this was totally accurate, but now we aren't allowed to use maps because of a couple of editors who were abusing then to fit their agenda. These editors were pro-government and started changing dozens of towns to Nusra-held to try and portray the opposition as being composed primarily of al-Nusra. I understand the issue with amateur maps, as they are often imprecise and contradictory, but I'm an advocate for reliable mappers to be allowed as sources for edits. But let's say we weren't allowed to use Chuck Pfarrer as a source for YPG gains because he opposes ISIS. If this was the standard then, we would have never been able to report the Kobanî countryside offensive in 2015 simply because the pro-Kurdish online activists were literally the only people reporting on small towns that the major news media didn't care about or cover. How are we supposed to show these changes that are actually happening in the war?

This paradigm we must use for the map is further emphasised by the sheer nature of the conflict. ISIS is obviously not going to report their own losses, as they don't want to demoralize their fighters. So when the rebels advance against them and say "we took Dudiyan!" for the seventh time, and Amaq doesn't report this, are we supposed to just sit there and not report the advance simply because the people who reported it supported one side? The map would never go anywhere.

What is the point behind all of this? How are we going to be able to keep up the map in a decent and up-to-date state? What do you plan on doing to improve the map? What would you propose besides what your and I have already mentioned? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3 you are making your own guidelines. Anyone can copy from a website orsome other person and tweet it. How can we confirm what your Twitter post says is true or not or an overstatement? How can we confirm that person isn't someone merely copying from others and is an actual "expert". This is why there are guidelines like WP:SPS.

And besides here's some advice "It's better to not have any information than to have an unreliable information." Using ground sources from an organisation does not make someon biased. Favouring and false reporting does. If Chuck Pfaffer has been used as a source by news organisations, then very well. But say if he hasn't, then he can't be as per WP:SPS.

The real problem is that some users including you are always in a hurry. There is no hurry to change colors of some dots on a map. Not only that the villages you keep on changing colors of with your unreliable sources aren't even really important and notable to be there in the map anyway. It is the major settlements that are the real targets. If you can find a reliable source for the villages very well, if you can't doesn't matter.

From now on if you continue to use unreliable sources, then I'll have to revert you. I may have been here for 10 days, but I only follow Wikipedia rules not yours as do many other editors. It is your choice whether you want to follow the "real" Wikipedia guidelines or your own guidelines. Simply because a map won't be sufficiently updated does not allow you to ignore the rules. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not made any guidelines at all. Where do I say I'm changing the rules? I am not operating on a different set of rules. However, I would like some of the rules to be changed now that I see how difficult it is to actually make any changes on the module without being reverted by other users who throw the rulebook at everyone. It is similar to crossing the street when there is not a light telling you you can do so, and a police officer instantly arresting you and giving you a big fine because you jaywalked. We need more lax rules so we can edit instead of being bound by red tape.

"From now on if you continue to use unreliable sources, then I'll have to revert you." "I only follow Wikipedia rules not yours" I take this is quite threatening and a violation of WP:Civility. Please stop threatening me like this.

With regards to Chuck Pfarrer, he has been used as a source by news organisations and is the only source of info. I am glad to see that you are willing to agree that we can use him as a source. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"if we all obeyed every standard of reliability, the map would have 18 marks on it, most of them old and out of date" - You admitting that you are willing to use sources that are not reliable per Wikipedia's standards.

"If we see a consistent pattern over a period of time, especially one without a history of bad/inaccurate reports, that is evidence enough that the source is deemed reliable." - Conjuring up your own guideline for reliablity despite social media being a place where anyone can say anything or copy from anyone.

"ISIS is obviously not going to report their own losses, as they don't want to demoralize their fighters." - Not a guideline statement but anyway. Obviously you haven't read Amaq sources, although biased in favour of IS it has reported IS "martyrdoms". And as far as I remember other users and probably you as well using a report by Amaq for the supposed capture of a village. I guess your statement didn't apply back then.

So telling others that you're going to revert if they don't follow the rules and saying that you only follow Wikipedia rules is uncivil? Wikipedia's policies take precedence over everything, that's what it meant. But if it seems uncivil to inform you that I intend to follow the rules is uncivil, then you are making up your own rules. Again. If you are not going to follow the rules, then I don't see any point in arguing further with long-winded comments.

But yes, feel free to use Chuck Pffafer's posts. If a user has been used as a source by news organisations, then he can be considered a reliable source. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct sir, I am willing to use sources that are not reliable per Wikipedia's standards. I don't now, because of Wikipedia's guidelines, but I do indeed believe the rules should be changed. Do you understand what I mean? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't follow the rules then I'll have to request you to either be blocked or topic-banned from any conflict maps or at the least be warned. If I don't somebody else is gonna do it anyway. So you don't misunderstand this is no threat or uncivil comment, Wikipedias rules have to be upheld. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do follow these rules to the best of my ability. Why are you misrepresenting my position? I think the rules should be changed, but I am not currently operating as if they already were. Finally, I ask that you stop harassing me and threatening to ban me.Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't misrepresent your position, you clearly stated that you are willing to not follow the rules by saying you are willing to not follow to Wikipedia's standards. It's no threat to tell others to stop breaking rules or they will be complained about. It is Wikipedia's standard procedure to notify others what breaking the rules will result in. And I have done that. Falsely blaming me won't justify your case. All I tried to actually do is give you friendly advice and inform you about the rules, rest is up to you. Newsboy39 (talk) 21:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are harassing me, which is breaking Wikipedia rules. If you continue to do this, I will report you to be blocked. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead. What you are doing is the real threats and harrasments and anybody can see that. Falsely alleging harassment just because I informed you that you should follow the rules and copying others' statements will not help your case seeing as you yourselves said you are willing to disregard Wikipedia's standards as long as it suits your thinking. Your comments are against Wikipedia's rules. As I said earlier, I only gave you a friendly advice. What you do is up to you. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Now since you do not agree with what I said and this is leading to nowhere, I do not see any point in discussing this topic any longer. Have a good day friend. Newsboy39 (talk) 22:14, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added those places on the module, but can you fix the coordinates? those vilages are near Jarabulus and rebel held. Thanks. Beshogur (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the coordinates, as well as the coordinates of dozens of other villages. There is still a big problem with some villages and coordinates here though. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I edit the village of Buwayda in Hama as controlled the rebels.diff Why you add the another one Buwayda? Mehmedsons (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean because of your need English. If you spoke English better I might know what you mean. I don't think I added another Buwayda village. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah my English is not a good. But I mean that one village marked twice in one same place on the map.diff and diff Mehmedsons (talk) 06:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 12:12, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

/ Waer Revert you edit or you will get banned from the Page. The source you have posted is a Syrian soldier on twitter. Against all rules for the page. DuckZz (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By reverting me, you have managed to add the village twice to the map. Please, fix that by self reverting. And also, none of your sources even mention that village. May I also remind you about your 1 revert per week restriction. Don't push your luck. Erlbaeko (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The source you provided for this change is clearly is a pro-opp one,you should rv.Lists129 (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pbfreespace3, you recently changed Fayslilah to IS control. However the sourv (http://twitter.com/RudawEnglish/status/790094547246260224) is regarding ISIL claiming capturing Rutbah. Fayslilah isn't anywhere in it. Please use a correct source. Thank you. 117.207.146.254 (talk) 15:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is the correct source (https://mobile.twitter.com/RudawEnglish/status/790201356128780288). I advice you revert and then reedit it again to show Fayslilah under ISIL control by using this correct source. Thanks. We need to use correct sources for edits. 117.207.146.254 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please undo your last edit with Gogjali. PMU are directly involved in the conflict and cannot be used for pro-gov gains. It would be like using Amaq for pro-IS edits. International media say gov troops have yet to enter Gogjali, yet alone capture. Mozad655 (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, can you edit the Iraqi insurgency module to show Hayy Al Bakr (simply called Al Bakr in module) under government control? The place is listed as Al Bakr in the module and is overlapped to an extent by Heet/Hīt in the template map. Al Bakr/Hayy al Bakr is one of the areas recently liberated with Iraqi forces discovering a left-behind large cache during search operations in the Al Bakr area (http://www.iraqinews.com/iraq-war/security-forces-discover-cache-contains-430-ieds-near-ramadi/). I cannot edit it, that is why I have asked you. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. 117.199.93.144 (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This edit has now been made, though not by me. It seems like although ISIS has a strong presence in the north side of the Euphrates River, they don't actually control any territory there (at least east of Haditha). Now that the ISF is pushing up the river towards Rawa and Ana, I doubt they will resurge to fight again. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pro YPG/SDF source told that villages west of Al Bab taken not SAA/SDF. These villages taken the recently formed pro-regime "Syr National Resistance" Mostly local Arabs & Kurds in Sheba'a area. And Syrian National Resistance ('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') is a predominantly Kurdish group loyal to the Syrian government and is it a part of SAA not SDF. So all villages must be not yellow-red only red.linklink Syrian National Resistance SNR('Kafr Saghir Martyrs Brigade') loyal just to the Syrian government and not SDF. Mehmedsons (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was not the case a few weeks ago, but now it does look like pro-government militias have control of that area now. As such the map is fine now. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond to my question here. Thanks. Kuru (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for violating terms of your unblock conditions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

Pbfreespace3, I'm sorry, but we used up good faith in the last warning on 8/24. Your response here indicates you are unable to comply with the conditions of your unblock. I've taken the following into consideration:

• You have a history of breaking the 1RR sanctions at Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map and Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and have been twice blocked for those actions, the last time for a month.
• On 23 October 2015, the duration was changed to indefinite for evading that block.
• On 14 June 2016, you negotiated an unblock with conditions that included 1RR per week in articles under general sanctions. You explicitly agreed to these conditions.
• On 17 August 2016, you broke the 1RR on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map and indicated you are aware the sanctions.
• On 24 August 2016, you were reported for edit warring again on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map where I personally pointed out your unblock conditions. EdJohnston closed the report with an explicit reminder at WP:ANEW and on your talk page.
• On 10 October 2016 you were reminded of your 1RR/week condition.
• Today, you were again reported for breaking the general 1RR/day restriction on Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map, which you clearly did at 12:58 and 01:22. There are other reverts on 11/26, 11/25, and 11/23 which further breach your 1RR/week unblock condition.

I've reinstated the indefinite block since you are unable to comply with the conditions of that unblock. Kuru (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Sorry to be that harsh, but this is an immense mistake! Pbfreespace3 is, even though it's true that he disobeyed the the one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, a very vital part of the Wikipedia, especially in the area of the map templates for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq. There are many biased editors, which are bringing damage to these maps, but he is definitely not one of them, in contrary. So, please lift the block of this helpful editor. Or if you're not willing to, at least reduce it to one week, because everything else would be highly disproportionate.

Kind regards, Ermanarich (talk) 03:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Emanarich, this is an immense mistake and highly disproportionate.

On the templates for the civil wars in Syria and Iraq there are many biased editors, which are bringing damage to these maps. Nor user:Coneleir nor user:Pbfreespace are not one of them, in contrary.

Pbfreespace just reverted edits of user Beshogur, that was just last week blocked for edit warring on 17 November on articles of Kurdish history and culture and who is known for vandalism based on hate toward other ethnicity.--Niele~enwiki (talk) 09:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mistake. If he's unwilling to abide by the community-based restrictions on that group of articles, then I can't help. Frankly, there have been several free passes here already. Kuru (talk) 04:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So your solution is to block him completely and indefinitely? Seriously, principles are a nice thing, but this has no other effect than damage to the Wikipedia. Due to draconian blockers like you, the Module:Yemeni Civil War detailed map, Module:Taliban insurgency detailed map and Module:Libyan Civil War detailed map are now lounging around unedited and are missing important changes. I am aware, that editors which are disobeying the rules are problematic, but the advantage for the Wikipedia from users like Pbfreespace3 is in no comparision to the "damage" they're doing.

I mean just look at the history of Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. You'll find tons of editors which are either pro-Assad, pro-Opposition or pro-Rojava. He's none of them and rather keeping the map clean from bias (and improving it in many parts for example the very time intense removing of dead-links to small villages). I just can repeat that you should think about this decision.--Ermanarich (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Kuru: Seriously, that's your solution now? Just not reacting anymore? I mean, you can make a block for one week, but indefinite, that's simply ridiculous and extremely destructive!--Ermanarich (talk) 14:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my solution for now. Indefinite is not infinite; Pbfreespace3 is free to propose alternate solutions. Short blocks have not worked in the past, nor have warnings. Negotiated restrictions have also not worked, as he appears to be unable to "remember" those agreements. Kuru (talk) 14:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the point is that you're simply not aware of the situation of the Wikipedia about the Middle East and especially the Arab Spring. There are tons of extremely POV-pushing editors which aren't blocked at all and only a few unbiased, diligent ones as him. The point is, that we need editors like him there, no matter if he breaks - at least in my eyes - negligible rules for editing. Let's take Beshogur, the one who reported him, as an example: He is a Turkish nationalist who tries to push his POV extremely in many articles about the region and is breaking the 1RR as well, but he doesn't get blocked, just because he didn't break it as often as Pbfreespace3. But it's not breaking the 1RR, that damages the Wikipedia, it's POV-pushing.

In my eyes, this is due to lack of knowledge of the situation an abuse of power. As I said, a block for one week is one thing, but as it's now it's just inacceptable.--Ermanarich (talk) 16:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Diannaa: Could you possibly lift the completely disproportionate block on this User? The reason why he got blocked and also why I think he should get unblocked are given in this section. Regards, Ermanarich (talk) 10:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all. I am willing to accept a block of one week or one month, whichever the moderators feel is appropriate. I recognize I shouldn't have broke the 1-revert rule, but I did and am now facing the consequences. I believe that being blocked forever is not going to help things however. Instead, the net effect in the long-term will be negative. I am the main editor on the Iraqi map, and the second highest editor on the Syria map. I have always strived to be the ideal contributor, and although I have not always lived up to that ideal, I hope I can be given another chance to prove my worth. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 21:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pbfreespace3, you've broken your word with the previous unblocking admin. What is different now, and how will you manage to the existing 1 revert per week restriction, along with the other conditions? Kuru (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I will have to not revert anyone, but only make new edits that aren't reverts. But I still protest these original conditions: I was not permanently blocked for edit warring or reverting. As such, now that I was unbanned, I feel it unjust that extreme sanctions (1 revert per week) were placed on me to stop me from doing something that wasn't the cause of the original indefinite block. While I am willing to accept these sanctions as a concession to get unblocked, I still feel they are too restrictive. Actual legitimate edit warring was not a problem with me. I was only ever reverting users who had unacceptable or no sources for their changes, mainly Beshogur on the Syria map. I am sure other users are willing to vouch that I was reverting bad edits, not edit warring to push a view. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is "legit" edit warring when you break the 1RR community sanctions on that article, even if you feel the contributions of others is substandard. I'm not keen on unblocking editors who have broken prior commitments; "I suppose" and attempts to rationalize your prior breaches of these sanctions does not help. I would suggest using the unblock template; I'm not willing to unblock based on this discussion. Kuru (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. The page made an explicit exception for cases just like these. Note on the Syrian Civil War Detailed Map page, it says that reverts of obvious vandalism don't count under the 1-revert rule: "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction." Beshogur was editing the map in favor of the Assad government, using pro-Assad unreliable sources to do so. That is obvious POV vandalism, and reverts of those edits weren't breaking the 1-revert rule as the page defines it.

I'm confident Ermanerich, Niele, and Alhanuty agree with me on this, as well as many other users if you ask them. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. But since I'm not an admin, I can't do anything. Well, I'll tag Kuru here to make sure that he sees it.--Ermanarich (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pbfreespace3.Alhanuty (talk) 02:55, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PBfreespace. He reverted vandalism of Turkish user Beshogur and NPOV pushing of also Turkish users trying to downsize extend of SDF control near Al-Bab. They replace SDF+Syrian_National_Resistance (allied to both SAA as SDF) control . Every neutral user would have done the same. Now the map is subject to this NPOV pushing. While PBfreespace3 was focussed on keeping map correct and neutral. I really don't understand why extreme NPOV psuhing user Beshogur is still not banned while he does nothing else than editwarring and filling his talk page with warnings. While user PBfreespace is blocked while being neutral. @Kuru

His account should be restored/unblocked instantly. --Niele~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Every single editor who has participated in this discussion has vouched for me. For this I am very grateful. My reputation is solid, and I have only been banned because of vandals posing as legitimate users who want to stop the map from being neutral and tilt it to their own viewpoint. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Pbfreespace3 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was not edit warring with another user. I was reverting a vandal who was using obviously biased sources to make edits that supported his side. The rules of that page clearly state that obvious vandalism can be reverted without restriction. Most of the major editors of the page can and have vouched for my credibility and neutrality above. Pbfreespace3 (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Declined due to  Confirmed abuse of multiple accounts again, this time with Coneleir (talk · contribs). ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

@Kuru: Pinging blocking admin Kuru (once again, apologies), as other admins probably don't feel particularly comfortable unblocking without reaching some level of mutual agreement with the blocking admin first. --JustBerry (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the "obvious" vandalism, just more of the nonsense that lead to the restrictions on that page. I think if he was serious about an unblock, he would have addressed his own behavior. Of course, he also would not have made the request with the sock account he's been using to evade the block since it was placed. Your mileage may vary. Please do not ping me again related to this editor. Kuru (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]