Hello, Emesik, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Cheers, TewfikTalk15:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict
Please remember to mark your edits, such as your recent edits to 2008–2009 Israel–Gaza conflict, as minor if (and only if) they genuinely are minor edits (see Help:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Your edit was fine, but because it added content you shouldn't have marked it as 'minor'. That's only for really, really trivial things like correcting a typo or putting a word into italics. It's especially important to not mark content edits as minor in a controversial article like this. Cynical (talk) 14:59, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 2 January 2013, the United Nations released an estimate that the war's death toll had exceeded 60,000;[1] on 12 February, this figure was updated to 70,000.[2] According to various opposition activist groups, between 62,550 and 74,470 people have been killed,[3][4][5][6] of which about half were civilians, but also including 30,520 armed combatants consisting of both the Syrian Army and rebel forces,[3][7] up to 2,715 opposition protesters[8][9] and 1,000 government officials.[10] By October 2012, up to 28,000 people had been reported missing, including civilians forcibly abducted by government troops or security forces.[11] According to the UN, about 1.2 million Syrians have been displaced within the country.[12] To escape the violence, as many as 1 million Syrian refugees have fled to neighboring countries.[13] In addition, tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned and there were reports of widespread torture and psychological terror in state prisons.[14][15] International organizations have accused both government and opposition forces of severe human rights violations.[16][17] However, human rights groups report that the majority of abuses have been committed by the Syrian government's forces, and UN investigations have concluded that the government's abuses are the greatest in both gravity and scale.[18][19][20]
The beginning of the article should be clear and simple summary. Readers more interested in details will keep on reading. The paragraph about UN report is very important indeed, but attacking a reader with dozens of numbers is not a good practice for the leading section. No matter how important the numbers are. I referred to that section, citing the most important info. Furthermore, the lede was horribly outdated and contained no information about the current situation on the ground. --Emesik (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Tolly4bolly. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Syrian civil war with this edit without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Tolly4bolly20:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no rule in Wikipedia to ask for permission to edit. However, you should discuss instead of warring with reverts. --Emesik (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have to make change then first talk with other editors in the talk page before making changes. Anyway, I'm not a bot. Tolly4bolly20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Tolly can you revert it back. We are both pretty far into a quasi edit war and there are multiple sock puppets of Chronical Usual messing with the page as well. Sopher99 (talk) 20:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that you did before I managed. Anyway, I've requested full protection of the article and hope you both can discuss it on talk page and come to consensus. All the best! Tolly4bolly20:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ANEW
Please read my latest comments at ANEW. If you agree to my offer not to edit the article for 7 days, I will not block you. You must respond there or here.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder to administrators: In March 2010, ArbCom adopted a procedure prohibiting administrators "from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page." Administrators who reverse an arbitration enforcement block, such as this one, without clear authorisation will be summarily desysopped.
Beware of pro-islamic terrorism so-called "arab spring" Wikipedia lobby
Hi, I just want to encourage you to keep on editing, as someone has to act against that WP lobby wich is simply re-writing history, with the bendition of many administrators. I have seen lately many WP editors wich had abandoned it, mostly because the behaviour of several administrators or users, who act like real nazis. Regards, --HCPUNXKID (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your last edit violated WP:1RR on this article. You've been blocked before for doing that. At this point, I don't intend to block you, although another admin is not precluded from doing so. I suggest you consider self-reverting and taking your sourcing issue to the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should take a few moments to learn what the term revert means. How are you going to qualify the second edit as such? --Emesik (talk) 00:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think such a pugnacious attitude in response to a warning by an admin is going to help you? "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." Your second edit undid another editor's action (whatever editor put that language in the article that you removed). More simply put, for the purpose of breaching WP:1RR, it doesn't matter whether a subsequent revert involves different material from a previous revert. Nor is it necessary that you click on Undo or rollback or any other command that immediately undoes a previous edit or edits to constitute a "revert".--Bbb23 (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You mean if I remove ANY content in two edits within 24hrs, it constitutes a 1RR violation? That is a very interesting interpretation of the rules. --Emesik (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then I have to wait 24h before removing a single word? As I told you, this is very interesting interpretation. Unfortunately, I cannot agree with that. --Emesik (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syrian civil war, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Jihad (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghouta chemical attacks. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.As you are aware, this page is under 1RR restriction. Rather than reverting, please take discussions like this to the talk page. Thanks!VQuakr (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The system is "bold, revert, discuss;" not "bold, revert, revert again and pretend I have no idea this is wrong." This is particularly crucial on 1RR articles. Since you were one revert away from being in violation, I wanted to provide you with a courtesy reminder. But of course you already know this, since you have been here before as a result of your POV pushing. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ROTFL You're getting even funnier. I was one revert away from violation, you say? Perhaps you're smart enough to find someone who made two reverts of the same page within 24h recently? Did he get your warning as well, Mr. Vigilant? --Emesik (talk) 22:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your sarcasm is very helpful. No, there are no other examples of someone edit warring by re-inserting the exact same content in that article's history in the last ~24 hours. Your behavior stood and continues to stand out as uncollaborative. VQuakr (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, inserting the same content is edit warring, but removing it twice is not? Your logic is very interesting, so I dare to ask more questions: Assuming that I was warring, whom I was doing it with? Myself? Perhaps it was the first one-sided war in the history? :) --Emesik (talk) 22:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
December 2013
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ghouta chemical attack. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.Please discuss major edits on the talk page per WP:BRD rather than edit warring.VQuakr (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page(Click show ⇨)
allegedly brought end to active US involvement, but did not stop the smuggling.<ref name="ratline">{{cite web|url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line|title=The
suspect arrested in Tunisia; AP reports 2nd suspect killed in Egypt"] CBS News, October 24, 2012]</ref> Ali Harzi was released by Tunisian authorities on January 8, 2013 due to lack of evidence.<
in-cairo/ "Egypt identifies Benghazi attack suspect killed in Cairo"] CBS News, October 25, 2012]</ref> He has been linked to an Egyptian terrorist group led by Muhammad Jamal Abu Ahmad, who is
I have copy pasted this bit from one of the article s- 'The newly released Islamists went on to play leading roles in the armed opposition, including helping found Ahrar ash-Sham.' - am I missing something - or what are you doing? Sayerslle (talk) 14:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC) 14:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The Ahrar started working on forming brigades “after the Egyptian revolution,” Abu Zayd said, well before March 15, 2011, when the Syrian revolution kicked off with protests in the southern agricultural city of Dara’a. — this is also c&p from the source. --Emesik (talk) 15:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oh, I see - but it seems to me the point of the sentence in the wp article is the part played by those Assad was keen to release and who went on to help found ahrar ash sham - the point you link to seems about something else in a way - is it related to those released directly? it seems to be about elements who were not released by Assad in early 2011 - maybe start a new sentence? if you think it is essential. Sayerslle (talk) 16:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is essential to mention that first brigades had been formed before the protests in Syria began, which simply means that the armed opposition is not a product of the revolution movement but had existed before. --Emesik (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 29
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of massacres during the Syrian Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ISIS. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited January 2015 Mazraat Amal incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Drone. 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.
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Libyan Civil War (2014–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Serbian. 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.
Hello, Emesik. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Emesik. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Emesik. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
