User talk:Editor abcdef

Editor abcdef, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Editor abcdef! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Nathan2055 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, I'm Jayakumar RG. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Cheetah because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Jayakumar RG (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to The Cell (disambiguation) has been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: The Cell (disambiguation) was changed by Editor abcdef (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.851032 on 2014-10-13T02:20:55+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 02:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 20

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-aircraft warfare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White Sands. 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) 08:58, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the domestic dog

Hello abcdef, as explained already to Puffin's query -

The pix were removed because they appear elsewhere under Wikipedia - someone simply pasted their favourite pictures - and do not belong under the Origin of the domestic dog.

The verbiage was removed because it was:

1. uncited
2. contentious
3. not relevant to the origin of the dog

The link was included because the classifications - based on science - appear on the Dog breed page.

Please undo. Regards, William Harris (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

(PS: You might take a look at who Puffin is before undoing that person's changes.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by William Harris (talk • contribs) 02:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

January 2015

Thank you for your interest in editing Wikipedia, Editor abcdef. Your edit to Homo sapiens was successful, but because it was not considered beneficial to the page, the edit has been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment with editing, please use the sandbox instead. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  Thank you very much!

• Note: If you have a problem with time tested articles such as this, please first open a discussion on the article's talk page. Have a Joyous and Happy New Year, Editor abcdef! – Paine Ellsworth^CLIMAX! 13:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 January

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Jaguar page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of common misconceptions, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diver (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

February 2015

Your recent editing history at Cougar shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 06:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

San rock art

Hi there, I noticed your edit at the article mentioned above. I don't know if you're planning more work on it - just in case, see my announcement at the related talk page. Maybe also check the project I'm involved with to see if there's something you'd like to do to help us? :) Thanks a lot, have a nice day. --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 10:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San rock art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Eland (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you / "Convert" template

Thank you for your constructive edits. I notice that you have been adding metric units conversions to some articles. I recommend that you look at Template:Convert, which is the Wikipedia standard way to handle unit conversions efficiently and accurately. For examples of its use, see the Tunnel article, especially this section. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 06:10, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Please remember, we Wikipedia don't use a Taxobox on dog articles, but Dog Breed Infobox. Hafspajen (talk) 17:01, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Apex Predator

Thank you for your contributions! I noticed what you said about all apex predators having predators. You brought up an interesting point, and I think this should be included in the main article. Currently, the article comes off as somewhat biased, representing them as predator-less predators. If you concur, please reply here, on my talk page, or the article's talk page if you wish to first get a more broad consensus from other editors. Thank You. Kehkou (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Hello abcdef. As an example of how to get a high-editor-interest change made, you might have noticed just above our recent discussion on the Talk:Origin of the domestic dog page a section titled Lead sentences. Here I have announced that I am about to change the lead sentences on the Origin article, contacted someone who as a special interest in this and who will lend support if they agree with the sentences, and I will wait while others have their say. If after about one week nobody else has responded, I will change those sentences on the Origin page, and also on the highly-sensitive Dog page under the section titled Origin. In the edit description I will direct people to the Talk page as authority. This is the type of consultation that is needed to get things done on Wikipedia - one must be patient and be able to negotiate.
I advise that you should probably leave the Thai Ridgeback situation alone now. I support you on your point, we could now press it hard because it has some academic support, but the point will not be accepted by people here for exactly the same reason that people will not accept that the dog should be reclassified "Canis familiaris". It will only upset some people but it will be sorted out given time.
You might consider creating a User Page, if only to let others know about your areas of interest and to appear as a "real" editor. There are some here who get concerned when someone's name displays in red and they have no User Page.
You may remove this section from your Talk page if you wish. Regards, William Harris • talk • 04:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi abcdef, thanks for your recent edits on the Origin of the domestic dog page. Your earlier question to me has caused me to have a rethink and I have now provided a list of the "wolf-like canids" so other readers can quickly understand what these are - and resist the urge to change it to read "wolves". I like your User page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 08:36, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Pumas of the South American plains

Hi abcde, can I call you Hank? There ain't no "of course" about it, not if you don't cite references. I'm talking about the South American puma of the pampas, not some mythical creature called the "South American cougar'. Follow the link to the WH Hudson book, Chapter 2 -- and he makes the distinction from the cougar subspecies himself. I can guarantee you'll be amazed! Felices días. Ttocserp 11:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dinosaur diet and feeding, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brown hare (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Africanis

Sorry I reverted your legitimate edit earlier. My mistake. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

It was not me who added Africanis though. Editor abcdef (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Big cat

Hi, you've reverted my edit on the Big cats. I'm no expert on taxomony . But since puma/cheetah are not the part of the Panthera genus, shouldn't they be considered as remote relatives and thus the members of an older evolutionary branch ? Thanks. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not either, but the article on Felidae states that Panthera is the oldest genus of Felidae, therefore, all other lineages are younger, thanks. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi Editor abcdef! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

• The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
• The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
• The Teahouse new editor help space
• Wikipedia Help pages

-- 11:02, Friday, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

Mission 1	Mission 2	Mission 3	Mission 4	Mission 5	Mission 6	Mission 7
Say Hello to the World	An Invitation to Earth	Small Changes, Big Impact	The Neutral Point of View	The Veil of Verifiability	The Civility Code	Looking Good Together

Get Help

About The Wikipedia Adventure | Hang out in the Interstellar Lounge

May 2015

Hello abcdef. Regarding your recent edits turning upper case into lower case e.g. Cave Wolf into cave wolf. Cave Wolf is the correct name for it using proper nouns (refer to the Oxford English Dictionary regarding the use of Proper and Common nouns. It is not any wolf that lives in any cave, it is the Cave Wolf in the same way that the Gray Wolf is not just a wolf that happens to be gray e.g. a gray wolf. But WP:MOSLIFE won't allow me to do that, so I have to change Gray Wolf into Gray wolf. Then you come along disregarding that part of MOSLIFE that states "They are additionally capitalized where they contain proper names: Przewalski's horse, California condor..." and change it to gray wolf, and cave wolf etc. However, I am not going to change it back because it serves no purpose - if you had not changed it someone else would have. Then, sometime in the future, someone else will come along and change it back to Gray wolf quoting MOSLIFE, and on and on it goes. So I will not contend it, but if you intend on doing more of this across Wikipedia be aware you are now outside of MOSLIFE. Regarding your recent change to the Dog page and placing the biology descriptions before the dog's relationships with humans, I fully support that change and regard it as the most significant contribution to that page this year. Regards, William Harris • talk • 10:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about cave wolf, but gray wolf (the animal species not organizations) is never a proper term and the all the letters, except when as sentence-starters or to emphasize specific importance, are always in lowercase, I don't understand how this will be out of MOSLIFE.

Regarding cave wolf, if "Cave" in this case is indeed a proper term, then the correct phrase will be "Cave wolf", not "Cave Wolf", the same reason that "Siberian tiger" is the correct term, not "Siberian Tiger". Thanks. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

New wolf maps

Hey, great work on updating the wolf maps. Just two questions/concerns. First, the Russian wolf has been dismissed as a separate subspecies for some time now, and C. l. communis is fully considered a synonym of C. l. lupus. Subsequently it should be removed and its territory recolored as Eurasian wolf. Secondly, genetic testing has strongly supported the Iberian wolf being a distinct subspecies, C. l. signatus, and it should likely be made distinct.

The steppe wolf has also been questioned in its distinctness, in the opposite direction. That is to say, there has been some swing back towards treating them as a separate subspecies, but including wolves that were previously considered Indian wolves, especially in Turkey. In short the change of some of the range from Indian wolf to Eurasian wolf that you did isn't totally settled. More testing is needed and underway. It'll be interesting to see what the results are. Of course, the interbreeding that occurs along the always fuzzy borders of wolf subspecies territories is fascinating in its own right. Seems like the wolves themselves care not for taxonomy, just for the availability of mates. Sometimes I truly think they are far wiser than people. oknazevad (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I've been meaning to ask this. Since you updated the modern distribution map, any chance you could do the historic distribution one as well? It's still showing communis. oknazevad (talk) 15:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably do the Iberian wolf separation later, but what about the controversial red/eastern wolf? Should they be kept or removed? Maybe you should bring it up to the related talk page and discuss that with other users. Editor abcdef (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Taimyr wolf

Hello abcdef, good work for finding and submitting your edits on the Taimyr wolf - I would not have seen it until Monday. This is an important finding, it is now in the body of the work (as it should be), but in my opinion it will also need to be reflected in the opening paragraph to the article but not quite in the way you intended. Please give me time to read the article a few times, plus the supplementary materials (always important!) and then I will draft something very slightly different. If you concur with it, we then have to be diplomatic and consult one or two others who have an interest in this article. Once that is achieved, you may insert the agreed change yourself and knowing that you have powerful support to do so. (Please keep in mind that when it comes to the dog-related pages, there is no such thing as a simple change to the lead-in paragraphs. People get very protective here, and making bold edits as Wikipedia suggests is not always the way to go on these types of pages.) Regards, William Harris • talk • 03:35, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

You are a quiet person and so I assume that you agree. First, we must set our chess-board. If you now go to the Origin of the domestic dog/Genetic evidence/Descendent of an extinct wolf-like canid, you will find that I have made a structural change, with sections titled Europe and Central Asia. I recommend that you create one called North-East Asia, and relocate your paragraph under it to read as follows:

In May 2015, a mtDNA study indicated that dogs and wolves separated between 27,000 and 40,000 years ago, based on the rib-bone of a wolf found in the Taymyr Peninsula that was radio-carbon dated to be 35,000 years old. Analysis indicates that it shared a large number of genes, between 1.4% and 27.3%, with today's ‘ancient’ breeds that are associated with high latitudes: Siberian huskies, Greenland dogs, Shar Pei and Finnish spitz.

The dogs that closest matched were Siberian Husky, Greenland sledge dog, Shar Pei and Finnish Spitz. (This is in the Sup material so you can include all four with confidence.) That will do for now, we will develop this section further a little later on. (Did you know that this boy was a Megafaunal wolf?!!! I thought so, that is why I have downplayed this until I had time to read the papers. We will chat later about where to go with that.)

Now for the lead paragraph, second sentence. Do not change it yet, we must negotiate with others first. I propose that it be changed to read:

Mitochondrial DNA evidence points to a domestication 18,800–40,000 years ago and that all modern dogs are most closely related to ancient wolf fossils that have been found in Europe, Central Asia and North-East Asia.

These areas comprise the old Mammoth Steppe. If you make the North-East Asia change I will assume that you agree, I will then call to you from the Talk:Origin of the domestic dog page, and you may remove this Taimyr wolf section here if you like. Regards and happy editing, William Harris • talk • 10:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

I have no objections, you can go ahead and edit them youself if you want, or discuss it on the talk page, since you suggested that people seem to be protective on the lead section. Editor abcdef (talk) 23:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks - I did not want to impose as you hold the honour of finding the article and reporting it on Wikipedia in the first place - you are most resourceful. I have done some development of the article that I would have proposed to you some time in the future, but I will edit it now. The Taymyr wolf population is now extinct and appears to be an ecomorph of Canis Lupus i.e. a megafaunal wolf. I am sure right now some research team is running its mDNA sequence against other megafaunal samples - more reports will come soon. On the website, the Taymyr wolf team gives its thanks to a number of people, including Greger Larson, and I am convinced that this is the first one of teams he is coordinating across the world. See you soon on the Talk page. Regards, William Harris • talk • 11:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

PS: Feel free to use the gray wolf aspects of it to enlighten our friends on the Gray wolf page. The next step for this Swedish team is simply a matter of raising the cash and conducting a nuclear DNA analysis of these 4 breeds to find who-else might also be hiding in there. William Harris • talk • 11:36, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

And so, without many dissenting views this time, we got there! William Harris • talk • 04:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Block evasion reversions

I am considering taking the matter of "block evasion" reversions to WP:ANI. What do you think? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:53, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Homo sapiens

Hi, I am reverting back your reversion to "homo sapiens". The issue at stake is the meaning of the word sapiens. Any Latin dictionary will confirm that "sapere" is the Latin word for "to know", and "Sapiens" is the present participle form of that verb. Thus "sapiens" means "knowing", just as "potens" means "powerful" or "tenens" means "holding".Wwallacee (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015

Regarding your revision of "Komodo Dragon": Somebody is mistaken about Komodo Dragons, they are the oldest living reptiles. Lyican (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Human taxonomy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Race (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Evolutionary biology! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 663 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in evolutionary biology.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 21:06, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Himalayan wolf

Hi, thanks for your thanks. I try not to get involved with wolves and leave that to those with greater knowledge, but this and the Indian wolf need some attention as they are both such ancient lineages. I would be pleased if you could run your eye over my edits - you have proved to be really good at that - and check the CITES citations so that you are comfortable with them. If I don't get too much argument over the Taxonomy by others then I will move on to the genetic analysis, which needs some tweeking. Nice artwork on the Lineages, by the way, I wish I knew how to do that! Regards, William Harris • talk • 01:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi abcdef, I have finished with the HW and I will now leave that page under your protection. Next stop is the Indian wolf - this is going to raise a storm! I have to tell the "keepers" of that page that 2 of its haplotypes just don't fit. Once I start, your diagram from the HW page will be useful copied to there, and I would be pleased if you do that if you concur and when you are ready. Regards, William Harris • talk • 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I was waiting for that edit. Nonetheless, the proper title is Indian Gray Wolf and it appears on comparative sequences in studies as IGW, along with its friend HW. However, if you did not change it then someone else would have. Regards, William Harris • talk • 20:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, would you mind updating this - the other lineage is not C.l.pallipes, it is Canis indica (2 haplotypes currently within C. l. pallipes):

Lineages of the Indian subcontinent, with C. himalayensis being the oldest

DYK for African golden wolf

Gatoclass (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

You asked why the 'Roar' is relevant in the article "Tiger versus lion"

I put it there because the article, or indeed, the popular topic of "Tiger versus lion" is more than just about fights between the two predators, either in captivity or the wild, but also other topics, like temperament or cranial capacity. If comparisons of their roars are not relevant, then are the other comparisons, like in temperament or cranial capacities, also irrelevant?

That said, with references, if you can add information about the frequency of roars of male tigers and tigresses, and mention that they can have paralyzing effects on victims, if their frequencies are higher than those of lions, like I mentioned that a lion's roar is (much) louder than that of a tiger, then I would welcome it.

Regards, Leo1pard (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

"What's with changing names to English names?"

I believe this is where I should answer this question. It's quite simple, at least in theory. English names help the English-speaking audience of the English Wikipedia to understand the names. When it helps the reader to understand what they're reading, use the English name. When they might get confused because the English translation isn't the primary use in English (e.g. "the Base"), you're better off keeping the foreign-language name. Nuke (talk) 06:43, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdish–Islamist conflict (2013–present)

Hi.

You made some changes to this page. Particularly this:

"The battles should be described in the sections below, but in the result since there are a few more not listed and will be too long"

Where you deleted all the results and put them in sections. I disagree with this. I'm OK with the sections describing the battles, but opening a war wiki page, the first thing people look at, is the duration of the war and its result(s). I think it was unnecessary to remove it.

There were a few battles not covered, but I was going to do it eventually. Could you take another look at this and perhaps revert your change? That was a lot of work I put in.

- Dewrano (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry but we can't simply list every offensive and battle in this 3 year conflict. For the same reason the result in the infoboxes of Syrian Civil War and Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) simple states they're ongoing and for the latter, the most recent offensive.

This should be included though, since it shows the total change of territory in 2015 with one sentence:

[1] Syria’s Kurds Have Nearly Tripled Their Territory Fighting the Islamic State in 2015] Editor abcdef (talk) 05:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Daraa conflict

There have been clashes between the two forces (Yarmouk Brigades vs Nusra/FSA) in Daraa province since the summer of last year (not January 2016). However, the notable offensive by ISIL started this month and does warrant an article. EkoGraf (talk) 00:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Damascus offensive (April 2016) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Douma

Foreign involvement in the Syrian Civil War (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to PKM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request

Hi, first, I wanted to thank you for the large number of quality articles that you have created. That's great work. :) But, I wanted to ask if you could refrain from creating articles on less-notable events such as this Northwestern Syria offensive (April 2016). The offensive, which was announced and started only yesterday (not 2 April), seems to boil down to a battle for a grain silos and parts of one village. Per WP policy this doesn't make it notable enough to warrant its own article. If we had an article for every possible clash that took place during the war we would be swamped. :) In any case, you did great work with Northern Aleppo offensive (March-April 2016) and Al-Dumayr offensive (April 2016) Keep it up! :D EkoGraf (talk) 12:47, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of armed groups in the Iraqi Civil War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Islamic Front (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Seljuq Brigade

Hello,

first of all, thanks for the great contributions and especially the flag of the Seljuk Brigade.

The thing I want to talk with you about are actually the allies and enemies of the brigade. Of course, the Brigade's enemies and allies are the same as they are for the Army of Revolutionaries. But also, the Army of Revolutionaries is part of the SDF, but their relation to other groups is still shown. The fact that the Seljuk Brigade is Turkmen even makes it more important in my eyes to underline that there is an alliance with the YPG. Furthermore, the group seems to act relatively independent from the Army of Revolutionaries and the group's leader is a quite important character.

I think it's more clear if we show that they are part of the SDF/allied with the YPG.

Another thing is that I'm not sure if being a Turkmen militia automatically makes one be a Syrian Turkmen Brigade. Especially if you look at the page there, the Seljuk Brigade definitely doesn't fit in the faction presented there, since they are definitely neither allies of Ahrar al-Sham nor of the Al-Nusra Front.--Ermanarich (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Seljuk Brigade is recognized as a component of the Syrian National Coalition by the SNC. The political wing of the brigade, the Syrian Democratic Turkmen Movement, is also part of both the Syrian National Council and the National Coalition. Joining the SDF and aligning with the YPG doesn't necessary disown a group with its parent group, so it's safe to assume that this group is still part of the Syrian Turkmen Brigades. Editor abcdef (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds if you're right. I'd let them depicted as a Syrian Turkmen Brigade as long as we don't get other news. But then I'd actually also either add the YPG as their allies or them as a part of the SDF. It has to be clear that they're allied with them.--Ermanarich (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited YPG–FSA relations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Afrin (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

New article

Created new article at Northern Aleppo offensive (June 2016). EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Harakat Nour al-Din al-Zenki, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abduction (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Khalid ibn al-Walid Army for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Khalid ibn al-Walid Army is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalid ibn al-Walid Army until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mhhossein (talk) 05:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please update the Syrian Civil War map

Manbij city has been fully captured by SDF. Please update the Syrian Civil War map to show Manbij city under SDF control. Newsboy39 (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Please update Iraqi Civil War Map

Al Waleed border crossing and Qayyarah Airfield West base has been recaptured by Iraqi forces. A public road, al-Hathr junction and some villages have also been captured near the Qayyarah base. In addition four villages to the south of Mosul have been captured by Iraqi force. Also Peshmerga has captured seven villages east of Mosul in al-Khazir (probably area near Khazir River), Gwer and Makhmour. See Mosul offensive (2016) for sources.

Al-Waleed border crossing is in the southwest border and is marked with a green dot to show FSA control on Syrian side. Iraq now has control on its own side, so please represent that as well.

I hope you will update the map. You can find the sources to verify what I'm saying in the articles I've linked. Newsboy39 (talk) 06:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I didn't even edit the Iraqi map. I think you called the wrong person. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I am not saying whether you edited in the past or not. I've seen you editing Syrian civil war map, so I thought about asking you to update the Iraqi one because you're familiar with such maps. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

You can use this Template:Iraqi insurgency detailed map as a reference. Newsboy39 (talk) 07:26, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hamza Division joining Youth of Sunna Forces?

The press release mentions a "Hamza Brigade", which seems to be a pretty common name for brigades. I don't think it's necessarily the same group as the Hamza Division. I think we should wait to see if the Hamza Division's social media accounts confirm before we assume it's the "Hamza Brigade" in question. (P.S. - thanks for all your useful edits on the Syrian civil war!) Bulbajer (talk) 00:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Al-Rai captured by FSA?

In the article Battle of al-Rai (August 2016) I saw that you have shown that FSA captured Al Rai. But I haven't seen any source (atleast in English) that says FSA captured it. Moreover the Arabic sources you used have a broken Google translation and one of them All4Syria does not seem reliable. Can you understand Arabic? If yes, can you cite to me where it says rebels repelled the counteroffensive of ISIL. I'm just askimg to be sure as the Google translation is very broken. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Flagicon Levant Front

stop using fair use images in the infobox

How can we add a flag icon for the Levant Front then? They are one of the many militias in the syrian civil war.Bradley258 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Fair use images such as the Levant Front logo are only to be used on its own article. Flag icons shouldn't even be used in infoboxes but we usually just prefer it that way. Editor abcdef (talk) 02:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

General sanctions notice

Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

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.

Katie^talk 20:08, 4 September 2016 (UTC)