Hi 2A1ZA! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Samwalton9 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello 2A1ZA, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Rojava has had to be removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition to Human rights in Rojava has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. GAB^gab 14:57, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article was copy & paste from the (longstanding) former version of the "Modern History" section in the Rojava article (which I did neither write nor ever edit), which I then made much briefer. In the "Historic Background" section I made in the Human Rights in Rojava article, I did only write the first sentence new. Please look at the history of the articles concerned and at the talk pages. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I see now. Thank you for responding and clarifying the situation. GAB^gab 15:47, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. If you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks, — Diannaa (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop accusing me of vandalism. I am not vandalising the page Rojava. There is a content dispute and you seem very, very angry about it based on your reaction to the dispute but falsely accusing people of vandalism can get you in trouble, see Wikipedia:Disruptive user:

The following items are some examples which would make someone a disruptive user:

1. Creating disturbances on featured article candidate pages, e.g. objecting just to object
2. Continuously listing articles at Articles for deletion as an attempt to insult those who have worked on or contributed to the pieces
3. Calling users names or referring to articles that the user has worked on in a derogatory manner
4. Posting rumors or lies about other Wikipedia users, such as false accusations of vandalism
5. Leaving hostile messages on a user's talk page, or attacking a user for items discussed with a third party on their talk page

Ogress 17:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I am angry about what you did to that article, as I had put quite some effort into contributing to make that fragmented place of warfare between various political agendas and various ethnic or religious supremacist attitudes a meanwhile pretty good article. Please focus on the discussion on the talk page of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at Talk:Rojava, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. After I laid out here that our issue was a content dispute and that calling valid editing you disagree with "vandalism" could have serious repercussions, you immediately again referred to my edits as "vandalism". Ogress 20:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please focus on the discussion on that talk page. It is not about personal attacks but about arguments for a good article. And I would very much appreciate if you follow the arguments and revert deletions/edits you made in that article if you find from the discussion that it would be appropriate to do so. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I did not use this v-word, after asked not to, to describe your deleting the substantial content of an entire section without discernable reason, arbitrarily changing elementary terminology in some places of the article but not in others, thus creating confusion about central issues. Dear Ogress, there is no reason not to focus on the arguments and on the article. If you are so not happy with things I had written about your edits there, I will happily go through it and consider removing, when this is an article without internal contradictions again. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's super convenient that you can insult me and then say "stop focusing on the things I said and work on the article". Repeatedly. Ogress 22:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did not and do not "insult" you, I am arguing for a good article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have called me a vandal repeatedly. Ogress 22:32, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said anything about your person, even less did I call you names, what I did and do talk about are your devastating edits to that article. Please learn the difference. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 10:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page HDP (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) 09:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read here. Understand what a consensus is. When you want to make a controversial edit, its you who should go to talk first. Not make your edit then defend it asking others to use the talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category Rojava is a big scam. Most of the cities/villages under Kurdish YPG military occupation are inhabited by Arabs, therefore your rojava category does not even apply. The control of thoise areas changes from day to another as a result of the ongoing civil war. More important is the fact that this rojava thing does not have ay reccognition, by syrian government, opposition, or international community. Therefore, no communities should be added to that category, and this would be classified as Wikipedia:OR. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at the list of populations centers under Rojava control at the Rojava article, control over none of these has been lost after having been won. And Rojava is a polyethnic polity, it does not matter how the distribution of ethnicities in those cities/towns is. If you wish to perceive Rojava as, "Kurdish YPG military occupation", you are free to do so, but then at least accept that "Kurdish YPG military occupation" is a fact where it is a fact and stop that deleting of the respective category in the respective articles. By the way, the text of each and every of these articles on the locations concerned explicitly states that they are under Rojava administration. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 12:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kurdish–Turkish conflict (2015–present), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page AKP (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) 09:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Acting like you own a page isnt the way to go dear ferakp (not waiting for you to deny, I just dont have the will or time to do a suck puppet investigation) You removed whatever you want and kept what you find suitable... this cant happen. Either restore the page to what it was or go to the talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really tried to avoid this headache. you seems not to understand that you dont decide what is neutral, what is suitable, what is supremacist...etc

I have enough evidence to prove you are ferakp. I just didnt want to get you blocked, yet you insist on this behavior. who told you you can delete all this material and decide to keep the 45% calling it neutrality ?? Tel abyad is back to the way it was before you butchered it. You will go against the consensus that we have in the talk page if you reverted since Ermanarich also agree that your deletions are not justified.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop this nonsense. I am not interested in your quest for Arab supremacism, and I am not interested in your petty fights with whomever about them. If you continue slander on this page, I will take care that your stint at Wikipedia is over. If you want to talk to me, talk about how to improve articles on the talk pages of the respective articles. Discussion here is over for me. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"I will take care that your stint at Wikipedia is over" oh wow. lets see.

Tell then, stop acting as if you own any page and use the talk pages before removing contents and decide what is neutral and what it not.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Foreign relations of Rojava, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party (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) 10:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 2A1ZA,

could you maybe take a look at the PYD's Wikipedia page? It's being vandalized by the same IP as the Rojava page and I have currently not enough time to act against it further. I'll revert these edits there now, but I can't look if he reverts it again. Maybe, a block request for this IP would be the right way to deal with it.

Kind regards,Ermanarich (talk) 19:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello (Redacted), please show proof of your accusations or keep silent, for good. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:13, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jazira Canton page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (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) 00:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, by undoing the referenced info on this terrorist, at best militant, organisation you have also removed a whole sentence on Salih Muslim's Twitter message that is all over the internet, and which I had referenced from three different reliable sources. I do not believe this was done negligently as I believe you act partially in this regard. Yes, this article needs to be protected from biased editors, whomever they may be. This would also entitle it to include correct reliable information that reflects the whole truth about the subject. Thank you. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apprectiate that in spite of your self-declared affiliation with the totalitarian political ideology of Islamism you only harass me on Wikipedia rather than outright seeking my beheading as a secular person. However, discussions on articles should be done on the talk pages of the articles, so that everyone can follow them. Anyway, I do not think that a tweet by Mr Salih Muslim is appropriate to figure with an own sentence in the article on that political party. You might wish to try the article on Salih Muslim, if at all. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You and the likes of you racist xenophobes are the ones who support such terrorist organisations found by your Obama administration and his puppets in Europe. Even the clown Trump said it. Yes I am a proud Muslim who belongs to the most merciful religion on earth, since the rest are bankrupt ideologies and isms that have not been able to provide peace and justice, but have only made slaves of people with a wild capitalist New World Order. Thank you for clarifying to an uninformed user about where a sentence belongs' even though I disagree with you because the person in question is the head of that terror organisation! You are still liable for your wrong action. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not care about your personal religion, that is your business, and I kindly ask you to no longer speculate in article pages about mine. The reference here was to a totalitarian political ideology, Islamism. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:35, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Incompetent Wikipedian, Your claim for undoing my revision that "the referenced sources do not support the bold factual claim" is only an excuse. It is a lie. Why would anybody add unsupportive references? Just because you do not want to see some facts does not make them nonexistent. You and the likes of you Islamophobes have turned Wikipedia into your playground. Wikipedia is dead because of you. This will remain a blot on your record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.171.140.252 (talk) 18:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually it won't, and any further personal attacks of this nature are likely to end in increasing difficulties for you ( 78.171.140.252 ) editing Wikipedia. MPS1992 (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would not, considering you might be another member of the club who gets paid from the Wikipedia Foundation. Any personal attacks on my contributions will be met with an equal personal attack. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks are bad, whether in retaliation or otherwise, and I am trying to assist you ( the person who posted the above comment from 78.171.140.252 ) in continuing to edit Wikipedia. Sadly, I don't receive any pay from the Wikimedia Foundation, and I am about 100% sure that 2A1ZA does not either. MPS1992 (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I would receive a cheque from the Mossad every time I am accused to be paid by it, I would own a generous estate in Saint-Tropez by now. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why are Mossad interested in Rojava? As those of us from "the subcontinent" learn to say, "I don't get it!" MPS1992 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I imagine that most every intelligence service worldwide is probably interested in Rojava right about now. GAB^gab 14:22, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a request which is related to some of the above arguments. When reverting an editor, or in fact in any edit, please could you avoid using wording like "Dear islamist user with the Istanbul IP address 78.171.130.160, please stop the edit warring". The part to which I object is identifying the other editor as an "Islamist". This is an incitement for opposing editors to then start commenting on your supposed views or affiliations, which of course they proceeded to do. All of this falls into personal attacks territory. Mentioning their location and IP address was also unhelpful, but that is not the main problem here.

I am prepared to intervene when personal attacks are disruptive, but I would hope to see a constructive approach on both sides. MPS1992 (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the first sentence of this was not OK either, and provoked the expected response. Do you see what I mean? MPS1992 (talk) 22:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not usually talk like this to other users, this anonymous account edit-warring to the extreme, insulting everybody (including me) and proclaiming on the talk page that "Shariah law is the only valid law in the sight of God" (which is the definition of Islamism) was a case where I wanted to make obvious to other editors that this is a disruptive user. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 01:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 23:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 2A1ZA, your detailed description of your personal opinions on a sensitive topic labeled "Neutrality Disputed - This Article has biased pro-Turkish-Government labelling" reflects your biases and impartial views on the subject matter. I protest you and ask that other neutral administrators warn you about your neutrality and they edit the article instead. -78.171.140.252 (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed agree with the wish that this article should have some neutral authority editing it, for exactly the reasons I state in that "neutrality disputed" notice and the aggressive edit-warring behind it. However, let's hope the best, the article is protected until tomorrow, and on the talk page at least the maker of the map has not yet explicitly ruled out correcting its labeling in a NPOV manner. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Kurdish Merit
		For your efforts to improve Rojava-related articles of Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Vekoler (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to {{subst:PAGENAME}} by ~~~ on ~~~~~

Hi,

Since the allegation was made after the events took place by a respected Columbia university professor as some sort of analysis, I do think it deserves its own separate section. Inserting it inside the capture section makes it look like a part of news/events which is clearly misleading. Thanks.Vekoler (talk)

Can we discuss this on the article talk page? There are many people involved in the discussion, it makes much more sense to do it there. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 09:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Syriac Union Party (Syria), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Democratic Union Party (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) 12:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_abuse.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, for the record, here is my response:

Everything in this stuff is definitely nonsense, as far as my person and my account is concerned. I do not know any of the other accounts mentioned, and I wish that User:Attar-Aram syria would stop accusing anyone who disagrees with him being a "sockpuppet" of everyone else who might ever have disagreed with him. Or at least leave me out of these silly games. And if he does not, I would find some form of sanctioning of the account User:Attar-Aram syria warranted, because these silly games seriously disrupt article-oriented discussions on talk pages of several articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got the pages on my watchlist, you dont need to ping me.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 16:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Foreign relations of Rojava (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Democratic Union Party

Free Syrian Army (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Southern Front

Shahba region (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Dabiq

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Syrian Democratic Forces 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 are 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. Editor abcdef (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Editor abcdef, what exactly are you talking about? Do you mean my contribution (together with other editors) in the removal of abusive flags (see talk page of the article)? My personal contribution to these reverts (even sanctioned by a Wikipedia admin, who got involved upon my request, follow the link on the talk page) according to the page history are three such edits, of 7 October, 5 October, 26 September. And more than anyoneone else I tried to discuss the issue with the user who persistently puts up these abusive flags. I would very much appreciate if you would get involved in solving the problem of this abusive flagging, rather than leaving such a nonsense message on my talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the template tags had been inserted without the required reasoning to support their insertion and without the required talk page platform to enable their eventual removal - so it was correct that they were removed. But there are pov problems with the article and the tags could easily have been properly justified if the user who had inserted them had bothered. The article reads too much like an advertisement, containing "mission statement"-type claims that are worded and presented as if they were actual facts. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 01:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely appreciate discussions about improvement of articles. I almost pleaded with that person to start a sincere discussion. But all that I saw and got from that person was what came across as a desire to taint the article and its topic with a flag and fine for him/her. Anyway, I do not think that article is as flawed as you describe it, but I would absolutely appreciate it if you would start a sincere discussion on how to improve the article on its talk page, and/or just start improving. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't kid yourself 2A1ZA (talk). Your bias can be seen from a mile away. -213.74.186.109 (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not about the personal biases of its editors, but about contribution to qualitiy NPOV articles. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Syrian Arab Coalition, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Dl2000 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted to the sincere version, without removing the fantasy template. However, I would appreciate it very much if you would try to justify the existence of the fantasy template on the talk page of the article. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Al Qamishli is a city in al-Hasakah Governorate, whether it's occupied by Kurdish militia or not does not change that fact. What you call rojva is not recognized by any country or anything in the world. Can you give the names for all the English media you are talking about that consider Al Qamishli capital of the entity you're talking about? Until then, I'll remove that category. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search for the combination of "Rojava" and "Qamishli" earns no less than 210.000 results. And there are explicit references for major international media calling Qamishli the (de facto) capital of (de facto) Rojava in the article. Deleting the category because it does not suit your political activist agenda obviously would be intentional abuse. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Still, a Google search means nothing, as may 90% of the results would be mirrors of the articles you are faking on Wikipedia. And, you didn't answer my previpous request to show "international unbiased media" talking about al-Qamishli as capital of the Kurdish proclaimed entity. Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have disabled your edit requests on Talk:Human rights in Rojava because there were not yet supported by consensus. Please leave proposals for a few days before using the template, to allow other editors to comment. If there is support for a change (or if no one comments after a few days) please feel free to reactivate. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have thought about that with respect to the not obviously uncontroversial one, where I had even with the request explicitly asked for discussion and consensus-building myself. My bad. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 are 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. 85.109.220.31 (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please engage in the talk page discussion instead of edit warring and then posting such messages on my talk page. Thanks. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 21:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

2A1ZA (talk), How about you stop edit warring? I see that you are reverting referenced info by other users. You need to get reported. -78.171.190.249 (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After you are done with "reporting me" (to whomever for whatever), you might want to engage in a sincere good faith discussion about the article on its talk page. I would appreciate that. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:17, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User 2A1ZA (talk), you are engaging in an edit war. This is pretty obvious. 4world2read (talk) 17:25, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I feel flattered by the fact that you created a Wikipedia account just to tell me this. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Colleague, please read: Talk:Free Syrian Army#2A1ZA (and perhaps others?): stop corrupting this Wiki article. --Corriebertus (talk) 14:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Corriebertus, when I went over the structure of said article back in September to make it a presentation which actually is of value for the reader, I had to re-arrange an article which diverse editors (as far as I can see, you included) created and upheld as a piece to present "Free Syrian Army" as a fictional coherent organisation, which it probably never was, and if it ever was then definitely is not any more since 2013. I made it a history article by re-arranging the content according to an annual timeline. I would ask you not to corrupt the article by pretending against reality that "Free Syrian Army" were a coherent organisation. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were reported Here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I posted the same reply as last time:

Any of these allegations are false as far as my person/account is concerned, and I would really wish that this editor would leave me out of these silly games with which he poisons article-oriented discussions. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You dont really need to reply here, its just a rule to notify you when you are being reported.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 11:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I edit in Middle East politics articles where I have an interest in the topic and transparent documentation of facts, and which are highly charged with political emotions, I get quite some stuff on my talk page, and I wish to have readers of this talk page see my reply to stuff here. I hope you do not mind. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The report was misplaced and should go to another portal. So you need to put your answer here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 15:16, 31 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. 4world2read (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Rojava. 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 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 ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.  CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 05:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to revert what you added more than once, so I don't run the risk of edit warring. If someone else sees a problem with it, they'll do it on their own. However, as of November 8 2016, 17:23, this edit stands. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

However, do not take this message to mean that I suddenly have a change of mind. I still believe the statement you added violates the NPOV rules. Along with your history of edit wars and , you can probably understand my reasoning behind this. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that I have "a history of edit wars", even less so "of non-NPOV contributions", and I find it pretty audacious of you to claim so, as we do not know each other at all. If you have an issue with the most accurate NPOV presentation of Mr Erdogan's policies concerning the Mosul offensive, I recommend discussing it on the talk page of the articles concerned, not here. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear UNSC Luke 1021 (talk), I started a discussion on the article talk page concerned, here. I would appreciate it if you would engage in an article-oriented good faith discussion there, not abandon communication after leaving some insult on my talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@2A1ZA: I'm not trying to insult you, I'm just saying you had been banned for edit warring before and you were asked once to remove non-NPOV content. Should I bring up your two warnings about edit warring on different pages, your removal of a template on a page without reasoning on one of those pages, a general sanction about a less serious edit warring issue, reference errors on a page, copyrighting issues on another page as well as a personal attack on another editor that you persistently accused of vandalism on a page that you hosted both an edit war and copyright infringement. Shall we bring these things up, or should we just end this argument. Regards, UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary, but I can read this talk page as well. I may humbly suggest that not every accusation some other editor in those Middle East policy articles highly charged with political emotions makes in here must be true. Anyway, I regret that you appear to be interested in this ad hominem discussion here, but not in the substantive discussion on the edit concerned which I started on the respective article talk page. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just end this stupid argument. It basically started over two words. I'm just going to stop replying. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the stuff about Turkish involvement in Mosul is after the battle began. Don't you think it is wrong to place it under "Background" section which is only actually for events before beginning of a conflict? I think it should be shifted to a separate section. 59.96.133.198 (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 59.96.133.198, better discuss this on the article talk page? I agree that the Turkey section should probably better be after the timeline than before the timeline. Feel free to move it down. The area before the timeline is mostly cleaned up now, the area after the timeline is still quite a mess anyway (one editor loaded tons of unorganized, unsourced material down there). -- 2A1ZA (talk) 22:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Im gonna be nice now. You dont need to bother yourself with that ISIL edit, you are stressing your self for nothing. The paragraph already exist with a different wording. Go to the ISIL section and you will read this (I think it was written by Ferakp):

"In June 2014, after the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) captured the border city of Tell Abyad, ISIL fighters made an announcement from the minarets of the local mosques that all Kurds had to leave Tell Abyad on or else be killed. Thousands of civilians, including Turkmen and Arab families fled on 21 July.[28][29] Its fighters systematically looted and destroyed the property of Kurds, and in some cases, resettled displaced Arab Sunni families from the Qalamoun area (Rif Damascus), Dayr Az-Zawr and Ar-Raqqah in abandoned Kurdish homes.[28]".

Feel free to revert this if you dont want to see me in your talk page.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 12:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, Im losing my interest to be honest. More honestly, I've never had any interest. I gave Ferakp a summary of why I became so aggressive. I wasnt like this at the beginning and you practically shaped the article as you wish. You added the "historical background" and I didnt even bother to say a thing.

Now, I want to remove those pages from my watch list based on the advice of a friend Read here. I do not have your passion tbh. But, also, it is hard for me to see what you do here because it has a purpose. since I have saw your Reddit comments. I know what kind of extreme opinions you have and no matter how much you proclaimed that you will be neutral, well, come on, I dont think you believe it yourself.

To be short, we need a gentleman agreement that will allow me to remove the articles from my watch list and never have to deal with you again (We dont like each other to say the least)

If you are interested, tell me so we can agree. If not, revert this edit.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would very much appreciate it if this bitter atmosphere around the Human rights in Rojava article would end. I happily reiterate that I do not think that you actually know about me and/or my personal opinions on stuff, and I certainly do not have the concrete opinions you use(d) to associate me with on talk pages. Anyway, after many years of dealing with Middle East stuff as a German, I am aware that my perspective on things, quite mainstream here, appears "extreme" from the viewpoint of Middle East discourses (and trust me, Israel/Palestine or Turkey/Kurds is even way more brutal in this respect than the mostly Syria or Iraq centered stuff we deal with here). Should you have some spare time, I would recommend that you somewhat read through the LSE and Chatham House papers I referenced this morning, they might be bridges to understanding. If you actually go away from "Rojava" related articles, I wish you the best of luck both at Wikipedia and in life. However, I would very much appreciate it if we meet again for cooperation on Wikipedia, maybe near future political developments will even be an invitation to do so here. Anyway, I will not delete anything on this talk page, I do not regret I met you. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I said I will go away if we discussed the most fundamental problems with your editing that drive me to stay. Reading your answer made me realize that nothing can change since you will never tone down (Im friendly now, this isnt an insult). I guess this nightmare will continue, hope it will be less severe now that a consensus must be reached for new controversial edits. Note: Ive never seen a middle easterner care so much about Europe and its problem, you are so involved in our region...weird. Cheers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 14:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This fundamental different perspective of you and me on the stuff concerned certainly will not change, I think it is a necessary consequence of looking at the same mountain from very different places. So for a personal remark, my connection with the Middle East was pretty personal at times in my life, academic/professional all along, and I have recently come to appreciate the Wikipedia project as a place which at the core of its own mission fits perfectly with what Middle East discourses need to move forward, a mirror that does not accept taboos of social marker otherness, alleged illegitimacy, and all the other sociopolitical taboos which keep the Middle East from evolving into open societies. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your expansion of the introduction of the article. A slight update in the introduction seems appropriate, but the additional details do not. The lede should introduce and summarize. If sources demonstrate that more details is WP:DUE about the decline in tourism and the reasons behind the decline, that belongs in the article body and should be presented from a historical perspective rather than solely based upon recent events. Sorry that I don't have time to do all the work myself, but I'm happy to help and review. --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your assessment, and I find your approach destructive in procedure. Still, I will take the time to rework the article. I expect you to approach further work on that article with a more constructive attitude. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. I contacted you about the situation, we agree on the problems and solutions, and I'd already apologized for not having time to do the work myself. Sorry. --Ronz (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All fine. I agree with you that the article as such is heavily unbalanced towards recent issues (and has the respective flag up), I just felt it had to be updated. There is a somewhat not optimal situation where some editors passionately care for the "Tourism" section of the Turkey article, keep it perfectly advertisement-like and delete any mention of recent issues, while the Tourism in Turkey article mostly is about recent issues. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 18:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 2A1ZA. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

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

who are you to teach me what I do, Chaldeans are not nationalist theory, as your claim, but they are recognized nation according the Iraqi constitution and national documents of the United Nations and the European Union, so the user violator here is you, not me, so stop from your assyrianazation fake theory --FPP (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

you who began editing not me, so when you add false edits, my duty is to undo that --FPP (talk) 22:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear FPP, while your account is blocked for a day (IPs continuing the edit warring at the Chaldean Christians article on its behalf instead), let me say again here what I said numerous times on the article talk page: Wikipedia is not about your personal opinion on stuff. It is about sources and an encyclopedic presentation of topics, giving different viewpoints and theories due weight. Your fringe theory, that the adherents of the Chaldean Catholic Church were distinct as "the same people" as those of ancient Chaldea mentioned in the bible, is not supported by any serious source. Rather, the name "Chaldean" was deliberately chosen for a newly established Catholic Church within the ethnic Assyrian and Syriac Christian community in early modernity, a fact which is well sourced. -- 2A1ZA (talk) 15:05, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Salih Muslim Muhammad 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 are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the 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 stop deleting clearly referenced info claiming POV in the section titled "Relations with Turkey". -213.74.186.109 (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]