User talk:Ass711

Welcome!

Hello, Ass711, 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to Template:The Green Path of Hope, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback help

If you want to gain rollback permissions, then you are going to have to make a lot more vandal reverts using the undo button and the Twinkle feature, which can be added from the gadgets tab in your preferences. It took me three tries to eventually get it. Creation7689 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Wisconsin protests 2 109214646.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Wisconsin protests 2 109214646.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 20:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not replace pages with blank content, as you did with this edit to 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests, as this is confusing to readers. The page's content has been restored for now. If there is a problem with the page, it should be edited or reverted to a previous version if possible; if you think the page should be removed entirely, see further information. Thank you. T H F S W (T · C · E) 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2010–2011 Middle East and North Africa protests. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
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 continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forging signature at Iranian Revolution talk

Why did you do this?: [[User:Ass711|BoogaLouie]] ([[User talk:Ass711|talk]] It's equivalent to forging my signature. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, i havent used wikipedia in a while therefore i made a mistake in the code resulting in your name appearing instead of mine

Iranian Revolution

I'm doing a RfC over the title http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:Iranian_Revolution#RfC:_Changing_the_title_of_the_Iranian_Revolution_article --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A few things:
1)You are losing the argument over the change in the name of the Iranian Revolution article here
2)You should have not changed the name of the Iranian Revolution in the article to "Islamic Revolution" without consensus in the talk page. I am going to change it to "revolution" (except at the beginning of the article) as a compromise.
3)please sign your name with four ~~~~ when you make a post. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Misplaced text

You posted text in a new page at Portal:Iran/. Note the trailing "/" character - this page is not part of the Iran Portal. I'll shortly be tagging the misnamed page for deletion, so here is a copy of your text:

The Persian Gulf, in Southwest Asia, is an extension of the Indian Ocean located between Iran (formerly called Persia) and the Arabian Peninsula.
The Persian Gulf was the focus of the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, in which each side attacked the other's oil tankers. In 1991, the Persian Gulf again was the background for what was called the "Persian Gulf War" or the "Gulf War" when Iraq invaded Kuwait and was subsequently pushed back, despite the fact that this conflict was primarily a land conflict.
The Persian Gulf has many good fishing grounds, extensive coral reefs, and abundant pearl oysters, but its ecology has come under pressure from industrialization, and in particular, oil and petroleum spillages during wars in the region.
Historically and internationally known as the Persian Gulf, this body of water is sometimes controversially referred to as the Arabian Gulf or simply The Gulf by most Arab states, although neither of the latter two terms is recognized internationally. The name Gulf of Iran (Persian Gulf) is used by the International Hydrographic Organization.

-- John of Reading (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kesab

The institute of study of war in its November 2012 edition confirms that kesab is under rebel control and your source is reporting since September 2012 ,all other sources confirm kesab is under rebel control,so don't change it.Alhanuty (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is in your page Ass711 (talk) 14:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map

The source from HRW provided for Ghassaniyah and Jdeideh says the following:

"An armed opposition group destroyed a Shia place of worship in Idlib governorate, and two Christian churches in Latakia governorate were looted. In all three cases evidence examined by Human Rights Watch suggests, and witnesses stated, that the attacks took place after the area fell to opposition control and government forces had left the area."

"In three villages – Zarzour, Ghasaniyeh, and Jdeideh – Human Rights Watch found evidence of attacks against religious minority sites after the areas fell under the control of armed opposition groups and government forces had left the area."

"Local residents told Human Rights Watch that armed gunmen operating “in the name of the opposition” also broke into and stole from Christian churches in the villages of Ghasaniyeh and Jdeideh, in Latakia governorate, after the villages fell under opposition control."

"A Jdeideh resident told Human Rights Watch that after the armed opposition took control of the village on December 11 and government forces had fled, gunmen broke into and stole from the village church and fired numerous shots inside, causing structural damage."

"The resident also told Human Rights Watch that opposition fighters had looted homes and kidnapped one resident, who remained missing. Two men from a local opposition group took the kidnapped man, a civilian whom he knew personally, from his home after opposition forces had taken control of the village [Ghassaniyeh]."

I don't know how you came to the conclusion that that means that government forces still control the area—you either did not bother to read the article carefully, or are deliberately lying about its contents. If it is the former case, I suggest that you try to focus better on your reading material. If it is the latter, it constitutes disruptive editing and may be a blockable offence if you continue. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've done it again [1]. Let's see what the source [2] says:

"Rebels north of Jisr al-Shughur captured the towns of Darkush and Zarzur three months ago, and in recent days they seized the Christian villages of Al-Yaqubia and Janudia which dominate the Orontes valley."

Again, either show some WP:COMPETENCE in source reading, or stop your disruptive editing. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 03:27, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The "christian" should be referring to Yakubia since it has been described as christian armenian in several sources. No other source mentions janoudiya as being christian and this is the first and only source in which I heard janoudiyah being christian. ~~ Ass711 (talk)

Clearly the AFP article indicates the town as Christian as demonstrated, so your point holds no water. SANA isn't reliable, SOHR is dubious as well—both are basically WP:PRIMARY sources and should be avoided, especially when making the map. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:13, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If SANA is unreliable and so is SOHR, then why have there been previous citations of them in the article? SOHR is cited as a source in reference #247, SANA is mentioned as a reference in 214 ~~ Ass711 (talk)

The fact that someone else decided to add them does not make them "reliable". That's like saying that since the guy in front of you sped through the red light, it's ok for you to do the same. There is very limited consensus to use SANA and SOHR in articles about significant battles to document claims from both sides as they emerge, but with the explicit stipulation that these are noted in the text as just that—claims—and that they are removed as soon as better sources become available. In instances where Syrian state media or opposition activists are quoted by mainstream news outlets, then they are more widely useable. As far as mapmaking goes, we do not use such direct reports from primary sources, regardless of the side. We wait for mainstream news to cover it or report it. In any war, the parties fighting each other will make many, many claims, a good deal of which are just for propaganda purposes. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-gov source

Ass711 it doesn't matter his nationality,it matter who he support and this source was long ago proved to be Pro-Regime source,you need to learn about the reliable and pro-side sources beacause I see you are new here and dont know much about the rules and the sources which are reliable.So I need you to revert yourself.Lindi29 (talk) 19:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it does matter his nationality , since it determines where his allegiance lies (most pro-russian are focused on local issues like ukraine and Putin himself said he isnt invested and backing the syrian regime) and this source was not yet proved to be Pro-Regime source,you need to learn about the reliable and pro-side sources beacause I see you dont know much about the rules and the sources which are reliable.So I need you to revert yourself. this Reply is also in your Page Ass711 (talk) 19:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about sanctions

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

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

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

Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Even though you didn't actually revert twice in 24 hours, you reverted twice in 29 hours, and you didn't even attempt to discuss the issue with User:Hanibal911, whom you reverted. Therefore I've blocked your account as a remedial gesture.

In the future, please attempt to cordially discuss the issue with the parties you disagree with (without the megalomanical POV so present to disputes in this region of the world). Magog the Ogre (t • c) 03:44, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024

Hello! I'm PigeonChickenFish. Your recent edit(s) to the page Killing of Kian Pirfalak appear to have added incorrect information, so they have been reverted for now. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite a reliable source or discuss your change on the article's talk page. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The source you had added (as a duplicate and with a typo) outlined a forced confession and casts doubt in the claims. Meanwhile there are three more reliable sources that were ignored. In the future please use the article talk page to discuss your POV, with additional supporting sources. PigeonChickenFish (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]