Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:44, 29 July 2012

Speedy deletion contested: List of Italian Prime Ministers by time in office

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of List of Italian Prime Ministers by time in office, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Salvio 21:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Your speedy deletion nominations

As per this, and many other messages you have received regarding your speedy deletion nominations, I would like to ask you to ensure that the pages you tag for speedy deletion actually meet one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion. If an article has issues that can be solved through editing, please consider correcting the problem or use maintenance templates if you can't fix it yourself. If you believe the page should be deleted, but it doesn't meet a speedy deletion criterion, use another deletion process such as WP:AfD or WP:PROD. That said, your new page work is much appreciated, but keep in mind that speedy deletion is for blatant cases only. Do not hesitate to ask if you have questions. Regards, decltype (talk) 05:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

List of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire (UK) ratings

I have reverted your edit to List of Who Wants to Be A Millionaire (UK) ratings, where you reverted a perfectly good redirect with the comment This does not count as a redirect as it is just the difference of the capitalization of "A" and then tagged it with a CSD A3. Actually, it does count as a redirect. Redirects for minor variations in capitalisation are very common on Misplaced Pages. Jimmy Pitt talk 18:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Shoreline Drive

I saw you removed the CSD from the article is there a particular reason for this? ttonyb (talk) 06:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Invading the Sacred

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Invading the Sacred, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 cannot be applied to books. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: Jose h valdez

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I deleted Jose h valdez, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		Great work, Sopher99! WikiCopterChecklist 23:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Altered speedy deletion rationale: North Harrow, 1930 - 1950

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I deleted North Harrow, 1930 - 1950, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, under a different criterion from the one you provided, which doesn't fit the page in question. Thank you. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Huh?

Why did you remove the automated copyright template from Dr. Saul Hertz? The text was clearly copied from the source. Theleftorium 18:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

-

set realmlist us.logon.worldofwarcraft.com set patchlist enUS.patch.battle.net:1119/patch set realmlistbn "" set portal us

New Article Patrol

Hi. I've noticed you reviewing new articles and removing "New unreviewed article" templates. I think you need to be a bit more careful, and don't remove the template until you have properly reviewed the article and fixed or flagged whatever faults it has. For example, Stone-Cup (game) was clearly an article with no content (and also had nonsensical categories added). It should have been left for a suitable time for the author to expand on it, with the template intact, or tagged for speedy deletion (after waiting a reasonable while). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy Delete

Regarding this speedy delete nomination, please note that CSD:A2 is only for articles that you can show already exist on foreign-language Wikipedias, and not for anything that is not English. Alternatives you could consider are just marking the article {{notenglish}}, or having a go at translating it via Google Translate (which is far from perfect, but usually gives us enough to have a go at reviewing the article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk)

Also, A1 is only for cases like "etnh4lscl3crhd uithtsth k;jk7u078au", not articles which make perfect sense, though being completely unencyclopedic. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

And you used {{db-same}} without properly specifying what it was the same as. A7 would have done better for that one. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:07, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ILG Logistics

You removed the "Unreviewed" template from this one. However, the article is actually unsourced, as it contains no references other than the company's own web site. This one should at least have been tagged as unreferenced (or at least, needing refs improved). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Martha's Vineyard Magazine

This is another article you did not review properly, as its format is entirely non-standard and needs to be corrected before it is marked as reviewed. You really should re-read what people have been saying to you here on this Talk page, and stop removing "Unreviewed" templates without properly reviewing articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:28, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and it also has no independent references - only to the magazine's own site. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Incident raised

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic User:Sopher99. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Auku

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Auku to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. —fetch·comms 20:45, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Athletics at the 1960 Summer Olympics - Men's hammer throw

I see you speedy tagged this article as A3 (no content). If you see a blank article, you should check its history - in this case, the author had blanked it, so it should have been tagged with G7 (author blanked). Please take a little time to read Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion and learn about how and when to use the various CSD criteria. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Canarsie Pol, Brooklyn

I've removed the comments you added to Talk:Canarsie Pol, Brooklyn, as they appeared to have no relevance to the subject of the article. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

You seem to follow me where-ever I go. Were you using the link to the articles I created on my user-page? Sopher99 (talk) 18:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on your activities because of all the errors you have been making in relation to new page patrol, article reviewing, and CSD tagging (as seen in your many messages here on this Talk page), and your complete lack of response to any of the messages you have been left. As I informed you above, there is an incident open at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sopher99. If you ignore all attempts at communication, there is little else we can do other than keep a close eye on what you are doing, so I'd urge you to reply to that incident and at show some willingness to listen to what people are saying. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:05, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry

Hi. Thanks for the response. Unfortunately, you are still making the same mistakes. In Stratus Building Solutions, you removed the "Unreviewed article" tag, but again you did not properly review the article - a quick read of it shows me that it is clearly too promotional in tone. You should have spotted that, and not marked it reviewed unless you had tagged it appropriately. Your enthusiasm is great, but I think you really must stop doing things until you fully understand how to do them properly. Here's a suggestion: If you review an article and find something wrong with it, you replace the "Unreviewed" tag with the appropriate tags - you seem to have been doing that quite well. But if you think there is nothing wrong with it, you just leave it for someone else to check and do not remove the "Unreviewed" tag. How does that sound? (Also, have you ever considered Misplaced Pages:Mentorship? I think it is something that might help you). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/18/world/middleeast/18homs.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/30/140070135/in-syria-homs-emerges-as-center-of-protest-movement

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/aug/21/syrian-forces-storm-homs-assad

http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/afp/tanks-rumble-into-homs-as-33-killed-across-syria/460444

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8717361/Syria-two-anti-government-protesters-shot-in-Homs-as-army-shoots-to-kill.html

http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/07/02/syria-rising-toll-homs

http://www.thestar.com/mobile/NEWS/article/1047663

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle-east/activists-report-more-arrests-killings-in-syrian-town-of-homs/2011/09/06/gIQAGqMJ6J_story.html

http://tvnz.co.nz/world-news/shootings-kill-11-in-syria-s-homs-4385736

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=40597

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13358201

http://english.the-syrian.com/2011/07/23/peaceful-protests-in-homs/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/27/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110527

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/middle-east/110906/syria-fresh-attacks-homs

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0512/1224296752475.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110512

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/syrian-forces-attack-homs-in-wake-of-anti-government-protests-1.379639

http://www.naharnet.com/stories/en/14018-syrian-security-forces-carry-out-raids-in-homs-and-hama

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2011/05/201152818244563547.html

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Rights-Activists-Say-Syrian-Forces-Kill-2-in-Homs-129252948.html

http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2011/09/more-than-20-dead-in-syria-russia-criticises-eu-embargo/

http://www.qatar-tribune.com/data/20110816/content.asp?section=Gulf1_1

http://www.france24.com/en/20110820-syrian-tanks-storm-protest-homs-assad-middle-east-un-latakia

http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20110812/world/troops-open-fire-on-syria-rallies.379972

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4118021,00.html

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/07/30/160085.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13130401

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/12/us-syria-idUSLDE73N02P20110512

http://globalvoicesonline.org/2011/04/20/syria-homs-protests-attract-thousands-video/

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/8710292/Syrian-security-forces-open-fire-in-Homs.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-07-22/syria-forces-kill-5-at-aleppo-homs-protests-activist-says-1-.html

http://www.trust.org/alertnet/news/shootings-kill-11-in-syrias-homs-activists

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=47934

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2011/apr/19/syria-homs-protests-shots

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/syrian-forces-fire-on-protesters-in-homs-as-crackdown-intensifies/2011/04/19/AFuvaW4D_story.html

http://www.dawn.com/2011/08/15/heavy-fire-in-homs-five-months-into-syria-uprising.html

Connecticut Technology Council new page patrol

Greetings. I noticed you marked this page as patrolled, but didn't address any of the issues it has. It had a line at the bottom that said "Join CTC Now, online at <URL>." That's pretty promotional and has no place in a WP article. Furthermore, the article was unreferenced, unwikified, uncategorized, advert-like and has questionable notability. Please, if you are confused about what to do with a particular article, don't mark it patrolled, and instead let someone else handle it. Regards, P. D. Cook 20:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

In reviewing your patrol log, I must recommend that you hold off on patrolling until you read up on Misplaced Pages polices. You are going through pages way too quickly. For example, you marked Matthew Parsons patrolled, but it has no references and is thus an unsourced BLP. The The New Three Stooges (2011 series) article seems like a hoax and has now been tagged as such. Olivia Tait was deleted under CSD A7. There are more, but I'll stop with that. Have you read the New Page Patrol page? It has a guideline on how to patrol, but you must be familiar with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines on sources, notability, verifiability, deletion and living persons, among others. Let me know if you have any questions. P. D. Cook 21:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Scott Fung

You tagged this article for deletion under criterion A2, a foreign-language article already on another Misplaced Pages; however, you didn't provide the link to the other language Misplaced Pages page. Would you please restore the deletion tag with a link to the other page? Nyttend (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you tell me the deletion tag for non-english articles that are not already wikipedia pages?Sopher99 (talk) 21:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been told before not to tag all foreign-language articles as A2, but once again you're not listening. There is no speedy deletion tag for them - they should be given time for people to have a chance to translate them. There are two things you could possibly do...

• Use Google Translate, which is pretty good at auto-detecting a number of languages, and replace the article content with the translation, and then perhaps review that (It won't be a great translation, but it should be enough to establish context etc).
• Tag with {{notenglish}}, which is not a speedy-deletion category, and will give people up to 14 days to provide a translation.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Company list tags

Heya, I hope you don;t mind but I removed the unreferenced tags from those company lists that you just added. Generally speaking if there is a wiki article that establishes the link to the country that is sufficient (at least by the current consensus). --Errant Tmorton166 22:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion request declined

Hi Sopher, I declined your speedy deletion request for 0th grade. It is not a "blatant" hoax by any means, and seems to be legitimate (see, for example, the usage of the term in this study). Feel free to PROD it or submit it for WP:AFD, if you wish. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I also declined the speedy for Product concept. Neither of the speedy deletion tags applies—the article clearly defined the concept, so A1 was invalid, and the subject does not fall under A7 (which is for actual businesses, not marketing concepts). Please be more careful with your speedy deletion tags in the future. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:56, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rahim Jantan

Hello. Google says this is in Malay. Can you give me a link to this on the Malay Misplaced Pages? I could not find it. Google mangled the translation, but he looks notable. Will send for translation if I can't find it on Malay Misplaced Pages. Dlohcierekim 23:28, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

L. Hirtuleius

Clearly it needs expanding but why the unreferenced tag?Dejvid (talk) 03:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

{{unreferenced}}

Hi. I've noticed you adding the {{unreferenced}} tag to a number of articles that actually have references - albeit insufficient ones. If an article has at least one reference, then it should not be tagged as {{unreferenced}}. If there are too few references, it should be tagged with {{refimprove}}, or if there is a list of references at the end but no inline references, you should use the {{no footnotes}} tag. As a few of us have asked a few times, please do be careful when doing new pages patrol and don't tag anything unless you are sure - if you are unsure, you are welcome to ask me for help on my Talk page at any time. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:17, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Just one more thought. I think that basically just slowing down and taking things easier would help you - it is far more important to do things correctly than quickly, so please do take the time to carefully think about each new page you look at before you do anything. (Oh, and it would be nice if you could reply to messages people leave here, so we know we're getting through to you). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I have read all the messages from your last one to this one, many of those so called references are notes though.Sopher99 (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see where you're coming from. Misplaced Pages actually recognizes different formats for referencing, and the "notes" format is considered an acceptable alternative. In fact, the whole area of citation style is quite complex, as you'll see if you look at WP:NOTES and WP:REF. As such, references, notes, and any supporting external links should really be seen as alike for our purposes here, and if there are any at all, we shouldn't really use the {{unreferenced}} tag - the {{refimprove}} tag is a better default to use, or {{no footnotes}} if there are references or notes only at the end and none cited inline in the source. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Great northern tilefish speedy declined

Hello, I declined to hastily delete this. The context/content was obvious that this was going to be about a Tilefish. It even had the binomial classification. (CorenBot tagged it for a redirect.) I'm a little concerned by the fact that this article was tagged only 3 minutes after creation. The creator was probably still working on it. Hopefully he's not been frightened off.

I've found it to be well worth the effort to welcome new user's before deciding to tag their articles for deletion. And if one starts from the other end of new pages it gives people enough time to fix any defects. Thanks. Dlohcierekim 22:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Admin noticeboard incident report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. (I'm sorry, but just talking to you here to explain what you keep doing wrong just isn't working, because you just keep making the same mistakes time after time, and you are likely to be scaring new contributors away) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

You should stop doing New Page Patrol unless you are willing to take action in response to the problems that people have reported to you. You may be blocked if you continue. If you will stop all your New Page Patrol and work on other things, you can avoid this outcome. If you are willing to have a mentor to help you with New Page Patrol, respond at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sopher99 again. EdJohnston (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I see, Ill stop placing Nocontext and Nocontent deletion tags then, just as I stopped removing unreviewed tags. Sopher99 (talk) 15:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely to be enough to satisfy the concerns expressed at WP:ANI. I urge you to respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

From the message below, it looks as if you haven't been informing editors when you tag their new articles for speedy deletion - they should always be informed. Also, you really should not do new page patrol if you are not able to, or not prepared to, engage in discussion when someone asks why you have done something - you absolutely need to explain your actions when questioned. I strongly suggest you do as EdJohnston suggests and stop all new page patrol actions for now, and get a mentor to help you before you resume, because if you carry on as now you really are likely to be blocked - and you really should engage in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sopher99 again -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Speedy tagging

Hi. Thanks for tagging Lender Processing Service this morning, but after you tag a page for speedy deletion you should copy to the author's talk page the warning which is generated for you on the speedy template, towards the bottom. Otherwise the newbie author doesn't know what's happened, thinks he pressed the wrong button, and often just puts the article in again. Also, if it's a new contributor who has never had a Welcome message, it's useful to give one before the speedy warning - it makes it less BITEy, and gives useful links that may help him do better next time. {{subst:firstarticle|<article name>}} is a good one. Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get! Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

There is good advice about speedy tagging at WP:10CSD, WP:A7M and the WP:Field guide to proper speedy deletion. JohnCD (talk) 12:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding this message you just removed

Sopher99, you might consider holding off on tagging CSD. You don't seem to understand the criteria. I've asked you before to use edit summaries and notify users about deletion. You simply are not following people's advice. What should we do here? P. D. Cook 13:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice

I see you deleted it.

There is good advice on how to carry out speedys here:

Misplaced Pages:Field guide to proper speedy deletion

This bit covers test pages. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What if the article has only one word like "yes" , also I am keeping he notices at 50 or below. Sopher99 (talk) 13:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably qualify as a test page. That or 'no context'.

A test page is when somebody builds an article that says "Blah blah is this working?" or something similar. Nonsense is where someone types something that isn't understandable.

Most pages that qualify for speedy deletion fall under A7, but a ball game doesn't fit comfortably into that. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain what you mean by "keeping the notices at 50 or below". I don't follow. P. D. Cook 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If you look at the table of contents it is at 49 right now. Sopher99 (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You're talking about this talk page. You should consider archiving instead of deleting. I can set up MiszaBot if you want me to. It automatically archives. P. D. Cook 14:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what archiving means. Sopher99 (talk) 14:10, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at here. Also, look at my my talk page. Notice how at the top there is a box with links that says "Archives: 1, 2, 3, etc." I setup a bot that automatically moves messages from my active talk page to those archives after 14 days. That way, I don't have to delete messages, and the messages stay around for people to see. I'd be happy to set up your talk page for you so that it functions like mine. Just let me know. P. D. Cook 14:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Use of expansion tag

On another note, it's not really necessary to add an {{expand}} tag to articles that have a stub tag at the bottom. Notice that the stub statements requests expansion. P. D. Cook 14:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok then Sopher99 (talk) 14:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

What is biotic potential?

Please note that this page should not have been tagged as a WP:HOAX, because it deals with Biotic potential -- a legitimate topic that we already have an article about. I changed the tag to {{db-a10}}, reflecting the fact that it was a duplicate article on an existing topic. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Drone attacks in Pakistan

I would like to ask you to stop edit warring. I have started a discussion on the talk page about that topic. Please do stop reverting during the discussion. Thank you. IQinn (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR on Gliese 581 g

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

The material you keep trying to add into the article will be added after discussion has taken place on the talk page. Please use the talk page to argue for it. Several editors have found it not to be useful, and I personally don't understand why it keeps getting added. On Misplaced Pages, we only cite directly from studies and reports if the material is uncontroversial and supported by secondary sources. Since several editors have contested it, you now need to find a secondary source that supports its inclusion. Edit warring is not a solution. Thanks, and look forward to seeing you on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Animal Farm characters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of Animal Farm characters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of Animal Farm characters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. WikiDan61_ReadMe!! 14:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Keith Springer

The article Keith Springer has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable financial advisor. No notable reference on the subject himself.

While all contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Edcolins (talk) 20:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Keith Springer for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Keith Springer, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Keith Springer until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Edcolins (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD tags on Mmo/End of Nations ( The Trinity guild)

Please be careful when adding CSD tags to articles. This article was tagged as test page and "no context", neither of which are accurate. I suggest using PROD or AfD if you feel the article is not notable. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:34, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Notability

Hey, I saw that you posted criteria for speedy deletion and it's completely understood, but I've already deleted that page - here's my problem: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aje2hSQ9fx0nXVBrIxY2gLIjzKIX;_ylv=3?qid=20101204120217AAaS2Xx As I see, the change on wiki article must be there for 1 day and then Facebook will also change information. So I though that, if I can't do nothing, at least I can correct article and then ask for deletion. Thanks! --Ogggy (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Hi Sopher, when tagging articles for speedy deletion please remember to inform the authors of the articles, otherwise there is a risk that the article disappears without them knowing why and they just repeat themselves (there is a convenient line on the template that you can just copy and paste on the author's page) . Also when you use {{db-notenglish}} you need to include a link to the article you believe this to be a copy of, otherwise people just have to change the tag to {{notenglish}} and send it for translation. ϢereSpielChequers 14:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same about notifying authors. Also, when the author is a newbie who has never had a Welcome template, as with the author of Rebecca smith: an upcoming star just now, it is useful to add one before the speedy notice - it makes it less WP:BITEy, and gives useful links so the newbie can learn to do better. {{firstarticle}} is a useful one (which has one oddity, it adds your signature automatically, unlike most of the others). Keep up the good work - New Page Patrol needs all the eyes it can get. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 15:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. The True Politics Party--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. Hyper Panda--SPhilbrickT 16:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Coins of Madagascar

Hello Sopher99, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Coins of Madagascar, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: -db Neitehr mentioned in the tag nor obvious from what other article this woudl be a duplicate. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Tikiwont (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Use of edit summaries

I noticed you don't use edit summaries much, it would be helpful to other editors if you did so, particularly when making significant edits such as adding speedy deletion tags. Thanks. --Pontificalibus (talk) 21:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, ill; try. Sopher99 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm

• You know all news is propaganda right? Propaganda model
• With that said, so as long as the information is reliable and the description posted in the current events section is neutral, it will stay. If its unreliable than fine, delete it, if not it will stay with all the other bias sources.
• Oh and NATO did invade Afghanistan and the Taliban do have a right to rule within their own nation...would it not be bias to 'be neutral' and call the agressor and the defender both merely belligerents. Passionless (talk) 00:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD tagging

Despite numerous reminders, you are still not notifying users when you tag their pages for speedy deletion.I have just added a notice to User:Jaredespindola's page re Jaje challenge, a page that you CSD tagged. It is discourteous not to notify users that you have tagged a page -- apart from anything else, it deprives them of their right to contest the tag. Also, you tagged the page as lacking context, despite the fact that it clearly describes a drinking contest -- it may not be encyclopedic (in fact, I'm sure it's not) but it's not lacking context. Jimmy Pitt talk 17:35, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Sopher99. another reminder from me too. Gerry Gregan needed deletion, but it is important that editors are told why their articles are deleted. Otherwise articles just disappear and the authors either get annoyed or repeat the same mistakes. ϢereSpielChequers 17:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

CSD

I would like to ask you to please stop making speedy deletion nominations until you have a better understanding of the criteria. For example, you nominated Snow Skimming as both a test page and a blatant hoax. How it could possibly be both of those at once is difficult to figure. Test pages are when someone is literally just testing to see if they can really edit Misplaced Pages or testing some particular feature. Speedy deletion as a hoax, as it says right on the tag, is only for hoaxes so obvious that they qualify as vandalism. This is a new, relatively unknown sport that probably is not notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, but there is no reason to believe it was a hoax. And you nominated Lake dolloff elementary school as an A7, when the very tag you placed on the page explicitly exempts schools, and your edit summary indicates that this is not even the actual rationale you were using anyway. Please either take the time to read and understand the criteria, or stop making speedy deletion nominations. I would also note that you are still failing to notify users when nominating, if you turn on WP:TWINKLE it can automate this for you, along with showing all the criteria when nominating. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to Dan deutsch. Doing so is a violation of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. You need to place a notice on the original editor's talk page when you nominate an article for speedy deletion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I would if you guys didn't somehow instantaneously do yourself right after i applied deletion. Sopher99 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

New page patrolling

When patrolling new pages, please check the "What links here" page to see if any other articles link to the article you're patrolling. If there are less than 3 links (from actual articles, not user talk pages, redirects, or pages in the Misplaced Pages namespace), then the article is considered an orphan and should be marked as such with {{orphan}}. I noticed you patrolled Elvis Marley, which has zero links, and you didn't mark it. It also appears I'm not the first person to post a message on your talk page regarding things you missed while patrolling new pages. NPP is about more than clamoring to be the first person to click the "Mark as patrolled" button as quickly as possible after an article is created. For instance, on 12-25-2010, you patrolled about 100 articles (many of them the same minute they were created), but only made about 10 edits. This indicates to me that you're either only patrolling uncontroversial articles, or you're not giving them enough attention. I'd like to second the previous requests you've had for slowing down while patrolling new pages. If you're unable to do that, then please don't patrol new articles. SnottyWong  15:50, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been reviewing some of the other articles that you patrolled lately, and I'd like to request that you stop patrolling new pages until you demonstrate that you understand what to look for when patrolling new articles, how to tag new articles appropriately for cleanup, how to nominate inappropriate articles for deletion correctly, etc. You are marking a lot of articles as patrolled when they either have major problems that need to be fixed (or tagged for others to fix), or the articles are obviously inappropriate and need to be speedied or nominated for deletion. Once you mark them as patrolled, chances are no one is going to look at them for a long time and they will be lost. Your patrolling efforts are definitely appreciated, but if you're going to rush through it and not actually address any of the problems with the articles, then you are doing more harm than good. SnottyWong  19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

For instance, in this edit of Recent changes for mobile numbers in Peru, you added an {{unreferenced}} tag and marked the page as patrolled. You neglected to see that the article had not been added to any categories (and therefore should have added {{uncategorized}}), and that no other articles linked to it ({{orphan}}). This may have been because the article was only 2 minutes old at the point you patrolled it, which is another issue altogether. The biggest issue is that "Recent changes for mobile numbers in Peru" is obviously not an encyclopedic topic and shouldn't remain as a standalone article. It should have either been redirected to Telephone numbers in Peru or brought to AFD. Your patrol log is full of similar examples. SnottyWong  19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see you've resumed your new page patrolling. I checked a random article that you patrolled, Direct Materials Cost, and found a wealth of tasks left undone by you yet again. The article has no lead, and should be tagged with {{Lead missing}}. The article has a big redlink template at the very top which should be deleted, how could you have possibly missed that? The article has no incoming links from other articles and should be tagged with {{orphan}}. The title of the article doesn't conform to WP:MOSTITLE and should be moved to Direct materials cost, although it appears another version of the article already exists at the lowercase title, which is an even bigger problem that should have been dealt with. The article is largely a how-to manual on estimating direct material costs, and should probably be nominated for deletion. These are only some of the things you should have done to this article as part of new page patrolling, but since you just casually glanced at it and marked it as patrolled, the article will just be lying around Misplaced Pages until someone happens to stumble upon it and nominate it for deletion a few years from now. This is unacceptable. You've been warned repeatedly by other users above, and I think I gave you a crystal clear explanation of the deficiencies of your patrolling about a week ago. You were unresponsive to my comments, waited a few days, and quietly resumed patrolling. I'm going to give you one more warning. Either start patrolling articles correctly (e.g. do the required work), or stop patrolling articles entirely. I'm watching your patrol log, and if you continue patrolling articles in the manner you have been, I'm going to start a thread on WP:ANI about your actions. Please don't take this as a threat; I'm trying to help you but you're being unresponsive. If you have any questions about new page patrolling, feel free to ask me. I'd much rather see you start patrolling pages correctly instead of seeing you stop patrolling. SnottyWong  14:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

FYI - I've started a thread to discuss your actions at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol#Problematic patroller. SnottyWong  14:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of MMORPGs by popularity

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of MMORPGs by popularity. First, thank you for your contribution; Misplaced Pages relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games#Statistics table. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Misplaced Pages. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games#Statistics table - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Misplaced Pages looks forward to your future contributions. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

tunisia protests

could you provide a source so i can have a "note" to explain context(Lihaas (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)).

couldn't find any exactly, and it is actually not an anniversary of the revolution, just an important date of it, when the plice chose to support the people. I am not from Egyptian or of Arabic decent so i wouldn't know much in terms of such history. Remove the "why" though, as it is from the sources. Sopher99 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling new pages

Hi Sopher. This is just to let you know that there is a discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:New pages patrol#Problematic patroller that concerns the way you patrol new pages. If there is anything about Misplaced Pages that you do not fully understand (especially New Page Patrol or creating new articles), please do not hesitate to ask me, or any other experienced user, for advice. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thankyou Sopher99 (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Jasmine Revolution for deletion

The article Jasmine Revolution is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jasmine Revolution 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 good 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 template from the top of the article.   Cs32en Talk to me  08:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Huthaifa al-Batawi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Huthaifa al-Batawi is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Huthaifa al-Batawi 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Thanks, WWGB (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Link

I just added the source into the article a few minutes ago. Read it. Quoting Violence has claimed the lives of 1,297 civilians and 340 security force members in Syria since the unrest erupted mid-March, according to the latest toll by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights released Tuesday.. EkoGraf (talk) 18:25, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, actualy they do show the bodies. Every time a soldier dies State TV covers his funeral after he is taken from the military hospital in Damascus. And I personaly do not see anything wrong with shooting deserters. Every military in the world (even the US and UK militaries) has the right to shoot deserters/defectors on sight. That's been the standard military policie for centuries. EkoGraf (talk) 18:28, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

They can shoot deserters, but what we are talking about are those who refuse to shoot at protesters. If they even shoot in the air, they themselves get shot. I was not referring to deserters. The deserters are those who fear the Syrian army itself but have the chance to escape. I was referring to shooting people who refuse to shoot, which America has not done in the 21 or 20th century Sopher99 (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah your right, I forgot. The US military doesn't need to shoot their soldiers for refusing to shoot protesters...because they do shoot protesters when they are ordered to, for example the Kent State shootings. And those that did disobey orders to shoot at the enemy in Vietnam were put on the main frontlines so they were usualy the first ones to bite the dust. In any case, an officer has the right to shoot any soldier who disobeys an order while in the field where there is no military court. Othervise there would be a total breakdown in military discipline. That's the reality of the world. EkoGraf (talk) 18:56, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me, i know about the Kentstate massacre and the My Lai Massacre, and no officer in at least Europe and NA can shoot a disobeying soldier, especially if not on a frontline. I don't understand why you are trying to defend the army lieutenants captain and captains of Syria. You seem to have a personal bias for believing hardcore into Syria's propaganda. I mean being skeptical and rational/factual is one thing, but you seem diplomatic about this. Sopher99 (talk) 19:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I do have a reason to have more faith in the Syrians than what the US and Western Europe say because I am from Serbia and the US and Europe accused us of being canibals while there was a war going on here in the Balkans so I am no stranger to western propaganda against one of it's enemies. However, I am not a radical nationalist and am a resonable person and so I do belive that most of those the Syrian military is fighting are unarmed protesters against Assad's rule. However, again I do not see anything bad in them killing those that would try and erase the rule of law and order. What would the US do if there were riots in the middle of New York? In any case, I do belive in objective editing on Misplaced Pages and reporting and editing from a neutral position on what is realy happening. And that's what I have been doing. For example, I have had a lot of problems fighting with both pro- and anti- Gaddafi editors over at the Libyan articles while trying to make the articles include factual information. I can set asside my own oppinion on the matter and simply edit based on what factual and objective information is provide. EkoGraf (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

We did have riots from the 60's through 80's, and in 90's Los Angeles. But army never came, and police did not shoot to kill (but they did beat people). It is true however that protesters are calling for the 100% downfall of the government, and that if they don't stop the protesting by force, they are guaranteed eventual collapse, so it is a damned if you damned if you don't situation. Also Serbian nationalism has nothing to do with Shiite Alawite Totalitarianism, especially because the Serbians are not Shias, Alawites (sp?), or totalitarian-ists, and Israel has refused to recognize kosovo.Sopher99 (talk)

I don't just doubt Syria's propaganda, but saleh's and khalifa's as well. Saleh claims "millions" of people are with him, when in reality only 10,000 paid demonstrators show up. He then claims civil war is imminent do to "tribes willing to succeed" further BS, then claims he has some sort of constitutional authority when he invented it and doesn't even follow it, and so on. Khalifa is a prick who thinks that everything from doctors to soda machines are against him and are part of some sort of conspiracy. In case you didn't know both are pro american dictators. Had there not been media attention both countries would have unleash forces to intentionally kill, had refusers, had shot dead refusers, and I would have reported on both. The only real shame is that no once seems to care about the mercenaries who killed 400,000 people in Darfur and left another 400,000 homeless. Shouldn't people be calling for Bashir to step down. Malaysia has a chance to arrest him this weekend. Sopher99 (talk) 20:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Hehe, at least we agree on something. :) Yeah, Saleh and Khalifa are pro-american dictators and that's why I belive 0 percent of what those two are saying. But, because they are pro-American they are not threatening them with sanctions or a bombing campaign. And as far as Bashir goes....Sudan has no strategic or any other significance to the West or anyone else so they don't simply care. That's the world we live in. EkoGraf (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Weapons depot

First of please don't remove sourced information, which is against Misplaced Pages policie, 2nd, the article, from the highly reliable New York times, confirmed that the rebs only got boxes of ammo and spare parts, 3rd, momentum mentioned was from the base attack only. Your youtube video, shows rebs carrying of boxes and from just one bunker at that, I don't see any weapons (except those they carried with themselves into the base), if anything the video reinforces the New York times article even more that only ammo boxes and surface-to-air launcher parts were taken. There is a difference between a weapon/rifle (which they claymed to had taken)and ammo/bullet (which they did take). The previous day they claimed that they took a huge number of arms, but both what the New York times says and Al Jazeera video shows is that they captured a couple of tanks and ammo boxes. As far as momentum goes it was talking about the momentum from the fighting at the base. It is not so uncomon for the rebels to try and make a small gain into a big gain for morale boosting purposes. And so next time I would pelase urge you not to remove sourced information based on a reliable source and discuss first if you have a problem with the text. Thank you. :) EkoGraf (talk) 05:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Russia and Turkey in the Libyan Civil War

I wanted to talk with you about this. You said "POV, criticism of NTC unnecessary, implying russia and Turkey are not full allies when we don't even know about their friendship state period. we have not said how close their relation is"... I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to... "friendship state period"? What do you mean by that?

As for not full allies, not full allies of whom, the West or the rebels? Neither are really true (okay, Turkey is part of NATO, but Russia is certainly not an ally of either). Care to explain your concerns? --Yalens (talk) 18:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

yes. By adding "but they still criticize, you are being bias, not because that is not true, but you are trying to prove a point that has nothing to do with the article. THe foreign minister never said "we want Gaddafi to go, but we are still criticizing the rebels and the west", Then that would be significant in the lead. Otherwise you yourself are trying to establish space and uneasiness between the NTC and Turkey and such, which belongs in the subsections.

To put it simply, Turkey and Russia would never say "Here is our report: We recognize the NTC as a legitimate interlocutor, and Gaddafi has no place in the future of Libya. But we are still criticizing the NTC". That would never happen, so stop putting it in the article like that. Also NATO's relation with any other countries does not belong in the article. Sopher99 (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Lastly, Turkey and Russia has never critiqued the NTC, only NATO, which is not the NTC. They only say "political solution, not military", which even the USA and Europe says. Sopher99 (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop edit-warring. You have no consensus to make this change and you have to discuss it on Talk:National Transitional Council. -Kudzu1 (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sopher, you need to assume WP:Good faith with regard to my edits: I don't have any political agenda with my edits. As for NATO's relations, you are right, it doesn't belong in the article- which is why it has never been in the article. Furthermore, it is also true that both Russia and Turkey have at various times indirectly or directly criticized the rebels- Russia's state run media (Voice of Russia and RT), for an example of indirect, is particularly critical of the rebels, with overly heavy reporting on the alleged abuse of the sub-Saharan migrant minority. In general, Russia's declaration that Gaddafi had to go came rather late, and if htey really think he should go, why is it that they still have diplomatic relations with him (and send chess champions to play with him, for some unknown reason...). There are, of course, distinguishable divisions in Russia, with Putin being firmly anti-Western and perhaps there is the influence of his previously cozy relations with Gaddafi (who he called his best ally in Africa at one point, and not to mention that in fact much of Gaddafi's weaponry came from Russia in a chunk in Jan. 2010); Medvedev meanwhile wants better relations with the West, so he occasionally tries to move Russia in a supportive direction- most notably when he chastised Putin in public for calling NATO's efforts a medieval crusade. Turkey meanwhile is fuzzy in a different way. On one hand the rebels have a clear dislike for Erdogan was the winner of the Gaddafi prize, then stalled NATO action and then tried to abort aid to the rebels, an anti-Turkish/Erdogan chanting gathering to convene in Benghazi at one point, and considerable anti-Turkish sentiment among Libyans (keep in mind that this link I gave you is from a Turkish news outlet). On the other, as the conflict has progressed, Turkey has taken a more pro-NTC stance, though this is likely due to the elections after which Erdogan stated that he wanted to work with the opposition, which is dominated by the CHP (which is pro-rebel and pro-Western). In both cases, anyhow, there is reason to suspect that the sudden switches in hte views of the two countries' governments are due to external pressures (the West and Medvedev's desire for better relations with it in Russia, the CHP in Turkey). In any case, even if I wanted to, I would not need to try to create uneasiness between Benghazi and Moscow or Ankara. In any case, as Kudzu said, you have no consensus on your side, so you need to bring it up at the talk page first. --Yalens (talk) 19:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Sean Hoare

Hi there - why did you find it necessary to undo my correction of SH's year of birth? That seemed a little 'defensive'. I was going to add his full date of birth and perhaps continue to work on the article, but if I do, will you continue to bat off my edits? All best, R reineke (talk) 10:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not do that, check again.Sopher99 (talk) 11:07, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

2011 Syrian uprising

Ugh, please do. It appears a pro-Assad editor got into the cookie jar. I caught him/her trying to replace the methods of demonstrations in the infobox with "Sectarianism"; I didn't even notice the whitewashing in the intro, I've been so busy with the international reactions articles. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Syrian uprising

i think the lead should be shortened. Or otherwise i might consider reverting it to my version. Pass a Method talk 12:57, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

from Kevorkmail

Dear friend, this is the media war which we are talking about... Being 100% Syrian-Armenian living in Syria for more than 25 years, I can tell you the truth rather than this western media reporters and other Arab channels.... Bashar Assad is not committing massacres, he is trying to maintain our internal and national secuity against those armed groups which are backed by the US and other western countries... on the other hand those so called peaceful demonstrators are being rejected and suppresed by the local population of the cities themselves, same like when it happend so many times in different streets in Aleppo and Damascus. --Kevorkmail (talk) 12:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

For your information, president Ahmad al-Khatib was brough to power by Hafez al-Assad himself after the revolution, so there was no such a feeling.--Kevorkmail (talk) 13:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Waived / injured NFL

Hello Sopher99. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Waived / injured NFL to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 05:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria insurgents

First of, this is not the first time we are hearing of this since the government claimed on dozens of occasions to have killed insurgent elements. 2nd it comes from an official government source and deserves to be mentioned in the infobox. Excluding it and including only UN or opposition claimed figures of people killed is a non-neutral position. Misplaced Pages needs to keep a neutral position and that demands that we also include government claims, no matter how much we maybe don't belive in them. If we would remove the govenment's claim of the number of dead we would than have to remove the opposition's claimed number of dead. One more thing, the infobox already includes on the opposition protesters side Anti-regime militants and the Free Syrian Army which are insurgent groups against the government. In any case, the claim/number is properly sourced so please don't remove sourced information. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, please don't make things up now. You and I both very well know that the 700 people killed the government is claiming to be insurgents are among those that the UN and opposition are claiming to be civilians. The UN and opposition do not take in "insurgent casualties" as you said because they don't belive there are any insurgents and hardly even admit security forces casualties, even though the Obama administration has acknowledged there are anti-government armed elements in Syria and insurgent elements themselves have recently started appearing on TV. They always say the security forces are killing only exclusivly civilian protesters. One more thing, remember the 3RR rule, you reverted 2 times already, not counting yesterday. One more time and you will be in violation of 3RR. Friendly reminder. EkoGraf (talk) 16:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Syria

Sorry, but I'm on the other side of this dispute. These are people whom the Syrian government and opposition agrees are dead, but whom the government claims were armed terrorists or insurgents or whatever their favorite term is these days, and whom the oppositions claims were either protesters, army defectors, or bystanders. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I have separated the two claims entirely, until the situation becomes clearer. It is the only way to avoid confusion. We also can't avoid the fact that the Syrian government claims 1400 people were killed only. I7laseral (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The government obviously doesn't admitt any civilian casualties and regards those classified as civilians by the opposition and the UN as insurgents. Besides, the coloumn in the infobox for the opposition includes both protesters and armed insurgent elements, so in that regards they are again one and the same thing - anti-Government side in the conflict. EkoGraf (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Lets keep the two claims separated for now. We don't no veracity of either claims. I7laseral (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Background

After the 1970 Revolution, President Hafez al-Assad led Syria for nearly 30 years, banning all opposition at every level. In 1982, at the height of a six-year Islamist insurgency throughout the country, Assad conducted a scorched earth policy against the town of Hama to quell an uprising by the Sunni Islamist community, including the Muslim Brotherhood and others. This became known as the Hama massacre, which left tens of thousands dead.

During the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising, after 9 months of primarily peaceful protests, with destruction of government property also taking place in March the opposition began to take up arms to overthrow the government. Soldiers from the Syrian army defected and united under one guerilla organization, the Free Syrian Army, led by Colonel Riad al-Asaad.

According to the UN and other sources, since the beginning of the uprising, up to 7,000 people, including 1,800–2,800 armed combatants, have been killed in total, many more injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. Over 300 children have been killed by security forces as well. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture.

Armed insurgents

What do you call this? The Telegraph

The free Syrian army as well as protesters defending themselves. Saying "extremists" are part of this is like saying extremists are part of the Egyptian revolution or the Iraqi protests. (Beduiuns attacked police as well during the Egyptian revolution) Sopher99 (talk) 20:32, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Please read the article in the link well and do not try to make assumptions based on your own thoughts and preferences. Discuss in the page and do not involve yourself in an edit warring--Kevorkmail (talk) 20:38, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I read the article. We have no Verification. Only Verification of the Free Syrian army. Sopher99 (talk) 20:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Sopher99! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Iraq war end....again XD

Please read the Iraq war talk page carefully. Also, read closely what Obama said. He said and I quote After nine years, the war will be over in the next few days "not with a final battle, but with a final march toward home. He didn't say the war has ended, he said it will be over in the next few days. He ment when the last of the troops leave Iraq. As for the rest of the conflicting points, like I said, read the talk page of the main article. In any case, you haven't provided a source the war has ended, again in fact most sources quote Obama as saying the war will end. Thank you. Diefgross (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Concessions in 2011 Syrian uprising

Dear Sopher99, actually concessions do belong in the infobox. See for example 2011 Bahraini uprising and 2011 Saudi Arabian protests. There's a simple reason why they're not in the infobox of 2011 Libyan civil war: Gaddafi didn't actually give any concessions to the rebels in his country. According to him, the rebels were "terrorists" and "rats", remember? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Syria suicide bombings

Iraq suicide bombings happen as a result of the war there, don't know the point of mentioning them at this time. Listen, you misunderstood me completely Sopher99. My point is, I wasn't supporting to add al-Qaeda as one of the beligerents. I was just supporting to add suicide attacks in the infobox under the category Characteristics. I'm not for adding Al Qaeda as a beligerent cause there are too many unknowns at this stage who did it. But, as you said, it could have been done by the FSA or even the government itself. Per that logic, since they are the beligerents of this conflict than suicide bombings should be added under characteristics. I'm not for adding al-Qaeda as a beligerent until it is properly investigated and confirmed if it was realy them. I'm sorry if you misunderstood me, but please refrain from calling someone irresponsible. Left same message at the article's discussion page. EkoGraf (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Your input is needed on the SOPA initiative

Hi Sopher99,

You are receiving this message either because you expressed an opinion about the proposed SOPA blackout before full blackout and soft blackout were adequately differentiated, or because you expressed general support without specifying a preference. Please ensure that your voice is heard by clarifying your position accordingly.

Thank you.

Message delivered as per request on ANI. -- The Helpful Bot 16:43, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Syria

To save me re-writing it, I addressed the matter here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Put simply - international conflict is sensitive material, the only way to exercise NPOV is to use terms accepted by all sides of a conflict. In other words, if a source can be found that Syria claims to be a dictatorship, that is fine, but then dictatorship and republic are a contardiction in terms. No matter what we personally think, a claim of dictatorship is a tacit but automatic denial of it being a republic. Anything else is original research. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Hitler was a chancellor, Stalin was a secretary of a party, Mussolini was a prime minister, and Mao was a chairman. I guess dictators never existed? Sopher99 (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Go on their articles and delcare them dictators. If it lasts 24 hours, I will personally go on a spree myself beginning with Syria, that I promise you. Fair? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thats not what we are talking about, we are talking about causes of the uprising, dictatorship is one of them. I'll let it be for now, considering the yemeni and egyptian revolution pages do not cite dictatorship. Sopher99 (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Mussolini's title was duce, his status as PM marked only the first two years of his long reign. That's by the by. Thanks for your cooperation. I'm a fair editor though and I do see your point. I am all right with dictatorship in a cautious sense. As we are discussing what the rebels view it to be, we need to establish that. I just didn't want to see the term used so liberally, or as if we are using the official language on sanction. Do you know a good way around it? Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 20:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Syria deaths

We update per the source that is provided (currently http://syrianshuhada.com/). That is the basic Misplaced Pages rule. You put 8,284 but didn't provide any source for it. You left the previous source that said 8,079. You are bassicly editing without a source provided. That's a big Misplaced Pages no-no. Please provide sources or stop making changes if you are not going to do that. Also, tell me why would the LCC override http://syrianshuhada.com/? In essence they are both opposition-affiliated sites that are putting out numbers that have not been confirmed at all by independent observers or media. We write all that is reported. In that case if you want to put forward the LCCSs numbers, than make a new table which is based on their numbers. The current table is sourced per http://syrianshuhada.com/. Thank you. EkoGraf (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Please provide me with the exact page on the LCCs site that shows their statistical numbers per province that you have been reading and I will personaly make another table for the article. Ok?

Syria protest section

You wrote, "Protests and armed clashes: ok but atleast put it in chronological order) (undo) " in comment. First,Thank you first for not getting into edit battle. Let's talk on the Talk page of that article. At issue with chronology is keeping the Al Qaeda related material together, A, B, C, D where B&C are Al Qaeda related but Dhappened before C..see Talk page of Syria uprising for possible split off into another Al Qaeda subsection.

Hi

You might be interested in commenting at User_talk:ChronicalUsual#Syrian_military_operations_2011-2012. I closed the Misplaced Pages:Articles_for_deletion/Syria_civil_war deletion discussion as a consensus to merge 2011–2012 Syrian uprising and 2011-2012 Syrian civil war articles, as consensus was against having two articles. I see now that you and him have recreated it under various names, I'd like to discuss that. henrik•talk 06:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote

I commented on it. Jeancey (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 22:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Vote

Thanks for the heads up on the vote. EkoGraf (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising

Hi, I just wanted to drop a note on your talk page to let you know that I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Anti-Alawite Sentiment in the 2011-2012 Syrian Uprising. While I do agree with you that the article does not belong on Misplaced Pages, there is no specific criterion in the criteria for speedy deletion that justifies the article's speedy deletion. As such, this should go through Articles for Deletion. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

1. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.--FavorLaw (talk) 13:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to Misplaced Pages. However, please know that editors do not own articles and should respect the work of their fellow contributors. If you create or edit an article, know that others are free to change its content. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --FavorLaw (talk) 15:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Syrian Uprising

Welcome to Misplaced Pages and thank you for your contributions. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, it's important to be mindful of the feelings of your fellow editors, who may be frustrated by certain types of interaction. While you probably didn't intend any offense, please do remember that Misplaced Pages strives to be an inclusive atmosphere. In light of that, it would be greatly appreciated if you could moderate yourself so as not to offend. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FavorLaw (talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

As far as Baba Amr goes, what I have seen there hasn't been any big organised attack on it by the military. Only limited raids into the district with constant non-stop shelling. It's preaty much impossible for a force of 200-300 FSA to repulse a reported 10,000 soldiers. If the military did make a major push into it it would most likely take it but suffer a lot of casualties due to the close-quarters combat, so I can determin based on that that the Army's strategy is to pound the district with constant artillery, to soften it up in other words, and eventualy they will roll into it, by that point most of the FSA and protest groups will be decimated by the shelling since the strikes will continue for a while more. No matter how much brave or fanatical the FSA are they are simply outgunned there, in Misrata was a totaly different situation, there the rebels had constant reinforcements and weapons supplies coming by sea thanks to NATO and Qatar, here the FSA is cut-off compleatly. As far as the numbers of dead go, when we have definite numbers that are sources we will use tham until than we work with what we have. I added some new numbers today that came out of the UN. EkoGraf (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I get that, I figured as much, there have already been some journalists and analysts who have noted that a large number of insurgents (non-defectors) are being reported as killed civilians and not combatants. EkoGraf (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I've been looking at all of the estimates and, in my opinion, I think that the SOHR number is the most realistic one of them all. It's mid-way between the government and the LCC number. Also, when the shuhada number of FSA killed and the UN number of government killed is combined it's very close to the overall combatant number reported by SOHR. Sidenote, I think the LCC and shuhada are inflating the numbers by 1,000-2,000. Again, my personal opinion, but that's how it looks to me. EkoGraf (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Like I said, that's my opinion. And the very thing you pointed out to, that the LCC is highly connected to the opposition and the insurgent networks, makes me vary of them cause they are not a neutral organisation. Saying that it's not wise to compare to the Syrian government (which I also think is undercounting the deaths) can be said the same about the LCC (which is I think inflating the deaths). SOHR has so far in my eyes presented realistic numbers and held a degree of neutraility, counting both the government and opposition losses, which the opposition has not been doing. Again, this is wholy my personal opinion, but I should warn from believing exclusivly what the oposition says about the number of deaths just like I'm also reserved toward what the government says. Prime example is what the oposition in Libya did, where they claimed 50,000 were killed in the war with the fall of Tripoli, only later to revise the number down to 25,000. By half. EkoGraf (talk) 23:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Complaint about your edits at WP:AN3

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Three users reported by User:Izidorscats (Result: ). You may respond there if you wish. EdJohnston (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Death of Hamza

Hi, I changed back your edit to the cause of death field in the infobox. I thought 'alleged torture' was not descriptive enough, doesn't mention the government's position, and focuses on the world 'alleged' which is generally to be avoided per WP:WTA. I'm happy to discuss this with you further if you'd like. Cheers, Ocaasi 22:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

FYI

Please see this edit and its summary. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Forgot to remove that. Sopher99 (talk) 19:03, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Syrian page

I will try to think up of something. Maybe something like the Libyan war casualties page. EkoGraf (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

But emphasis on combatant deaths only. We already have a box for civilian. Civilian casualties too messy, ambiguous and widespread. Sopher99 (talk) 00:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Otherwise I would support that, but due to the little info and focus there is on the combatant deaths the article would be too small in my opinion, so I think the article should cover all the deaths in the conflict. At the least it would cut-down the main article even more in size. EkoGraf (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually don't support it then, because the only proper way to do it would be using the LCC info (the LCC records civilian and defector deaths for each province every day), but the problem is they have been recording for about 320-340 days now. I think the death toll box that we have is good enough. I only suggested this so we wouldn't have to list all the combatant deaths in the refs just to prove the current combatant death toll. Sopher99 (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide me with the link to the LCC tables for civis and defectors in each province day-by-day? I tried to find it but the part of their site that says statistics doesn't open for me. I tried but it's always blank. Also, I don't think it would be neutral if we focused on the LCC's numbers only. Which I think are a bit inflated cause they are a bit higher than the SOHR, VDC and UN numbers. Not to mention LCC doesn't count government fatalities while SOHR, VDC and the UN do. EkoGraf (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

LCC's numbers are obviously inflated and incredibly biased, unlike SOHR's content, so I ask you to refrain from deleting SOHR posted information (I dont understand why you are insistent on including LCC content anyway?)Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:36, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Deleting of sourced information

Your baseless claim that Kurds suddenly joined the uprising in large numbers is unsourced, untrue and the sentence is completely POV. The information I posted is sourced, they are simple facts (nothing POV about it) and very signigicant and important. Do not delete this information again, and if you want to add something yourself, please make sure you frame it in a neutral way, and have atleast sources to back it up.Kermanshahi (talk) 18:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I did not write those sentences. I will however re-add and source them. Sopher99 (talk) 19:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

By 2012, many Kurds began uprising against the Syrian regime. Several cities with large Kurdish populations, such as Qamishli and Al-Hasakah, began witnessing large-scale protests against the Syrian government, which responded with tanks and fired upon the protesters.

If there were such large numbers of Kurdish protesters which were met by tank fire than even the LCC would record a significant jump in deaths in those provinces....which they didn't. Not to mention the international media hasn't caught wind of this. So I'm not sure that info is reliable. EkoGraf (talk) 01:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it means "which responded by using tanks AND firing into the crowds (with guns)." Sopher99 (talk) 02:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Odd stuff going on at Talk:2011–2012 Syrian uprising

Hi Sopher99, I'm contacting you because you seem to be one of the major contributors on that talk page. I noticed an edit by an IP that claimed to be "archiving" the contents, however, the IP had only 2 edits, so I attempted to revert on suspicion of vandalism. However, the page seems to not want to revert because apparently there's a link on Misplaced Pages's spam list apparently (oddly, it's a google link that is listed). I only came across it because the article is on my watchlist, but since you've actually contributed a fair amount to the talk page, I thought you might want to handle it. I successfully reverted the IP's other edit, which was also appeared to be blanking under the guise of archiving (oddly enough, this other edit was on an archive page, as well). Again, just thought I might let someone that is actually involved in the talk page know that something seems to be up. Happy editing,--L1A1 FAL (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer

Hi Sopher99, I just answered you on my talk page. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

DRN notification

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Sectarianism in the 2011–2012 Syrian uprising‎". Thank you. --Rafy talk 22:30, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverting today

Ooops, sorry Sopher about today, my bad, for some reason it looked to me like you were the one who inserted the 3,000-7,500 figure so I wanted to revert it back to 1,100. But I instead reintroduced the incorrect figure of 3,000-7,500. Sorry sorry, my mistake. My mind is playing tricks on me. XD EkoGraf (talk) 17:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

its ok. :) Sopher99 (talk) 18:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Weird

My edit messed up the lead again. I tried to revert but it messed it up more. What's the deal? Also, you can revert this back because your computer isn't jacked like mine obviously is. Jacob102699 (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Original lede for safe keeping

The 2011–2012 Syrian uprising is an ongoing internal violent conflict in Syria. It is a part of the wider Arab Spring, a wave of upheaval throughout the Arab World. Public demonstrations across Syria began on 26 January 2011 and developed into a nationwide uprising. Protesters demanded the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, the overthrow of his government, and an end to nearly five decades of Ba’ath Party rule.

Since spring 2011, the Syrian government deployed the Syrian Army to quell the uprising, and several cities were besieged, though the unrest continued. According to witnesses, soldiers, who refused to open fire on civilians, were summarily executed by the Syrian Army. The Syrian government denied reports of defections, and blamed "armed gangs" for causing trouble. Since early autumn 2011, civilians and army defectors began forming fighting units, which began an insurgency campaign against the Syrian Army. The insurgents unified under the banner of the Free Syrian Army and fought in an increasingly organized fashion; however, the civilian component of the armed opposition lacked an organized leadership.

The uprising has sectarian undertones, though neither faction in the conflict has described sectarianism as playing a major role. The opposition is dominated by Sunni Muslims, whereas the leading government figures are Alawites, affiliated with the Shia Islam. As a result, the opposition is winning support from the Sunni Muslim states, whereas the regime is publically supported by the Shia dominated Iran and the Lebanese Hizbullah.

According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 10,100–13,000 people have been killed, primarily protesters but also including 3,755–4,290 armed combatants. Many more have been injured, and tens of thousands of protesters have been imprisoned. According to the Syrian government, 7,245–7,800 people, including 2,650–3,180 members of the security forces, more than 1,115 insurgents and up to 3,500 civilians, have been killed in fighting with what they characterize as "armed terrorist groups". To escape the violence, tens of thousands of Syrian refugees have fled the country to the neighboring countries of Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. The total official UN numbers of Syrian refugees reached 42,000 at the time, while unofficial number stood at as many as 130,000.

UNICEF reported that over 500 children have been killed, Another 400 children have been reportedly arrested and tortured in Syrian prisons. Both claims have been contested by the Syrian government. Additionally, over 600 detainees and political prisoners have died under torture. Human Rights Watch accused the government and Shabiha of using civilians as human shields when they advanced on opposition held-areas. Anti-government rebels have been accused of human rights abuses as well, including torture, kidnapping, unlawful detention and execution of civilians, Shabiha and soldiers. HRW also expressed concern at the kidnapping of Iranian nationals. The UN Commission of Inquiry has also documented abuses of this nature in its February 2012 report, which also includes documentation that indicates rebel forces have been responsible for displacement of civilians.

The Arab League, US, EU states, GCC states, and other countries have condemned the use of violence against the protesters. China and Russia have avoided condemning the regime or applying sanctions, saying that such methods could escalate into foreign intervention. However, military intervention has been ruled out by most countries. The Arab League suspended Syria's membership over the government's response to the crisis, but sent an observer mission in December 2011, as part of its proposal for peaceful resolution of the crisis. The latest attempts to resolve the crisis has been made through the appointment of Kofi Annan, as a special envoy to resolve the Syrian crisis in the Middle East.

Good

Good, we got the article back in place. That was just weird. Do you think wikimedia technical people should be contacted about this? Jacob102699 (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think its just your computer,

Put what you were going to do on this talk page, to see if it happen here. Sopher99 (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Another One

I think we have another sockpuppet of ChronicalUsual on our hands named User:Brigade93. Just look at the name in the first place. Jacob102699 (talk) 14:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I just contacted User:Salvio giuliano about it. Jacob102699 (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

State ownership = propaganda?

Before you go ahead and delete the Voice of Russia reference again on the grounds that its state ownership makes it a 'propaganda medium', please stop and think who owns Al Jazeera, a channel whose stories are used abundantly as references in the Syrian uprising article. Thanks. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 11:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Al ajazeera is owned by the Qatari Media Corperation, and is an independent channel, particularly Al Jazeera English. Sopher99 (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Who are you kidding? As the article Al Jazeera says, the channel is "owned by the state of Qatar through the Qatar Media Corporation". And they're not doing much to live up to the claim of being independent either, as evidenced by e.g. Al Jazeera reporter resigns over "biased" Syria coverage. So how exactly is Al Jazeera any different from the equally state-owned Voice of Russia? - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 09:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

That was an al jazeera arabic reporter. The reporter did not resign because of bias, but because of sympathy for the Syrian government, "I used to support the revolution but then I realized it could lead to civil war" Sopher99 (talk) 12:27, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

How exactly is realizing that the uprising could lead to civil war a show of sympathy for the Syrian government? Anyway, the fact still stands that while Al Jazeera and Voice of Russia are both state-owned, both through state-owned companies (QMC and VGTRK, respectively), you regard the latter as a "propaganda medium" due to its government ownership and the former as an "independent channel" despite being government-owned as well. Please elaborate. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 16:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

I think Al Jazeera English is a perfectly reliable western source that even uses Reuters a lot. Voice of Russia is owned by the Russian government which unlike Qatar, doesn't have freedom of press. AJE is also based in UK and US too which most sources from those places are reliable. Al Arabiya may not be reliable, but AJE is. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Sopher99's work on the Timeline but I do agree with TaalVerbeteraar (talk). We should allow Voice of Russia as an RS without making judgements about it. Charles04 (talk) 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

2 more

I put 2 more sockpuppets on the case page for ChronicalUsual. Jacob102699 (talk) 23:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

Your recent editing history at Syrian uprising (2011–present) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — HelloAnnyong 14:52, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/ChronicalUsual

I have moved the cases that you put in the archive to an active case. Please follow the instructions on the main SPI page to file a case, we won't see it in the archive. Thanks, -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Klavisoni

This guy is causing major trouble as a sock of CU and we need to get him blocked. It re-iterates how much we need protection. Jacob102699 (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The case has been moved here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ChronicalUsual Sopher99 (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice work with this SPI report: that guy was running a ridiculous number of socks. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

the Damascuss bombings

Listen Sopher, I don't know why you are trying to dampen the opinions of the military analysts, Middle East experts or even the UN secretary general on this matter. Like I told you, their professional, and I might add, neutral opinions outweigh both yours and mine. The claims by both the government and the opposition are only worth mentioning but since they are both the warring parties their claims can not be taken lightly thus it is more advisable that we look to the neutral experts and diplomats, who at this point are mostly talking about foreign militants and less and less about the government or the FSA. Even the two different al-Nusra claims can not be taken seriously given they are a warring party too. An expert could even ask why did it take them three days to grab a laptop and deny something they say is a lie. There's always a possibility they did claim the attack, but after seeing the outcry tried to distance themselves. Anyway thats conjecture and we should focus on the opinions of international expert bodies. As for that sentance about the UN general. I really have know idea from where you are thinking that Ban Ki Mun didn't hear about the militant denial and the FSA and SNC claims (which were actually given the same day as the bombings, not just in the Guardian article) which have been in the news for almost a week now. I would say that at least at one point he picked up a newspaper or one of his advisors told him. Please those are all personal opinions which don't count. The reality is what is being reported. And we stick to that. Going to sleep now, hope to work with you in the future, good job so far, keep it up, bye! EkoGraf (talk) 01:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway seems its resolved now. Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 01:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

re-inserted original research

You appear to have re-inserted original research into an article. We do not insert content for a claim for which there is no reliable source. Anirban Bandyopadhyay does not appear to say he falsified Tegmark's conclusion. Note that the Burden is on you as the restorer to source this correctly and deal with the issues of the text you restored, see WP:BURDEN. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, I've opened a talk page discussion on the issue, the article was Quantum Mind. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

source

Can you give a source for this edit? I've opened a discussion on the talk page if you wouldn't mind commenting there. Khazar2 (talk) 19:20, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Page Moves

So the guy who moved the Syrian uprising page, I went back and looked through his contributions, and in the past month alone he has moved at least 9 pages against consensus and conventions that later had to be moved back, including the War on Terror, the Houla Massacre, and a page about a doctor. Is there any way to go about removing his ability to move pages? I kinda wanna nip this in the bud. Thanks in advance! Jeancey (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Someone started an ANI about it. Jeancey (talk) 17:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

SOHR content

Can you please stop deleting my SOHR content in favour of the LCC content that you include on this article. Can you reply back please because it is getting quite frustrating, sorry. Or we could agree to include both sources.Jafar Saeed (talk) 22:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

OK then, lets use both, but we both have to agree not to delete any of each others' content, agreed?Jafar Saeed (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Recent Syrian massacre/execution

If this doesn't constitute a massacre, then surely it constitutes at least some kind of recognition. What are your ideas for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.17.180 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Syria

I can carve the article down if I'm allowed to delete all the individual incidents mentioned. Is it OK to do that? Fanzine999 (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think i carved it down properly, i was only referring to shortening the support for government section which added 15k bytes in the last day. Please don't add anymore to the section. Sopher99 (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

OK. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Maldonado91 is being very disruptive. He keeps trying to delete negative material about Russia; I told him I would report if he did it again, so now he's undone 8k of shortening that I'd done, seemingly just out of spite. Fanzine999 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You know...

I have a slight suspicion User:Clarificationgiven is a person we've encountered before. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Chronicalusual? I don't think so. I have seen complaints that he could be User:Justicejayant http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Justicejayant . Not sure what to make of it. Sopher99 (talk) 09:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I admit encountering Sopher99, but not Kudzu1 before this month. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think that is likely. -Kudzu1 (talk) 09:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Change

Keep it 'Disputed' because it's disputed by such sources/organisations, not mainly by us in talk page. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to decline that for now. Many sources dispute other sources on wikipedia. We don't put "disputed" followed by a list of references. What you can do is go to the mercenaries section of the page and edit in how amnesty and such disputed it (if its not already there). Don't just put "this has been disputed by" and end it there - recite the quote from article which sums up why its disputed (such as "investigators on the ground in tripoli did not see such and such") Sopher99 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Reported : Disputed" will be a good option. Clarificationgiven (talk) 09:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Half Barnstar
	Syrian Uprising! Fanzine999 (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks ! Sopher99 (talk) 17:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

POV

Please stop deleting my edit on 8 July news. You cannot decide whether or not it deserves to be put on the page. Remind you that it is a BBC news.Egeymi (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually I can decide if it has notability. Mind you we do not put every bbc news story in the portal. Sopher99 (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Houla massacre

I have no intention of edit-warring. I just would like to see the available RS information reflected as much as possible in the article. So please if you decide to edit, don't just revert - unless you can prove it is not RS - but rather add or move if you think it necessary. I realise this is an emotional and controversial subject, but this is exactly why the article should be as non-partisan and solid as possible.--207.237.104.75 (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Tremseh

Going to sleep, late over here where I am. Keep updating the Tremseh article if more info comes in. Keep up the good work! Cheers! :) EkoGraf (talk) 00:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure thing Eko. Sopher99 (talk) 00:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, according to the opposition, 150 of them WERE packed in one single location, the mosque. So if that was true both of those activists would have a minimum figure of 150, not something like 74 as that activist said. Our personal opinion if its a bad choice of words doesn't count, we maintain an NPOV and stick to what the sources say and this one specificly says they were backing away from the earlier reports. If new information comes to light that contradicts this we will change it. P.S. Added one more source about activists now saying that the toll was less than the reported 200 but higher than 100. EkoGraf (talk) 02:04, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Foreign jihadists

Sopher you totaly missed out on the discussion on the talk page. It was decided that Al-Qaeda and the other jihadist groups were not operating as part of the Syrian opposition and are fighting on their own. The FSA themselves have said they don't want to have anything to do with the foreigner mujahedeen. So it was decided to separate them as a separate entity in the conflict. Read the talk page. EkoGraf (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no need for the <break>. We have put the Foreign jihadists in bold as the overall Syrian opposition is in bold, two separate entities, two separate headings. Under the Syrian opposition heading are the FSA, SLA and SRF. Under the Foreign jihadists heading are Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah (FSA kicked out Fatah after that money and emirat incident). EkoGraf (talk) 23:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary if you just put it in bold without the break, it looks like the article is trying to emphasize foreign jihadists. ie " There is Free Syrian Army, Syrian Liberation Army, FOREIGN JIHADISTS, and Al nusra." Thats what it makes it look like without the break. I am just telling you what readers will think, not what wikipedia users already know. Sopher99 (talk) 23:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it does not emphasize that at all. Under the Syrian opposition bold heading are FSA, SLA and SRF. Under the Foreing jihadist bold heading are the Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah. Two SEPARATE bold headings. Nusra, Al-Qaeda and Fatah are not under the Opposition heading they are in the separate Foreign jihadist heading. EkoGraf (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said - it makes it look like it emphasizes it to the readers - people who don't know at first what it all means. I see no harm in putting one break if it helps the quality of the infobox. I am just telling you that I was confused at first, and I am sure many other readers will be confused. Sopher99 (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

How can it look like they are supporting the jihadists when it plainly says Military support for the opposition from? Just like we put on the opposite side Military support for the government from, due to them not sending support for the pro-Assad Kurds. And I don't see how it makes it look like when the jihadists are listed totally separately from the opposition. EkoGraf (talk) 23:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Taking a break its too hot. -.- EkoGraf (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

People don't read the entire sentence Eko - only like half do.

On another note, can we please put a break, I mean what harm would it do? It would help distinguish ( I could not distinguish it at first, and I don't think that I am the only one who will have that problem). Sopher99 (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

By that principle we would have to put a break in between the Syrian government and Hezbollah. The jihadists are not fighting under the banner of the opposition and are not directly alligned with them. However, they are coordinating their fighting with them to a certain degree so they are keeping in touch, though at a low level. Besides, you have the example of the infobox in the Iraq war article, where you have on the insurgent side listed Saddam Loyalists, Al-Qaeda, Mahdi army, etc. None of them were directly alligned and some even clashed amongst themselves, but we didn't separate them with a break. EkoGraf (talk) 23:46, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statement that the opposition is against them is not totally true. The way you said it sounds like they are in conflict with them, which is not the case, they just don't want to work with them, but are both against Assad. Case in point, Iraq war insurgents. Anyway, for now, I don't have a problem with your compromise solution. EkoGraf (talk) 01:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal of references

I noticed you removed some of the references saying that it "has already been determined ot be not reliable". With reference to your claim, please clarify:

• who determined it and when
• provide a supporting reference

Regards, C1010 (talk) 13:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It was always knoe that way. Russia today is State controlled. It is literally a propaganda network, deliberately anti-western, and follows the Syrian government's claim of "foreign conspiracy" and "only fighting drugged salifists".

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-550936

I replaced the references that use Russia today with Washington post ones which still backed up what was being said in the wiki article. Sopher99 (talk) 13:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:AVOID and Misplaced Pages is not censored for information on Misplaced Pages policies. I believe you are in violation of the above Misplaced Pages polices and thus I intend to revert your edit. Following your logic, references to BBC, for example, should be removed as well, as both BBC and RT are funded through their respective governments. Regards, C1010 (talk) 14:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No Russia today is not just funded by the state, but State controlled. It is unreliable, not independent. You are in violation of NPOV if you put RT back in. Sopher99 (talk) 14:48, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, specifically, how RT is not a reliable source as per WP:RS and why other state funded/controlled news agencies, for example, BBC (British Broadcasting Company) or VOA (Voice of America) should nevertheless be viewed as reliable sources as per WP:RS. Regards, C1010 (talk) 15:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One - I don't encourage VOA to be used, most people don't know its American government controlled, and so the lack of knowledge is why some wikipedians use it. If you see it being used as ref, I encourage you to replace it.

Two - BBC is state funded, but not State controlled. Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded. Russia Today is not an independent media, while BBC is.

Three - I have a total right to replace sources with more reliable ones. Sopher99 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you still failed to explain, specifically, how RT is not a reliable source as per WP:RS but VOA and BBC are. All of them are funded through their respective states and all of them are controlled through funding. Present proof, not just your biased opinion, if you want to argue otherwise. You are also mistaken if you think you have "total right" to censor Misplaced Pages articles by removing the sources you personally don't like. It is censorship and is in violation of Misplaced Pages is not censored and WP:NPOV. Regards, C1010 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

One - I don't encourage VOA to be used, most people don't know its American government controlled, and so the lack of knowledge is why some wikipedians use it. If you see it being used as ref, I encourage you to replace it.

Two - BBC is state funded, but not State controlled. - Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded. - Russia Today is not an independent media, while BBC is.

Three - I have a total right to replace sources with more reliable ones. Sopher99 (talk) 16:06, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-550936

http://www.cjr.org/feature/what_is_russia_today.php

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/wikileaks-founder-julian-assange-host-tv-talk-show/story?id=15438718#.UAQ8p45TM04

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47007046/ns/technology_and_science-security/t/anonymous-gets-facts-wrong-netflix-boycott/#.UAQ8zI5TM04 (see 8th paragraph)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/apr/17/world-tomorrow-julian-assange-wikileaks Here is a bit of evidence I was able to retrieve in under five minutes. Sopher99 (talk) 16:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, you just keep restating your opinions without citing any relevant clauses from WP:RS nor your own links. Hard to see what your links prove besides the pot calling the kettle black. I feel I have given enough effort to resolve the dispute and further discussion would be a waste of time. I will have to revert your edit for violation of WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and Misplaced Pages is not censored. Regards, C1010 (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Once again i'm not stating opinions, you are. I even gave you sources Sopher99 (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally have no opinion on RT wether it stays or not, but wouldn't have a problem if it stays. We just state in the article what source was used and let the reader form his own opinion on wether the statement is true or not based on RT's background. EkoGraf (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't get what the big deal is. Why can't we just replace the RT articles with the Washington post which say the same thing in this specific case? I already replaced the articles with the Washington post. Besides We don't need two references for these. Sopher99 (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Works for me ether way. :) EkoGraf (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The big deal is that you are censoring the sources based on your personal bias and in violation of Misplaced Pages polices. You are not even pretending to be consistent: you removed RT but left BBC and SANA links, though all of them are state-funded news agencies. By the way, I did not remove any sources, as I think the readers will benefit from having access to multiple viewpoints. C1010 (talk) 19:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Sopher, I have asked you many times before what it is that you base your claim on that "Russia Today is State Controlled, not just State funded", whilst you regard other equally state-funded media (such as Al Jazeera and the BBC) as "state funded, but not State controlled". I haven't yet seen you giving an answer to that simple question. In the discussion above, you merely re-state your position without providing any arguments for this claim. The articles you linked merely repeat the Western claim that it is "the Kremlin's propaganda outlet" without providing any evidence for this allegation. Simply maintaining an anti-American editorial tone doesn't proof that a news outlet is Kremlin-controlled; contrary to American belief, many people don't need payment or brainwashing to be anti-American. Please provide some real evidence for your claim. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Damascus bombing move proposal

Hi, could you voice your opinion on this matter Talk:18_July_2012_Damascus_suicide_bombing. I don´t want to get into another edit war with that "editor" and consensus about it should be easily made. EllsworthSK (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Civil war

Cool, we wait until an admin moves it. EkoGraf (talk) 00:38, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Mujahedeen

He clearly says a quarter of THE 300 rebel groups. That means all of them. And current estimates are that there are 40,000-60,000 rebels. A quarter from that would be 10,000-15,000. Farouq is has 10,000-15,000 because they are the biggest. EkoGraf (talk) 02:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

1. When children leave their homeland for good, they are enlisted in a metaphysical de-schooling program called “a new life”. The eerie change of lifestyle and culture take hold of them, and their identity will become confused. They will become stuck in a sort of limbo between the dream of a better life and the comforts of their genuine culture and people that they had for the most part left behind. For second generation Americans, this process is subtler. Second generation Americans are granted a perception of their homeland that is far different from heir parents. It is a view devoid of understanding about the true nature of their homeland, people and culture. What best emulates this diaspora in this imbalance between the second generation Americans and their homelands, are two short tales by author Amy tan. In those two short tales A Pair of Tickets and Two Kinds, a fine image emerges of the relation between mother, daughter, and their home country, China. The identity of the children clashes with that of their parents, and their individual degrees of diaspora profoundly influence their identity. Their identity is not only changed by their or their parent’s displacement, but further changes when the struggle of Chinese identity, long forgotten in their hearts, re-emerges. In some ways, the Chinese identity of protagonist Jing Mei of A Pair of Tickets and Two Kinds, becomes more potent through diaspora. As previously stated, the relation between the homeland and a second generational American or one who had moved too young to remember, is often a very distant one. In such cases, diaspora is often paired with ignorance, misunderstanding, misperceptions, and confusion. This is greatly apparent in such scenarios such as Jing Mei’s, who as an adult visited China for the first time to see her half sisters, and her Chinese identity was overtly weak. Her identity as a Chinese woman was so absent, that Jing Mei claimed she had no Chinese heritage within her. She was reluctant to go to China, and had become comfortable in America. Jing Mei felt that she had to become Chinese to enjoy a trip to China, and that it would be a radical change form the way she was then. Jing Mei has two train tickets, one for her father and one for herself. The train ride through China radically alters her identity, and even how that identity is placed. Jing-Mei’s father accompanies her on the train, and describes how Jing-Mei’s mother and himself moved to America to escape war. He also describes that before that happened, her mother, unable to take care of her two baby twins (Jing Mei’s half sisters) reluctantly left them by the roadside in hopes that someone who is able to take care of them will find them. For the rest of Suyuan’s (Jing Mei’s mother) life, her greatest wish is to re-unite with her two lost daughters. Suyuan coincidently dies one month before Jing Mei’s half sisters contact Jing Mei and her father through mail. Jing Mei learns that in reality, she and her father are on a journey to fulfill her mother’s dream. In fact Jing Mei discovers that name Suyuan mean “long cherished wish” in Chinese, which is exactly what they are completing through the train ride through China. This gives Jing Mei an epiphany that through her mother and her heritage, she was Chinese all along, and that it is not something that simply changes based on where one lives. Jing Mei’s diaspora which consisted primarily of doubt and skepticism of her Chinese heritage radically changed to self-identification as a Chinese woman through her mother’s diaspora – that of longing for China, for her family. Two kinds takes a different approach to diaspora versus self identity. The story focuses on Jing Mei and her mother, where her mother wishes for Jing Mei to pursue the American dream, or at least her version of it. Jing Mei’s mother pressures Jing Mei to become a pianist to compete with other family friends whose children are prodigies. Her mother, a Chinese immigrant, eagerly pursues the American dream, but her perception of it is deeply influenced by the American culture around her, such as the television. After much piano practice Jing Mei eventually enrolls in a talent show, but when he tries to demonstrate her piano abilities to the audience she makes many mistakes and hits many wrong notes. She expects that her failure at the talent show meant she did not have to try at the piano anymore, yet never the less her mother wants her to keep practicing. At that point Jing Mei staunchly refusing telling her mother that “You want me to something I’m not… Ill never be the kind of daughter you want me to be!”. Her mother responds by telling her that there are only two kinds of daughters: Obedient ones and ones that follow their own minds. The mother demands her daughter to be obedient. Jing mei then states how she wishes she was not her mother’s daughter, to which the responds that it is too late for that. Jing Mei then states how she wish she was dead – like her twin sisters rarely mentioned in the household. When states this her mother quickly backs off, concluding their struggle. The mother gives up pursing her daughter to follow her American dream of being a prodigy. It is my interpretation that the story was trying to evoke a different interpretation of the American dream. The mother had interpreted it as meaning one can try to achieve any talents or any profession one desires. The story however conveys that the “being anything you want” really means one is free from other people making their choices for them – a concept quite contrary to the parental system in China. The mother had identified her self as an American because her daughter had the ability to pursue any activity she wanted. But the daughter identified herself as an American because she had the freed of choice, and her choice alone. This diaspora, the different between her and her homeland ended up with a greater sense of what it means to be Chinese and what it means to be American, even though her Chinese heritage was not thoroughly explored in this short story. Online links to the short stories A Pair of Train Tickets: http://books.google.com/books?id=2mgnEzzaJrIC&pg=PA267&lpg=PA267&dq=%22a+pair+of+tickets%22+Amy+tan&source=bl&ots=CXLSkHvNNV&sig=0Dq7duyrjHGasINnyCPntO4Nrts&hl=en&ei=6914TojUE4bu0gGr6OySDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CFAQ6AEwCDgK#v=onepage&q&f=false Two kinds:
2. Shadid, Anthony (26 April 2011). "International Outcry Grows Over Syria Crackdown". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 May 2011.
3. Ghadry, Farid N. (Winter 2005). "Syrian Reform: What Lies Beneath". Middle East Quarterly.
4. Bröning, Michael (7 March 2011). "The Sturdy House That Assad Built". Foreign Affairs.
5. Landler, Mark (26 March 2011). "Chaos in Syria and Jordan Alarms U.S." The New York Times.
6. "Hama". Global Security. Retrieved 14 November 2009.
7. http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/01/11/syria-army-shoots-protesters-attempting-reach-observers
8. http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/08/29/164615.html,
9. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-syria-idUSTRE8041A820120111
10. http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/15969618
11. http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/syrian-soldier-ordered-fire-peaceful-protesters-2011-06-09
12. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12800243
13. Cite error: The named reference autogenerated8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
14. Cite error: The named reference voa15dead was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
15. Cite error: The named reference bloodbath was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
16. "UN says 307 children killed during Syrian crackdown". CBC News. The Associated Press. 2 December 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
17. Fahim, Kareem (5 January 2012). "Hundreds Tortured in Syria, Human Rights Group Says". The New York Times.
18. http://www.kurdwatch.org/
19. http://kurdishrights.org/2012/03/16/kurds-continue-to-protest-in-syria-footage/
20. http://ekurd.net/mismas/articles/misc2012/3/syriakurd447.htm
21. http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-39557-Syrian-police-open-fire-on-Kurdish-rally
22. "Syrian army tanks 'moving towards Hama'". BBC News. 5 May 2011. Retrieved 20 January 2012.
23. "'Dozens killed' in Syrian border town". Al Jazeera. 17 May 2011. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
24. "'Defected Syria security agent' speaks out". Al Jazeera. 8 June 2011. Retrieved 21 June 2011.
25. "Syrian army starts crackdown in northern town". Al Jazeera. Retrieved 12 June 2011.
26. Sengupta, Kim (20 February 2012). "Syria's sectarian war goes international as foreign fighters and arms pour into country". The Independent. Antakya. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
27. Cite error: The named reference timesofmalta was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
28. "Arab League delegates head to Syria over 'bloodbath'". Usatoday.com. 2011-12-22. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
29. "Number as a civil / military". Translate.googleusercontent.com. Retrieved 6 February 2012.
30. Cite error: The named reference syriangovernment2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
31. Location Settings (2012-03-12). "Syria: Refugees brace for more bloodshed". News24. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
32. "Syrian Refugees May Be Wearing Out Turks' Welcome". NPR. 2012-03-11. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
33. "BBC News - Syria crisis: Turkey refugee surge amid escalation fear". Bbc.co.uk. 2012-04-06. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
34. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria unrest". Google News. Geneva. Agence France-Presse. 7 February 2012. Retrieved 22 February 2012.
35. http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2012/03/23/UNICEF-500-children-died-in-Syrian-war/UPI-69191332522535/
36. "UNICEF says 400 children killed in Syria". The Courier-Mail. 8 February 2012. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
37. Peralta, Eyder (3 February 2012). "Rights Group Says Syrian Security Forces Detained, Tortured Children: The Two-Way". NPR. Retrieved 16 February 2012.
38. "Syrian Arab news agency - SANA - Syria : Syria news". Sana.sy. 2012-02-14. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
39. Fahim, Kareem (5 January 2012). "Hundreds Tortured in Syria, Human Rights Group Says". The New York Times.
40. "Syria: Local Residents Used as Human Shields". Huffingtonpost.com. Retrieved 2012-04-10.
41. "Syria: Armed Opposition Groups Committing Abuses". Human Rights Watch. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
42. "Open Letter to the Leaders of the Syrian Opposition Regarding Human Rights Abuses by Armed Opposition Members". Human Rights Watch. 20 March 2012. Retrieved 20 March 2012.
43. "Syria crisis: Qatar calls for Arabs to send in troops". BBC News. 14 January 2012.
44. "NATO rules out Syria intervention". Al Jazeera. 1 November 2011. Retrieved 12 November 2011.
45. MacFarquhar, Neil (12 Novermber 2011). "Arab League Votes to Suspend Syria". The New York Times. Retrieved 12 November 2011. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)