Ian Adams
Ian Adams, you are invited to the Teahouse! edit
|
Hi Ian Adams! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 22:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC) |
Did you see 1RR restriction for the page [1]? You just violated it because that was revert, and two your last edits [2] were also reverts. Please self-revert. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 01:57, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- I have undone one. Removal of the Headquarters information I consider blatant vandalism. Ian Adams (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Source tells this is not headquarters. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Source tells it is a "Coordination office". I suggest you study the English dictionary better if you do not understand this means the exact same thing as headquarters - as in "the main offices of an organization such as the army, the police, or a business company:" [3] or "a center of operations, as of the police or a business, from which orders are issued; the chief administrative office of an organization" [4]. Now I suggest you restore the text as your naivety should no longer be an excuse for vandalism. Ian Adams (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is your personal interpretation known as WP:SYN. None of these sources tells "headquarters". To the contrary, they tell about a temporary office, which is something very different. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I challenge you to quote any section of the sources, or indeed find any source that suggests their Gaziantep headquarters is temporary. You just made that up! Calling a coordination office a headquarters is in no way synthesis of anything. It is the same as calling a spade a shovel because they are the same thing. Ian Adams (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- You know that "headquarters" and and "office" are different. An organization usually has only one headquarters, but can have several offices in different places. That would not really matter, but there were sources (even though they are not RS) claiming that "headquarters" were in a very different place. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- You should know that "coordination office" is a perfectly acceptable synonym for "main office" (Cambridge Dictionary) or "administrative office" (dictionary.com). The TIME source, which was my primary (and a very good, informative source I suggest we use) says "coordination office", not just "office". Gaziantep is where they train the White Helmets. This source describes the training center they have set up there. I hope it will help sway your mind. [5] I would be interested in your sources, even non-RS, claiming a headquarters elsewhere as I have not seen any. I have seen several detailing how the White Helmets share the Gaziantep offices with Turkish Intelligence, they are that hand in glove. Shame those sources are all non-RS too. Ian Adams (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- So, which sources tell they share offices with Turkish intelligence? I did not see it in the source you provided. It tells that "Syrian and Russian air strikes destroyed three of the group’s four centres in eastern Aleppo in a single day". So they apparently had offices/centers/whatever in Aleppo. My very best wishes (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- Agreed they have regional offices in rebel controlled areas of Syria but the main base of operations where they are recruited, trained, administrated and coordinated from is this nerve center, command post, central station, spawning point or whatever you want to call it in Gaziantep. That's where they funnel all the reporters for interviews. I am really surprised it is not so obvious. Here is Veterans Today source for Turkish Intelligence sharing, I don't suppose that is very reliable though? [6]. 21st Century Wire has a video in this source showing their offices in Aleppo, right next to the headquarters of Al Nusra near the M10 hospital. [7] Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that's not RS either. Ian Adams (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
- You know that "headquarters" and and "office" are different. An organization usually has only one headquarters, but can have several offices in different places. That would not really matter, but there were sources (even though they are not RS) claiming that "headquarters" were in a very different place. My very best wishes (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- I challenge you to quote any section of the sources, or indeed find any source that suggests their Gaziantep headquarters is temporary. You just made that up! Calling a coordination office a headquarters is in no way synthesis of anything. It is the same as calling a spade a shovel because they are the same thing. Ian Adams (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- This is your personal interpretation known as WP:SYN. None of these sources tells "headquarters". To the contrary, they tell about a temporary office, which is something very different. My very best wishes (talk) 02:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
- Source tells it is a "Coordination office". I suggest you study the English dictionary better if you do not understand this means the exact same thing as headquarters - as in "the main offices of an organization such as the army, the police, or a business company:" [3] or "a center of operations, as of the police or a business, from which orders are issued; the chief administrative office of an organization" [4]. Now I suggest you restore the text as your naivety should no longer be an excuse for vandalism. Ian Adams (talk) 20:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- Source tells this is not headquarters. My very best wishes (talk) 12:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
General sanctions notice edit
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
- That edit. I think you are really biased about it, would not you agree? My very best wishes (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, i think you are extremely biased to remove it, and the video of their involvement in the execution. I think that is shameful. Ian Adams (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was not me who removed it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Don't worry and no offense intended personally. I was using a plural "you" in a ranting rather than accusatory tone. I should be more patient. Ian Adams (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- No offense. But I must tell that your editing, interests and comments remind me RaRaRasputin (talk · contribs) and Dorpater (talk · contribs). You are not one of them by any chance? My very best wishes (talk) 19:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
- Don't worry and no offense intended personally. I was using a plural "you" in a ranting rather than accusatory tone. I should be more patient. Ian Adams (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- It was not me who removed it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- No, i think you are extremely biased to remove it, and the video of their involvement in the execution. I think that is shameful. Ian Adams (talk) 17:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Ways to improve Powertrans edit
Hi, I'm Mduvekot. Ian Adams, thanks for creating Powertrans!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. This article needs more references to sources that provide substantial coverage from independent, reliable sources. The claim that Berat Albayrak is connected needs much more supporting evidence, and need to be attributed to Wikileaks, not stated as fact.
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.