User talk:Alan Genco

Fleet size

Check the source that was posted here, it says that Zagrosjet have 2 Airplanes. I contacted Zagrosjet and they confirmed it.

http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/airline/ZAJ

I corrected the article.

Shia millitia in Taza Khurmato.

Buddy you need to stop changing without source. Rudaw is a kurdish source and cannot be used to verify pro-kurdish edits. We have independent sources verifying that there are shia millita in Taza Khurmato. I told you to discuss this on talk page. There are shiite millitia in Taza Khurmatu whether we like it or not. Please undo your last edit and read this UK source that says there are shiite millitia in Taza. Even kurdish sources have confirmed it. Mozad655 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing it back. Your rudaw source is useless for two reasons. 1) It is kurdish and kurdish sources cannot be used for pro-kurdish edits. And 2) It is heavily outnumbered by independent sources that say otherwise. Mozad655 (talk) 14:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit war

"Since when are iraqi troops in Daquq? Please no spamming, Daquq is fully under Kurdish Peshmerga control." Since the sources provided reported so. It is well known by now that there are shia millitia in the areas surrounding Kirkuk, just like there are shia millitia in Jalawla. The governer of Kirkuk, Najmadi Karim, invited shia millitias in and whether you personally like it or not it is the facts. Again copy and paste the links to the articles that were provided in the original edits. We are talking about independent media going there themselves and veryfying that there are indeed shia millitia in those places. It doesn't matter what kurdish officials say when the independent media is showing something completely different. We go with the independent media. Daquq is one of those towns. You need to stop spamming, Daquq is NOT fully under kurdish peshmerga control. You gain nothing from lying to yourself. The situation on the ground is not changed by this map. Now stop it please. Mozad655 (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

SCW&ISIL notification

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

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

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

An future breach of the 1RR rule (as happened with Module:Iraqi insurgency detailed map) will result in a block. -- Mozad655 (talk) 18:28, 25 February 2015 (UTC)