File talk:Yemeni Civil War.svg

STC

@NuclearWizard and Ermanarich: Chilicheese22 continue to remove STC/Saleh without consensus. Enough is enough, I am opposed to the changes. --Panam2014 (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I don't agree, I think that it should be removed you have not given any evidence, nor any sources. You can not have it both ways, by reverting and then calling for a discussion, as this must be done before anything hasty measures are taken. 128.175.87.38 15:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard, Ermanarich, Chilicheese22, and Panam2014: Why should or shouldn't STC/Saleh be removed? Would splitting this file (one with STC/Saleh, one without) help? Would changing the description, title, etc. or multiple of the above help?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The reason that these two belligerents, should be removed is because saleh forces have either been captured, by houthis or have defected to the Hadi Government. I have also provided a source on the matter [1]) which proves the houthis are in full control of the Bayda district. There only excuse is some outdated article that was even before the Ali Abdullah Saleh's death whereas mines was just recently published. Also the Southern Transitional Council should be removed because they don't have any sources, and there edit summaries suggest that the only reason they placed it, is because there were clashes, which I said in response to such reasoning then AQAP must also be placed because there has been clashes in Aden and other Southern Governorates. [2] They denied and said because for some reason the southern transitional council blocked and didn't allow anniversary or party to happen then that gives them the all the proof they need to show they have control in such areas [3]. The utter blasphemy. 128.175.87.38 19:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Terrorist cells are not terrorist controls. To make an attack is not a clash in itself. No source says they control a territory, but the STC controls--Panam2014 (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I'd say that the most compelling argument against removing them is that it would remove parity with its basis, Civil War detailed map, which in turn is also based on reliable sources. Despite the fact that the two are no longer independently listed in the infobox, the current map is dependent on uncited assumptions. NuclearWizard (talk) 19:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• * No, that wouldn't work because we would still have the same problem, just in a different form, we would then argue which one to use in the Yemeni Civil War article, so splitting them is not an option. 128.175.87.38 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I agree with NuclearWizard we have reliable sources for STC and Saleh. --Panam2014 (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Where does NuclearWizard say, anywhere in his response that you guys have reliable sources, can you please speak for yourself. 128.175.87.38 19:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The most Neutral perspective is this, if you consider the “STC” a political party then it controls absolutely nothing. If you still consider the “STC” a political party, but the Southern Movement is its military wing then you are purely speculating, because you’re grouping all members of the Southern Movement (including ones that belong to the hadi government) and saying they are partners or have some alliance. Therefore, the “STC” cannot logically be a belligerent. Furthermore, I ask that Panam’s reverting privileges, be removed because this user has given map makers a hard time, just because his “POV” or his “perspective” is not included, if you don’t believe me you can easily go and look at his TP here in wiki commons. [4] Chilicheese22 (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: he continue to edit the file without consensus. Also per Ermaniach confession, CC22's maps are very bad. Also, we have sources that STC is a faction. The neutral version is Ermaiarch's version. --Panam2014 (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ermanarich: --Panam2014 (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014 and Jeff G.: Can you for the love of god, speak for yourself?!? Ermanarich has not said anything about his maps. Anyways you are also reverting, and called his work vandalism. How about you leave how it is and ask for the admins to decide, your acting like a man that had his ego hurt. 128.175.87.38 21:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@NuclearWizard and Jeff G.: I'll update the map in a few hours, but I need SVG version for that from Ermanarich. Also, I think 128.175.87.38 could be the iP of Chilicheese22. Very strange how the IP could find the way to this discussion. Non-consensual changes to CC22 must stop. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Also since you like to talk about what other users are saying, you remember what Ermanarich said to you he said stop reverting his maps (which you are doing the samething with him), and you wouldn't let him update the map until your point of view was placed in the map. Wow!! How history tends to repeat itself. [5] 128.175.87.38 21:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I am doing none of those those things. Ermanarich has not edited in two weeks. Please talk to each other. Is there any point in breaking this file out chronologically?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: The problem is that there is a risk that CC22 also posts by iP here and on en.wiki. How to know the truth? Also, the module on en.wiki, displays the yellow, and the file is based on it. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing to see, for CC22 too, he has a heavy liability. With Killuminati, the conflict was on the module, not here. You have been blocked on en.wiki. Finally, it does not justify that CC22 modifies the file without consensus, especially since it is inspired by the file. Finally, you are ridiculous, you come out of nowhere, you find all these links. You will be soon unmasked. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Wow! You're really dense. I don't think you're comprehending whats the problem. It doesn't take Einstein to find the debate, I simply clicked on contributions next to one of your names and then... POOF!! Here I am. I know cool huh. 128.175.87.38 21:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, to click on the link, you must know in advance that there was conflict.--Panam2014 (talk) 21:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: This user instead of providing evidence for his edits, wants to divert your attention, because he can't prove any of these belligerents. 128.175.87.38 21:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I have already provided the proofs. The file is based on the module and the module is sourced. For the rest, I think it's time to investigate the identity of the iP, especially since CC22 has already been caught using IP address in June. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Actually Proof is bringing sources, not claiming the module is your evidence. Especially, since you say absurd statements like the southern transition council block hadi government from there anniversary, therefore the most be in control of aden. 128.175.87.38 21:41, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, you can't have a debate with someone, and even if you do, and you know you don't have an argument you just go and try to get them sanctioned. 128.175.87.38 21:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I will no longer answer your nonsense. The map image is based on Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map. "" For the module, everything is sourced and all that is not sourced is canceled. For the rest, you have been blocked for your non-consensual changes. You are very badly placed. --Panam2014 (talk) 21:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

BAHAHA!!! Thank you for proving my point, that you clearly don't have an argument and your just looking for sanctions to get opposition user's blocked. Tell me do you act like this, because you have low self esteem, or because you know you will lose this debate. 128.175.87.38 21:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You are ridiculous. In all cases, the file must take what is contained in the module. Also, on the module, I have already given all sources on all belligerents. By cons, by no means. And I rest the question on the fact that you can be a "socketpuppet".

The discussion must continues there but you are the only one to defend this point of view. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, you have yet to bring forth a single source. Let's not forget that it was your idea to have this discussion here. An you can not reference the module as evidence since you were the one to make those edits. I will not address you rhetoric, or your bickering with the IP User since clearly you're diverting the attention from the main discussion. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: stop now with your disruptive editing. "The map image is based on Template:Yemeni Civil War detailed map." Go in talk page in the module. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: You literally pinged everyone and told them to have the discussion here, if you want us to have this discussion over at the module so bad, move it just like when I moved the original discussion from my TP to the article's TP. An as far as I am concerned this is derived from the module as the latest one. Not my problem that you don't like it. [6] Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: No, the last module displays the STC. Also, it is possible that 128.175.87.38 is your own ip. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I don't care about the last module, I made this in December 18th. You clearly see the date. You've also opened, an investigation, and they concluded you didn't any basis for such an accusation if you don't stop claiming such fact I will be forced to seek sanctions against you. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:53, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22:

No, the file must be done according to the current module. Modifying the module is not consensual. I will continue to cancel your passages in force.--Panam2014 (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

An I will be forced to seek sanctions against you, since you just admitted that you are pushing you "POV" by force. Chilicheese22 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

For the investigation, I'm sure of nothing, but the accusation remains possible given the IP addresses have not been compared. I am doing an investigation on the communes. But I'm not saying that you are the same person for sure. I will ask for sanction if you continue to edit the file.Stop lying, I did not admit anything. Stop manipulating my words. --Panam2014 (talk) 22:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Go head I wish you the best of luck as far as I am concerned, you have brought zero evidence. Not a single source. You can't claim the module is your evidence when you were the one editing it. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: No, I did not edit it, I canceled (and we were several to do it) unsourced changes. That's enough, too much is enough.--Panam2014 (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Why do you like using other editors as your scapegoat. You clearly edit warred with the IP user and although he/she didn't through proper procedure, he/she provided sources and evidence, whereas you have provided zero in this discussion. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

No, he did not provide anything at all. It is up to the person who wants to modify the module to bring sources and to have a consensus, not the opposite. Your proposal contradicts the rules and even the logic. Finally, they all had reason to add the STC. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: I will kindly ask that you stop speaking for everyone. He did bring sources. Would you like me to re-add them? Furthermore, you just contradicted yourself, what did you do when you tried to add the "STC" you didn't seek any consensus. Also show me your sources. The admin clearly asked for both sides of the story. Chilicheese22 ( talk) 23:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Stop taking me for a fool, I have no time to lose with you, especially considering your liabilities. For the rest, after several months, nobody has contested the addition of the STC. And its sources did not prove that the STC does not exist. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Actually, I don't really understand why your being deceptive, first you state that he didn't bring any sources, now your acknowledging his sources, but discredit them. You also continue to double down on this notion of attacking and diverting, so I will ask again where are you sources, the admin clearly asked for both sides of the story. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: Stop lying. I did not say that. All credits for the STC were added to the module as STC advanced in the battlefront. You are not there to seek a compromise but to impose your opinion. I have no time to lose with you. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: You said and I quote "No, he did not provide anything at all." Again, where are your sources there are two sides to each story, only one side has provided sources. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping your re nauseam and playing the scratched disc game. You do not understand anything. He did not provide sources on the STC, he removed them without source. For the rest, everything about the STC has been sourced on the module for months. Stop taking me for an idiot. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Actually, you've been lying this whole time there was no consensus reached, and you never went to the module's talk page before adding the "STC". [7] Also another lie is that the "STC" was added in the beginning of November and no real sources to explain such change. You have some explaining to do.Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You have been lying for a long time, and you are in conflict with several contributors with your crusade against the STC. You cracked some people by blame, and they were blocked, while others were released and gave up.When I added the progress of the STC, no one challenged. The rules of WP are clear: to change something, you need a consensus but in cases where no one reverts a first time, there is no reason to ask the question for anything and everything. And when a change has occurred for months, if someone disputes it, he has to start a discussion to change it. The addition of the STC dates from October. --Panam2014 (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

@Panam2014: Again, you continue to lie you made it out to seem like it had been out for months this belligerent and that you had added numerous sources, when in reality you have zero evidence to justify such claim. I mean this is really getting embarrassing for someone. Chilicheese22 (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

You lie again. Stop now. You are a sucker and you are ridiculous. --Panam2014 (talk) 00:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

@Chilicheese22: , @Panam2014: I don't want to warm this up again, but I've got a few words to say about this.

I think we should let it how it is until we get new and exact informations about control from there. Golden rule is still: What's not in the Template doesn't come onto the map. Period. This is not to be discussed.

And one thing to you, chilicheese22: Copying a PNG edit into SVG and uploading it is not how it works. It curbs down the quality and makes the next edit even more complicated. If you want to edit the maps, learn how to use inkscape to edit SVG files. I have written a tutorial about that, you're free to read it.

That's it for now, just one thing to say: Calm down a bit and act like adults. The maps are trying to show reality on the ground. Your opinion about it doesn't change that, only sources do. And the maps don't have influence on the fight on the ground.--Ermanarich (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Legend update

Hi, somebody should update the italian version of the legend because it lacks some colours that are included in the map, like yellow. --Baronedimare (talk) 09:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

File:Yemeni Civil War1.png

File:Yemeni Civil War1.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

  — Jeff G. ツ 16:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Colors

The following colors in the legend and on the map look very similar to each other (like bright white):

 

Controlled by Southern Transitional Council

 

Controlled by forces loyal to Ali Abdullah Saleh

Can they be made more different, please?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:19, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Update

The map has not been updated since september, could somebody please update the map? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 00:10, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

It is now february 2019 and last update was 25th september 2018, we really need an update! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Nicolay Sidorov, Ermanarich, Panam2014, Anasaitis, Serafart as the last five unique uploaders.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Done.--Ermanarich (talk) 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Why do you remove North/South Yemen border? This border was rather faded did not prevent viewing in any way. Hypocritical politicians claim that in Yemen there is a civil war. But all of us know that there is a war between two nations: northern Shiite Yemenites and southern Sunni Yemenites. These two nations were force-united in the uniform state. Actually, Northern Yemen annexed the Southern Yemen 30 years ago. Any uniform nation of Yemenites never existed and will not exist. Also this war as it was earlier will end with the return division into two states. No other decision can just be, also as it was in Sudan 15 years ago. War would end for a long time, and two states would appear on the political map again if not aggression of Saudi Arabia. Therefore the border between the North and the South is very relevant. I think that other participants of Wikipedia have to speak on this subject and solve whether such border on the map is necessary or not --Nicolay Sidorov (talk) 12:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @Ermanarich.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:16, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

First, because nothing that isn't visible at the template gets on the map. Second, there is no internationally recognized entity that reclaims these border. And third, because it had no explanation and the same colour as the areas under AQAP control, which may be confusing for some viewers. Apart from that I'd support a division if it ends conflicts, but that's not what this about.--Ermanarich (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

It is now 25th of June and last update apart from optimization was 13th of February, we might need another update! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Please upadte the map we are in October 2019 --Mr. Ibrahem (talk) 13

25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Another update

Last real update was in september last year, even though the article for the war states october. For the last 3-4 months I have read a lot about new activities and Ansarullah/SPC offensives in and around Hodeidah and Ma'rib, and just now I have read about a planned/ongoing Ansarullah/SPC offensive towards a border-crossing in Hadhramut! With all of this in mind, I believe it is time for the first map update of 2021! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ermanarich again.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Alright, I'll get to it this week.--Ermanarich (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

New update

Since its been over 5 months since the last update, would it be possible to get a september/october update? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 13:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

November update then? Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Ermanarich yet again for Vif12vf.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 05:50, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll get to it in the next days--Ermanarich (talk) 21:01, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Done--Ermanarich (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ermanarich: Thanks! Pinging @Vif12vf as OP.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 21:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Splendid! Vif12vf/Tiberius (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Update?

So, is this ever going to be updated again, or are we just decided that the map will reflect November 2021 until whenever the war ends. 216.165.95.134 19:09, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Map Update

there are regions of the map that are under the control of the hadrami elite forces placed under the control of the STC for no reason. The person who updated the map said that because the hadhrami elite forces are supported by the UAE then it belongs to the STC which doesn't really make any sense because:

1- The hadhrami forces are also supported by Saudi Arabia, and Saudi doesn't want STC/UAE influence in the area

2- The Hadhrami Elite Forces control the entire 2nd military area which controls the lower half of the Hadhramout Government and the entire Al Mahra Governorate but for some reason the STC only barely controls any of that area (weren't they allies)

3- The Hadhrami Elite Forces claim that they fight for the Yemeni government and has clearly shown that especially during "Battle of Mukalla (2016)"[8] and the President's latest visit to the Hadhramaut governorate which according to the map is "STC controlled lands"

Hopefully this gets fixed @Borysk5 @Ermanarich @Panam2014 -Abo Yemen (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: if you have color for STC, we should have for Hadhrami Council too. Panam2014 (talk) 11:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Hadhrami Council is part of the Alimi gov. (colored red) Abo Yemen (talk) 11:34, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

@Abo Yemen: same for STC. Panam2014 (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

If you are recommending the STC to be colored red then i am in support of this (sorry for the late reply) Abo Yemen (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)