DYK nomination of Save Uganda MovementEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Save Uganda Movement at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Save Uganda MovementEdit

 On 12 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Save Uganda Movement, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Save Uganda Movement grew from a few hundred members to around 17,000 in a matter of months? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Save Uganda Movement. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Save Uganda Movement), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ma XiangEdit

 On 18 January 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ma Xiang, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Chinese bandit Ma Xiang raised a thousands-strong rebel army in just one or two days, conquered three commanderies, and declared himself emperor, only to be killed by a much weaker opponent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ma Xiang. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ma Xiang), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for War in Uganda (1986–1994)Edit

 On 19 February 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article War in Uganda (1986–1994), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the war in Uganda (1986–1994) involved rebel armies led by a prophetess, her father, spirits, "Hitler", ex-ministers, and Joseph Kony? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/War in Uganda (1986–1994). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, War in Uganda (1986–1994)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Incredible research and referencing - thank you No Swan So Fine (talk) 09:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@No Swan So Fine: Thank you for the kind words! Applodion (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, let me add to that. Great coverage of this subject, very informative & useful for me. Good work! 86.83.56.115 (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
  Hook update
Your hook reached 11,931 views (497.1 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

CongratulationsEdit

Your DYK hook about the War in Uganda (1986–1994) drew 11,931 page views (497 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks so far during the month of February and has earned a place on the Best of February list. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 20:04, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you please check Talk:Turkish occupation of northern SyriaEdit

Hello I am sorry to bother you but I have put a "Talk" on here about the use of wording in the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Turkish_occupation_of_northern_Syria since a user named Des Vallee has constantly reverted it back and blamed me for 'personal bias' in one of the edits, while his ideology is clearly in line with those of NES and other similar groups. I have done my part to contribute successfully without causing much issue, but I have waited for several weeks and no answer. Could you please check it, since I can see that you are a well respected figure in here and a lot less bias. I am sorry to write this here, but this is only option I have since I have not got any single reply to the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hsng7ba (talkcontribs) 21:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

ITN for Battle of PalmaEdit

 On 29 March 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Battle of Palma, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Dumelow (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

File:ISIL fighters in Palma.png listed for discussionEdit

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ISIL fighters in Palma.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Melmann 21:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ISIL fighters in Palma.pngEdit

 

Thanks for uploading File:ISIL fighters in Palma.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 1972 invasion of UgandaEdit

  Hello! Your submission of 1972 invasion of Uganda at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Just a minor point with regard to the phrasing of the hook. Anaxial (talk) 12:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Confusion on Idi AminEdit

I noticed you went and reverted my edit on Idi Amin because nicknames are never bolded. That doesn't quite make sense, because on Kalākaua, his nickname is "The Merrie Monarch", and yes it is bolded. I'm not sure if there are specific exceptions are made for certain people or what, but it left me scratching my head. Some clarity would be much appreciated; thanks!   LittleMissDexterous (talk) | Sent from Mail for Windows 10 | 23:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1972 invasion of UgandaEdit

 On 11 May 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1972 invasion of Uganda, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 1972 invasion of Uganda was described by a historian as "one of those rare events in military history. A perfect failure."? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1972 invasion of Uganda. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1972 invasion of Uganda), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

  Hook update
Your hook reached 13,601 views (1,133.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 01:04, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Boko Haram mapEdit

Now that's what I call modern art. Haha Borysk5 (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Oh well, I do not specialize in map creation, so no wonder it looks clunky. I just felt that a more up-to-date map was needed. ^^ Applodion (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Applodion: I made this map more similar to map from cited article. Borysk5 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Borysk5: Thank you very much. That one looks much better ;-D Applodion (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Identifying Burundian notables in videoEdit

Some months ago you extracted an image of President Melchior Ndadaye of Burundi from this video. Do you know if any of the others shown in it can be identified? -Indy beetle (talk) 04:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I think the woman behind him, exiting the plane, is his wife Laurence Ndadaye (she can also be seen at 0:23 in the yellow clothing). For once, she does not look like Sylvie Kinigi (her face structure is quite different) who might also have travelled with him. Secondly, the woman from the plane generally looks very much like Laurence, as seen here, though that is only a side view.
The soldier with the green cap at the plane and later in the crowd might or might not be Jean Bikomagu (the figure looks somewhat like Bikomagu, seen here, in regards to facial structure and mustache.) However, I am not sure.
The man in the gray suit at 0:20 might be Cyprien Ntaryamira. Ntaryamira seems also to be the man standing left of Ndadaye at 0:38.
The woman in the pink suit at 0:22 looks somewhat like the younger Sylvie Kinigi, as shown here.
About the others I have no idea. Of course, the big problem is the lack of photos to compare them to. Applodion (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Ok my thoughts on Kinigi and Laurence were the same. Your sight on Ntaryamira is very perceptive, perhaps Sylvestre Ntibantunganya is the one in the hat standing further to the left (hard to tell but he often wears glasses, and all three men were top FRODEBU leaders and it was obviously a FRODEBU rally based off the colors they were wearing). Bikomagu seems harder to discern, because the man in the video looks younger than that photo. If only I had familiarity with Burundian army uniforms! -Indy beetle (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

A draft you may be interested inEdit

I would be most appreciative if you had any input on User:Indy beetle/Bugesera invasion. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I will definitely look into it; perhaps some of my books will yield some small extras. Today I am kinda busy, however, so I will only get to it tomorrow. Applodion (talk) 08:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Different hookEdit

For Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021), can you add some alternate hooks? The quotation is problematic for DYK. And that article has a lot of interesting (and horrific) info in it. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: No problem! Applodion (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2021. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

DYK nomination of Sanin HusainEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Sanin Husain at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sanin HusainEdit

 On 12 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sanin Husain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the head of military leader and "holy man" Sanin Husain was used to decorate a market? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sanin Husain. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sanin Husain), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021)Edit

 On 15 July 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that many Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant fighters were able to reunite with their kidnapped families after the 2021 Battle of Sambisa Forest? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Sambisa Forest (2021)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

ISWAPEdit

I would love to see a basic article on this group. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@Aussie Article Writer: Yes, it is really neccessary to finally create one. I am quite busy currently and will stay so until 21.07., but I will try to set one up afterwards. Applodion (talk) 14:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, no rush, just expressing my interest in the article. Sounds like it is a very complicated group. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@Aussie Article Writer: It is indeed. The oddest thing about it, IMO, is the fact that it is an ISIL faction (a group notorious for tolerating little internal criticism), yet has been described as "democratic" in some of its elements by researchers. As far as I can say, that's no misguided use of the term either; ISWAP's repeated internal disputes and constant leadership changes - most of them guided by rules, and only occasional cases of outright coups - do actually resemble some primitive form of people's participation. Of course, that only makes it more difficult to actually understand what is going on within the group. Every time an ISWAP leader disappears, journalists and researchers dispute whether he was killed in combat, demoted, sent abroad, murdered, imprisoned or executed. Applodion (talk) 14:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Fascinating! Sounds like there is a fair amount of material for the article… - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Strizek for Louis RwagasoreEdit

Hey Applodion. If it isn't too much trouble, would you mind leafing through Helmut Strizek's Ruanda und Burundi (should you still have access to it) to see if he has anything substantive to add about Louis Rwagasore? I would be most appreciative; detailed sources about what was going on in Burundi in the early 1960s aren't very forthcoming. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Sure, I will try ;-D Applodion (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 Taliban offensiveEdit

Not sure what you were trying to do here[1] but you've removed the updated casualty numbers. Viewsridge (talk) 19:14, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: Some references were also broken, the flagcruft had to be removed, and the Haqqani network is not a unit. There was so much wrong with the infobox that I just took an axe. If I removed an update to the casualties that was not my intention. Applodion (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok I see, have a nice evening. Viewsridge (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: Seems like your conflict with the anon was the result of a misunderstanding. I have adjusted the "Territorial changes" to reflect both the number of captured districts, as well as the overall number of Taliban-held districts. What do you think? Applodion (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's necessary to display the total Taliban controlled districts in the territorial change section. Viewsridge (talk) 19:38, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
There seems to be a flag-soup in the reactions section, perhaps those should be taken out too? Viewsridge (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: I am not sure about the flags in the reactions section. Personally, I think they should be removed, but flags there seem to be generally accepted on wikipedia (in contrast, policy states that flags in infoboxes should be used sparingly). In regards to the territories, it allows readers to better gauge the overall success of the offensive, so to compare it with the situation before the operation. Applodion (talk) 20:17, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
If both of us think they should be removed and there is no policy regarding it I'd say take them out. There are probably others who want them gone too. There's simply way too many of them right now to add any meaning to the article. Overall success of the offensive makes sense now to think about it. Viewsridge (talk) 20:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
@Viewsridge: True. Applodion (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Panjshir conflictEdit

Hi Applodion, I noticed that you removed the maintenance tag under the map while editing the article, could you re add it, I'm not extended confirmed yet. I'd also like to get your opinion on that discussion. Viewsridge (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Viewsridge: Ups, that was not my intention. Will re-add it. Applodion (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 July 2021Edit

DYK nomination of 1991 Zaire unrestEdit

  Hello! Your submission of 1991 Zaire unrest at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 20:32, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for 1991 Zaire unrestEdit

 On 18 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 1991 Zaire unrest, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 1991 Zaire unrest, 30 to 40% of all companies in Zaire were plundered, and around 70% of the country's retail businesses were destroyed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/1991 Zaire unrest. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 1991 Zaire unrest), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 00:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Golweyn AmbushEdit

Hi Applodion, You suggested I write a new article on the second Golweyn ambush in Somalia. That's fine, if you could could rename the current article into "2017 Golweyn Ambush" (I don't know how to do that). Then I will call mine the "2021 Golweyn Ambush". OK? Loranchet (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

@Loranchet: No problem. Please create the 2021 article first, then I am allowed to move the 2017 one (per Wikipedia rules, qualifiers like "2017" are only allowed when multiple articles of similarly named events exist). In regards to moving, that is not difficult: When you see an article, you should see a section called "more" to the right, close to the "edit" button. Click on it, and a "move" option should appear on all articles which are not move-protected. Applodion (talk) 13:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, will do, but may take 24 hrs, am very busy (unforeseen). Will alert you when ready. Loranchet (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
@Loranchet: No hurry. Ping me whenever you are done. Applodion (talk) 19:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Done, see 2021 Golweyn Ambush. Loranchet (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Loranchet: Thank you. I have moved the article. Applodion (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

New articleEdit

Hello Applodion, thanks for check out my new article Afro-Syrians, I hope you liked it. Afroditeiraq (talk) 18:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 August 2021Edit

DYK for Battle of LashkargahEdit

 On 31 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lashkargah, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Taliban secured victory in the Battle of Lashkargah soon after suicide–car-bombing the police headquarters, a crucial chokepoint of the city's defense? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lashkargah. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Lashkargah), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Gurbachan Singh Salaria: Difference between revisionsEdit

Yes the family, village and the clan members claim is false and you guys are true. Half of the things are messed up buddy. His education -: He studied at military school of Chail Birth Village name is Jangal And He is a Dogra Rajput and a Hindu not a Saini nor any inclination to Sikhism.

Don’t worry I have discussed this back home we will try to have this publication correct their blunder and issue an apology for the same.

I agree with you both are different castes how can Dogra Rajputs have no connection or nothing to do with Saini’s. Anks07 (talk) 11:17, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

@Anks07: Your personal opinion / tales do not matter. What matters are proofs based on reliable sorces. This source, for example, states that he was a Saini and a Rajput. I have raised this on the talk page. I recommend you provided sources for your claims there. Applodion (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Land of ShowsEdit

Dear Applodion, regarding you last change to the article "Tibetan Army", it would be wise to check before "reverting a vandalism". The name of the book is not "The Dragon in the Land of SHows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1949" but "The Dragon in the Land of SNows: A History of Modern Tibet Since 1949". as you can easily verify by googling it. --95.238.130.59 (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Liwa FatemiyounEdit

Hi Applodion- Thanks for your hard work on the Liwa Fatemiyoun page. I saw of one your recent edits on the page, well, really a reversion of an edit that I think is incredible problematic. I removed the reference to the claim of Liwa Fateimyoun being deployed to places like Yemen, Bahrain, etc. (as claimed by the security analyst Smyth) because it is not backed up by any evidence. Should he or any other analyst provide proof of this claim, then that is fine. But without that evidence, to allow a unverified claim such as this to stand is highly irresponsible: it is the kind of stuff leads to war-mongering and sends nations to war. Any analyst can throw around these claims (and they do) about one country or another's involvement in the politics of another; to accept them without verification would be folly and potentially destructive. Two final points: 1) the claim that an Iranian militia is involved in a Gulf country is a constant refrain used by Gulf countries. Very often there are Iranian proxies involved in Gulf countries, but no always. There is a political element to it that can supersede evidence 2) This claim is more than a year old- to my knowledge, no evidence has been put forward in the time since. That should be a red flag. My suggestion that "some analysts understand the Liwa Fatemiyoun to be a 'phantom force' to be deployed by Iran to other countries" is fair. It states the claim, but keeps it general, without mentioning specific countries. Interested to hear your thoughts. Simurghistan (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Simurghistan: Wikipedia is not censored; concerns as you expressed it in regards to the possible ramifications such as warmongering are not an issue here. However, I agree with your further reasoning - as a matter of fact, I actually strongly dislike Symth's position (he tends to throw around a lot of unverified claims), but I generally feel that such claims have to be represented regardless if the expert in question is respected in his/her field (and Symth is). Furthermore, claims should always be attributed to individuals; attributions like "some analysts" should be avoided.
So how about this compromise: "Accordingly, Symth and ex-Herat Province governor Abdul Qayoum Rahim claimed in 2020 that Liwa Fatemiyoun had begun deployment to other localities around the Middle East without providing firm evidence. Symth and Rahim also claimed that the constant fighting had turned Liwa Fatemiyoun into an elite force, as most of its less capable fighters had been killed or demobilized, leaving only the most experienced and radical ones." What dop you think? Applodion (talk) 11:29, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. Yes, I understand and agree that Wikipedia is uncensored, however, that does not mean that one can't exercise caution when (re)presenting unsubstantiated claims. What bothered me and was problematic about the wording (and certainly Smyth's claim in the first place...you seem to understand many of his positions as I do :) ) is that it contained a level of specificity (e.g. Yemen, Bahrain) with zero evidence presented. In any case, I think the wording of your compromise is excellent: it names Smyth and Rahim *specifically* as advocates of an unsubstantiated claim. The "without providing evidence" is of course key here; until evidence is provided it should remain. Nice work! Simurghistan (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
@Simurghistan: I have changed the article accordingly. Applodion (talk) 12:46, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Remind you not to use blog as referencesEdit

  Thank you for contributing to the article Sultan Murad Division. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, your own website, websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight, expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or that rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions, as one of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Contents/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Maybe you don’t know that blogs are not a good reference. In fact, I found that you often trigger warnings, such as filters 1,045 and 1,077.

If you don’t know the details, you can read Wikipedia:Verifiability.I'm still learning, hope you can too. Rastinition (talk) 12:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

@Rastinition: Be so kind and inform yourself what is reliable and what not before blindly removing stuff. The Erasmus-Monitor (which has its own German wikipedia page, see here) is a highly reliable source, organized by a German academic and used as a source even by German security forces. The other blogs had not been added by me. Applodion (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
The same goes for the source you removed from the Uganda Army article; it is a published article by the University of Toronto. Applodion (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
If I check every webpage, it will waste a lot of time and there is also the risk of being directly attacked by hackers, so I usually check through google the website domain or historical pages.
At least the risk of computer death or cell phone death will be reduced.
PS:Sometimes I read Wikipedia in other languages ​​to confirm which unreliable sources are ignored because we are not familiar with the language. Rastinition (talk) 23:11, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
@Rastinition: Your concern regarding security is certainly valid, and I do not blame you for not clicking very link. The same goes for foreign language refs. I just think that you should look close at the links themselves; the references I mentioned had clear indications of being valid, with one linking directly to Toronto University's page, and the other to a site which has its own Wikipedia article mentioning how reliable it is. Applodion (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2021Edit

DYK for Battle of KabambaEdit

 On 27 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kabamba, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rebel leader and later Ugandan president Yoweri Museveni had to walk 19 kilometres (12 mi) and borrow a car before the Battle of Kabamba because his pickup truck had broken down? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kabamba. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Kabamba), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Kennin RebellionEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Kennin Rebellion at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Flibirigit (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Beirut clashesEdit

I know I am a random IP, but I am begging you to lock the 2021 Beirut clashes page. Notyourashta is pov-pushing utter nonsense, such as the claim that the Lebanese Armed Forces were directly fighting the Hezbollah and Amal protesters. Even though almost all the RS are saying otherwise (alleged LF snipers). It has reached the level of vandalism, please stop this. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3D99:8F9:BAFA:11B0 (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, I cannot lock any pages. However, Notyourashta's last edits appear to be much more acceptable. As it stands at the moment, the article appears to be relatively ok. Applodion (talk) 19:46, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the Lebanese Armed Forces, a video does exist which shows at least one soldier shooting at demonstrators, so there was at least one Hezbollah/amal vs. Lebanese Army clash. Applodion (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but that was not the main clashes, and should not be in the lede. I will leave it at that. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3D99:8F9:BAFA:11B0 (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, we still don't know who the snipers were. Although the LF seems likely, the arrest of a Syrian by the Armed Forces in connection to the attack might suggest another faction. One should not forget that false flag attacks are a common occurrence in the Middle East, so I feel leaving it at "unidentified gunmen" in the lead and elaborating further in the main part of the article is a fair compromise. Applodion (talk) 21:27, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
True, but the allegation was reported in virtually every RS given in the article, it is certainly worthy of mention, especially in the lede. This makes sense. 2601:85:C101:C9D0:3C91:74A:E3FA:8BDF (talk) 00:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Kennin RebellionEdit

 On 21 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Kennin Rebellion, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the perpetrators of the Kennin Rebellion surrendered when one of their commanders, a female samurai, was wounded? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Kennin Rebellion. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Kennin Rebellion), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for André Kisase NganduEdit

 On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article André Kisase Ngandu, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Congolese rebel leader André Kisase Ngandu criticised his Rwandan allies to such an extent that they were probably responsible for his murder? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/André Kisase Ngandu. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, André Kisase Ngandu), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Sam MagaraEdit

 On 25 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Sam Magara, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rebel leader Sam Magara was killed when he ventured into a city to visit a dentist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Magara. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Sam Magara), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversaryEdit

Precious
 
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks! Applodion (talk) 14:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021Edit

ITN recognition for Ali FadhulEdit

 On 6 November 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ali Fadhul, which you created and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

November 2021Edit

  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Qwirkle (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Rojda FelatEdit

Hi Aplodeon How Many Battles If You Know (Rojda Felat) won?? Pls answer me I will appreciate it 🌹❤️ 212.237.120.183 (talk) 12:03, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

See the article's references for that. If you want to add more battles, you need proper sources mentioning her involvement - such as newspapers. Applodion (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

No Aplodeon I mean that how many battles she won?? I don’t mean add many battle mores because you wrote battles and wars and campaigns with each other that you add it i mean generally how many battles she won?? 12 or 13?? Or how many she she lost?? 1 or 2??? I mean this I appreciate it if you answer me again 212.237.120.30 (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

We don't know the exact number because much of her career has not been covered by outside sources. As a matter of fact, her early career is largely unknown, possibly due to her being involved in underground operations. Applodion (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

But as much as i know that you wrote she won 13 battles yes?? Can you check it out iam wrong or not?? Pls?? That i mean if she won this many battles like 13 that it means she’s the first woman In History won many battles like 13 That even she’s best soldiers among Kurdish people if she won 13 that you wrote pls check it again it’s necessary I really appreciate it again if you do this for my Thank Aplodeon for doing this ❤️❤️🌹🌹 212.237.120.196 (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

That number is 100% false. It is probably way more. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, that would not make her one of the "best soldiers among Kurdish people"; there are literally hundreds of Kurds with more battle experience, both modern and past ones. Applodion (talk) 21:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

You think that she probably won more than 13 Battles?? Or What?? And you said hundreds!! I think she won this 13 or more than this without losing and even she without doubt She’s the first Kurdish won this many battles like 13 or more than this without losing If you know more please tell me again as i said I appreciate it ❤️🌹❤️🌹 212.237.121.239 (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

As I said, I don't know more. No offense, but I do not think that conversation is leading anywhere. P.S.: You don't need to create a new section each time you try to say something; just edit the existing one. Applodion (talk) 08:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)


Thanks for answer me again and as i say thanks for teach me that editing it not open a new one And i asked this question because i wacthed a video about Generals of each country that in Germany mentioned(Fedor Von Bock) That he won 14 battles and one lost He was nazi general and i said that if Rojda Won 12 or 13 or more she’s among us because you wrote how many battles she did and won it and i watched all of it she won all of the battles that you took it from Resources And if you wrote with resources and how you don’t know about it??? ❤️🌹❤️🌹 Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.120.239 (talk) 10:19, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Why Removing me??Edit

I asked about wounding in battles why you deleted?? 212.237.120.2 (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

If you had a question, it was not understandable, and I assumed someone had accidentally posted something to my wall. Applodion (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Ohhh got it I mean that If an Commander or general Wounded in A battle but The army of a commander or general won the Battle or not?? A point of winning the battle goes for the commander or a general??? That’s what i mean — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.120.2 (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I mean if an commander or a general Wound in a battle But His Army Win The battle a point goes for a for him Or not? That’s what i mean 212.237.120.2 (talk) 20:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean with "point goes for a for him". War is not a game. A won battle is a won battle, regardless of whether the commander is hurt or not. Applodion (talk) 22:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Tripoli 1983Edit

Hello, I commend your great efforts in the historical articles. Can you help me create an article about the Battle of Tripoli in 1983? It was one of the most important battles of the Lebanese Civil War and witnessed the departure of a major party, the PLO. There are many reliable sources that can be relied upon such as 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.--Sakiv (talk) 05:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sakiv: I would love to help, but I already have several projects lined up at the moment (in addition to non-Wikipedia obligations). Perhaps in the future. Applodion (talk) 13:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mean to put a lot of effort into it, but to follow up if it needs just some improvements. Anyway no problem.--Sakiv (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@Sakiv: Oh, if you don't plan something big, and instead create a start-class article which could be gradually expanded over many weeks, then sure. I would be happy to help a bit. Applodion (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
I have created the article.--Sakiv (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021Edit

DYK for West Nile campaign (October 1980)Edit

 On 12 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article West Nile campaign (October 1980), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the October 1980 West Nile campaign, rebels were initially hailed as "liberators", only for them to start looting coffee? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/West Nile campaign (October 1980). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, West Nile campaign (October 1980)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holiday seasonEdit

Frohe Weihnachten and happy holidays! Hope you are well and preferably enjoying a beverage of choice! -Indy beetle (talk) 19:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Applodion (talk) 21:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021Edit

DYK for Yamashiro ikkiEdit

 On 26 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Yamashiro ikki, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ...that the Yamashiro ikki has been characterized as the "people's parliament of the Warring States period"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Yamashiro ikki. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Yamashiro ikki), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022Edit

Regarding your edit on the Independence of BrazilEdit

Hello, I've seen that you added the Empire of Benin as the first sovereign state to recognize Brazil's independence. I have a conflicting source, however, that says it was actually the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata (present day Argentina). It's an article that was published by the "Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão", an institution related to the Federal Government of Brazil, and that can be found here. The article is titled "Argentina, primeiro país a reconhecer a independência do Brasil". The author makes a brief introduction, explaining how for a time, due to the lack of research, it was believed that Benin was indeed the first country to recognize Brazil's independence. After that, on page 505, he concludes:

"This communication is the most important of those that will be transcribed below, which attest that, even before the United States of America – or Benin, or any other country –,came from Buenos Aires the first diplomatic recognition of the independence of Brazil".

(Referring to a document he had found when delving into argentine archives)

I'm rather new to Wikipedia, and thus I'm not sure on what's the standard procedure to do when a situation like this happens with conflicting sources, I suppose you know better than me, so I ask you please to take this into consideration.Torimem (talk) 00:20, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Torimem: Thank you very much for this information. Usually, when we have two conflicting sources which are reliable (which is the case here), we look into the details and -if that does not produce a solution- list both claims with attribution.
In regard to the "Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão" document, it says that the United Provinces recognized Brazil in 1823, and on p. 518, it appears that the document claims that Benin recognized the country in 1824. However, Green says that Benin sent several embassies in the 19th century, and the 1822 embassy recognized Brazil's independence - this would be before the date claimed by the "Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão" document. Thus, we have differences here which cannot be solved by us Wikipedians (as we would have to consult the primary sources to see who is right). I will integrate both claims into the article. Applodion (talk) 11:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Torimem: I just recognized a mistake anyway; I had misread a part of Green - he claims that Dahomey recognized Brazil first, not Benin. Regardless, I have to amend the article anyway. Applodion (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Torimem: I have now included the claims of both Green as well as the "Fundação Alexandre de Gusmão" document. Perhaps future research will clear up the difference. Applodion (talk) 11:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: Thank you. The claims seem a bit confusing now, as Randig's article makes a reference to Benin saying on a note "by “Benin” it refers here to the Empire of Benin. As will be analyzed later, despite homonyms, the former Empire of Benin (in present-day Nigeria) does not correspond to the current Republic of Benin (former Kingdom of Dahomey)". I'd also like to point out that there's a section in the Dahomey article that reads: "Dahomey was the second country - the first being Portugal - to recognize the independence of Brazil in 1822". With yet another conflicting source. Again, thank you for your attention in shedding some light into this topic. Torimem (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Torimem: Indeed, the usage of "Benin" by the modern country greatly confuses stuff. I also think that the confusion about the African countries' recognition probably stems not just from them being long ignored by historians, but also from the nature of their embassies. These were usually both diplomatic and economic missions, and it is entirely possible that the embassies of Dahomey and Onim (if they indeed did recognize Brazil in 1822/23) were not documented in Brazil as "proper" recognition. Randig points out that Benin's ambassador actually made some waves, meeting the Brazilan emperor and all that; it is possible that Dahomey and Onim had much less visible missions which just recognized Brazil on the fly, so to say. Sadly, Green does not exactly say how their missions took place, so this is mere speculation on my part. Applodion (talk) 20:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for all the thanksesEdit

I noticed you thanked me a few times recently. I've been trying hard recently to find free images for various 3rd world conflicts and make Wikipedia articles beautifuler. Borysk5 (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5: Yes, I noticed how many images for African conflicts you uploaded, not to mention your great work on Central African Republic Civil War articles. You certainly deserve recognition / positive feedback for your efforts! Applodion (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: A bit braging, but I convinced spokesperson of rebel organization in Central African Republic to allow wikipedia to use files produced by them. E-mail has laready been ticketed and I hope it will pass. Borysk5 (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@Borysk5: Oh wow! That's super impressive. I hope that this works out; it is so frustrating that many African topics are poorly illustrated due to the lack of images/videos, so this could make the Central African Republic Civil War one of the best covered African articles in regards to media! Applodion (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

dictated/dedicated historiansEdit

Hi Applodion. Looks like an oops on your page. You can rm this message when you've made the correction. Errantios (talk) 22:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  • @Errantios: Huh, never noticed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Applodion (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanin HusainEdit

Did you make the article on Sanin Husain because of my video on Darfur that i uploaded on 29 May 2021? It was just a few weeks apart. Koopinator (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Koopinator: No, that was a concidence. I actually stumbled across Sanin Husain in November 2019, when I expanded the Wadai War article and encountered mentions of Mahdist holdouts. I just needed almost two years to finally get around to write the article ^^. If I may say so, however, your content is quite great and your work on obscure Arabian, Afghan, and African topics admirably - especially your ability to dig up extremely obscure sources. Applodion (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022Edit


UkraineEdit

Hey, Hey, there are not "source", but ukrainians claims, so it will be treated as such : i suggest that you read Wikipedia guideline, but i think wikipedia's administrators doesn't read them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:ECAC:93E0:B9D1:6103:A738:9628 (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Putin literally did mention his death. It does not get more Russian than that. No idea what you are even talking about. Applodion (talk) 11:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Andrei SukhovetskyEdit

 On 10 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Andrei Sukhovetsky, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 08:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Vladimir ZhogaEdit

 On 12 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Vladimir Zhoga, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022Edit

FAQ help requestEdit

Hello! I want to thank you for your detailed edit summary for your Battle of Antonov Airport edits. I updated the infobox to reflect that and I was wondering if you could rewrite the FAQ for the battle to help others understand why no one won or lost the battle (Technical Russian victory but tactical Ukrainian victory)? Elijahandskip (talk) 22:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elijahandskip: Sure, I will look into it. BTW, the idea to just say "see athermath and analysis" (like in other battle articles with disputed outcome) is really good. Applodion (talk) 09:08, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
@Elijahandskip: I have adjusted the FAQ; feel free to rewrite any part which you consider faulty. Applodion (talk) 23:04, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work!Edit

I'm impressed by your work on General No Pity and Ambazonia Self-Defence Council. Separatist alignments have become utterly confusing, but you have unraveled things beautifully. Well done! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mikrobølgeovn: Thanks for the kind words. Indeed, the "official" loyalties of the rebels are in chaos. Something which surprised me was learning that even before Sako's impeachment, groups aligned with his government had begun fighting each other. This casts doubt on whether the entire crisis actually originated in the exile movement or on the ground due to warlord rivalries. Either way, it does not help that several groups take the same or similar names, and for commanders who are believed dead to often reappear in some form (even if it turns out not be the same individual. Thankfully, you have kept adding stuff to Wikipedia over the years, and your work generally helps to understand this anarchy a bit better. Applodion (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022Edit

The Signpost: 29 May 2022Edit

Escambray Rebellion pageEdit

Tell me if I did anything wrong with the flags this time on the escambray rebellion page. CubanoBoi (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciate your feedback on my Mehdi Mujahid article. Kelhuri (talk) 22:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Kivu mapEdit

Hi! I noticed you uploaded file with two maps of Kivu. However I think more useful would be uploading one file for 2020 with existing for 2022 and having two files in gallery. This way 2020 file could be used separately if it was needed. Just a thought. Borysk5 (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Borysk5: You are of course right - no idea why I didn't think of that. I will adjust the article when I get time to upload the images (probably later today). Applodion (talk) 10:49, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022Edit

Subject on a recent edit of yoursEdit

On Palestine Liberation Army: Difference between revisions you told me to prove that the execution is false but how am I supposed to prove something that doesn’t exist? There’s no other reports on these executions and the link on the claim leads to an article using nothing but the claim itself as it’s source meaning it’s not reliable? There’s not even mentions on this using keywords on Twitter Bobisland (talk) 00:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Palestine Liberation Army Bobisland (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: ActionPAL also reported on the alleged execution, and they are usually a rather good source. However, you are right that both sources make it clear that this was never fully cleared up, so I would change "reportedly" to "allegedly". Applodion (talk) 10:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

i thought linked sources needed veriability and i cant find any source on these executions or the general existing using keywords relating to these claims even on social media also i dont know why you added him as the leader of the PLA, in syria the commander in chief of the PLA at the time was Muhammad Tariq al-Khadra and you edited this into the wikipedia page in 2017

if your interested in what i could find this was everything keyword "الرائد خلدون النادر" into twitter, this facebook post is where i think the source of those articles came from, theres also similar articles that have similar claims that also use no source and have a very similar user interface to the other websites, keyword "palestine liberation army refuse" into twitter, and this one, keyword "التحرير الفلسطيني ينفذ" into twitter, i also used yandex, bing and google and couldn't find anything -bobisland Bobisland (talk) 02:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: If we have a reliable source saying something, and actionpal.org is one, it is automatically verifiable. Only if we have another reliable source saying that the other source is wrong can we remove it. This is not the case here. Re "also i dont know why you added him as the leader of the PLA", what are you talking about? I only added Major Khaldoun Al Nader who was one of the executed fighters. Applodion (talk) 08:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

But it’s not true and are all websites that aren’t decorated considered reliable thus verifiable? Meaning anyone’s website that only has accusations can be used as a verifiable source? Bobisland (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Not any website; they have to be news websites or sites maintained by reputable researchers / journalists. For the bigger cases, Wikipedia maintains a large list of sources whose reliability was discussed. A news site not included as "unreliable" on this list is generally allowed on Wikipedia. Anyway, ActionPAL is a reliable source; they have contacts in Syria and specialize in documenting the deaths of Palestinians in Syria. If they say that their contacts told them that the executions might have happened, that is what we state on Wikipedia. Applodion (talk) 11:39, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Is the media you referenced on that list or are verifiable sources based on what editors think is considered verifiable following certain guidelines (not deprecated, isn’t blatantly false, etc) Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: This list is specifically about sources where editors had discussed whether it is reliable or not; sources not on the list have never been discussed in depth. Applodion (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok that’s interesting I never knew any websites could be used as long as they didn’t break the rules unless I’m misinterpreting what your saying Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Again: Not any website; only news sites or sites by researchers. For example, some random blog or a Facebook account are off-limit. Applodion (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok so if the blog builds credibility by posting factual news overtime it becomes a verifiable source? Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Sometimes, yes. It often depends on the reception in the media. One example is "Oryx", a blog specializing in military equipment and related history. In the past, there were discussion about its usage on Wikipedia, as it is just a blog. However, as both mass media and other researchers started to use "Oryx" as a source themselves, it also became acceptable to use the blog for Wikipedia. In contrast, a blog which no one uses is probably not an acceptable source. See Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published sources for some details. Applodion (talk) 08:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

So if it goes by a vote system on reliability of disputes users who brigade can just vote something as unreliable even if it is or is there some sort of system like an admin fact checker to see if a content is reliable? Facing this problem right now with content relating to the Ukraine war where pro Ukraine Reddit hubs are linking wiki pages and telling its users to remove information and etc Bobisland (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bobisland: Wikipedia is not working by votes, even if it sometimes looks that way. In essence, in any discussion about reliability, both sides have to present arguments and evidence for or against a source. All of these arguments+evidence are gathered, and eventually a decision is made. These decisions can be made by an admin, but there are other Wikipedians who also can decide in such discussions - it depends on the type of source being discussed.
Usually, you will indeed see users trying to "brigade" votes, but this never works. If someone just writes: "This source sucks. We should not use it, it is propaganda trash" without presenting any evidence, this vote is ignored in the final decision. Thus, you get cases where a discussion is won by a minority who presented the better arguments. Applodion (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022Edit

DisputeEdit

You wrote: "several editors discussed this, and agreed that it was the best solution". Give me a link please. Oloddin (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Oloddin: See the article talk page, and a series of edit summaries by different editors, including these ones: [2], [3], [4], [5]. Over some time, there was back-and-forth editing between "Russian victory", "Ukrainian victory", and just stating some facts (i.e. "Russian capture of the airport" + "Russian failure to secure the airport for an airbridge") until Elijahandskip proposed the current version which was generally accepted for about 4 months until you challegened it.
I would also like to note that reliable sources generally describe the battle as a Russian failure (see the analysis section), so if you would want to your way and for the infobox to say "X victory", we would have to list it as "Ukrainian victory". Applodion (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
I didn't see any actual discussions in the talk page which resulted in having exactly this wording (i.e. consensus), that's why I asked you about this. So it looks like it was your personal decision to which nobody objected. When these edits were being made, it was the time of Russian withdrawal from the area, and it could create some mess of how to describe the outcome, so putting something neutral made sense just to prevent edit wars. But now it can be replaced by something more specific.
To the point: as I understand, and according to the infobox documentation, the result parameter is for the immediate outcome, i.e. military outcome. And it should reflect what is related only to this particular area of military action. In this case airport was captured = Russian victory — for the infobox that's enough, especially for the battles. Everything else can be described in the article. What is written in the analysis section is more about the general Kyiv offensive and is not relevant that much to the outcome of the battle of the airport. In other words, Russians may have failed the Kyiv offensive, they may have failed a blitzkrieg, may have lost a lot of armory and were unable to advance further etc. but they still could have won this battle for the control of the airport. Even if made no sense for them, because the airfield was too small, it was under fire etc. But anyway, even if you still don't see it as a victory, what's the problem with the factual "Russia captures the airport"? It is pretty clear as a result and reflects what actually the battle resulted in. Finally, it can indeed be cited as "Ukrainian victory" if we agree to extend the end date of the battle up to early April (i.e. Russian withdrawal), by analogy to the other battles in the area (Hostomel, Bucha, Irpin). "Russian victory and subsequent withdrawal" can also be used.--Oloddin (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: I feel like you completely ignore the facts here. 1st of all, my proposal was the "Russian capture of the airport" + "Russian failure to secure the airport for an airbridge" version. The current version, as i said, was introduced by Elijahandskip; everyone considered this a good-working alternative. The immediate outcome of the initial two-day battle was, to quote a researcher, a "Russian Airborne Disaster", as the Russians completely failed to achieve any of their main objectives during the airport fighting. I kindly ask you to consult the sources which are fairly clear that this cannot be considered just a "Russian victory". Applodion (talk) 22:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Did you read all my arguments and suggestions about this point? What "main objectives" did they fail to achieve? I should repeat: about the airport, not the general Kyiv offensive. Actually I have some doubts about how reliable this source for "airborne disaster" is. --Oloddin (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: I read your entire argument; what I was trying to say (and I should have made that clearer) is that "Russian capture of the airport" as result was literally the version I had proposed four months ago. Yet my version was removed/changed, as other editors disagreed with it - which eventually led us to the status quo that was accepted by everyone but you. Regarding the "main objectives", just read the sources in the article - they clearly say that the Russians only attacked the airport to secure an airbridge and a staging ground for the attack on Kyiv (see for example here). What they captured - i.e. the remains of the aiport - was not or only barely useable for these aims. Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans outline this quite well. You do not have to repeat "about the airport, not the general Kyiv offensive", as the sources say that the initial battle was a Russian failure. Even if you ignore McGregor's take on the issue (even though he is reliable), the other sources say the same. Andreas Rüesch, Michael Shoebridge, Jonathan Eyal, and Severin Pleyer also described the initial fighting as a Russian failure. One can find more sources which do the same, such as this one. Sure, you can also find sources which call it a Russian victory based on the eventual capture of the location. Others, like Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans are more neutral in general, and note the successes on both sides. Yet that's the point I am trying to make - there was no easily listable result. "Russian capture of the airport" (my initial proposal which you also now suggested) also sounds like the Russians captured a functioning airport - but they did not, they could not land any planes there. Note that almost all sources - even McGregor who called this a "Russian Airborne Disaster" - avoid the terms "victory" and "defeat" when trying to describe the overall outcome of the initial two-day battle. Applodion (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
I see it, but it was you who reverted my recent changes and who wrote the FAQ. That's why I came to a conclusion that even if you proposed it that time, you're against it now. It's not that important now actually. This kind of wording in result is effectively refusal to put there anything. At that time it could make sense, but now we can try to find something more specific. Yes, of course, it was part of the Kyiv offensive, but this article is about the area of airport. Military engagements in other areas have their respective articles including the main article about offensive. As I see, all these sources say that it was a general ("strategic") failure not because Russians couldn't capture the airport at all or were repelled from the area, but rather because this capture didn't help them in Kyiv offensive and slowed it down. By "initial battle" as I understand the first day of the battle is meant. So the wording "victory" here doesn't contradict these sources, because infobox doesn't have to reflect all reservations and nuances. But OK, if to say about "Russia captures", why does it sound to you like it's about a "functioning airport"? It merely means it was captured and that's it. The nature of infoboxes in general, their purpose and the result parameter in particular imply that we shouldn't worry that it "doesn't tell all the story" — it shouldn't, this is what sections like "Aftermath" are for. --Oloddin (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Regarding "you're against it now", you have presumed correctly. Though it has to be said that the idea about writing the FAQ was not mine - I was asked to do it - I indeed support the current version as superior to the alternatives.
About "initial battle": Both the first day with the paratrooper defeat, and the second day with the Russian capture of the airport are meant. By the time Russian troops secured the airport, it had become strategically largely worthless - Stijn Mitzer and Joost Oliemans explain this is detail.
Anyway, I understand your frustration, and your arguments are not wrong. Yet I must persist with my position: Why should we try to simplify the infobox result if even reliable sources struggle to define it as "X victory"? And why should we use "Russian capture" as result if we already list it under "territorial changes"? Applodion (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Because these sources analyze the results in the much wider context of operations in Kyiv Oblast (I just assume good faith that there is no politics here). I think this is why the infobox doc says about the immediate result, because otherwise it will be hard to determine the result in the majority of battles where a situation can be very dynamic. This is why we don't need to put anything complex. If you don't like the word "victory", it can be just statement of the fact — they captured the area. This seems to be uncontroversial. It can also be combined with "see "Aftermath" as infobox doc example shows. This was actually one of my suggestions — if we can safely say that capture is a fact, we can put is as a result. Oloddin (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: Ummh, Oloddin, as I said above the authors I listed are specifically talking about this one battle. Yes, the fighting had a wider strategic impact, but they also say that the direct combat for two days at the airport was in many ways a Russian failure. Not only in the context of the wider Kyiv offensive. In the context of only the airport itself. Applodion (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you specify these "many ways" in the context of the airport itself if they eventually captured it? Oloddin (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: I did. Russia wanted to capture a functioning airport with a quick air assault. Its initial landing force was destroyed, and the airport was no longer functioning.
To illustrate what I mean, I will use a parable: Let's say someone goes into a mall to buy an apple. The person really, really wants an apple. Instead, the mall sells them a rock. This is a failure even in just the context of the acquisition, as the individual did not get what they wanted or paid for (the tactial part, so to say). They got something, but not what they needed. The fact that they cannot eat a rock and could potentially starve (the strategic, wider part) is not even included here.
In the end, though, it does not matter what we think. The sources are rather clear that this battle cannot be simply called "X victory", thus we do not do it either. The capture is already mentioned in the infobox, so we do not have to move it somewhere else. The simple fact is that the current version is completely neutral and does not unnecessarily simply or mislead. When we eventually get major studies and books on the topic, we might be able to change it to a definitive result. Currently, however, the "See analysis and aftermath" version is the best medium to showcase a reader the complexity of the issue.Applodion (talk) 21:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
But it doesn't tell a reader anything about how the battle ended. So I don't understand the reluctance of moving "capture" it to the result section to tell that it's the result. Again, it's rather specific and uncontroversial. And more informative. The infobox doesn't have to "show the complexity", its purpose is to summarize key information. Oloddin (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: My concern is that including a concrete result gives the wrong impression. As I mentioned above, saying that the Russians captured the airport would sound - for the casual reader - as if they succeeded in their plan to capture the airport intact. Yet saying something like "Russian capture of unusable airport" would also be problematic, as the Russians did use the airport (as a storage facility). As far as I am concerned, adding an initially uncontroversial statement such as "capture" leads into a spiral of controversy about conditions, context, aims, and other stuff. Is it frustrating to not list a proper result in the infobox? Yes. However, life is often frustrating, and when simplification might lead to misrepresentation, we should not try to simplify. Applodion (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Can you explain me this logic by which "Russia captures the airport" transforms into "Russia captures the airport intact"? And I don't understand how it can mislead if the infobox by definition should contain only basic information, so it actually implies that details are in the article. By the way, having them both "Russia captures (see "Aftermath")" is also acceptable. Oloddin (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
@Oloddin: I am genuinely sorry that we reached an impasse here, but I explained this already, like, four times. If you want to get this changed, open a discussion on the article's talk page. We are not getting anywhere here. I will copy this conversation to the article talk page as well. Applodion (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO, unless my last comments suddenly convinced you of my position, we have probably reached a dead end. I propose that you raise this issue on the article's talk page, and ping the editors who were most involved in the editing process or even start an RfC. With a larger group, a proper consensus can be determined. Applodion (talk) 22:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

There is also another issue. Are you really sure that Insurgency in Northern Chad is really ongoing, i.e. there is ongoing fighting and ceasefire is not in effect? --Oloddin (talk) 22:01, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

@Oloddin: The rebels still held territory in Chad as of June 2022. Many rebel groups left the peace talks in mid-July. Unless an agreement is signed, the insurgency continues. Applodion (talk) 09:53, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

What a surpriseEdit

Never though we'd encounter a true believer of the Cuban myth. Thanks for the stewardship of the article. Hope you are well, happy editing! -Indy beetle (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Haha, yes! At first, I assumed that it was just the occasional vandalism until I saw the Cubans; it is probably surprising that it took this long for a true believer to appear - considering that the Cuban myth was quite popular at the time. Anyway, I am well, thanks for your concern! I hope that everything is well for you, too. ^^ Applodion (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Darzab (2018)Edit

@Applodion: why incorrected numbers? UCDP is the best site to check informations about conflicts in the world, the casualties reported in UCDP during this period are part of the battle, is obvious. If the battle began on 12 july and ended on 1 august, its obvious that all casualties reported by UCDP in the area of the battle and in the same period are part of the battle. So why incorrected numbers? Their not. MorteBiancaFan (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@MorteBiancaFan: Most battles of the Afghanistan conflict were overlapping campaigns, extending over several areas and interlinked with each other. The Battle of Darzab (2018) spread into areas outside Darzab District, and at the same time there were communal clashes in the area as well. Unless you have evidence that says that "X people died in the Battle of Darzab", the data is unusable for the clash. Applodion (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: can you give me the sourches about those communal clashes? 'Cause in UCDP those are not reported but only clashes between government, ISIL and Talibans during the period of the battle, with some violence against civilians perpetred by Talibans and ISIL. MorteBiancaFan (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@MorteBiancaFan: It should be in one of the refs used in the article, though I don't really have time to read all of them at the moment. Either way, the article already has a "Notes" section which details that death numbers differed widely according to the sources, and you did not address that the fighting spread into other areas, including Sangcharak which is part of Sar-e Pol Province. Applodion (talk) 23:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
@Applodion: Are you for real? Ok, Idc about that, if you haven't time to check don't revert my edits. MorteBiancaFan (talk) 16:27, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@MorteBiancaFan: I gave three arguments why your numbers are probably false; I only did not follow up on one of them. The other two - that reliable sources disagree about losses, and that the battle spread beyond one province - are still valid. Also, your ref no longer works. The old one is broken, and the new one leads to a dashboard without any information. Applodion (talk) 17:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)