Jump to content

User talk:Applodion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for your work on the Zhili Army page

[edit]

Just wanted to reach out and show my appreciation for the work you did to create that page. I've been working for the past couple weeks on a major expansion of the Northeastern Army page and just discovered it; I'm so glad someone else has the same commitment to writing good articles on oft-neglected non-European history topics. SilverStar54 (talk) 02:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SilverStar54: Thank you for the kind words. I have to say, your draft for the Northeastern Army looks quite impressive, so good work in this regard! Btw, I actually wanted to return soon(ish) to expanding some articles on Chinese history, so perhaps we could also cooperate on some stuff. I own several books covering aspects of the Chinese warlord period (such as "The Bitter Peace. Conflict in China 1928–37", "China in the 1920s", and Lary's "Warlord Soldiers"), so if you need some information, I might be able to help. Feel free to ask. Applodion (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion: Thank you very much! It's ballooned from simply replacing the unreliable source of the existing article into quite a large undertaking. I plan to wrap it up in the next week or so. Your offer to share sources is also greatly appreciated: I wonder, does The Bitter Peace discuss Zhang Xueliang's Northeastern Army? I live near an excellent university library, so I am happy to return the favor if you can't get your hands on a particular title. And I would love to collaborate! Did you have an article in mind? My next project was going to be fixing the First United Front page. The early political history of the KMT is really complex, and there don't seem to be many existing pages that treat it with the thoroughness (and political neutrality) that it deserves. My thought is that if we can get a solid encyclopedic narrative of events put down in the United Front page, it would help to improve pages like the Shanghai Commune of 1927, the Canton Coup, and the biographies of the associated historical figures. - SilverStar54
@Applodion: Actually, Bitter Peace does do so; it covers the army's activities from 1928. Regarding my own plans, I was amining at more obscure stuff (for which I have started drafts which gather dust for years already), but the First United Front would certainly be a worthwhile effort for the reasons you have provided. I would be happy help. Applodion (talk) 09:53, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverStar54: Hi! I justed wanted to notify you that there appear to be several different online versions of Bisher's book, and every single one of them uses a different page numbering system (sigh). I hadn't realized this before, so thanks for pointing out that there was something amiss. If you were searching for the content on White Russian forces and couldn't find it in your version: I have added the url of the version I used to write Konstantin Petrovich Nechaev's article (I checked it; there, the pages used in the article are correct). Applodion (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion Regarding the Nechaev article, thanks for adding that link! I knew it must just be a different edition but I didn't have any luck finding it on my own. That will be a great additional source on Zhang Zongchang's movements in 1925.
Given the time scope of Bitter Peace, I assume there are too many pages on the NE Army to screenshot, so I'll let you know if I have a specific question that it might be able to answer.
And great! Thanks for going along with my United Front idea, I'll be happy to return the favor whenever you'd like. I've never worked on a Wikipedia collaboration before, so I'll let you advise on how best to proceed. I assume we should begin by determining the best available sources on the topic? SilverStar54 (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverStar54: Sorry for answering so late. Several issues came up, and I kinda forgot to answer you. Regarding your question: So far, I usually did such cooperation by essentially editing side by side, i.e. both editors tackle books to which they have access and add what they can. When one notices a source which they do not have, they can ask for help from the other. In my experience, this somewhat chaotic approach works rather well ^^ .
Consequently, I would start adding what additional content I can to the Northeastern Army article once you have finished your draft. And for First United Front, I would start expanding it with my books after we have finished the work on the Northeastern Army article. Applodion (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, 'tis the season, after all. And sounds like a plan! I'm hoping to make one final push to finish the Northeastern Army page before Christmas, after which I'll look forward to seeing your additions. SilverStar54 (talk) 07:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion Finished working on the Northeastern Army page for now; you're welcome to add sources/info when you get a chance. I'll probably take a break from editing for a couple weeks, but after that I'll start doing some background research for the United Front page. Cheers, SilverStar54 (talk) 07:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverStar54: Amazing work! I will try to add what I can over the next days. Applodion (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SilverStar54: Hope you are doing ok! I just wanted to say that I have not forgotten about expanding the article. However, I'm currently unexpectedly busy with RL stuff, and I haven't yet found the time to check my sources. I hope it's ok that I need some more time for the expansion. Applodion (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course! No worries, I hope everything’s alright. Take all the time you need, although I’ll be working on other projects. SilverStar54 (talk) 21:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ajnad al-Kavkaz flag.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ajnad al-Kavkaz flag.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. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 13:28, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Ajnad al-Kavkaz flag.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ajnad al-Kavkaz flag.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. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 04:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 January 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 January 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hi! You recently reverted one of my edits that created a red link, with the comment "no article". "No article" is very much the point of creating red links: please see WP:REDLINK for more details. I've reinstated my edit, for that reason. — The Anome (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

States of Ambazonia

[edit]

Hi, what is your take on my merger proposal? Big chunks of the article are either unsourced or copied/rewritten from Ambazonia, but sadly I have zero experience with merging articles. Cheers, Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Jaysh al-Ummah (Gaza) flag.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jaysh al-Ummah (Gaza) flag.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) 18:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your revision at article territory of Islamic State

[edit]

You undo my edit stated that it lack source.

I referenced the article which directly cite United nation security report. you can check that united nations security council report to reach the understanding. Thanks Sam6897 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sam6897: Then please add the actual UN source, and not a Twitter thread which does not even mention the report's name or a link to it. Applodion (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding. I added the article which direclty quote this information from United Nation's security council report. see the link below
https://kyleorton.substack.com/p/reduced-but-rebuilding-united-nations Sam6897 (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 February 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 February 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict on the Tajik-Kyrgyz border

[edit]

Regarding the loss on the part of Tajikistan, there were not so many losses, 59 people died, I myself am from Vorukh, where the conflict occurred, I live on Bobochon Gaforov Street, and at the moment I live in Russia 212.164.65.24 (talk) 08:01, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research. Applodion (talk) 11:15, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I again remind you that absolutely all the ministers and generals of the Tajik army report the loss of 59 people before it was 41 now 59 they counted the recent conflict 212.164.65.24 (talk) 12:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can provide video evidence that Kyrgyzstan lost 2 tigers, 3 tanks and 1 armored personnel carrier 212.164.65.24 (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again: Add a reliable secondary source to prove your claims. Per Wikipedia:No original research, your own claims are not a valid source. Applodion (talk) 12:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BBC in Russian TASS tj.sputnik.news and so on, here is the proof, okay, you are correcting the loss data, but why correct about Bayraktar? I tried to add a link now but it didn’t work, but there is evidence of the loss of equipment 212.164.65.24 (talk) 11:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can't just say: "Just search BBC, TASS, etc.". These have published tens of thousands of articles. Provide the actual sources or stop changing the article. Applodion (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I just tried to send links but they are not sent how do I send? 212.164.38.198 (talk) 12:30, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copy and paste. Applodion (talk) 20:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 9 March 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 March 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the wadai war

[edit]

my source is map of the senussi order in 1914 it show that the senussi still hold it's north Chad zawiyas ,does it count Las davas (talk) 21:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:No original research. You are interpreting a (probably extremely inaccurate) map. Applodion (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

[edit]

Hi Applodion, just want to clarify, is it all nicknames that are nonsense? Unnecessarily (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Unnecessarily: If you insert them into a regular name and use them to replace descriptions (especially for war criminals and mass murderers), yes, absolutely yes. Applodion (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will you fix these ones as well, seeing as it is a formatting issue?
Dwight David "Ike" Eisenhower
Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller Unnecessarily (talk) 19:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Unnecessarily: These aren't nicknames in the usual sense of the word, but rather alternate names used by the individuals themselves (Eisenhower literally used the name in his presidential campaign). In contrast, Kurt Meyer didn't run around and told people to only call him "Panzermeyer". Applodion (talk) 11:13, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ohhh OK Unnecessarily (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 03 April 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 April 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on South Sudanese Civil War

[edit]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page South Sudanese Civil War, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 May 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 May 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Editor's Barnstar
For your persistent effort at improving our coverage of the Anglophone Crisis. I was impressed by your last two articles, "Capo Daniel" and "List of Ambazonian commanders in the Anglophone Crisis". Great work!! Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 22:48, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mikrobølgeovn: Thanks! Applodion (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

flagcruft

[edit]

what is flagcruft? Salfanto (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Salfanto: "Flagcruft" is editor slang for the excessive and unneccessary usage of flags, icons, and logos. Wikipedia has a manual of style for icon (including flag icon) usage. Generally speaking, Wikipedia recommends the minimal use of flag icons in infoboxes. The use of military unit icons/flags falls usually falls under MOS:FLAGCRUFT, i.e. the "inappropriate use" of icons, specifically "do not use subnational flags without direct relevance". Though this policy is not universally applied (as people love to add flags/logos to every infobox), it is generally recommended to limit the flags in infoboxes to national ones or a small number of special flags, like naval ensigns. For Battle of Antonov Airport, this means that the bigger units (such as the Russian Air Force) might get flags, but individual brigades do not - though even this is disputed. Many editors purge all non-nattional flags from military articles they come across. Applodion (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sorry about that. I just wanted to make it look better Salfanto (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Salfanto: Oh, there is no reason to apologize. When I started editing on Wikipedia, I actually made the same mistake. It happens. Applodion (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So only do unit emblems if there are not a lot of units or if there are only do the big units? Salfanto (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Salfanto: Normally only for the big ones. If there are a lot of units, they often get moved out of the infobox anyway. Applodion (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Houthi movement

[edit]

in regards to that last revert. I was removing info that was edit warred in by a now blocked user for copyvio: [1][2][3][4]. The way the content is described is wrong. It says it is a Houthi navy. It clearly looks like WP:UNDUE. Thepharoah17 (talk) 18:15, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thepharoah17: Based on Earwig's Copyvio Detector, other sections of the article suffer more from possible copyvio threats than the naval section. In addition, the section is literally titled "Naval warfare capabilities", not "navy". It would probably better fit into an article solely concerned with the Houthis' military, but no such article exists yet. The sources cited also support the statements in the section. Applodion (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On operation olive branch

[edit]

Can i see the reason why you are messing up the page with outdated sources? Theres literally a full list of Turkish Troops who were martyred, along with their names, cause of deaths, pictures, and what unit they were in, and since the number of FSA fighters who were martyred are claimed by Erdogan, it stays as (Per Turkey), the SOHR sources you are using, doesnt even show that (96 turkish troops were killed) at all, and the SOHR source for the amount of SDF terrorists who were killed, is posted in march, when the battle had ended in august. The list of SDF terrorists who were killed by the sources i have shown, arent even state ran and were written by the time the operation was over. TRAVERA1 (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TRAVERA1: I'm not "messing up" anything, I'm maintaing the well-sourced status quo. No offense, but your sources are mostly Turkish propaganda sites. The Turkish gov/military's lists of killed soldiers are not neccessarily trustworthy; most countries try to manipulate their loss statistics through various methods to downplay KIAs. As of now, the article lists all claims equally, including the claims of Turkey but also its enemies. Furthermore, in this context SOHR is actually preferable over most other sources, as it is not supportive of any group which was involved Operation Olive Branch. SOHR was critical of the SDF, Turkey, the Syrian government, and many northern rebel groups, meaning that it had little reason to manipulate loss numbers. In addition, the SOHR source includes content from August, look again. Applodion (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"The Turkish gov/military's lists of killed soldiers are not neccessarily trustworthy" I wonder where thats coming from, probably PKK.com or something 😂 and they arent propaganda sites either, they focus on civillian stuff most of the time when there isnt anything military vise important, and again the source SOHR uses for SDF losses are from march, not august, and the losses for turkish troops are misspresented by you people, it doesnt mention like "90 turkish troops" kileld it just says like a couple few. and the site i have sent you, terorsehitleri.com HAS SOLDIERS KILLED IN ACTION AS FAR AS BACK AS 1990S, WITH THE NUMBERS MATCHING. AND NON OF THE SITES I HAVE USED, ARE STATE RAN. TRAVERA1 (talk) 20:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Another fun fact, "The Turkish gov/military's lists of killed soldiers are not neccessarily trustworthy", In September 23-26 1993, 5th commando brigade had launched Operation Govent into the Balkaya Camp, which was successful after 3 days of combat. A journalist had went there in a helicopter with the commander of this operation, Osman Pamukoğlu, and he asked him if the soldiers could pile the 400 dead PKK terrorists' bodies for photographing, in which he declined furiously and stated that "The families of these boys dont send them here to pile up bodies", he than later gave him a pair of binoculars when the journalist really counted some bodies of terrorists past 400~. And youre trying to say if the SDF isnt lying at all by just saying somehow TAF had 2500 killed and just 600 brave SDF Guerillas had lost their lives, even when the operation is a literal TAF victory. TRAVERA1 (talk) 20:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: If you blindly believe gov sources, I don't know what I'm supposed to tell you. And how the heck are you laughing at the other sources while using terorsehitleri.com? It's literally an unsourced website founded by an Erdoğan family member who is known to be in contact with the Ministry of Family and Social Policy. Do you honestly think it's a neutral source without state connections?
And regarding your second paragraph, sure, "trust me bro" statements have historically been a much better sources than photographs or anything else. Surely there were hundreds of corpses, they just didn't want to photograph them. Humans are also famous for their perfect ability to spot small details and count them correctly at great distances. Are you aware how nonsensical this sounds??
I'm not saying that the SDF isn't lying, I'm saying that everyone is probably lying or at least not accurate, and we have to present all sources as we cannot be sure who is right or wrong. Applodion (talk) 00:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you show me where the SOHR sources youre using say "96 turkish soldiers killed" please i cant seem to find it.
Then can you answer to the other outdated SOHR source for the numbers of SDF killed you are using which is made in march when the operation had ended in august.
And where did you come up with the "it's literally an unsourced website founded by an Erdoğan family member who is known to be in contact with the Ministry of Family and Social Policy." Every list of turkish soldiers and police officers names, units they served in, their ranks, birth dates, death dates, and causes of deaths are listed there, and even civilians who were brutally killed by the PKK ever since 1970s and you still dont want to believe it. TRAVERA1 (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Re point 1: In the ref, the first SOHR source states that 5 Turkish were killed in addition to "[...] 91, the number of casualties of the Turkish forces' soldiers who have been killed since the start of the Turkish military operation in Afrin area in the north-western countryside of Aleppo on the 20th of January 2018". Thus, 96 dead.
Re point 2: The source is not "outdated". If you look at it, the ref consists of three different sources. The last of the sources was published on "5 August 2019".
Re point 3: Google it, you can find it pretty easily. For example, this article by Medyabar includes the website's founder, named Erdogan, who lauds the Ministry of Family and Social Policy and the AKP for supporting his team. Admittedly, the article is in Turkish, and perhaps you interpret it differently.
Either way, I do not want to exclude terorsehitleri; I just want to keep the other sources. Perhaps we can solve this issue by simply also including all estimates of terorsehitleri in the infobox and the "Casualties" section. What do you think, would this be an acceptable compromise? Applodion (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Turkish forces and the *injury* of others, raising to 91" Not 96 dead, dead and injured combined.
The one which says "1500 SDF terrorists were killed" is indeed outdated and was written in march, i cant find a source that says "1500 terrorists killed" written in august.
Erdoğan Erdoğan is not related to Tayyip Erdoğan. Erdoğan infact is a very popular surname amongst people and just because they have the same surname doesn't make them related. TRAVERA1 (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are you gonna keep ignoring? TRAVERA1 (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: No, don't worry. I was just very busy yesterday and today. I had just logged in to address your points, but got wrapped up in another discussion for the moment. Please be a bit patient, I'm sorry that I needed a bit more time for this. Applodion (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Hi! First of all, I would like to commend your patience and willingness to engage in a constructive discussion. The dispute I just experienced on another article was basically the complete opposite.
Anyway, back to the topic:
Regarding the Turkish losses: The article states 96 killed, but you are right, the article also states that 96 includes the injured. Perhaps this is a translation issue. For now, I have changed "96 killed" to "96 losses" in the infobox, to avoid misunderstandings. Perhaps we can find a clearer SOHR source.
Regarding the SDF losses: I'm sorry, you were right. I looked into it, and I could not find an up-to-date SOHR source for SDF losses. I changed the infobox accordingly with a date next to the losses.
Regarding terorsehitleri.com: Ok, fair enough. Still, the site appears to have links to the government through the Ministry of Family and Social Policy. Anyway, what do you think, should we add the terorsehitleri assessments to the article? Applodion (talk) 23:06, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"terorsehitleri.com basına bu ziyaretleri yaptığı gün ilimizde olan Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanı Fatma Şahin'le de görüşme fırsatı buldu."
"terorsehitleri.com had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Family and Social Policies, Fatma Şahin, who was in our city the day she made these visits to the press."
Erdoğan had met up with Şahin because she was visiting a city which Erdoğan was living in. And since Erdoğan is trying to find pictures, names, etc. of the list of turkish soldiers, civillians, police officers etc. ever since terror attacks as far as back as the 70s, he decided to talk with Şahin, which since she is the minister of family and social policies, he would get alot of information from.
"Terör Şehitleri internet sitesi kurucusu ve yöneticisi olan Erdoğan Erdoğan, Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar Bakanı Fatma Şahin'e Sakarya ziyareti sırasında 20 sayfalık bir dosya verdi."
Here, it says that Erdoğan gave Şahin a file with 20 pages inside so he also gave her some information as well.
"Erdoğan yaptığı açıklamada; "Sayın Bakanımıza bizlerin başından sonuna kadar içinde olduğu Kastamonu Tosyalı Gazi Uzm. Cvş. Fırat Zorba'ya 'Bir Tuğlada sen Koy' adlı ev projesinde Facebook Türk Bayrağı Hayran Sayfasında yaptığımız yayınlarla 110 milyar toplanan paralarla yapılan evin 18 Aralık 2012 tarihinde hiç kimsenin haberi olmadan gizli saklı bir şekilde Bağışçılardan ve Halktan uzakta bir Köy Karakolunda teslim edildiğini söyledik. Bu durumu kabul edemediğimizi ve Gazimizin ve Ailesinin onuruna yakışır, evin olduğu yerde halka ve bağışçılara açık bir törenle 18 Mart'ta verilecek olan Devlet övünç madalyasıyla beraber verilmesini istedik. Sayın Bakanımızın Konuyla ilgilenmeleri, gereğinin ve törenin yapılması için AK Parti Sakarya Milletvekili Ayşenur İslam'a, Sakarya Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar İl Müdürü Kerem Toprak ve Bakanlık Şehit ve Gazi İşlemleri Daire Başkanına talimat verdiler" dedi."
"Erdogan said in his statement, "To our Honorable Minister, Veteran Master Sergeant Fırat Zorba from Kastamonu, Tosyalı, We told Fırat Zorba that the house, which was built with 110 billion liras (Theres a slang in Turkish Language, before 2005, 1 lira was equivalent to 1 million, and it just kinda stuck with peoples tongues and alot of people still refer to money amounts as millions, billions and trillions, so here it would actually would be 110 thousand liras in 2012.) collected through the publications we made on the Facebook Turkish Flag Fan Page in the house project called 'And you Place a Brick', was handed over to a village police station, away from the Donors and the Public, on December 18, 2012, without anyone knowing. We could not accept this situation and demanded that it be presented with the Medal of Honor, which will be given on March 18, with a ceremony open to the public and donors where the house is, befitting the honor of our Veteran and his Family. They gave instructions to AK Party Sakarya Deputy Ayşenur İslam, Sakarya Provincial Director of Family and Social Policies Kerem Toprak and the Department of Martyrs and Veterans Affairs of the Ministry to take care of the issue and to carry out the ceremony," Said Erdoğan.
"Sakarya Aile ve Sosyal Politikalar İl Müdürü Kerem Toprak'ın hafta içi görüşme yapmak için kendisini makamına davet ettiğini anlatan Erdoğan; "Sayın Bakanımıza Şehit Ailelerimiz ve Gazilerimizle Alakalı duyarlılıklarından ötürü teşekkür ediyor ve Kastamonu Valiliğinin ve Tosya Kaymakamlığının bir an önce resmi karar alarak Gazimizin ve Ailesinin onuruna yakışır bir törenle evin teslim edilmesini istiyoruz" dedi."
"Explaining that Sakarya Family and Social Policies Provincial Director Kerem Toprak invited him to his office to hold a meeting on weekdays, Erdoğan said: "I thank our Minister for his sensitivities regarding our Martyr Families and Veterans, and the Kastamonu Governorship and Tosya District Governorate took an official decision as soon as possible. "We want the house to be handed over with a ceremony worthy of his family's honor,"
And finally, Kerem Toprak is just a provincial director, who had brought Erdoğan to his office for the things he had done. TRAVERA1 (talk) 12:33, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Yes... and doesn't this confirm that there are government connections? Mind you, I don't say that it is bad that they have government connections, but if terorsehitleri.com would be publishing data which the government didn't like, the cooperations mentioned above wouldn't be possible, would they?
Anyway, my opinion on the matter isn't really important anyway. What matters is: a) terorsehitleri.com exists and seems to collect its data from various sources, which can be useful, and b) its leader (as you helpfully pointed out) is probably not connected to the Erdogan family. I would say that we can include the claims by terorsehitleri.com in the article.
Could you please list the individual links of terorsehitleri.com for the losses of the Turkish military and the SDF so we can add them to the article? Applodion (talk) 12:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt change the losses of the SDF losses so theyre still the same and still would be (Turkey Claim)
http://www.terorsehitleri.com/sehit-ara?detayli=1&name=&martyr_place=Suriye&tarih_yil=2018&tarih_ay=&martyr_type=&birth_place=&dogum_yil=&dogum_ay=&rank=&tomb_place=&education_status=&marital_status=&child_number=&s=1
http://www.terorsehitleri.com/sehit-ara?detayli=1&name=&martyr_place=Suriye&tarih_yil=2019&tarih_ay=&martyr_type=&birth_place=&dogum_yil=&dogum_ay=&rank=&tomb_place=&education_status=&marital_status=&child_number=&s=1
Top link is for 2018 losses
Bottom link is for 2019 losses. TRAVERA1 (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Do you have links where they are collected, i.e. a link with concrete numbers for Operation Olive Branch? Counting them ourselves would be WP:OR. Applodion (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean they were killed in syria, the dates match too, it would be saying like a german soldier being killed in kursk in july 1943, and saying that he wasnt a part of operation citadel. TRAVERA1 (talk) 08:27, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Not exactly. For instance, Turkish troops were also engaged at the Manbij frontline and in Idilb at the time of Operation Olive Branch. Thus, the overall number of Turkish losses reported by terorsehitleri.com would be too high. Didn't they ever release loss data specifically for Operation Olive Branch? Or perhaps some journalists used their data for a concrete list? Applodion (talk) 13:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well im not too sure, ill check their causes of deaths, see if the exact place has been listed. TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Thank you, if you discover anything that would be great! Applodion (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 45 are listed killed in Operation Olive Branch, no civillians included. And a T129 ATAK Helicopter.
However i still wouldnt reccomend putting this as (turkey claim) as you even can find their graves, and places that their names were given. TRAVERA1 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: Do you have a link for all 45? Alternatively we could create a note to collect several links for the Turkish KIA. Applodion (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Check all the soldiers there, the ones that have the words "Zeytin Dalı (Olive Branch in Turkish)" in their causes of deaths are the ones. Theres not a specific link for every single one of them so anyone who stumbles on the operation olive branch page, gets curious and decides to check the reference, he has to check out every single one of them. TRAVERA1 (talk) 07:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And making a seperate link would be just a waste of time, nobody would try to falsify, or however you say it, the current reference as its very easy to select the soldiers who were KIA in Olive Branch. TRAVERA1 (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But if you really wanna make one, go ahead, nothing is stopping you. TRAVERA1 (talk) 07:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: I can't just collect this data myself; as I said above, that would be WP:OR and is not allowed. However, I did find a source with an overall number; sadly, it is for up to October 2023, so it also includes the SDF insurgency in Northern Aleppo. It states that 72 Turkish soldiers were killed. I would just say we add this number to both articles with a specification on how it covers losses for a longer period. Applodion (talk) 08:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just check every single soldier from the links ive given, and select the ones that have the key words "Zeytin Dalı" in the cause of death. Thats what i did. I can give you all the names of the soldiers aswell if you want. TRAVERA1 (talk) 11:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: I told you that we are not allowed to do that due to Wikipedia's rules. We can only use it if the source already collected/processed the information, like in the link I provided. Applodion (talk) 13:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How are we gonna do it then TRAVERA1 (talk) 08:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@TRAVERA1: As I said, we list the collected number, but add the date to it. Applodion (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Amman (1970)

[edit]

Hello, can you please have a look at this article? Thank you Dl.thinker (talk) 13:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you are well. I want to clarify what I wanted in my first message. First, I want to bring the article to a level befitting its size and its huge consequences for the conflict in the Middle East as a whole. I saw how articles on the Uganda-Tanzania war and the Toyota War were developed. Black September or the civil war in Jordan is fraught with many problems, and work can be done to develop them. Dl.thinker (talk) 13:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dl.thinker: Yes, I will take a look. Give me some time. I will be quite busy this weekend. Applodion (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see, someone nominated the article for deletion. My argument in the discussion was that the article was written from scratch and nothing was copied from Black September. Black September generally refers to the events in Jordan 1970–71, while the Battle of Amman covers September 1970 only.--Dl.thinker (talk) 00:00, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dl.thinker: I have voiced my view on the matter. Applodion (talk) 12:55, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding image to article page, Simon Ekpa.

[edit]

@Applodion Greetings to you! Can you help me to add an image found on Flickr to the article page Simon Ekpa? The page is protected, hence l can't add it. Meanwhile, l have already uploaded the image to Wikimedia commons automatically. Link here WondersShallNeverEnd (talk) 21:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you know...

[edit]

I hope you know how great of an editor you are. I stumble across your articles rather often, most recently Kingdom of Burundi, and both your quality standards and diversity of interests are hugely remarkable.

I came across King Zhao of Zhou and King Nan of Zhou a few months ago and they were a welcome surprise from the typical stubs of ancient Chinese kings. I was inspired to try one of the Xia kings, and had a shot at Zhu of Xia—an interesting mini-project, but evidently there is/was little to say. Anyways, if you ever want to collaborate on a Chinese king, perhaps a famous one like Wu Ding, let me know. Best – Aza24 (talk) 00:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cong .. So pro

[edit]

WOOOW You are too clever to know that svg files are copyrighted even though the curves are mine. An imitation of the original logo. أبو آسر (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@أبو آسر: You do not own the copyright to these logos. As they are calligraphic art, it is quite possible that your versions will soon get deleted on Wikimedia - as was the case for several other uploads of IS logos over the last years. Applodion (talk) 21:58, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abu Ibrahim al-Hashimi al-Qurashi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fitna.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023)

[edit]

Why did you revert the update without an explanation on Deir ez-Zor clashes (2023) ? CatmanBw (talk) 09:04, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CatmanBw: As previously explained by RopeTricks, you can't just add one source and edit one parameter and just leave it at that. It is still unclear whether the more recent clashes were part of the previous clashes, as the newer ones appear to have been a pro-government raid from across the Euphrates instead of a local uprising. Applodion (talk) 09:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that's true, it doesn't go against that version of the article as they were part of the first round of clashes too. CatmanBw (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also it's not just a source. It is the most reliable source for news on the Syrian civil war. CatmanBw (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CatmanBw: That's not the point. The point is that you barely edit the article, and barely put any effort into your edits. Properly update the article, and outline your position, and you won't get reverted. Applodion (talk) 10:16, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have no idea what you are talking about. I am the one who started the article in the first place. CatmanBw (talk) 10:20, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CatmanBw: Yes, and the article you started was one paragraph long, and your recent edits consisted of changing a number and copy-pasting a web link. Most of the current article was written by PanNostraticism2, LevatorScapulaeSyndrome, and Shadowwarrior8. Shadowwarrior8 alone wrote probably 50%. Applodion (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CatmanBw: I have updated the article and included a section to reflect the second series of clashes. Applodion (talk) 10:38, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Your effort is appreciated. CatmanBw (talk) 10:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@CatmanBw: Look, I don't want to be annoying. I just think that if you want to update an article, don't just edit the infobox - add a full sentence so that a reader isn't confused due to the infobox stating something else as the text. Applodion (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, I don't have that much free time so I am contributing what I can in accordance with editing policy Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. CatmanBw (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lei Xu

[edit]

I seriously didn't see that, sorry! Will look more carefully next time. (The image is funny tho, if only time travel was real...) Wanquanbiantai (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wanquanbiantai: Haha, don't worry, this kind of stuff just happens - especially as one has to edit a lot at once. My edit summary was also just meant as a bit of a cheeky fun ;-D Applodion (talk) 18:13, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thank you very much! Applodion (talk) 16:50, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]
The Congo Barnstar of National Merit
For Operation South. Excellent work! -Indy beetle (talk) 07:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: Thank you! Applodion (talk) 11:12, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Operation South

[edit]

On 5 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation South, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Che Guevara was almost killed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo during Operation South? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Operation South. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Operation South), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with Ja'alin and Shaigiya update

[edit]

Hi, in September last year you asked me for literature regarding the pre-Arabic roots of the Ja'alin and Shaiqiya. Your request inspired me to write a paper to compile 19th-century literature discussing their pre-Arabic languages. It also discusses why they abandoned their languages in favour of Arabic. The paper is published in the upcoming volume of "Der Antike Sudan", a peer-reviewed journal dedicated to the history and archaeology of Sudan. Therefore you can quote it without problems. LeGabrie (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@LeGabrie: Thank you! I will take a look in the coming days. Applodion (talk) 23:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Query

[edit]

Hello, Applodion,

I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Dadiani II and noticed your comments in the discussion. If you are knowledgable about World War I, could you look at other articles created by Mateuka in case there are other articles that might be hoaxes or be unverifiable? Military history is not my area of knowledge so I could probably be taken in on all of the details and sources present and not be able to detect when they were hiding a sham depiction of a battle or general. If they are obvious hoaxes, you can just tag them for speedy deletion CSD G3 or they could be brought to AFD if you have the time to set up a nomination. Thank you for any help you can provide. Liz Read! Talk! 21:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I already looked into their edits during the deletion discussion, and reverted a number of problematic edits. As far as I could see, however, most of their "new" content was never moved out of the sandbox/draft stage; these drafts generally also seem like hoaxes (though I'm not sure about those; in contrast, William Dadiani II was an extremely obvious case). They moved four dubious articles into mainspace, but all got already deleted. However, they did do some POV editing on some WW1 articles. I will check for any more cases where a revert might be neccessary. Applodion (talk) 23:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Palestine and Palestinian irredentism

[edit]

Hello. Applodion, since you are an expert in revising and rewriting quotations from secondary sources, can you help us? Because the article undoubtedly achieves notability, but there is a bit scarcity of information. It needs to increase information and secondary sources. Here is just a few. [5] is behind a paywall however. The Palestinian National Council convened in February-March 1971 considers that there exists a historical national bond between Palestine and Jordan from time immemorial. (Palquest), [6]. Sakiv (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sakiv: Looks like the discussion is already over and the article got merged. Sorry that I didn't see your message in time. Applodion (talk) 13:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:38, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Nechaev photo

[edit]

Hello! Please explain why you rejected the insertion of a rare photo of General Konstantin Nechaev from my own collection without explanation? Please look into it and revert the changes.My collection of photographs of Nechaev’s Russian detachment is the largest in the world, about a thousand photographs, but you do not allow them to be published. Why? MBlinoff (talk) 08:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MBlinoff: For a very simple reason: I researched Nechaev several years ago, and one source outright said that almost all photos/films of him were taken by a Soviet film crew. Their footage was later released and is thus copyrighted, but the exact realease date is no longer known - thus, it is nearly impossible to find footage of him whose copyright is definitively expired. So, odds are that you got access to a collection which is still copyright-protected. Or can you prove that your photos were never released? Or that they taken by a non-Russian crew? Or anything at all about the photos' origin? Applodion (talk) 22:13, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the situation is as follows. Photographs of the Nechaev Detachment were taken by several photographers. Many died before 1929, many later. The Soviets were enemies of the ranks of the detachment. When the NKVD captured China, about 150-200 photographs were received of Nechaev’s detachment. Now they are in the Russian archive of GARF. Part was published by Russian authors. Copyrights conditionally belong to GARF (conditionally, because according to international laws, rights belong to photographers). The NKVD received these photographs without permission. I collected a collection in the 90s in the USA. The veterans of Nechaev’s detachment gave me their photographs (which they took themselves or which their friends took for them). Now this collection of mine numbers about 1000 photographs. In the 00s, I gave my friends a small number of photographs for the publication of books (author Alexander Okorokov). Then these photographs from the book began to circulate on the Internet illegally without the permission of me and Okorokov. I only posted the photo of Nechaev that I tried to upload on the page of my website. But I don't mind free use on Wikipedia. I see that you are also interested in the civil war in China, so let's be friends and think about how to use what correctly. If you need rare photographs, I am also ready to provide them to you (both published on the Internet and not published). This is the situation, now decide what to do.
PS. I posted this photograph of Nechaev only here, on the page of my website with my article. MBlinoff (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: Ok, but by your explanation, the copyright to these photos still belongs to the original photographers, not you. They gave you the permission to use / publish them, but not to release them into creative commons. Legally, it is entirely possible that some of your photos are still officially owned by the photographers' families. Furthermore, the fact that GARF published some content makes this even more complicated - because the rules for expired copyright of non-published photos (i.e. PD-US-record-expired) states that the image is not allowed to have ever been published before 2003. In essence: GARF stole the photos, but by releasing them tiggered the copyright rules which apply to the original photographers, i.e. "copyright expires no later than 70 years after the death of the author".
To put it in a simple way: The only photos which you could upload to Wikimedia are those which a) were never published/released anywhere before 2003, including not by GARF or b) photos which were actually published somewhere before 1929 (If you know the photographers of some images and their death dates, it would also help immensely). Any other photos would have to be deleted as copyright violations.
Please understand that your photos are of immense value and would be absolutely amazing additions to Wikipedia and Wikimedia, but we have to make sure that the copyright rules (as stupid as many of these rules are) are respected. Applodion (talk) 13:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's about it, but... There are different laws for photographs. For example, many photographs from the collection of the Imperial War Museum, the copyright belongs to the owners of the collections, and not to those who made them. Transferring (purchasing, donating) old photographs or postcards also means transferring copyright to use this artifact. You need to focus on the leading museums (archives) of the world. An archive that has a photograph also has copyright on it as an artifact of the collection. As for the photographs of Nechaev’s detachment, at the moment 1) it is unknown who took the photographs 2) When photographers transferred photographs to friends, this was considered the right to own them and use them for their intended purpose. 3) Most of the photographers were beaten in the war of 1925-1929 or in Stalin’s camps. 1945-1953. Some of the photographs I received from surviving participants were taken by them themselves. Unfortunately, it is now impossible to determine who the author of the photographs is (the majority), but the copyright for reproduction belongs to the owners of the photographs. This is international practice. Leading Museums and Archives and collectors of the world use this very practice. Now decide for yourself what you can and cannot do. I follow exactly the practice of world museums/archives. MBlinoff (talk) 14:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nd one more problem or not a problem. The families will never be able to prove their copyright, since 1) the negatives have not survived. I specifically looked for negatives in all the few families (less 10), but I couldn’t find them. 2) Even if they have negatives, they cannot prove that their father took the photographs, since he could have received the negatives from other people. Witnesses who can confirm who took the photographs have not been alive since the late 90s. The youngest member of Nechaev’s squad died in 2002, the rest earlier. But still the different laws apply to artifacts (photo cards and postcards). The owner of the photographs (for example, a Museum or Archive) has the copyright to the production of this original. MBlinoff (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: Actually, I don't think that it is as easy as that. For instance, archives and museums are not allowed to just publish any photo, they usually ask for permission by the owners or take them from state-sponsored groups. The Imperial War Museum largely publishes photos taken by employees of the British Empire, and in cases where they didn't -i.e. captured photos of the Central Powers and Axis during the World Wars- they just didn't care about copyright. Mind you, some museums and archives actually use stolen photos which has led to deletions on Wikimedia when this was discovered. Either way, the members of Nechaev's group were not in service of a organization with legal rights, so all their photos were individually owned, meaning that the copyright would be transferred to family members or through purchase, yet as you say, the exact origin and ownership of the photos remains largely unclear.
However, if you are sure that photos in your collection were never published before 2003, the copyright expired anyway. This would make any previous ownership irrelevant. In those case, we can safely use the "PD-US-record-expired" copyright tag on Wikimedia, and the photos would be safe from deletion. Applodion (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so what we have. The authorship of this photograph by Nechaev is unknown. The likelihood that he survived and has heirs is extremely unlikely. In this rare case, the heirs cannot confirm the authorship of their father. I didn’t publish this photo until 2003. A year ago I scanned it and posted it on the page of my website. I gave about 15 photographs to my friend Okorokov for his book (after 2003). What are we doing? If we upload again, what should I write about the authorship of this photo in the description? For example, “author unknown, not published until 2003, collection of M. Blinov.” Right? MBlinoff (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I’m waiting for a letter to my email (on a different topic) MBlinoff (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: Regarding "author unknown, not published until 2003, collection of M. Blinov" - In essence, yes. There would be two copyright & attribution parts for all of your photos: In "Source", it would be "MBlinoff's collection of historic photographs"; in "Author" it would be "Unknown soldier of Nechaev's unit (original photo) < br > MBlinoff (scan)", and in "Licensing" it would be "cc-by-sa-4.0" (for your scan) and "PD-US-record-expired" (for the original photo).
This should hopefully sort out all of your copyright issues and prevent any more of your photographs from being doubted/deleted. Also, thank you for your patience, I know this proccess is annoying, but believe me - everyone who starts to add historic photograhs on Wikimedia encounters these issues (I did too). Applodion (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strange situation. For example, in an article about Nechaev you give a photograph of General Kappel (1919). It is also unknown who took this photo. But this photograph was given for publication to the magazine "Pioneer" (USA, 1970s). In this case, the heirs of the magazine are alive and can claim their copyright. But you post this photo. It was the tradition of the Russian emigration not to discuss the issue of copyright. The veteran gave a photograph for publication in the magazine without any agreement with the editor. By the way, I also found the original of this photograph of Kappel. In 2006, I gave the photo for publication in books with a warning to indicate that it was from my collection. This was not done. Now this photo is circulating all over the Internet. MBlinoff (talk) 18:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: I didn't upload the photo; the original uploader put a copyright notice at the image that "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published (or registered with the U.S. Copyright Office) before January 1, 1929." I believed this notice. If you are certain that the photo was first published in the 1970s, it would have to be deleted from Wikimedia. In fact, we should start a deletion request. Applodion (talk) 18:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the best reason is the copyright infringement charge. This particular photo is from a magazine from the 70s in the USA (Pervopokhodnik, LA, Cal). But in the 20s, I think, this photo was published in Harbin newspapers of very poor quality and without an agreement. But we can post the original of this photo, larger in size and better quality. For Wikipedia readers this is much more important. MBlinoff (talk) 18:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I will do exactly this, exactly, so that everything is correct. Wikipedia has a rule that you can have a “mentor” who corrects the correctness of text and photographs. If this doesn’t bother you, I would like you to be such a “mentor” for me (especially since I have a lot of documents and media files on your works). But I have many rare photographs of the 90s and 00s that I took personally. MBlinoff (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: Of course, feel free to ask me anything. Btw, I have adjusted the file per my recommendations. If you disagree with anything, please say so. If the changes are ok and correct, we can adjust your other historic photos accordingly. However, if any of the photos were made by people who were still alive after 1940s, please note that we cannot use them. Applodion (talk) 18:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that's what we'll do. In the 90s, I specially compiled lists of who from Nechaev’s detachment survived after the 40s. Very little. In 2002, I recorded on video (professionally) the story of a soldier from Nechaev’s detachment, who was 102 years old. I also tried to find out who took the photos. This is impossible. Each regiment had a photographic apparatus, the photographer took pictures for all friends. While the last few people from Nechaev’s detachment were alive, I could not identify the photographer. They all answered that they did not remember who took the photographs, but they died in China. At the end of their service in the unit, they all sold their cameras because they needed money. MBlinoff (talk) 18:49, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MBlinoff: That's actually enough proof. If the survivors basically confirmed that the photographers had died in China, regardless of who exactly took which photo, then this means that we have confirmed death date(s) 1920s-1940s. In turn, this satisfies the copyright demands. Applodion (talk) 18:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Nechaev's Detachment there was a rule that the owner (and not the author) of a photograph had full right to use the photograph from his collection. Publish yourself, provide photos to various newspapers and magazines (as in the case of General Kappel). But in a legal matter, the heirs of the photographers (even if they are alive) do not have any evidence that the photographs were taken by their father or grandfather. None. Now you know the whole situation. If you consider it necessary to post something from my stories, I will not object. Perhaps this information can be useful. Together we can add to the article about Nechaev about surviving documents and photo archives. MBlinoff (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Konstantin Petrovich Nechaev.png

[edit]
⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Konstantin Petrovich Nechaev.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) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Aba killings

[edit]

This is a new article and I know you may be interested. Please, help to expand. (Chat With Term)talk 17:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Desert campaign (December 2017–present) vandalism

[edit]

I reverted, but keep an eye here please [7], thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EkoGraf: I have put the article on my watchlist, thanks for pointing this out. Applodion (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thank you too. I looked through that editor's other edits and it seems he made a bunch of other changes regarding the casualty figures, leaving a large number of discrepancies that were contradictory to the sources cited. I think I corrected them all now. EkoGraf (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

[edit]

Hi, I see you've contributed a lot to Kingdom of Bugesera, would you be interested in a taskforce on oral tradition? Kowal2701 (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

End Bad Governance protests

[edit]

Please, help in autopatrolling the article. It's an ongoing event and readers need to see it LIVE as soon as possible. Please, review.

Thank you. Wår (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biafra Referendum

[edit]

You may wish to review for indexing since this is an ongoing event. Wår (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Green's October 2024 edit-a-thon

[edit]

Hello Applodion:

WikiProject Women in Green is holding a month-long Good Article Edit-a-thon event in October 2024!

Running from October 1 to 31, 2024, WikiProject Women in Green (WiG) is hosting a Good Article (GA) edit-a-thon event with the theme Around the World in 31 Days! All experience levels welcome. Never worked on a GA project before? We'll teach you how to get started. Or maybe you're an old hand at GAs – we'd love to have you involved! Participants are invited to work on nominating and/or reviewing GA submissions related to women and women's works (e.g., books, films) during the event period. We hope to collectively cover article subjects from at least 31 countries (or broader international articles) by month's end. GA resources and one-on-one support will be provided by experienced GA editors, and participants will have the opportunity to earn a special WiG barnstar for their efforts.

We hope to see you there!

Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Battle of Kembogo

[edit]

On 16 October 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Kembogo, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that rebel fighters pursued their fleeing enemies during the Battle of Kembogo because they wanted new boots? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Kembogo. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Kembogo), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

[edit]
Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Applodion&oldid=1255713298"