User talk:Applodion/Archive 5

DYK for Yamashiro ikki
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 01:26, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your edit on the Independence of Brazil
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 thankses
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 historians
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)
 * Huh, never noticed that one. Thanks for pointing it out. Applodion (talk) 23:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Sanin Husain
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)
 * 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 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Ukraine
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)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:48, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FAQ help request
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)
 * 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)
 * 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!
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)
 * 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 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Escambray Rebellion page
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 you
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 map
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)
 * 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 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Subject on a recent edit of yours
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dispute
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)
 * See the article talk page, and a series of edit summaries by different editors, including these ones:, , , . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 surprise
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)
 * 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)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

My apology
My apology on that spurious warning. You appear to be correct, that warning should have gone to the subsequent editor. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Emojipedia
Good afternoon, Applodion.

You've reverted my edit on the Unicode section of the Flag of Algeria article. Please notice that the same correct information is used in articles concerning the flags of Canada, China, Croatia, Russia cited by the same "seemingly unlegit" source.

Yours sincerely. يوسف قناوة (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If these pages use the same source, it should be removed there, too. After looking into it, Emojipedia would perhaps be reliable for emojis, but I highly doubt that it should be used for information on national flags. Applodion (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Arbegnoch
“this is plain false - the Arbegnoch were mobilized before the war ended”.

Ok. So can you tell me where did they operated during the war period? What Battle? who where their commander? Tamart0290 (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

were* Tamart0290 (talk) 14:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

the “Arbegnoch were basally random people in Ethiopia from different provinces in Ethiopia, that had nothing in common but resistance against the Italian occupation. They were not a single unit. in that case there is no reason for them to be included during the war period. Tamart0290 (talk) 14:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, several people disagreed with you on the war's talk page. The Arbegnoch were mobilized from December 1935. For instance, Arbegnoch led by Haile Mariam Mammo defeated an Italian contingent at Chacha on 4 May 1936, killing 170 soldiers. Secondly, a "movement" does not need to be united or fully organized to be regarded as combatant; partisan movements were rarely united. Applodion (talk) 14:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Funny that you mentioned that, because a day before that, on 5 May 1936, the Italian army already entered and conquered Addis Abba (the capital of Ethiopia) and basically ended the war. Not to mention that the Emperor of Ethiopia was already in exile. So yes. My point is still stand. They were not operated during the war period. Tamart0290 (talk) 14:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

oh.. never mind. my mistake. I thought that you wrote 6 of may. Tamart0290 (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The war did not end with the fall of Addis Abba. Even the regular Ethiopian army kept fighting until 1937. This was only ignored by Italian propaganda at the time. Applodion (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you Ethiopian? Tamart0290 (talk) 14:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No. But why should this matter? Historians state that the war lasted at least until 1937, and some even extend it into into WW2. Applodion (talk) 14:59, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I get your point. But let’s agree to disagree on that one. the imperial government of Ethiopia was in exile, there was looting taking place in Addis, the army was dismissed. That is why I thinks that the operations of the Arbegnoch was mostly after or at least in a late period of the war. Tamart0290 (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly fine for you to think that the war ended in 1936. However, Wikipedia follows the sources, and the sources say that the Arbegnoch fought in the war. Applodion (talk) 15:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

in war there are Battels. Yet you can’t tell me a single Battle which the Arbegnoch took place 🤷🏾‍♂️ Tamart0290 (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I literally mentioned one above. Applodion (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

in that case, I believe that you should mention on the page the Raya and yejju Oromo that fought along side Italy and killed Ethiopian patriots ( including the Ethiopian minster of war) Tamart0290 (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I added "Italian Ethiopia (from 1936)" to the infobox. Applodion (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No! What? What is that even mean “Italian Ethiopia”? I was talking about random Oromo from yejju and wollo that works with Italy Before Ethiopia Italia was established. Please remove it. It’s emplaning the wrong message. Tamart0290 (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Remove it. What you did now is hurting the legacy of the Ethiopian patriots that fought and died. I was referring to Oromos of yejju and wollo. How did you even got to that? Remove it please! Tamart0290 (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

what you did now is like putting French-Germany as part of the German forces. Please remove it. Tamart0290 (talk) 16:54, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Any collaboration between Italians and Ethiopians took place in the context of the occupation system which is generally called "Italian Ethiopia". Several of the "random Oromo from yejju and wollo" were, to my understanding, high-ranking Ethiopian officials and nobles. Applodion (talk) 17:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Amhara page
Hi, the page of the Amhara people got deleted by the user YONAJ. I don’t understand why to they Allow to remove all those sources? They are well established sources by well known scholars. Tamart0290 (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It appears that the content you tried to insert into the Amhara people article was deleted because it violated copyright. See FAQ/Copyright and Copyrights for some details on the rules on copying content from other sites into Wikipedia. Applodion (talk) 18:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This is complete nonsense. I don’t understand it. Those are well based on the sources. Tamart0290 (talk) 18:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem was not that you based it on sources; you appear to have copied the sources which is not allowed. Then again, I have no idea what exactly is happening at the Amhara people article, as I am not involved in that dispute. Applodion (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Applodion. Just so you know, the user above (Tamart0290) is now blocked as a sockpuppet, likely of . ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 21:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I already suspected that they might be a sockpuppet, so no surprises there. Applodion (talk) 08:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Edit reverted
Hi Applodion!

I added a self-made image to the infobox. I would like to know why my contribution was cancelled? Thanks EKokou (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Didn't the same image got deleted as copyright-violation at least once? Applodion (talk) 09:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed the image had been deleted, but it was restored yesterday after checking. You can see it on the commons page of the file. Another person put the same picture back after you cancelled my contribution. But for him there is no problem... EKokou (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If the image has been checked, I have no issue with it. I just thought that someone had reuploaded a copyright-protected photo (which would have broken the rules). Applodion (talk) 10:12, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Belligerents in the Syrian civil war
There an IP removed quite a lot of info and I believe the table before was more informative. I can't restore the version before their edits. Maybe you can have a look? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out. Yeah, the IP mass deleted even the references, no idea why they did that (their changes do not seem like regular vandalism to me). One could not simply restore the old version because of one blacklisted ref in the article; after removing this bad apple from the to-be-restored version, it worked. Applodion (talk) 09:40, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I also don't believe it was vandalism. I guess someone tried what is possible on wikipedia and kept going. Thanks for restoring, I tried as well, but wasn't able to. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:33, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Djibo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Bernard Rwehururu
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)