User talk:Eastfarthingan

Sockpuppet??
I don't know how I missed it all these months, but according to the edit history on my talk page you added the category: Wikipedia sockpuppets of Vinukin at the bottom of my talk page. Why did you do this? It appears that you mentioned Vinukin in a discussion and referred to him with a category link, but that established a category link at the bottom of my user page. I am hoping that it was not your intention of accusing me of being a sock puppet, which is why I am consulting you first rather than taking the matter to WP:ANI. Hope all is well. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't realise it created that and was not even aware of the category. Nor was it my intention to accuse you of being him. It would be probably be best to delete it which I would be willing to do. Apologies. All is good. Thank you. Hope all is well with you?

Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently all that need be done is to include a category link in the conversation and 'behold' the page has a new category. In any case I deleted the message in question. Something a little odd occurred. When the category is deleted at the bottom of the page, the category link in the conversation was automatically changed from 'Vinukin' to 'sock user'.  In any case, I removed the message. You can strike this message if your like -- not that you need my permission, this is your Talk page. Until we lock horns again, cheers! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The way to refer to a category is like this Category:Wikipedia which shows as: Category:Wikipedia. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:12, 2 June 2024 (UTC).

Inline coordinates
Hello. What's the thinking behind changing coordinates to be inline-only for battles? That the conflict itself shouldn't be considered to have a single geographic location? --Lord Belbury (talk) 14:14, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If it has an infobox it dosen't need to be in two places. Also I made a point of this here. Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Specifying "title" doesn't just put the coordinates in the title section, it tells Wikipedia (and any third-party maps or search resources that use the API) that these are the "main coordinates" of the article subject. If someone asks the API where the Battle of Hastings took place, they're told (50.9119,0.4875). If someone asks where the Raid on Sidi Haneish Airfield occurred, the API now returns no coordinates. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The documentation for the coord template doesn't seem to be very clear about this, so I can see why you thought it was just a display option! I've started a thread to see if it can be clarified. --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, and I never knew that. I will check up on the thread you started. Thanks for this it might give me and others a better understanding. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Second Afghan War
Checking out the edit history of that page. I think we should request the page to be semi-blocked (preventing further edits by IP) for PERMANENTLY (yes, PERMANENTLY). Sesroh Fo Maerd I (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If it carries on then I request an admin to semi protect the page. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:10, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It has had been carrying on for many years and still ongoing. I think best if u request it NOW. Regard. Sesroh Fo Maerd I (talk) 20:25, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok I will open a discussionEastfarthingan (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2020 (UTC) in talk page.

Nomination of Capture of Cambridge for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Cambridge is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Capture of Cambridge until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Capture of Oxford for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Capture of Oxford is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Capture of Oxford until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Siege of Cardiff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Siege of Cardiff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Siege of Cardiff until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edouard2 (talk) 16:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anglo-French War (1778–1783), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ferrol.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Janssen Vaccines
Hi Eastfarthingan, could you please explain why you insist on linking the Janssen vaccine to Janssen Pharmaceutica instead of Janssen Vaccines? Both are subsidiaries of Johnson & Johnson, but the vaccine was developed in Leiden by Janssen Vaccines (formerly Crucell). I don't really understand why the division headquarters in Belgium need to be mentioned. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I will look into this more.Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Here are some sources:
 * Hoe een Leids experiment tot een Amerikaans vaccin leidde (in Dutch)
 * Dit is de Nederlandse grondlegger van het Janssenvaccin (in Dutch)

Best, Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, no problem, please revert. Some news sources had got mixed up & quoted Belgian Janssen. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I just did that! Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject Military History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive
Hey y'all, the April 2021 WikiProject Military History Reviewing Drive begins at 00:01 UTC on April 1, 2021 and runs through 23:59 UTC on April 31, 2021. Points can be earned through reviewing articles on the AutoCheck report, reviewing articles listed at WP:MILHIST/ASSESS, reviewing MILHIST-tagged articles at WP:GAN or WP:FAC, and reviewing articles submitted at WP:MILHIST/ACR. Service awards and barnstars are given for set points thresholds, and the top three finishers will receive further awards. To participate, sign up at WikiProject Military History/April 2021 Reviewing Drive and create a worklist at WikiProject Military history/April 2021 Reviewing Drive/Worklists (examples are given). Further details can be found at the drive page. Questions can be asked at the drive talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Pombal
Good morning.

I do not want to simply assume a certain level of bias but your inconsistency related to the edits on this page in particular is quite bothersome.

Turning the result of the Battle of Redinha to "Indecisive" is certainly more than reasonable considering the mess that was its previous state (the whole French "tactical" victory or draw nonsense was ridiculous).

But the fact that you did so as well with the Battle of Pombal after such an obviously deliberate edit of the lead by the user Marcuscribb89 actually makes your intentions questionable as you seemed to have had no particular issues with it and solely focused on reverting a specific set of edits.

Is the purpose of the battle and what was at stake at Pombal a point of contention among British historians? In contrary to Redinha which in francophone sources is either presented as a tactical victory or as "inconclusive" (hence my judgement on the "Indecisive" result being appropriate), there is no such debate about Pombal at all. What exactly about driving the allies out of Pombal and proceeding on the march warrant "Indecisive" as a result in the infobox? Especially when the origin of it is a dubious edit of the lead by a random user (who has quite the history of doing that from what I could gather from his profile)?! (Jules Agathias (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC))


 * With regards to Pombal it is a rearguard skirmish defined by many historians. The article itself is dogged through a lack of sources, although I'd be happy to add a few at some point. The context of the engagement is that Wellington was checked by Ney until reinforcements were brought up and the latter retreated. One source claims that Ney was defeated at Pombal while others say it was a rearguard action. If one thing is for sure it was a successful delaying action for Ney, so perhaps it would be better to place that under the result and I would be happy with that. As for said user I know nothing of him except that he is a curator and Ops manager at Apsley House, orginal home to the Duke of Wellington. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Eastfarthingan
 * Alright, let's do that then. I asked you if there were a lack of consensus about it with British historians because the credible sources in English about the Pennisular War I could find do not give much details about the skirmish. There seems to be a lack of infos about what concretly happened. It was just the generic "Ney fought a successful rearguard action off and continued his march as well as doing so the next day at Redinha, which allowed Masséna and his army not to be caught by Wellington". They are basically treated as simple footnotes and not that important. I didn't want to edit the result and lead solely using French sources on an en.wikipedia article. That's why I came to discuss it first. I'll leave it to you then if you managed to find some good sources in English to add. (Jules Agathias (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC))


 * Ok no problem as agreed I'll put that in the result as a sub. I'll also looking into researching for more info & cite where needed. Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

British logistics in the Siegfried Line campaign
Why not review the article? It is currently nominated at GA. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Will do, great article. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:16, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you! My first full GA review - it was a pleasure and look forward to the next one. Eastfarthingan (talk) 07:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

New article
Hello, I noticed the fine article you wrote about Francis Drake's circumnavigation. Please know that it inspired me to write an accompanying list article Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation. First I checked with Teahouse hosts about the viability and acceptance of such an article as I've had 3 rejected. They were encouraging. I do hope you have a moment to look at it. Also, I'm aware of some footnote cleanups I need to do. After much study of the source code, I finally realized what the problem was--I'll get to it soon.Hu Nhu (talk) 00:08, 12 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the complement,I enjoyed writing it as much I did researching it. I've noticed with that the merge proposal regarding Drake in California - I'll add to the discussion, although I'm mulling about a decision on it. I will check your fine timeline which looks well constructed and researched. Regards. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you
For creating and developing Battle of the Narrow Seas. Perhaps I am betraying my ignorance, but I consider it an obscure battle in a largely-forgotten conflict and as such efforts to create and develop articles on it are particularly important and appreciated. Beyond this, it was enjoyable to read, and I feel have learnt something from doing so - thank you.

While here, I would also like to thank Weymar Horren and MWAK for their contributions to the article, as while they were not as extensive as your own, I feel they also warrant a mention.

Encountered in "On this day", and sometimes the "thank you" button is not sufficient

BilledMammal (talk) 19:56, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation
Hello Eastfarthingan. When I posted a third opinion notice on 's talk page, I noticed that you had already made a request regarding 97.120.93.30's edits. I've made further comments on the Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation talk page toward that end. I appreciate your work and am waiting for an wp:3O editor to weigh in. I've never sought a third opinion and hope it works out well. Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 01:33, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes it looks like a fringe 'theorist' no doubt. I will keep any eye for that weight in. Appeciriate your time too. Thank you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:27, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the possibility that might engage in conversation, I've spent a while explaining my rationale--in detail--for the edits I've made to the Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation article [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Timeline_of_Francis_Drake%27s_circumnavigationHERE. I hope this fosters understanding.


 * Additionally, I saw a comment from another user on Talk:Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation which reads: the entire premise of Drakes voyage was to find the Spice Isles as much as any other stated objective.  Did you find any other information about this? If so, where can I read about it?  I wrote the user and asked for sources. I'm interested to know more about the matter.
 * Thanks again. As for the premise I'd say that was one of the reasons but certainly not the main objective. Drake never intended to circumnavigate the globe or pass through the East Indies. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That, too, has been my understanding of the matter. That is why I'd like to know from where the idea of voyaging to the Spice Islands originates.  Kind regards,Hu Nhu (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In addition it was only after the creation of the Iberian Union that the English wanted to try and break the Portuguese monopoly in the East leading to the foundation of the East India Company. The Spice Islands for them was the primary objective initially, until India later became the target. Eastfarthingan (talk) 09:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

That is interesting to know. While I still have much to read about Sir Francis Drake, I certainly have read somewhat about him and his influence. And in that reading I was unaware of the Spice Island aspect to the circumnavigation. From my understanding, circumnavigation was far from a certainty and the load of cloves from Sultan Babu in Ternate was mostly a fortunate development. What you say makes much sense about the Iberian Union. You seem to know your way about this era is history. . do you have any suggested reading about the Iberian Union or East India Company? If so, I am interested in knowing.

Also, I've posted another polite invitation to |HERE. I'm really not up to an edit war and plan to focus on the alterations 97.120.93.30 makes to either the New Albion or Timeline of Francis Drake's circumnavigation article.Hu Nhu (talk) 23:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

List of wars involving the United Kingdom
Hey, you reverted my edit on "List of wars involving the United Kingdom", I dont see what your issue is there, statistically, the UK had lost more men, than EOKA even had in that "war" if thats what you wish to call it, The Turkish Government, was indeed on the British governments side and that TMT had fought against EOKA and statistically speaking, the UK had lost more men in Cyprus, than the ammount of men that EOKA even had, additionally, with regards to the battles fought, EOKA had won more engagements than the UK, mainly in the 1st of April attacks, bombings at RAF Akrotiri , Battle of Spilia ,. Also given the fact that in the House of Commons, it was clearly expressed that Cyprus could never have expected to be fully independent (Which it now is, see Cyprus) I think consolidates my point well enough. With this information, I ask politely that you do not revert my edit again as the previous information is factually wrong on more than one issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.0.18 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None of these are reliable sources but the main factor is that Enosis was not achieved. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So the British Parliament is not a reliable source? The fact that there are multiple sources pointing to a clear explosion at RAF akrotiri is not a reliable source? EOKAs goal was to get rid of British rule in Cyprus which they successfully did. Also TMT and EOKA were clearly not on the same side and if you think they are, goes for more reasons to show why you shouldnt be editing anything with regards to the Cyprus Emergency.
 * So I ask once more, please do not revert my edit again. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also with your same logic, The UK still retains 0 political control over the modern day Republic of Cyprus (Failure 1), The UK only killed None of the 2 leaders of EOKA (Archbishop Makarios and General George Grivas), (Failure 2), the UK had lost more men than EOKA did (Failure 3), see where wed fail once, the UK fails 3 times so even by your logic, the UK still doesnt win. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 19:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * If somewhere here I have lied, or misinformed you, by all means, send me the proof with valid sources (Or at least not a random blog site), when I get on tomorrow ill probably see it and ill gladly debate this further with you and please, do not say my sources arent reliable just because it doesnt give you the answers you want, especially when one of those sources is the British parliament, its very childish, if you disagree with it, thats fine, your right, but saying its unreliable is just wrong. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You seem to be ignoring the fact that reliable sources are scholarly, peer-reviewed articles or books. You have provided none of those. You keep using 'British Parliament' as a reliable source.. are you serious? Also, 'the UK had lost more men than EOKA did', now that is childish. Eastfarthingan (talk) 21:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok, then show me peer reviewed, scholary articles that point to EOKA failing because like I said, their goal was to get rid of british rule in Cyprus, which, unless your living in another dimension, they succeeded in, the Queen isn't even the head of State in Cyprus so you couldn't even use the commonwealth argument. And no I didn't say you lost more than we did, I said you lost more than we HAD, thats the major difference. So no, you're only editing this because you simply have a pov problem and cant be neutral and to further consolidate my point you are literally putting EOKA and TMT on the same side. I have provided multiple sources to prove my points, you? Not even one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.199.0.18 (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * No, Ive asked you to show me reliable sources to say that EOKA defeated the British militarily and politicaly. Don't change the subject. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:33, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Im not changing the subject, all sources I have provided are reliable you simply dont like the answers so you move your goalposts as to what is reliable. As to me proving how EOKA beat the UK politically, thats like me now asking you to tell me how the SAS beat the Taliban politically. Youre asking me to literally compare apples and oranges here. EOKA was not a political action group it was a paramilitary organisation conducting an unorthodox warfare campaign against the british, in most battles, they had come out the victors as I have proven, im sorry, but if you dont like the fact that the UK had MILITARILY lost, thats not anyones elses problem because throughout this discussion, it still amazes me how you haven't even given me a source to back your claims. Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk) 11:15, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I said none of those sources are reliable, even the Parliament 'source' mentions nothing of your claims. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * UK wanted to stop the island from gaining independece, UK failed at that. I dont see how I can put this any simpler for you.
 * And my claims have been backed, you still have nothing to show for what you said, youre just having a hissy fit over my sources without showing anything to prove your claims, so by all means, im waiting, show me proof that EOKA didnt win more battles against the UK, or better yet, to help you out so you arent trying to prove the negative, show me proof the UK won more battles than EOKA, if you can not do that, simply, the UK lost. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you'd better check the London-Zürich Agreements. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Again, those are political agreements and have nothing to do with my argument, please stop changing the subject where it doesnt suit you, EOKA was not a political organisation, it was a paramilitary/guerrilla organisation, the political organisation was PEKA. Now, it seems you are either willfully or unknowingly dodging the question at hand which are the battles/engagements/operations Britain and EOKA undertook against each other, which in this, EOKA had won by far (Look at the Cyprus Emergency category with the engagements, since you used wiki for London-Zurich I too will use it for this). The UK in comparison to EOKA, had, a larger Army (UK had approx. 40k soldiers, EOKA had 300), it had a Navy and an Air Force The same Air Force and Navy that might I add that had won the Battle of Britain, the UK had more and better technology than anything EOKA had, it had MI5 and MI6 (SIS), it had Royal Marines in Cyprus (Which is a unit capable of conducting unconventional warfare itself), with all these as advantages to the UK, it still failed in multiple fronts:
 * Failed to maintain retention of the whole island
 * Failure to capture/assassinate the 2 heads of EOKA (Archbishop Makarios and General George Grivas)
 * Failure to find Grivas' hideout
 * Most protected bases in Cyprus were not only breached but also blown up in some cases
 * Failure to protect their informants from being captured/assassinated by EOKA

These are things that contrary to your belief, do not need to be "peer reviewed" or "scholorary", there just needs to be proof that they happened which I have provided plenty of.

In the Article I think I was fair enough in saying Greek Tactical Victory, Im clearly making the intentions of what is meant and I have in no way involved the political element.

Another issue is that youre just reverting the edits without just reverting the part you have an issue with (Which is the result), I had also put that Turkey was involved (Via TMT) and I will also add the KKE (Communist Party of Greece)/ AKEL to the list of units with the UK in the Freedom Struggle since it was the KKE that had originally revealed that Digenis, was Grivas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk • contribs) 09:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Your using your own opinion and from unrelaible websites. Again show me reliable peer reviewed & scholarly sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't need to show you any peer reviewed or scholarly sources seen as I have proven that these battles have occurred, if you do not provide me, in your next reply, with any reliable (Reliable being that it can be cross-referenced with other corresponding sources, in English or Greek), sources to back your argument, I will be changing back the edit because clearly you have no intellectual argument, youre just pushing back by your own delusion. If you cant handle that the UK lost thats a you problem, and im using my opinion? Really? Says the guy who on his user page states he is affiliated with the RAF (The same RAF that was up against EOKA which btw is a neutrality issue on your end), and whos actively trying to argue a point which he cant even present 1 source on his behalf. So please, next time dont make false accusations and if you are, make sure to provide me with scholarly, reliable peer reviewed sources about your accusations on me since thats apparently how this goes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk • contribs) 14:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you dont understand how wiki works and this conversation is a waste of time. Go back to your 'blogs'. This 'chat' is now at end. Good day. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Dude with your logic I could knock down 90% of wikipedia pages because they are not scholory/ peer reviewed sources. Go about your hissy fits now, you havent even presented a source in any of your arguments let alone talking about mine, youve sat here for 2 days now, unironically arguing, how the UK, which had quite literally all the assets in the world, lost more engagements to a group of 300 guys, somehow, is considered "Inconclusive", then running to points which have nothing to do with the argument at hand.
 * Yes, its helpful to have scholary sources and all but there is also this thing called, logic, you apply that too in these conversations, and I know for a fact that you didnt put up this much resistance because of my sources (Yes apparantly UK parliament and a Cypriot Political party and a paper on effective peace operations is a blog to you), you put up this resistance because you simply dont like the outcome of that conflict, there is nothing more to it than that and if there was, you would have presented something on your behalf, something which you havent done, youve simply deflected everything ive said and started laying down random accussations on me which proves that you have nothing, all you can do, is throw shade at my sources.
 * "Inconclusive"= not leading to a firm conclusion or result- definition of the word, so, ill recap this one last time.
 * JSTOR is recomended by wikipedia now, read from pages 94 to 100, in page 100 it clearly states "The COIN force was ultimately unsuccessful in Cyprus due to the extensive support enjoyed by EOKA both within Cyprus and neighbouring Greece".
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/j.ctt5hhsjk.17?Search=yes&resultItemClick=true&searchText=%28EOKA%29&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoAdvancedSearch%3Fgroup%3Dnone%26q0%3DEOKA%26q1%3D%26q2%3D%26q3%3D%26q4%3D%26q5%3D%26q6%3D%26sd%3D%26ed%3D%26pt%3D%26isbn%3D%26f0%3Dall%26c1%3DAND%26f1%3Dall%26c2%3DAND%26f2%3Dall%26c3%3DAND%26f3%3Dall%26c4%3DAND%26f4%3Dall%26c5%3DAND%26f5%3Dall%26c6%3DAND%26f6%3Dall%26acc%3Doff%26la%3D%26so%3Drel&ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default%3Ab60c1f948a722f7c16ee106ef0d5043d&seq=6#metadata_info_tab_contents
 * So now that I have used a source which you can no longer claim is "blog" or "unreliable", I will now be changing the outcome of that conflict, if you do not like, it, even by your own standards now, unlucky I guess, unless youd like to argue about JSTOR being an opinion or something.
 * And btw its waste, not waist. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 18:01, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha. 'Dude'. What a joke. 'Go about your hissy fits now' - you're the one having a hissy fit. Inconclusive is of course is the right outcome for the article.Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok so you completely dodged the source from JSTOR I linked? Ok. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I also quite literally handed the page to you on a silver plate, if there is confusion, its page 100, lines 3 through 7. 46.199.0.18 (talk) 18:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Brilliant well done. You've just proved that no side could win. Now what? Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

"The COIN force was ultimately unsuccessful in Cyprus", where in that conclusion do you find no side could win? Like do you not know what unsuccessful means? If you dont, its just one search away. Anyways, like you said before, this conversation is over, I was just entertaining this one sided debate (Because you really didnt give me your side you just denied every source I threw at you) because by wikipedias rules, I have to. Ive provided you with every kind of source you could have asked for (And in fact did ask for), but we both knew that you were never going to stop your kickback. Anyways, in future, when youre going to start edit wars, at least be correct in reverting edits. Anyways, have a good day I guess. Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk) 05:16, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Counter Insurgency was unsuccessful but so too was EOKA. The sources below which are reliable all come to the same conclusion. That although the British failed to defeat EOKA militarily, nevertheless they did succeed in inflicting a political defeat by preventing the achievement of its main aim, Enosis:


 * 'The EOKA Cause: Nationalism and the Failure of Cypriot Enosis' by Andrew R. Novo
 * 'Fighting EOKA: The British Counter-Insurgency Campaign on Cyprus, 1955-1959' by David French
 * 'British Ways of Counter-insurgency: A Historical Perspective' by Matthew Hughes.
 * Hey no worries. I will. You too. 😄👍 Eastfarthingan (talk) 10:32, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Sir I understand the political side, I was talking about the Military side of things, im glad that at least we could agree on the Military side of things, for both politics and Military, you can refer to Cyprus Emergency, where it has the political consequences too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk • contribs) 13:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I never questioned the military side at all. The outcome of the whole campaign/war/emergency is what matters. Hope that puts things in perspective. Eastfarthingan (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean, sure. Ένα μήλο την ημέρα (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

British and American Occupation Zones of Germany
Hello. I saw that you created the article about the British occupation zone in Germany. I wanted to thank you, as it bugged me for some time, that French and Soviet zones had their own articles, while British and American zones had only the redirects to the Allied-occupied Germany. Do you think, that maybe you could also write an article about the American zone, so every zone could have its own article now? Thank you in advance. Sincerely, Artemis Andromeda (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. And yes I would love to, the cultural legacy would have a much bigger impact too. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Battle of Dien Bien Phu
I have nominated Battle of Dien Bien Phu for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

1788 AD
Hi. I made this edit, which you reverted, just because writers/editors mostly do not put an "AD" abbreviation after dates like 1788 (WP:MoS/Dates & numbers#Era). -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need. Waste of time. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:35, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is waste of time. An example: Ludwig van Beethoven was born in 1770 AD (!). -- Hamid Hassani (talk) 13:36, 25 October 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) 00:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation
I am confused by your edit to the article on the Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

Your citation is to page 201 of the 2007 edition of Nick van der Bijl's book Confrontation, The War with Indonesia 1962–1966. I have a copy of the 2009 reprint of the 2007 edition. So the pagination should be the same as the 2007 edition. Page 201 is the second page of Chapter 16 Turmoil in Indonesia. This has: There is nothing about a British/Commonwealth victory.
 * The end of a paragraph whose last sentence is: "When Commander Ignatius Dewanto, the base commander, found out, he instructed that all recruits must be from nationalist and religious organizations."
 * A paragraph starting: "Army commanders were suspicious of the motives of the PKI and Air Force but were careful not to be seen on the political defensive."
 * A paragraph starting: "Lieutenant Colonel Untung was the Army Airborne Infantry battalion commander of the Cakrabirawa Palace Guard."

What edition of the book did you use? I noticed that your initial edit cited the 2014 edition. This suggests that it might have been either: -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2014 paperback edition.
 * The 2014 Kindle edition, which Amazon claims is the 2014 paperback edition. (Pagination in Kindle is often different from paper versions of the book, and can be inconsistent as it depends on screen size, magnifications and other factors.)
 * The Pen and Sword eBook. According to the Pen and Sword website the eBook was released on 18 January 2010.
 * Apologies it was page 275 - 2014 edition (the page on Kindle is 397) - might be a different page to your 2007 version but it is 'Chapter 19 - Conclusions' last sentence of the book. To quote It was an outstanding victory, and it was a victory. So if you can correct the page for the 2007 version that would help. Many thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks - page 246 in the hardback edition. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Blaauwberg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Waldeck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

"The dropdown doesn't work in all formats"
What does this even mean? I assumed you were referring to the templates' collapsible state, which, if set to 'collapsed', indeed prevents it from automatically uncollapsing. Now I'm not so sure, given after I set its state to 'autocollapse'. You are aware that 'autocollapse' means that a template will remain collapsed if a page contains similar templates, right? What am I missing here? Jay D. Easy (t) 16:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The collapse does not work mobile phones ore tablets. When pressing 'show' from 'hide' with cursor or finger, nothing happens. Sorry should've been clearer. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You're still far from clear, though. What does "does not work mobile phones ore tablets" mean? Campaignboxes by default do not appear in mobile view anyways, since they use sidebar as a base. I couldn't reproduce any issues with the show or hide buttons on mobile while using the desktop website, despite trying multiple skins. Jay D. Easy (t) 17:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Right at the bottom of any wiki page there is a desktop or mobile view. With desktop you can see the campaignboxes there but with the auto collapse they do not pull down. That is what I'm talking about. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Articles about Korean War
Hello, Eastfarthingan Recently, I created articles about Korean War

But some user want to delete these articles. If you have the spare time, please participate in the discussion.
 * United Nations Forces in the Korean War
 * Medical support in the Korean War
 * United Kingdom in the Korean War

Best regards Footwiks (talk) 16:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

About the image of Dien Bien Phu
I believe that it is necessary to temporarily take down "Victory of Dien Bien Phu" photo in every Wiki article to avoid misinformation. Information relating to its origin and whether this is a real capture or not are contradictory in various sources, ranging from foreign books, military generals' statements to major Vietnamese online newspapers. I have listed some of them in the discussion page of the Vietnamese version of the "Battle of Dien Bien Phu" article. If you could, I hope that you can check the reliability of those sources.

Thank you. Nghia7554
 * It would be useful if this could be put in the caption of the image or the wiki Commons page from which it is being used - here. Deleting it doesn't solve anything. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Here we go again
This user (185.119.90.12) who waged Edit war on you at the "war of quadruple alliance" page is obviously part of that network of socks and IPs by a Spanish suprematist user that I already talked you about regarding the Spanish Armada article...and I have reported him. It's literally always him. Many many articles his socks have been relentlessly attacking over the year. Basically every time there's something fishy regarding Spain/Spanish history it ends up being him, it's almost unbelievable. When you talk to him he wants to make you believe he stating something obvious and shared by maaany other people and that you are in the minority, but nope, it's one dude claiming non-sense. Barjimoa (talk)
 * That IP User has been blocked & his/her pattern is clearly recognisable. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:40, 11 October 2023 (UTC)


 * User:Eastfarthingan, you have also reverted a bunch of times for non-sense this User:Alburobizet, who, of course, is yet another sock of JamesOredan/VeneziaFriulano. He also operates via several IPs (you have reverted some of them as well) and other accounts I am keeping an eye on. This is the most obvious cause he joined a month ago and basically all his edits (unfortunately a majority has not been reverted yet) are the usual agenda-driven non-sense (always pushing Spain up and putting UK, Italy and Islam down; he remains obsessed with these themes). Some of the evidence: randomly increasingly number of Spanish speakers here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190806107), removing mention that Islam is growing faster than Christianity (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190641062), removing mention that the Italian renaissace is important for modernity and deleting the word "Italian" here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1191661637) and here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1190809946), casually removing British victories against the Spanish here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1188484201), here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1188606540), here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1188629437) and here (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1188524204). He also has the well-known gaslighting habit of James Oredan/Venezia Friulano to accuse others of doing precisely what he is doing. So he says he has deleted non-neutral language when is the one introducing it, or he justified a bunch of his edits on the Spain article by saying that it was edited by a blocked user (which of course it's him and he was talking about an edit he made as Venezia) etc. etc. he has acted like this over and over in the past, it's a (very poor) strategy he came up with to deceive the other users. I'm informing also User:Daniel Case and R Prazeres who just dealt with another sock (the latter will see that both the latest blocked IP and Alburobizet targeted with the same agenda the European colonization of the Americas article).Barjimoa (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. I had my suspicions, and yes I did leave message on his talk page. If I see anything again that mirrors anything like the above. I'll let you know as well as reporting it. Thanks as always! Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:30, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ping Barjimoa Reverted another by so called puppet this time - User:SouthamptonPaak. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe
Hi Eastfarthingan, re this edit, could you tack the source on? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 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 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Cyprus Emergency
Hi, is your reference "Richter 2011" the same as the "Richter 2011" in the EOKA article? Or is it a typo for the "Richter 2010" used already in Cyprus Emergency? DuncanHill (talk) 15:51, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi it's the English one (2010) - I'll review it and remove the 2011 ones. Thanks. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Need opinion
Do you mind giving your opinion about what should happen to this page: Talk:Dano-Dutch War DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes just seen. Thank you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 23:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Eastfarthingan Something has gone wrong with the link. When I click on it, it sends me to the talkpage DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast
I'm not sure what is going on, but you moved Talk:Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast to Dano-Dutch Colonial Conflict on the Gold Coast and left a redirect to the "article" which is not actually an article, but a talk page. Clearly the talk page needs to be moved back, but I cannot see a real article to reinstate on the article page. Please sort this out - thank you - Arjayay (talk) 15:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I know it's a disaster! Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
How can you know that you are dealing with a sockpuppet? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can tell with the edits on certain articles, but you could try this WP:CHK] or ping User:Favonian. Hope that helps. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Why Favonian in particular? DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * He protects a lot of articles, looks out for edit warring etc. There are others - User:Drmies is another. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks again DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * DavidDijkgraaf, there is no simple answer here. If two users are making exactly the same edits, that makes it likely, esp. if the one account is blocked and the other was begun after that block--but it's rarely that simple. But you can look for "signature" things, idiosyncratic things, which we all have--in edits, in coding, in edit summaries, etc. For instance, after a filled parameter in a citation template, I always add a space to break up what is otherwise a long line. I'm sure I'm not the only who does it, but not everyone does. And I always put it before the "|"; others might put it after it. Waar zit je naar te kijken? Drmies (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Drmies Het gaat hier specifiek om twee gebruikers op de overlegpagina van de Eighty Years' War. Ik opende een discussie met degene die de slachtoffer sectie in the info box recent heeft veranderd en werd opeens geconfronteerd met twee nieuwe gebruikers die specifiek voor deze discussie een account hadden aangemaakt. Dat had ik sowieso nooit eerder meegemaakt hier en ze waren het toevallig ook precies eens waren met de gebruiker die ik bekritiseerde.
 * Daarnaast vond ik het verdacht dat ze mij beschuldigde van exact dezelfde dingen die de oorspronkelijke gebruiker eerder heeft gezegd, en dat één van de nieuwe gebruikers heel duidelijk benoemd dat hij/zij Nederlands is. DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Dutch, maybe, but they don't live there. Ja dat was makkelijk, en als je kijkt naar hoe ze hun user pages maakten dan zie je overeenkomsten. Now you gotta figure out what to do with their edits. You are welcome to undo all their work. Drmies (talk) 23:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I haven't got any proof though DavidDijkgraaf (talk) 11:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh, you're doing wars between 1600 and 1900. Yeah, there's a few; there used to be a Dutch one, very prolific. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Drmies. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! Drmies (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2024 (UTC)