This is an archive of past discussions with User:Applodion. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Hello, Applodion, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Catlemur (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi Applodion, thanks for another excellent article! I saw that you created the article at Zhoulai (state) instead of Zhoulai. Do you plan to create another article with the same name? If not, I think it should be moved to the shorter name. Cheers! -Zanhe (talk) 23:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zanhe: No, I simply thought that I should add "(state)" because all other articles of ancient Chinese states had it. If you think we should move it, we can do that. Also, do you have something (articles, photos, etc.) that I could use for the article? ^^ Applodion (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Most other Chinese states are monosyllabic and need to be disambiguated with "state", but disambiguation is unnecessary for Zhoulai. Sorry I don't have any extra info for Zhoulai at the moment, you've already written more than I thought possible about this obscure state. I may have read articles about archaeological discoveries, but I could have mixed it up with Zhongli. I'll see what I can find. -Zanhe (talk) 23:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I found the article I was thinking about. It is mainly about Zhongli (quite a few bronzes have been discovered from the tombs of its rulers), and although it frequently mentions Zhoulai, it doesn't provide any info you haven't already covered. I can't find anything else about Zhoulai, but if you're going to write the Zhongli article, I'll be able to contribute. -Zanhe (talk) 05:34, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
@Zanhe: Thank you, your help is much appreciated! I plan to create a Zhongli article as soon as I have a bit more free time in the future. Applodion (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
On 10 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dapeng (state), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Dapeng, a second-millennium BC Chinese state, probably practised human sacrifice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dapeng (state). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
On 23 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zhoulai, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the ancient Chinese state of Zhoulai was conquered in 529 BC, its territory was ruled by three different states in the ensuing decades? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zhoulai. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Umze Peljor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gyaltsab. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
If you read the talk page of the article I think you will understand what's 2A1ZA's problem. He seems to think everything is a Erdogan propaganda narrative, and that I'm behind every possible edit that he doesn't like (like your addition of the commander). I tried talking to him but its tough. Maybe you could chip in too and give your opinion. EkoGraf (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Aleppo offensive
I'm thinking maybe we should split the article into two articles. One for the SAA-initiated offensive from 25 June until 30 July. The second for the rebel-initiated offensive from 31 July to present. Since they are basically two offensives. The SAA one ended after the rebel one started. What you think? EkoGraf (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I have to agree with Editor abcdef, though I would prefer if we could rename the article to Aleppo campaign (June–August 2016) to make it more fitting. Both offensives are deeply linked, and heavy fighting in the northern city continues; Liwa al-Quds still fights for that one refugee camp. Applodion (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The difference is Editor abcdef, that was a campaign (a fully rebel one, singular) and we called it as such. What reliable media outlets seem to be calling what's going on right now as an offensive (WP: COMMONNAME) and they are referring to the rebel one (right now), while before they were referring to the SAA one. So they were referring to them separately. I don't know. Simply don't know. :/ I also asked Mehmedsons and he seems to agree that a split into two articles is needed. How about we rename this article into campaign, but it will be a parrent article for two sub-articles on the two different offensives? In that case, in the overall campaign article we would summarize everything, while a more detailed account would be in the two sub-articles. EkoGraf (talk) 14:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
That sounds good. However, what are going to do about the continued government offensive in northern Aleppo? Just this morning, the 4th Mechanized Division attacked the Dahret ‘Abd Rabbo and Al-Zahraa quarters in northern Aleppo. Do we put such attacks only in the parent article, and omit it in the rebel offensive article? Applodion (talk) 16:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think in the parent article, since its a separate SAA-initiated operation, separate from the rebel offensive down to the south. EkoGraf (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I think the article "Manbij offensive" should be split. Up to the capture of Manbij city on 12 August, it was clearly the same offensive (SDF vs ISIL). And probably for the few days after that. But after the start of the Jarabulus offensive, the battles mostly changed to Turkey+allies vs ISIL and Turkey+allies vs SDF. So I think, that from the start of the Jarabulus offensive on, all the information should go on that article, and the two articles should link to each other (to provide background). Ambi Valent (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
While I agree with you, some reports suggest that SDF units still advance south of Manbij against ISIL, which is clearly not part of the Jarabulus offensive. Applodion (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
General sanctions notice
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.
Hello, Applodion. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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.
@Bejnar: Later in the article the ISIL governor mentions that ISIL forces are present in Benghazi: "He [the governor] hints at the Islamic State’s presence elsewhere in Libya by mentioning Benghazi in passing. Unlike in other areas of Libya, it appears that Abu Bakr al Baghdadi’s loyalists have been cooperating with al Qaeda-allied fighters inside Benghazi." Applodion (talk) 00:55, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there more news than two and a half weeks ago: In the wake of an apparent collapse by the enemy, the army is now confidently predicting the end game in the fight against militants holed up in Ganfouda. --Bejnar (talk) 01:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
@Bejnar: Honestly, I don't get your point. Just because they are losing Benghazi now does not mean that the reference is incorrect - it simply states that ISIL has (or at least had) a presence in the city, nothing more, nothing less - it does not state that there are many ISIL fighters or that they hold much territory, simply that they are still around and allied to local al-Qaeda elements. Thats why I added the reference; simply to provide another reliable source about ISIL's presence in Benghazi. If you don't like the ref, you might delete it - I only wanted to add more sources. Applodion (talk) 01:25, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
The existing source is a better and more reliable source for IS fighters presence in Bengazi. Also several of the other existing sources menyion ISIL. --Bejnar (talk) 01:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
An editor isn't accepting any of the sources that have been provided at the article that the ISIL attack on the T4 air-base has been repelled and that currently there is a new SAA-initited offensive. He's reverted several editors. I am trying to discuss the issue with him at the article's talk page and your input would be appreciated since you are involved in editing the article. EkoGraf (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor has agreed to a satisfactory compromise, but he still continues to remove Masdar as a source. I tried explaining we already had discussions regarding the issue in the past (when everyone agreed both Masdar and SOHR are to be used in equal measure). Could you try talking to him please? Thanks in advance! EkoGraf (talk) 18:06, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
1RR warning
You have reverted my edits 2 times now [3] and [4] with little to few changes. This doesn't exempt it from not being a revert just because you made a few changes. My first removal of the content didn't exist before and I made several changes to compensate for al-Masdar: [5] and [6]. So naturally it was an edit. There is therefore only one real revert by me [7]. You however have violated 1RR clearly. Reliability isn't preferred by your preference here, reliability is determined by a source's neutrality, accurate reporting and fact-checking. And it is clear that al-Masdar is dubious at all fronts. However, the real point here is that you have violated 1RR. Please undo your own revert at once and remove your edit restoring al-Masdar News and its text. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 Just for your information: I added masdar first: [8], then you deleted the info: the original content was thus with Masdar and not without, and my version is the status quo. You violated 1RR first. Furthermore, there is no reason to delete al-Masdar in the first place; it mostly agrees with all the sources you have added (for example SOHR also confirms that the government enclave was cut), and it IS reliable/semi-reliable (at least as much as SOHR). There is absolutely no reason for all this! Why don't you just accept the presence of Masdar? Applodion (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You didn't add al-Masdar. Your claim of adding al-Masdar in this edit is completely wrong. Al-Masdar was already there before you ever edited once on the article. All you did was add a sentence about third ISIL assault. You state SOHR says the airport-city road has been cut, however I gave you a clear source of very reliable and reputed Reuters citing a military source stating that it wasn't true. Per rules we have to take NPOV and report all viewpoints. As to al-Masdar I don't accept because it is very pro-government (its language makes that clear enough, bias is one thing but this source is beyond normal bias, it is very heavily biased), uses mostly military sources (even EkoGraf has stated that), makes incorrect and dubious reports that often no one reports (for example it stated THREE times Palmyra offensive was repelled, and it has made reports about capture of Syrian villages which no one has reported, not even Twitter sources). This is why it should never be used. And is the only reason I don't use it anymore. Because it fails every criteria for being reliable. And I also replaced it with much more reliable and reputed sources that spelled put the happenings in brief, yet for some reason you want to use Al-Masdar. Regardless, the problem here is not what to be used but your rule violation of 1RR which you seem to know. Please self-revert yourself. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 Alright, i will revert my edits. Nevertheless, this is dumb in the extreme, and POV pushing on your part - you criticise Masdar for using military sources, yet you yourself argue against it using military sources. And you say "all viewpoints" should be reported, yet you delete Masdar because you don't like it. Furthermore, most news agencies report false information sometimes, but that does not make them completely unreliable. Anyway, al-Masdar has every right to stay in this article, but I will still revert my edits to keep this from escalating, especially because I consider you a capable editor and do not want to start an edit war here. Applodion (talk) 19:43, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I am just jumping in here regarding the issue of Masdar, not in regard to who made how many reverts. MonsterHunter32, whether you consider Masdar bias and do not accept it is your personal POV which you are entitled to. However, Wikipedia editors had several discussions over the issue of both Masdar and SOHR in the last few years, and it was agreed that both are semi-reliable sources (regardless that one was pro-government and the other pro-opposition) and that we were going to use both sources for the sake of neutrality. This was decided due to the fact that most of our sources on Syria events are in fact ether Masdar or SOHR. If we would remove one, than the other would have to be removed as well and we would have dozens of Syria-related articles that would be highly lacking in sources. Also, MonsterHunter32, if you would remove Masdar as a source from our articles than I would be obligated to ask you to stop using Turkish daily military reports as a source as well considering they are coming from one of the beligerents in this conflict. So, to recap, the issue of Masdar was previously discussed and it was agreed through consensus that it was reliable enough to be used in the same measure as SOHR, and the removal of one would lead to the removal of the other. You are free to contest Masdar as a reliable source at a noticeboard or at the main Syria talk page, but until then, as per the previously established consensus, its a usable source. EkoGraf (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that you didn't properly read my statement. I never criticized it once for using military sources. Even I have cited a source Reuters using a military source for claim about the airport road. The only thibg I actually said was that al-Masdar "mostly uses military sources". There is nothing wrong in using any kind of source, however when your reports become unfairly dominated by only one paticular kind of source, then it can be a problem especially keeping in mind the language of al-Masdar towards other sides and its dubious reports which no one else even reports sometimes. I am not saying completely stop using al-Masdar, however if another actually reliable source is making the same report, then it is better to use that reliable source instead of al-Masdar. That is why asides from being unreliable, I don't want it to be there. If say, Al-Masdar was the only source reporting about it, then it will be ok to use it. But such is not the case right now. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
EkoGraf Let me be clear that we do not determine reliable sources by your or anyone's preference. There are rules and ways for establishing reliability. Al-Maadar is very pro-government (its language makes that clear enough, bias is one thing but this source is beyond normal bias, it is very heavily biased), uses mostly military sources (even you have stated that in the past it seems), makes incorrect and dubious reports that often no one reports (for example it stated THREE times Palmyra offensive was repelled, and it has made reports about capture of Syrian villages which no one has reported, not even Twitter sources). You very well know the problems with the source. We can discuss SOHR as well, and if really is that unreliable then it should be removed even though I only use it because it doesn't let bias at least significantly affect its articles and its reports appear to be mostly accurate, nlt to mention it being reputed and used by other sources. Please do not escalate the row now by reverting and restoring it on the article after Appolodion reverts. I am not completely against using Al-Masdar. I am however against it when better sources are available instead reporting the same thing. I already replaced ot with better sources on Deir Ez-Zor offensive article, so I hope this problem is solved. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32: EkoGraf is right, it was agreed upon during a lengthy discussion that al-Masdar IS reliable, whatever you think about it. That is also the reason why al-Masdar News will eventually be restored to the article. Applodion (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 Please understand what we are trying to say here. The issue of both Masdar and SOHR was discussed several times by dozens of editors and a general consensus was reached (Wikipedia:Consensus) among all editors both are reliable enough to be used as sources. So its not just that I decided what is a reliable source based on my preferences, but its what was generally agreed after lengthy discussions among multiple editors. If you really have to know, I personally made several arguments not to use Masdar as a reliable source in those discussions when they were made, and Applodion here can confirm that. However, a mutual agreement was reached to use both sources and not to remove them, and despite any personal feelings that I could have I stick to the established consensus/agreement. Your actions are against that consensus. If you question Masdar's reliability, the proper course of action is to take your issue to the main article's talk page or a noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
You are not getting what I am trying to say here. I didn't say don't use Al-Masdar AT ALL! I am only saying that when BETTER SOURCES are available and reporting the same thing, there is no need to use it. Why use a semi-reliable or unreliable source, whichever way one aees it, when we have much better and more reliable and well-reputed sources available. As for your "consensus", we have to follow rules here. Reliability is not determined by our preferences. But I am not advovating for any ban on Al-Masdar here. Even I have used al-Masdar in the Deir Ezzor offensive article. I have stated multiple times, that it should be avoided when there are better source available which I already added to the article. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 20:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
And you are not getting my point: Why should we delete sources AT ALL, when they add to the details (for example Masdar stated where exactly ISIL attacked in Deir ez-Zor) - We don't need to remove one source when we add another, we can have both! I don't want to say al-Masdar is super reliable and that we should prefer it in any way... Instead I simply don't see the point in removing any references from an article in the first place. Applodion (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 Its not my consensus, but a consensus of dozens of Wikipedia editors. You are mixing a consensus and individual edits based on preferences. And I don't know what else to say to help you understand. As per WP guidelines, Consensus refers to the primary way decisions are made on Wikipedia, and in this case a decision has been made long ago by Wikipedia's editor community regarding Masdar. Applodion is right. To remove Masdar, which has been deemed reliable by Wikipedia editors, would be removing a source which gives more detail to certain things. Again, please, if you want to remove (replace) Masdar take your issue to the main article's talk page or a noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I already got your point. But you are not getting mine. First of all, there is no need for citing multiple sources in the article that too especially a very dubious one whose reliability is heavily under lens. Even other sources state where ISIL attacks took place or are taking place. Not to mention, sometimes no other source makes the claim it does. Regardless, my point is simple: more reliable sources should be preferred over sources with dubious reliablity. That's it. If al-Masdar is the only option or the one with any real notable information, then it's of course ok to use it. But right now, there seems to be no need to use it. That's all I can say in the end. Anything further will likely be repeating the same thing I said so many times. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
And EkoGraf, when did I ever say it was exclusively your consensus? "Your" can be used to refer to multiple persons as well, which is what I meant. So why are you creating trivial issues? Do you really think I cannot understand what is consensus and didn't read that you earlier said multiple users agreed to it? No I'm sorry you or Apollodion aren't right. There is no need for any excessive detailing. Other sources like SOHR have already stated where the attacks took place. Some reports of Al-Masdar as usual haven't been reported by everyone. For example, Al-Masdar recently claimed that Assad Hospital was never captured, but there is no other source stating that. Even Liveuamap and SOHR and Twitter sources have stated it was indeed captured for a while. It is you who needs to revisit "your" (referring to multiple people) consensus and determine its reliability per established rules. But I already said I am not against Al-Masdar, but merely using it when better and more reliable sources are available. In fact I have used it once myself. I ask you again to not escalate the issue and add dubious sources and/or content your personal prefernces and adding more especially of an unreliable source. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 You should have been more clearer when saying your consensus. I'm sorry if you think that I thought you don't understand what a consensus is. In that regard I apologize. But I do think you don't understand what a Wikipedia consensus is. You have every right to think me and Apollodion aren't right and that Masdar is dubious, but if you want to go against an established Wikipedia consensus (that Masdar isn't dubious, and which us two are following), proper course of action is to try and form a new consensus instead of trying to push your own POV via editing. Applodion and me haven't been trying to escalate anything, instead, we have been trying to point out for you the established Wikipedia editors policy regarding Masdar. EkoGraf (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
What more clearer? Didn't you notice I said "your consensus"? I stated it clearly. Why would someone say consensus if he was referring to you only? Anyone knows consensus is of multiple people, not one. You are creating a trivial issue here. Highly unlikely one can misunderstand it and this kind of throwing deliberate allegations at the other isn't good. I follow Wikipedia rules here, and no sorry consensus doesn't give you the right to use any source. Consensus is for reaching a compromise and common ground. For reliablity, specific rules have to be followed to determine it by considering all the aspects proscribed by Wikipedia rules. And you yourself have accepted that al-Masdar fails in at least some of those aspects. Sorry but it should be avoided on Deir ez-Zor offensive, I am not saying not to use it anywhere. But we already have better and more reliable sources available. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 21:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 Wikipedia's consensus regarding Masdar's reliability was reached taking into account Wikipedia's policy. You can feel free to contest that consensus, but until then, going against an established consensus is considered POV-pushing, which isn't allowed. Again, I am recommending you take up the issue at a general talk page. As stated by Wikipedia's policy - Editors may propose a change to current consensus, especially to raise previously unconsidered arguments or circumstances. An individual editor's talk page isn't the proper place to contest your position. EkoGraf (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 PS When I said Masdar's reliability was reached taking into account Wikipedia's policy, I was referring to Masdar being discussed at Wikipedia's reliability noticeboard (so it was officially discussed) and Masdar's eventual official authorization as a reliable source by a Wikipedia guidelines editor. EkoGraf (talk) 22:26, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Let me be clear that I am not pushing my own POV and you yourself accepted al-Masdar fails on many fronts. You are levelling unfair, wrong allegations against me, soemthing which I never tried to do. It is indisputable that al-Masdar fails on many fronts, so any such "consensus" whose users are themselves agreeing that it doesn't falls short on some fronts, one cannot be considered to blindly abide by them especially as it goes against the rules. No matter what you want to state, where and what consensuses are made, Wikipedia rules of reliablity are supreme. Then again I didn't ever call for completely banning al-Masdar, your assertions about consensus would be somewhat valid then. When did I tell you to stop using al-Masdar completely altogether? I can contest anything anywhere I want, but let me be clear that is you who came to talk with me about al-Masdar here. All I'm saying is let's use a better source, a more reliable source, which should be preferred over a lesser reliable source with dubious reports. I think you know that already. Why will I use al-Masdar? We already have better sources. This simple thing you do not accept because of your personal preference to use it. It is up to you whether you want to create a trivial dispute over a dubious or "semi-reliable" source even when we have better sources. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
MonsterHunter32 I have not made any unfair allegations, and even though I myself have some reservations regarding Masdar it has been officially authorized by a Wikipedia guidelines enforcer as a reliable source and went through the official noticeboard for reliable sources. So its not against Wikipedia's rules and has in fact been authorized by those supreme Wikipedia rules and I abide to Wikipedia policy. EkoGraf (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes you have, you have made needless and apparently deliberate allegations many times. And frankly this isn't good behaviour on your part. Your "reservations" are clear cut indication of the problems inherent in Al-Masdar. When you yourself accept it fails on some fronts of reliablity, it was against rules to agree to use it. The rules of Wikipedia are supreme over what you think or any consensus. But I don't understand why you didn't notice, I didn't entirely oppose your consensus and say no Al-Masdar shouldn't be used any longer anywhere, even though you clearly haven't followed procedure. If I had said it shouldn't be used at all, then it will be against your consensus. All I ever did was say lets use better sources instead and we all know more reliable sources should be preferred. So I ask you again to please not create any trivial needless issues. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 22:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I cannot help but to notice that you really appear to not understand what EkoGraf is explaining: "it was against rules to agree to use it" No it was not, thats the whole point! PER WIKIPEDIA'S RULES AL-MASDAR IS A RELIABLE SOURCE, even though EkoGraf himself does not think it is so! And all we are saying is: What harm does it use add al-Masdar as source?! After all, according to wikipedia's guidelines al-Masdar can be used! The issue is not trivial, because many editors (including me) will continue to add al-Masdar, even if you continue to delete it. Applodion (talk) 23:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I think I also can not say it more plainly. Masdar went through an official noticeboard discussion where it was authorized after a review by a Wikipedia admin to be within the guidelines and officially marked it as reliable. PS I myself have since then found Masdar to indeed be reliable in many aspects and don't consider it to be totally unreliable anymore (their pro-gov stance and sometime exagerations nothwithstanding). EkoGraf (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting my mistake. Somehow I thought I was editing the "prelude" section. My bad. You've done another great job writing the article. Thanks again for your awesome work! -Zanhe (talk) 23:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Zanhe Thanks and no problem. I have planned to further expand the article for a while now, but so far never managed to do it. I hope I can finally do so in February. Unfortunately writing articles about Chinese history is very time consuming, as I have to read lots of books, for which I currently have no time - If you are wondering, thats the reason why I am currently primarily writing about the Syrian Civil War, because for that topic one can find many readily available and easily accessible online sources. When I find the time, however, I will again write more about ancient China - I have not forgotten the state of Zhongli! ;-) Applodion (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
I totally understand. I've also read lots of books about ancient China (many of which I'm sure you've also read, such as those by Li Feng and Shaughnessy, and Defining Chu), but I keep writing about modern topics because they're so much easier! I'm now reading The Cambridge History of China so I can understand more of the recent history. It's a huge project but I'm almost finished. Maybe we can work together on something later this year. -Zanhe (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Raqqa offensive
Anything can be deleted if it is not notable. Yes, there have been a lot of counter-attacks. And there have been many at the same places and they have been launched from areas not yet lost. So if an attack does not achieve any progress, it is wasteful to mention them. For example, SDF has been attacking by advancing from one place to another and besieging ISIL-held areas which shows progress. ISIL also repelled or recaptured some areas which shows progress. The article should stay free of fat. And you have mentioned these counter-attacks many times. I don't understand why you want them because I really don't see what's so important in them. I never added any material where SDF or ISIL is simply attacking because it is "important", I only mentioned an attack if it showed progress. It is up to you whether you want to burden the page with unnecessary data. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 00:58, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32 As I reasoned before, mentioning counter-attacks is not "unnecessary data" (we both appear to simply have very different views in this regard), and so yes, I wish to see them restored. Applodion (talk) 01:03, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
How does not mentioning it deterioate the quality? By not mentioning they attacked again at the same place without any success which has happened so many times? Sorry but not including more fat or more mon-relevant information doesn't deterioate quality. Editors even exclude relevant information if it might not help the article and makes it worse which is allowed. And in such a case, inclusion of more fat is highly unjustified. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32 It is not fat if it helps to flesh out the progress of the conflict, the focus and the strategies of the different war parties, and so on. Because of that, these counter-attacks are very much notable, as multiple assaults of ISIL in the area around Jabar show for example that ISIL really wants to retake that territory, while its defences in the northeast are quite weak (demonstrated by the quick SDF progress and the relative lack of ISIL counter-attacks). It also distortes the image of this offensive if ISIL counter-attacks are exculded, as it would appear as if ISIL resists far less than it actually does (the repeated counter-attacks show 1. that ISIL still is capable of launching attacks and does not remain passive, and 2. that the SDFs' advance is not simple, but constantly challenged by ISIL). Thus, I still disagree with your arguments. Applodion (talk) 02:12, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Someone wants to regain the territories they lost. It's already been mentioned how some areas were strategic. So why are we supposed to mention (again) why ISIL is attacking them? Why will it not attack? Won't anyone who lost an area try to regain it? No force in the world just sits down and lets anyone else advance until they have already given up. If it was a counteroffensive, then sure it should be added that it wants to regain the territory it lost because it might contain progress and it will be the real goal. That is what is "important". Main goals are something like capturing Tabqa dam, besieging and capturing Raqqa, attacks that make progress. They are what is actually "important". The goal for ISIL is to stop SDF advance and prevent Raqqa being cut off. Do you think anyone will care or note any counterattack beyond maybe even a day or even a minute? We are not a book here recording every thing a group is doing and repeating. Nor the article is for showing whose capable of launching attacks or whatnot. It's about major notable happenings of the event in this case the offensive as well as its major points. Instead of many statements of the kind "ISIL launched counter-attack here on this day but was repelled", if you want to simply add one single summary sentence "ISIL launched several unsuccessful counter-attacks several times during this time period against strategic territories captured by SDF", then that I will support it because it will cut all the growing fat about basically the same thing and be a short summary. Of course you can add and change words out of his summary. An article that grows too large with such things gets too uncomfortable for reading. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 08:00, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32 That is something I can agree with; I also do not want to list every single village that is captured and drift off to recentism, but I feel that for the understanding of the offensive it is important to mention the counter-attacks; if we put some together, like "they repeatedly launched counter-attacks against Suwaydiya Kabir over the following days", that would be absolutely okay. I simply do not want these counter-attacks excluded completely. Applodion (talk) 11:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I am okay with that. Many times I have listed a lot of villages which were captured? not properly understanding how to arrange them. Even when I don't list them, I don't understand how to put it in a proper and short summary. That's why when someone changes them to for example "Between 8 and 9 February, SDF captured several villages" I don't oppose because it shortens the article and removes the unnecessary fat while keeping the important details. You can add short summaries about all the counter-attacks in the article, that won't be a problem. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
@MonsterHunter32 I often have the same problem; grouping all these tiny hamlets together is often better, but sometimes one villages is more important than the others, or one doesn't know where these villages even are, so that it is difficult to generalize advances. In the end, however, I think these articles will eventually undergo significant restructuring anyway as soon as books on the matter are released that also include military analysis and better accounts than those we have currently (mostly SOHR, which has a pro-rebel bias, and Hawar, which is very pro-SDF). Applodion (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Calling any source biased might be too far gone. Of course like any normal human being it might like one side over the other. I haven't seen SOHR report anything at least grossly incorrect because of bias nor Hawar News or South Front which has a pro-government stance. And also these sources are the only ones near to reliable sources that regularly report these events. If we had a better choice, then people would surely use it. Regardless, you can add summaries of counterattacks when you want, I am not good at them and don't want to make mistakes so you should to do it on your own. If really needed, then I'll add them myself. Good day to you. MonsterHunter32 (talk) 16:37, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
On 6 March 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Qandala campaign, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the Islamic Statecaptured Qandala in 2016, the group hoisted its flag on the building in which Somali folk hero Ali Fahiye Gedi had been imprisoned for burning the Italian flag in 1914? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Qandala campaign. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Qandala campaign), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
This is a very complicated and controversial matter and still a festering wound on the Polish history, but I cannot simply agree to mark this entry as a red surpressed uprising. Views among historians may vary, but one thing is unquestionable: surfdom in Galicia and Lodomeria was indeed abolished two years later and GS has its contribution to it. I do not intend to delve into the moral aspects of the uprising. Rndrbarwa (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
@Rndrbarwa Yeah, thanks for that change! While lists such as these are generally simplified, it is always better to clearify results and thus improve the article's overall quality. Your contribution is appreciated! ^^ Applodion (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Since this is the English version of Wikipedia, I hope my additions will not spark any controversy (I did not find it nesessary to add a new source, since the given one covers the issue sufficiently). Children in Polish schools are tought that the GS was something very bad (mostly because the history is written by the nobles and their descendants, not by illiterate paesants), it was indeed a morally appalling accident although it was **only** a rege against masters who treated their paesants pretty much like slaves (just like Black slaves on cotton plantations in the southern USA, or even worse). For instance, no Jews were injured or even mistreated during the uprising, despite the fact that massacres of the Jewish were not unusual on the Polish lands. Rndrbarwa (talk) 11:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Masdar again
They attacking Masdar again (and edit warring) over at the Battle of Aleppo talk page, trying to declare it unreliable. I have repeated (several times) that even though its pro-government its a great counter-balance to pro-opp SOHR which is also widely used. I explained that when both sources agree on something we present it as factual, when only Masdar reports it we don't present it as factual. Removing one would lead to the removal of the other and that would diminish the content of many of our articles. Maybe your inclusion in the discussion, since you were one of the original editors involved in the discussion on it, can lead to some kind of resolution/compromise. EkoGraf (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
On 13 June 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ajnad al-Kavkaz, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the leader of the Chechen-led Jihadist group Ajnad al-Kavkaz believes there will eventually be a world war against Russia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ajnad al-Kavkaz. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ajnad al-Kavkaz), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
I have requested semi-protection of Battle of Raqqa article
Thank you for dealing with the constant addition of unsourced material to the Battle of Raqqa article over the last few days. Just to let you know, I have requested semi-protection of the article page at WP:RFPP, so hopefully after a few hours we will have a break from this for several days. MPS1992 (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Death of Mohsen Hojaji.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Death of Mohsen Hojaji.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).
Nicely done. I will probably review this DYK later. In the meanwhile, I hope you don't mind me going through the article and make some copyedits. I think there has to be a better (shorter and more simple) title, perhaps something like "Jiaodong Rebellion" or "Battle of Jiaodong"? What do you think. Regards, Alex ShihTalk17:33, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
@Alex Shih: Thanks! Copyedits are always appreciated since English is not my native language and I still tend to make stupid mistakes ^^. In regard of the title: It is the only "official" name of the uprising I found, as Philip Jowett uses it in his book The Bitter Peace. Conflict in China 1928–37. Otherwise, it is often simply circumscribed or called something like "Zhang Zongchang's rebellion". This title is however not very good, as Zhang (though the leader) was just one of at least four warlords involved in the uprising. As I understand it, when an "official" name exists for a conflict we are supposed to use it for Wikipedia, and "Warlord Rebellion in northeastern Shandong" seems to be the best "official" name to exist. "Jiaodong Rebellion" would not be that good, as Shandong/Jiaodong was the site of dozens, if not hundreds of rebellions during Chinese history - in fact, a peasant rebellion happened during and after the "Warlord Rebellion" in the area. Applodion (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Warlord Rebellion in northeastern Shandong
Hi Applodion, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk04:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Another great article! I'm always happy to see editors work on under-represented topics since they require niche experts in an area most people would never dive into. You've been here for two years and done wonders – I really hope you never leave us! Cheers, MX (✉ • ✎) 00:52, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Dengiamerika
I think there is another free image of your friend Rojda Felat in this video clip by dengiamerika after the end of the Battle of Raqqa...although the image shows part of her face. Its around 1:15 but it also shows some other Kurdish women earlier. Perhaps Felat is also shown at 0:48 but I don't know. You can put the image[s] on Wikimedia Commons if you like. I accidentally put this message on your Commons account talkpage and then removed it. Best, --Leoboudv (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
On 14 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Han–Liu War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before the Han–Liu War, many soldiers bought coffins as they were prepared to fight to the death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Han–Liu War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Han–Liu War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.
Please read this notification carefully, it contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.
General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. GreyShark (dibra) 22:03, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, Applodion. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
