Jump to content

User talk:Applodion

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

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

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

Greater Palestine and Palestinian irredentism

[edit]

Hello. Applodion, since you are an expert in revising and rewriting quotations from secondary sources, can you help us? Because the article undoubtedly achieves notability, but there is a bit scarcity of information. It needs to increase information and secondary sources. Here is just a few. [1] is behind a paywall however. The Palestinian National Council convened in February-March 1971 considers that there exists a historical national bond between Palestine and Jordan from time immemorial. (Palquest), [2]. Sakiv (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

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

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

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

General Nechaev photo

[edit]

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

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

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

[edit]
⚠
⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024

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

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

2024 Aba killings

[edit]

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

Syrian Desert campaign (December 2017–present) vandalism

[edit]

I reverted, but keep an eye here please [3], thanks! EkoGraf (talk) 18:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

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

Wikiproject

[edit]

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

End Bad Governance protests

[edit]

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

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

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

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

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

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

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

Biafra Referendum

[edit]

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

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

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

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

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

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

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

[edit]

Hello Applodion:

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

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

We hope to see you there!

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

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

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

DYK for Battle of Kembogo

[edit]

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

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

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

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

Invitation to participate in a research

[edit]

Hello,

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

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

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

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

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

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

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

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

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

Precious anniversary

[edit]
Precious
Five years!

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

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

[edit]

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahrar al sham

[edit]

On the Ahrar al-Sham page were i put Ahrar al-Sham Brigades thats the translation from Arabic as from 2011 to early 2013 Ahrar al-Sham went by Kata'ib Ahrar al-Sham wich translates to Free men of the Levant Brigades. Your imput of Ahrar al-Sham Battalions in Arabic is katiba/katibat Ahrar al-Sham wich is wrong if you translate the logo and flag it says Brigades by the way XD Living (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XD Living: Sorry, I reverted the edit due to the logo and a redlink being included in the infobox, not due to the name correction. I have adjusted the article accordingly. However, Wikipedia generally tries to keep the use of logos/flags in infoboxes to a minimum. Applodion (talk) 19:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks XD Living (talk) 23:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me change the name of my draft?

[edit]

I want to change the name from "Aḥrār aš-Šām Brigades" to Ahrar Al-Sham Brigades. IDK why it's names Aḥrār aš-Šām Brigades and could you check it out for me? XD Living (talk) 09:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XD Living: I will take a look when I find the time, ok? Applodion (talk) 16:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 224, December 2024

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:42, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Beshogur (talk) 16:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY

[edit]

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 6 § States and territories (dis)established in YYYY on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. harrz talk 21:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shifta War

[edit]

Hello! I've realized you are an avid military historian, and to that regard I've decided to approach you to ascertain the references I've added to this page. I noticed the background for the page was a bit scanty, and etymology of some terms like 'Shifta' was off, as it's predominantly an Ethiopian term not a Swahili one. I've added excerpts as well of discussions in the 1963 British parliament about the issue. They are lengthy and tedious additions, but hopefully they'll be appreciated.

Much thanks Gambikimathi (talk) 11:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gambikimathi: Updates / changes to articles are welcome, but please refrain from mass additions of unsourced content, adding new content into the middle of sentences without moving references, and adding giant quotes. Furthermore, the intro of an article on a historical event is not supposed to cover linguistic / naming discussions. Overall, your changes appeared very confusing. Can you perhaps use the article's discussion page to outline what exactly you want to change and from where you got the respective information? Then we can properly adjust the article in accordance with your recommendations. Thank you. Applodion (talk) 15:17, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! Sure, I can get the whole block quotes argument, but the only reason I did that was to show these additions are purely from primary sources, not my own train of thought. It's therefore a bit of a shame that all that contribution is being simply dismissed as 'unsourced quotes and comments'. I do, however, understand that it's difficult to go through someone else's wholesale changes and choose what's relevant and what's not. 
If it helps, I had added 3 new reference sources to the page. The 1963 UK Hansard, and two new articles from the Journal of African history volume 2.
I can reduce the verbosity of some of my changes, but I'll need other editors to see it as an act of goodwill, since it's obviously a contentious topic. Hence why I chose to reach out to you (given earlier reversions you did) as an assurance of my impartiality. Nobody likes pointless edit wars, right? 
Lastly, just as a minor answer to your query, etymology indeed is not normally part of introduction, but this page actually states that Shifta is an original Kiswahili word. In truth it's an Amharic term that has been extensively used in the horn region and permeated to other languages. It's a small thing but I wanted to clear that out. And yes, it has a reference attached. 
The other topics I've added, I'll appreciate your advice and ask in the page discussion chat. 
Thanks.  41.90.172.231 (talk) 17:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Gambikimathi: If they are primary sources, they cannot be extensively used anyway per WP:Primary. You also made numerous changes to the articles which did lack sources; as the article had sourcing issues anyway, we should not make itr even worse by adding more unsourced stuff. If you summarize the content of a reliable source (no primary sources, please), and then add the content to the article, I would have no issue with it. Regarding etymology, it would make the most sense to just add a new section called "Naming" or "Etymology" where this topic can be properly discussed. Applodion (talk) 18:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, well noted. I have also opened a new discussion topic in the article chat. It touches on one of the myriad of issues I found with the article, maybe you could check it out.
Any updates I'll do later in the future taking in your considerations Crystalline004 (talk) 19:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 225, January 2025

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 15 January 2025

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ITN recognition for M23 offensive (2022–present)

[edit]

On 28 January 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article M23 offensive (2022–present), which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 02:29, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilayah Logos

[edit]

Hello, I wanted to help you understand that the logos of the Wilayah's of the Islamic State is basic Arabic calligraphy which is the same as the flag of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban and is public domain text logos. If they weren't, then the flags of those organizations would be considered copyrighted. RowanJ LP (talk) 09:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RowanJ LP: There were already several cases where Arabic calligraphy was considered copyright-protected and Jihadist flags /logos got deleted. Furthermore, your replacement logos lack sources. Applodion (talk) 09:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wilayah Logos aren't one of them, and second, do I need to link specific ISIS videos where I got the logos or something? RowanJ LP (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RowanJ LP: Frankly, I fear that the Wilayah logos could also be problematic. I refrained from tagging them as copyright violations on Wikimedia because I'm not sure and did not want to cause unneccessary debates; yet I suspect that if I did submit them to copyright testing, they would be deleted. As for the sources: It would be best if you got a secondary source such as jihadology.net. Applodion (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's reasons for both sides of it being copyrighted and not copyrighted, but I still stand by them being public domain, and for jihadology I'm unable to create an account so I can't use it RowanJ LP (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RowanJ LP: If you want to risk it, we can submit them to copyright testing on Wikimedia - a move which could potentially get all the logos deleted. If they are confirmed to be full public domain, however, I would naturally retract my opposition to their use. Applodion (talk) 10:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it would be a good idea? I wouldn't oppose to the copyright testing though I'm afraid all the hard work I put into SVG logo making would go to waste lol RowanJ LP (talk) 10:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RowanJ LP: Well, that's my point. Personally, I fear that the logos' calligraphy is complex enough for copyright, but I'm no expert. Considering that these are the logos you made, I feel you should have the right to decide whether to risk it. Anyway, you don't have to immediately decide this; feel free to think about it. Applodion (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that I feel should be mentioned is that the calligraphies complexity varies, comparing Islamic State – Pakistan Province and Islamic State – Najd Province logos show that they're not all complex looking RowanJ LP (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RowanJ LP: Well, this is absolutely true... Al-Barakah's logo seems fairly complex by comparison. Perhaps this would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Applodion (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then I believe a case-by-case review should be the best option RowanJ LP (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Progressive Front parties

[edit]

"It also includes the dissolution of the Assad era-ruling Baath Party and the National Progressive Front, along with all affiliated organizations, institutions and committees, with a ban on their reformation under any name."

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/middle-east/ahmad-al-sharaa-officially-named-syrias-transitional-president/3466149

Edit: I'm also not sure what your issue with my edit on Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)] is. The Syrian section of the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath was dissolved by the government on 29 Jan, not 11 Dec, which is only the date the Syrian section "halted its activities" indefinitely. There's also no need to specify that the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath continues to be active in other states if it's already been specified that only its Syrian section was dissolved. Sisuvia (talk) 06:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sisuvia: The problem with the AA article is the fact that its wording makes no sense. "National Progressive Front, along with all affiliated organizations, institutions and committees, with a ban on their reformation under any name" would mean a ban of the entire Syrian government, all ministries and even the presidency itself because these would also be "affiliated organizations, institutions and committees". Obviously this was not meant, so how do we know that this ban covers all parties once associated with the National Progressive Front? The article mentions none of the parties by name. As for your Baath Party edit: You removed "(still active in other states)" which is a proven fact, and also the self-dissolution is more useful to note rather than a mere ban. Applodion (talk) 11:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion Wrt to the Ba'ath Party edit, if it is only mentioned that the Syrian section is dissolved/banned then there is no need to state that the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath as a whole is still active in other regions, that's a given. Sisuvia (talk) 12:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: Conversely, not to include the dissolution of the Syrian faction in the infobox may mislead readers into thinking that the party is still fully active. Indeed, the Syrian Baath Party now enjoys a similar fate to the Iraqi Baath Party: Banned and dissolved in its main country, only a small remnant still operates through a network of mostly insignificant local branches. Applodion (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion I do not argue that the dissolution of the Syrian section should not be included in the infobox. Indeed I am arguing that if we are to include it, and I did in my edit to the page, that there is then no need to state the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath as a whole is still active in other Arab states. Sisuvia (talk) 15:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: This would be factually incorrect, as the party is still active outside Syria. Applodion (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion where have I claimed otherwise?
The Syrian section of the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath has been banned, therefore the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath has been banned in Syria. If we specify this, then there is no need to also state that the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath remains active in other Arab states. That would just be repeating the same point, but worded differently.
Edit: Unless you're saying the Syrian section is still active outside of Syria? In which case a source would be appreciated. Sisuvia (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: Look, the Syrian-dominated Ba'ath still exists, but it no longer exists in Syria. Naturally, this results in confusion for readers. In reality, we should remove the "dissolved/banned" parameter completely from "Ba'ath Party (Syrian-dominated faction)" because it still operates. However, whenever someone removed it, people would re-add it due to confusion with the completely defunct Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party – Syria Region. That's why both are mentioned in the infobox. Applodion (talk) 15:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion I also heavily disagree with your interpretation of the article's contents. One does not say, for example, that the US government is "affiliated" with the Republican Party just because Trump is in power, or that the British government is "affiliated" with the Labour Party just because it holds the majority in HoC. Sisuvia (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: This is a false equivalent, as the United States see regular changes of the ruling party - in contrast, the government of Syria and the Baath system were basically the same for 50 years. Furthermore, note that the AA article mentions that the old military and the security agencies were banned/dissolved, so government insitutions were clearly seen as being "affiliated organizations, institutions and committees". So how does this make sense: The military gets banned, but the Ministry of Defense stays around? By this logic, why shouldn't the National Progressive Front get banned while minor member parties continue operating? Applodion (talk) 12:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Applodion I fail to see the relevance of the military and security agencies being dissolved to what we are discussing. The report I cited did not claim that this was due to their affiliation with the NPF or Ba'ath. Indeed, they mention the dissolution of the military/security services and the dissolution of the Ba'ath/NPF & its affiliated orgs separately, and I don't think you'll find any other report stating otherwise. There is no equivalence to be made here, and as a result one cannot claim that the Syrian transitional government views its own institutions to be affiliates of the NPF, which then necessarily reduces the "affiliated organizations, institutions and committees" of the NPF to its member parties, trade unions, and other non-governmental organisations that may have took part in is activities.
If that kind of logic does not suffice, we may to refer to Arabic sources. France24 Arabic explicitly writes
أحزاب الجبهة الوطنية التقدمية
The parties of the National Progressive Front...
https://www.france24.com/ar/%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D9%82-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%88%D8%B3%D8%B7/20250129-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A5%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%B1%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AC%D8%AF%D9%8A%D8%AF%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%86-%D9%88%D9%82%D9%81-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B9%D9%85%D9%84-%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%AF%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B1-%D9%88%D8%AA%D8%B9%D9%8A%D9%8A%D9%86-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%B4%D8%B1%D8%B9-%D8%B1%D8%A6%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%A7-%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A8%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AF-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%84%D8%A9-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%86%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%8A%D8%A9
However, you may correct me if my understanding of Arabic here is wrong. I do not claim to be fluent. Sisuvia (talk) 15:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sisuvia: Well, this is much better evidence. Though I would prefer the parties to be properly listed, the new source at least give some actual evidence for the parties in question being banned. With this source, I would not oppose the proposed change. Applodion (talk) 15:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Applodion&oldid=1273079027"