User talk:Applodion: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:39, 29 August 2016

Welcome!

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)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I know what a daunting task it can be to write about Zhou dynasty history, but you did a great job with Zhou–Chu War and Rebellion of the Three Guards. You're a wonderful Wikipedian! I look forward to reading more of your contributions! Zanhe (talk) 04:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated Zhou–Chu War for DYK, so your fine article will be read by more people. You might wish to keep an eye on the nomination page. Cheers, -Zanhe (talk) 04:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zhou–Chu War

On 25 September 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zhou–Chu War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in the 10th century BC, King Zhao of the Chinese Zhou dynasty drowned during his disastrous campaign against the state of Chu? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zhou–Chu War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, 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.

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dapeng

Hi, I've nominated Dapeng (state) for DYK. See nomination page. Thanks again for writing the article! -Zanhe (talk) 01:47, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zhoulai

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Zanhe: Thank you for your efforts! Applodion (talk) 10:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

BTW, I've also nominated Zhoulai for DYK, see here. -Zanhe (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

No rush. I'll be quite busy as well in the next few weeks. -Zanhe (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dapeng (state)

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.

—♦♦ AMBER^(ЯʘCK) 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC) 12:02, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Zhoulai

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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 21

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 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manbij offensive (2016)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

As less than a day separates the two closely-related offensives, one article seems to be sufficient. For example, the 2016 Southern Aleppo campaign includes 3 separate offensives with at least 3 weeks of separation time between them. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yep EkoGraf I am agree. Mehmedsons (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Applodion Editor abcdef Mehmedsons Its done. I looked to summarize as much as I could in the parent article on the campaign, while moving the main bodies of the article for the specific offensives to the new sub-articles. EkoGraf (talk) 04:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well done! Applodion (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Manbij offensive and Jarabulus offensive

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

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.

Katie^talk 23:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 93: / Line 93: @@
 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). [[User:Ambi Valent|Ambi Valent]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Applodion|Applodion]] ([[User talk:Applodion#top|talk]]) 17:22, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
+== General sanctions notice ==
+{{Ivmbox
+|'''''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.''
+A [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive253#Request to amend sanctions on Syrian civil war articles|community decision]] has authorised the use of [[Wikipedia:General sanctions|general sanctions]] for pages related to the [[Syrian Civil War]] and the [[Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant]]. The details of these sanctions are described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant|here]]. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a '''one [[Help:Reverting|revert]] per twenty-four hours [[Wikipedia:Edit warring#Other revert rules|restriction]]''', as described [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#1RR|here]].
+[[Wikipedia:General sanctions|General sanctions]] is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas.  This means [[WP:INVOLVED|uninvolved]] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the [[Wikipedia:Five pillars|purpose of Wikipedia]], our [[:Category:Wikipedia conduct policies|standards of behaviour]], or relevant [[Wikipedia:List of policies|policies]]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as [[Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Types of restrictions|editing restrictions]], [[Wikipedia:Banning policy#Types of bans|bans]], or [[WP:Blocking policy|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 [[Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#Log of notifications|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.
+| Commons-emblem-notice.svg
+| icon size = 50px}} <span style="color: #9932CC">[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|Katie]]<sup>[[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|talk]]</sup></span> 23:39, 29 August 2016 (UTC)