User talk:Eastfarthingan

Draft battle of zeila

the article has been declined but I don't know why

this is the response I received any help please

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources. Sha19999 (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The sources need page numbers as seen in the most recent edit, are you not able to do this? If not, I will try and the page numbers if I can over the next few days, but having said that, I don't have access to some of the sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I cant access them either just remove them and add the page numbers to those you can

Thank you so much for your help Sha19999 (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I've provided some page numbers but it seems previous editor just wrote in he's own words must be re written and quoted Sha19999 (talk) 05:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I have re written and removed the predlude section and provided page numbers to the sources can you have a look and thank you Sha19999 (talk) 07:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Will do. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Ive read through the sources provided links to them and page numbers have a look through it I might have overlooked something but am pretty sure am going in the right direction. Sha19999 (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

And, you got there in the end. Well done. 👏 Eastfarthingan (talk) 17:44, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

With your help thank you Sha19999 (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Second Hundred Years' War page update is wrong

Dude why the hell did you remove my "unsourced" addings? Technically it have sources about casulties and others, casulties are estimated so i tried but "~" but my wiki crashed off. Thank you for reading btw. Shafik31 (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

What are the sources? Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Sources of each page shows it actually but i cannot handle adding sources because my phone is a dumbest phone ever Shafik31 (talk) 14:34, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Negotiations and ransom

What does

27 ingot bars of silver worth of gold and silver coins

mean? The word 'worth' sticks out as very odd.

Was it that they received only coins, but equivalent in 'worth' to 27 bars of silver? Shenme (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I'll check the source of this & get back to you. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you for pointing it out. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:40, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Copyright problem on Operations Vulcan and Strike

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from https://www.historyofwar.org/articles/operation_vulcan.html, which is not released under a compatible license. Copying text directly from a source is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Mmmm eerily similar to source used. I'll use Rolf instead. Eastfarthingan (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:33, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Anniversary Eastfarthingan 🎉

Hey @Eastfarthingan. Your wiki edit anniversary is today, marking 16 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 17:43, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! 🙏 Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

CS1 error on Franco-Turkish War (1918–1921)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Franco-Turkish War (1918–1921), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

CS1 error on Air Battle Over Lampang

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Air Battle Over Lampang, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add a title to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help). Below are the references causing this error:
  • www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th https://web.archive.org/web/20191218044908/http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/2488/D/007/138.PDF. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2019-12-18. Retrieved 2025-10-06. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:51, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Sadly its in Thai, so can't help you there. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Journal

Hi Eastfarthingan. On your latest edit on the article "action off Pipli", you altered det journal Det ny Aarhunderede to Det NY Aarhunderede. Why is that? From what I could find online, "ny" in the title consistently appears in lowercase, so I was wondering whether there is a particular source or convention behind the change.

Best regards - Tinkaer1991 (talk) 07:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

No worries, I will change it. Eastfarthingan (talk) 14:16, 18 July 2026 (UTC)

Battle of Enfidaville

Hi, sorry for bothering you. I'm writing to you because I've seen that you have rewritten a third of Battle of Enfidaville. I just wanted to point out to you that the creator of this article has been indef blocked for the usage of LLMs. In particular that article was written before the first AINB thread about him. At the time he used mostly LLMs to write new articles from scratch, that therefore are very often full of hallucinations, lack of text-source integrity, etc. I'm doing the cleanup of his articles. Normally I'd start an LLMPROD, but since you have already rewritten part of it, I wanted to ask you first if you have already checked also the other parts that you didn't rewrite from scratch and if the cited sources really support what's written in the article. If you want I can also leave only the parts that you rewrote and delete the rest, just let me know what you think it's the best course of action... --Friniate ✉ 17:02, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

I had a feeling he would be eventually, his articles were a headache. Good luck with that. I will have a look at the Enfidaville article a little closer, but last time I put him to rights & as you said a third of the important parts were restored & kept. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Confirmed, article should stay as it is. Eastfarthingan (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Perfect, thanks! --Friniate ✉ 13:21, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

New cross-language page link: Capture of Geertruidenberg (1573)

A new page Penaklukan Geertruidenberg (1573) on the Indonesian Wikipedia has been linked to the page Capture of Geertruidenberg (1573), which you created, via Wikidata (Q13732826).

You will not be notified about future links to pages you created. To opt in to these notifications, follow the opt-in instructions.

NervousBot (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Planned French invasion of Britain (1708), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Montrose was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:57, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Cyprus emergency page

Hi, so I see you have an issue with the infobox, I dont see why and a few of the revisions you are making make no sense. The British Armed Forces were actively engaged against EOKA and so was the local Cyprus Police Force under the Colonial government of Cyprus, why do you keep removing them when they are an undisputed fact? These were the organisations that actually fought and it doesnt make sense to have them removed, especially BAF given that it does not fall under the Colonial government in Cyprus (I.e. British Armed Forces are not subservient to the Governor of Cyprus, maybe units were placed under his operational control but that needs to be clarified as someone who doesnt know that wont guess it). Secondly, as to the result, nobody disputes that EOKA forced a diplomatic outcome, the issue regarding EOKA was if its regarded a "clean cut" victory or one with compromise. I avoided using that phraseology as it is one sided and I added what is commonly agreed, which is that the revolt led to a diplomatic agreement. You seem to have a problem with that as well. If you want I can add it by the EOKA was not defeated part but again, this is key context to the conflict, if someone only looks at the infobox, they need to understand as much of the conflict as they can from it, the infobox does not do that, it almost exists as a parallel that independence came regardless of EOKA, something which is not even claimed by any historian. What im saying is one was a catalyst for the other, not one happened regardless of the other. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello Shovelandspace, first of all why add anything else in the infobox when it is already cluttered. I don't see that in Malayan Emergency, so why add it? Also given what you said, 'they need to understand as much of the conflict as they can from it' the infobox already has enough in the result, WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE. the infobox is meant to summarise, not duplicate. The result field already links to London and Zürich Agreements, which covers the causal detail. If someone wants the "why," they click through. We don't need four quotes (one is a student journal & other is a US war college) duplicating that in the infobox. Eastfarthingan (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Hello shovelandsand, the Malayan emergency clearly states "Commonwealth victory" outright, you refute to even add the context which matters the most. So you are refusing to summarise, the infobox as is, makes it look as if independence appearead out of the blue hence why I wanted to add the context. Its not a casual detail if its missing the most important detail which is that one acted as a catalyst for the other. However im not going to argue with you like a child, can you provide me your sources which state the revolt had nothing to do with being a catalyst for independence please?

If not, would you be ok with the addition of, "Though Enosis was not achieved, the revolt acted as a catalyst for independence"? Like I said, im not drawing victory cards im simply stating one later caused the other not one was parallel to the other. As to the sources, I can bring at least 5 more but you wouldnt be ok with that either as I have seen your bio and edits, so lets stop pretending that would change anything and get back to me on the wording. I think ive found the most informative, neutral and discharged language there can be. I added the British Armed Forces and Police again as I think you just removed them as blanket changing what im doing as opossed to you actually being against their presense, there are other infoboxes with more belligerents so I dont think thats an issue, even the Malayan one. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 19:28, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Im talking about the absence of 'British Armed Forces' in the Malayan Emergency infobox, nothing to do with victory (that's clear cut). so why place it there. By the way I have no problem with the order of battle you added, as you can see, its been left. Anyway, I'll leave the BAF's in infobox in there for now. As for your drive to make your point in the infobox result, the fundamental distinction being overlooked is that EOKA's principal objective during the emergency was enosis with an end to British colonial rule. That doesn't mean independence on 'its own'. Independence without Enosis only emerged as an acceptable political compromise which Makarios accepted leading to the London Zurich Agreements. So please don't add footnotes that don't have any due weight to what the London Zurich Agreements actually mean. Adding that footnote clearly shows you are 'drawing victory cards' in the infobox. Eastfarthingan (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I placed it there because they are a belligerent, I havent edited the Malayan article and no wikipedia page is the same as the other, I dont see why thats such a big issue, to make it clear I added it because you have British Cyprus there, so youve already gone a bit more specific, not having BAF there which are the people who did 99% of the fighting on Britains side just seems very illogical, going back to incompleteness I was mentioning before.

As to London Zurich, again, you arent providing a source that says independence happened regardless of EOKAs campaign, youre telling me your opinion and again, I gave you phraseology that is as neutral but informative as possible. The audio file of Grivas states the goal was to end British colonial rule on Cyprus which last I checked, happened.

British policy historically precluded Cypriot independence, (A position thats confirmed by statements in Parliament and the outright rejection of peaceful diplomatic engagements, such as the 1950 referendum, prior to the onset of EOKA in 1955). The EOKA campaign was the direct catalyst that made British rule untenable. Portraying independence solely as a Cypriot compromise as if that was originally an option, disregards the fact that the UK only considered relinquishing control after the armed insurgency began. So ill ask again, please provide academic or historical sources which argue that EOKA's actions were irrelevant to the island achieving independence, if you cannot produce that, then I dont see why stating the obvious caveat should be stopped by you simply because youre unhappy about it. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

The never independence argument I made earlier was referring to Henry Hopkinsons (Minister of State for Colonial Affairs) statement. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 21:34, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah so it looks like I am talking to the one and only 'Shovelandspade' as this is a repetition of his argument too. You could not be more revealing. At what point have I suggested that EOKA's campaign was irrelevant to Cypriot independence? The issue is whether its contribution to independence justifies presenting the outcome of your interpretation in the infobox. There is a fundamental distinction between contributing to the end of British colonial rule and achieving the original political objective of the insurgency, which was Enosis. Furthermore, the academic article the Road to Cypriot Independence (2024) examines opposition to independence from supporters of Enosis and Makarios's eventual acceptance of independence in September 1958. Therefore, the suggestion that independence was solely the product of EOKA's campaign overlooks the broader diplomatic and political developments documented in historical scholarship. Grivas's statements about ending British colonial rule do not alter the fact that Enosis was EOKA's principal political objective. Nor does the achievement of independence automatically establish an outright EOKA victory. The infobox as it stands reflects the outcome without disproportionately emphasising one interpretation of the settlement. Under WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, the prominence given to an interpretation should reflect its treatment in reliable secondary sources. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

I never said EOKA victory, you did, and again, youve gone into my point, Makarios accepted independence, after that was given as an option, something which was not prior to the EOKA revolt; this is exactly what im saying. Let me put it another way, what ive said doesnt claim EOKA won, ive said, diplomacy was only given the chance because of EOKA, the reason youre struggling to find a source that says that is because none support your assertion. Independence is directly tied to the EOKA revolt.

The author you have cited is in not neutral, he has publically called anyone who sympathises with them or sympathises with enosis as exteremists. "As for the far right, any compromise on enosis, including self-government, letalone independence, was anathem", this was in his article you linked, firstly enosis was what 95%+ of the then population voted for so hes called a whole population far right (See 1950 Cypriot enosis referendum) even thouogh that same population fought nazi Germany about 10-15 years prior. Not only is he not neutral which to an extent you dont have to be as everyone has varying opinions, but his article youve sent openly makes false, unverfiable and inflamatory statements.

Ill ask again, can you please send me historical sources that can be verified which claim EOKA had no catalytic impact on Cypriot independence and that it happened regardless of the EOKA campaign please.

Here are more sources from me:

~2026-57301-99 (talk) 07:05, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Is this a joke? ‘I’ve never said EOKA victory, you did’. Did I? when? I’ll quote what you added in infobox result footnote - ‘independence is commonly agreed as an EOKA victory’. Then you decided to change, ‘independence is commonly agreed as a result of EOKA pressure’. So you’re going from argument to another then spinning it by what seems to be a denial of EOKA’s political objective of Enosis. This then points me to the sources you’ve quoted, only one mentions ENOSIS. Also when did I have ever claim that EOKA had no catalytic impact on Cypriot independence? My concern is maintaining that distinction and ensuring that the infobox does not give disproportionate prominence to one aspect of a complex negotiated settlement. Eastfarthingan (talk) 12:08, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

I had translated from the Greek page https://el.wikipedia.org/wiki/%CE%91%CF%80%CE%B5%CE%BB%CE%B5%CF%85%CE%B8%CE%B5%CF%81%CF%89%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%82_%CE%91%CE%B3%CF%8E%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%82_%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%82_%CE%9A%CF%8D%CF%80%CF%81%CE%BF%CF%85_1955-59 hence why it said that, I have told you exactly how I said is best to be contextually said and youre still stuck on an edit I had made like 20 edits ago. "when did I have ever claim that EOKA had no catalytic impact on Cypriot independence? " Literally has been your whole argument unless you havent realised.

The EOKA revolt context cant be disproportionate as the only reason a "complex negotiated settlement" happened, was due to EOKA. You cant say that youre not saying EOKA wasnt catalytic but when I insinuate adding that as context, you kneejerk to that its undue weight. In this case the two are mutually exclusive, EOKA cant have been catalytic to a negotiated settlement but then not important enough to add that, it then means EOKA was in fact not catalytic and that you are indeed arguing something else. The definition of a catalyst in the non-chemical sense is literally "An event, condition, or person that acts as the main cause for a major shift, reform, or movement."

So again, im asking, if you are asking something else, can you please provide a satisfactory ammount of sources which indicate Cyprus was getting independence in the time period of EOKA with EOKA not playing a catalytic role? The reason youre going in circles is because you yourself know (As you admitted), that it was, so I dont see why youre still arguing this.

EOKA being a catalyst, if what you say about Enosis is true, doesnt even remotely mean victory, for all intents and purposes, it could have been a loss, E.g. If the UK had ceeded Cyprus to Turkey due to EOKA, EOKA would still have been the catalyst but it simply would have backfired. In this case, as you correctly mention, it did not lead to Enosis, it led to a politically negotiated settlement. So, if you are true to your claim that you are not saying EOKA was catalytic, you should be fine with me adding either as a footnote next to the agreements or the EOKA part further down "The EOKA revolt is commonly agreed as the catalytic factor which led to a politically negotiated settlement". It is completely neutral, backed by more than a dozen non-bias sources and does not add more weight to any one party than there needs to be and more importantly it gives the context and it gives the result which is later explained. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Because ive sort of spammed you up there a bit, what im saying is catalyst does not mean victory, it means it is the main cause for a major shift. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Ah now where getting somewhere.. you have shifted your stance towards where we should be heading. However if we go down that route the article already states in the Aftermath section: 'Following the London and Zürich Agreements, Cyprus became an independent republic and as far as liberation being concerned, the EOKA campaign was successful; however, enosis and taksim were ruled out by the treaties signed'. So is there any point in rewording this? Probably not, its virtually the same as what you have just put. As a footnote its a no and its pointless. The purpose of the result field is to summarise the outcome of the conflict which it does fairly. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

When you say getting somewhere its practically what ive been saying youve just misunderstood what I was writing, mbut anyways. As to what it says further down in the article, I agree it says that but that doesnt negate what I said prior about context in the infobox, even though you say if someone is interested they can just read the article, not everyone does that (right or wrong regardless) and with the same logic dont add anything in the infobox just read. As the infobox stands it misses the largest piece of context because without one, the other wasnt happening or at least didnt happen; not sure if youre a subscriber to the multiverse theory but in this one, that didnt happen and as such the proper context needs to be applied. I dont see why youre opossed to a footnote given that multiple other articles have them and this one would come with multiple neutral and non bias sources attached. Or at least where it says "EOKA not defeated" it changes to "EOKA pressure acted as a catalyst for the political settlement" and we remove the "not defeated" which id say is less important than the catalyst. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

That is a sentence, therefore it doesn't belong in the infobox. The footnote doesn't add anything as I've said, so it goes in the Aftermath or not at all, of you want to go further seek WP:THIRD. Eastfarthingan (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2026 (UTC)

Again, it is the most important piece of context and its missing from the infobox, it does add something. If I havent had a clue what the Cyprus emergency and I look at that infobox for the first time id be more confused by whats there as opossed to what isnt. If anything, I think the result should be "Independence of Cyprus" and underneath there be a "see aftermath" because like you said, theres too much information there but given that its all historically important, you cant keep it there. That way a proper aftermath section is made and it details exactly the London Zurich agreements, what they entailed, the SBAs, enosis and taksim being ruled out etc. and that way that part of the infobox completely declogs. ~2026-57301-99 (talk) 12:25, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Something like this:

That way it alleviates the need to basically start stating the London Zurich agreements in the infobox which is basically whats happening now.

Cyprus Emergency
Part of the Cyprus problem and Decolonization
A street riot in Nicosia during the Battle at Nicosia Hospital in 1956
Date 1 April 1955 – 19 March 1959 (3 years, 11 months, 2 weeks and 4 days) Location British Cyprus Result Independence of the Republic of Cyprus (See Aftermath)
Belligerents
United Kingdom British Cyprus Cyprus Police Force British Armed Forces Turkey Special Warfare Department Turkish Resistance Organisation 9 September Front AKEL	EOKA
Commanders and leaders
Harold Macmillan (from 1957) Anthony Eden (until 1957) Hugh Foot (from 1957) John Harding (until 1957) Major General Daniş Karabelen Colonel Ali Riza Vuruskan Rauf Denktaş Ulus Ülfet †	Georgios Grivas Grigoris Afxentiou † Tassos Papadopoulos Markos Drakos † Kyriakos Matsis † Renos Kyriakides
Strength
40,000 4,000 policemen	300 fighters 1,000 active underground
Casualties and losses
British Armed Forces: 104 dead 601 injured Police: 51 dead 187 wounded	102–112 killed (85–95 in combat) Unknown injured
Greek Cypriot civilians: 252 killed and 263 injured Turkish Cypriots civilians: 62 killed and 150 injured

References

~2026-57301-99 (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

Look shovelandspade - you're not getting anywhere with your arguments and I object to replacing "London–Zürich Agreements" with simply "Independence of Cyprus" in the infobox. The Cyprus Emergency ended in March 1959 following the London–Zürich Agreements of which they represented a negotiated compromise between the parties rather than the achievement of EOKA's original objective of Enosis. The infobox correctly provides for an independent republic, prohibited both Enosis and partition, and preserved British sovereignty over the Akrotiri and Dhekelia base areas. Why can't you get it past your head that the result solely as "Independence of Cyprus" presents only one aspect of the settlement and omits significant conditions central to understanding the outcome of the conflict. Even the United Nations' historical account confirms the negotiated nature of the settlement. The result stays as it is "London–Zürich Agreements" as the principal result. Also what is wrong with the 'independence of Cyprus listed below along with the other major provisions listed underneath. This provides a more complete and neutral description without implying a straightforward victory for any belligerent. If anything was to be changed. I would either have what is currently isted or 'see Aftermath' but without anything else listed below. LIke I said, seek a consensus or 3rd Opinion on the talk page. Eastfarthingan (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2026 (UTC)