User talk:Kyrylkov

Image tagging for Image:Mpxsys.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Mpxsys.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free use disputed for Image:Mpxsys.gif

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Mpxsys.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted after seven days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Mpxsys.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mpxsys.gif. 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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 11:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Cart

Please don't remove the notability tag from Zen Cart without addressing the concern or the article may be deleted. `'Míkka 06:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

War In Donbass Revised

Hi Kyrylkov, in the "War in Donbass" article you removed the separatists claims on the amount of people they lost, I revised it back to it's original form because you did not state why you did so. If you think this is a mistake please feel free to send me a message on my talk page. (User_talk:Weegee12 — Preceding undated comment added 08:13, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weegee12 (talk • contribs) 08:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

War in Donbass casualties

I do not know why you are constantly removing the sourced information about the alleged number of pro-Russian casualties and saying that its incorrect info citing Kyivpost article about Ukrainian casualties as those suffered by pro-Russian fighters. You are totally incorrect in your assertion. If you would read the casualties table in the Kyivpost article you would see it says Russian/separatist soldiers killed - 7,577. EkoGraf (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the reference to KP article because the table they have doesn't have links to the information they used. Can you tell who exactly claims 7577 separatists killed? Is it Ukrainian Health Ministry, Defense Ministry Medical Service, Defense Ministry, etc? No, you cannot. So I don't take it as a reliable source of information. Unlike the government source I provided this week.--Kyrylkov (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Their source for the number? You asserted previously your reason being that the number was being misrepresented. With Ukrainian casualties being presented as those suffered by pro-Russian fighters. As for the source, it says right there at the bottom of the table that their sources are and I quote Ukrainian Health Ministry, Defense Ministry Medical Service, Defense Ministry, United Nations, anti-terrorist operation spokesman Andriy Lysenko, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Russian human rights activist Elena VasilievaIf. If you have reliability issues with Kyivpost specifically as a source than the proper course of actions is that you file a motion with Wikipedia to list it as an unreliable source. Removing it simply because you don't think its reliable in your own opinion is seen on Wikipedia as a POV (point-of-view) edit and is not considered proper conduct. As long as there is a source which is not listed as an unreliable one by Wikipedia it can be used per Wiki policy. Proper neutral conduct (which Wikipedia requires) is to present all data available and not pick one based on personal POV. EkoGraf (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources mentioned by KP are government sources (Ukrainian Health Ministry, Defense Ministry Medical Service, Defense Ministry). This makes KP info outdated since the date of the article you reference is March 5, but the most recent government calculation that I provided is from this week. By your logic, we should also cite an article from 2014 and claim separatists losses something like 150-14,600. But the question is what the point of using a reference with OLD info from the government sources, if now you have the most recent data (that I referenced)?--Kyrylkov (talk) 21:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Generally I would agree with you in this regard. Ever since I have edited on Wikipedia I have always argued that older info should be replaced with newer info. But in this case no. One reason - What are the chances that between March 5 and March 15 (in just 10 days), government forces killed 7,000 separatists? Especially since the UN has stated 6,000 people overall have died during the whole war since it started. EkoGraf (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No chances whatsoever, taking into account the 'ceasefire'. However your logic is flawed. It is not newly killed separatists. It is a new TOTAL data compiled from different government agencies by Donetsk Military-Civil Administration that wasn't reflected in KP report. Among other things the latest report specifically says that only near Debaltseve in February 2015 1995 separatists were killed, which obviously also wasn't reflected in KP totals. --Kyrylkov (talk) 09:57, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

wasn't reflected in KP totals. That's actually your personal take on what the data contains or does not contain and its something that is not stated in the sources. EkoGraf (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What are we arguing here about? Do you consider my reference unreliable? If yes, please delete it and explain. If no, please remove the outdated info and use the most recent one. You ARE specifying number of killed according to THE GOVERNMENT and THE GOVERNMENT on March 16 said there are 14,600 separatists killed, not 7,577 !--Kyrylkov (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing to remove your source/claim. However, considering just 10 days before government sources claimed a figure that is half the new one it is proper neutral conduct (per Wiki policy) to present both figures and let the reader decide for himself what to believe. Personally I think the claim of 14,600 dead is fictional propaganda. Especially since it came from one regional official in his tweet (which Wikipedia actually does consider an unreliable source). However, I do not let my personal view get in the way of a neutral presentation. EkoGraf (talk) 02:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 20 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the War in Donbass page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]