User talk:EkoGraf/Archive2022 1

Battle of Hasakah

Hello Eko i know SDF won the battle and jailed many escaped ISIS and there’s man called (DiB…..)he’s changing the results and facts!!! 212.237.120.247 (talk) 17:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

February 2022

Hello. I have noticed that you often edit without using an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This helps your fellow editors use their time more productively, rather than spending it unnecessarily scrutinizing and verifying your work. Even a short summary is better than no summary, and summaries are particularly important for large, complex, or potentially controversial edits. To help yourself remember, you may wish to check the "prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" box in your preferences. Thanks! Firestar464 (talk) 02:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Casualties during the 2013-14 Ukraine crisis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ukrainian crisis.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Something fun

	A super-useful award
	Here's a magical dog figurine that only tells truth or lies. His name is Higgins. Make good use of him! [El_C's the name, plagiarizing jokes is my gain] El_C 23:41, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Ivankiv ref

Hello, it was my mistake that the link didn't work, because my ad-block didn't let the specific page load, and the page showed only the most recent news. I removed the extra part, because it looked like link chaff used to track where the visitor come from. I overreacted because the wayback machine is not working the the BBC live news, and i was worried that the reference may be lost in a few days.

Thank you for clarifying that the link did work. I archived the correct url, and updated the reference data. Sorry again for the mistake. Ridanbp (talk) 02:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

		The Death Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying the article Casualties of the Russo-Ukrainian War. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you!

	The Odd Cat
	Thanks for being so helpful to new users, your efforts are not unnoticed! —Remember, I'murmate — I'ma editor2022 (🗣️💬 |📖📚) 13:08, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Balkans or Eastern Europe. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Please take note of the above and of WP:ONUS - you should not restore challenged content without a consensus for inclusion. Neutrality^talk 00:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to Control of cities during the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Some of your edits have relied on a likely interpretation of your references, as opposed to taking the references only at face value. For instance, this edit assumes that Russia controls two settlements (assuming you meant to switch Krolevets from Ukrainian-controlled in the table) based on how "Russian forces... have likely come along two arterial highways running [between these locations]". This requires the assumptions that

1. The Russians used (or at least controlled) the road (as opposed to this merely being deemed likely by the ISW);
2. The Russians used/controlled all the road (or at least the parts near the settlements);
3. The Russians controlled all the settlements along the road (or at least along the parts they were using).

Your next edit is based on a Ukrainian concession that their mayors are (apparently) abducted. Ukrainian concessions of Ukrainian setbacks are, of course, generally valid to cite. However, it does not necessarily follow that because a mayor was abducted, their settlement was controlled (or even contested) by the abductor – even while it is a good bet.

Is there a guideline for how much interpretation of sources is acceptable before it becomes WP:ORIGINAL (e.g. here)? If not, I suggest that we adhere closely to what the references say, i.e. that we not assume these settlements are Russian-controlled based only on the sources above, perhaps instead mentioning the abducted mayors in the More information column. —AlphaMikeOmega (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Southern Ukraine offensive, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tokmak.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Wording

I changed the wording a bit here. If something hasn't been confirmed then the word "accused" or "alleged" needs to be used per WP:BLP. Similarly, if something is nothing more than speculation then it needs to be called out like that because of WP:WIKIVOICE. Hope you will agree with my recent additions. 122.170.70.190 (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Could you help improve an article

Hey EkoGraf. I wanted to ask if you could help improve the Russian occupation of Kherson article. Currently, it is the only one of its kind for the invasion, since Kherson is the only Oblast capital to have been captured during the invasion. I tried to model it off some of the occupation articles from the WWII era, but not sure how else to format the page. Thanks in advance for any help! Elijahandskip (talk) 21:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022)

The Battle of Severodonetsk and the Battle of Rubizhno are not the same battle, although they are geographically close. This was shown during the fighting yesterday and the day before yesterday, because the Russian forces and the Lugansk forces intensified their armed actions exclusively on Severodonetsk. The city is under increasing pressure, unlike the city of Rubizhno, which is over 90% under the control of Russian forces. Severodonetsk has a much greater strategic importance, is better defended by the Ukrainian army than Rubizhno, and has a better strategic position. As a result, Severodonetsk is a much stronger fortress than Rubizhne, and the city of Severodonetsk itself is still controlled by Ukrainian forces over 50%, while Rubizhno has been over 50% in Russian hands since the beginning of April. Severodonetsk is much more important for Ukrainians when it comes to the Luhansk region, because in the event that Russian or Luhansk forces occupy it, Ukraine loses 100% of the Luhansk region. The article Battle for Popasnaya should be done. Severodonetsk and Popasnaya are currently the two most important strategic places of defense of the Armed Forces of Ukraine, where they offered terrifying and unexpected resistance to a much stronger enemy for more than two months. — Baba Mica (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are Russian sources. It seems that yesterday the Ukrainians had more success in counterattacks in the Kharkiv region, while the Russians concentrated exclusively on the cities of Severodonetsk and Popasnaya. — 109.93.204.55 (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

❗️🇷🇺🇺🇦 Основные итоги СВО на Украине за 6 мая 2022 года

▪️Чтобы избежать окружения, ВС РФ с северной окраины Харькова. Сейчас российские войска контролируют восьмикилометровую буферную зону от Казачьей Лопани до Рубежного (который в Харьковской области).

▪️ Под Изюмом ВСУ форсировали Северский Донец южнее Чепеля и готовятся к контрнаступлению на российские войска.

▪️ Бои на Лиманском направлении осложнены пожарами. В Шандриголово продолжаются бои.

▪️ Союзные войска вышли к окраинам Северодонецка. Стрелковые бои в Серебрянке, Белогоровке, Шипиловке и Приволье. Под Платоновкой сбит украинский Су-27.

▪️ В Попасной подразделения ВСУ отступили на юге города к Бахмуту. Сейчас идёт зачистка северо-западных кварталов.

▪️Идет подготовка к наступлению в Запорожье: по Орехову и Гуляйполю наносятся массированные удары. Занято село Щербаки.

https://t.me/rybar/32287

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, EkoGraf

Thank you for creating Battle of Sievierodonetsk (2022).

User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:26, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Civilian casualties in Sievierodonetsk

Hi, I see you removed the figure of 1,500 civilians killed during the battle. However, this figure is actually surprisingly accurate for during the battle. According to official data, 12 civilians were killed during the period 24 Feb - beginning of May (you can see the infobox of the article for the source for that figure) and 1,500 were killed during the period 24 Feb - 26 May. Thus I think we can say that 1,488+ civilians were killed during the period 6 May - 26 May. Again, if this math doesn't check out, or the figuring seems a little suspicious, feel free to revert my edit, but I'm confident that a high percent (at least 95%+) of the civilian deaths for the period of the invasion have come during the period of the battle itself, which is why I'm rolling with the figure of 1,500 for now - because I don't want to underrepresent the number of civilian deaths by simply putting "211" which is what was left in the infobox. Additionally, according to the infobox and the Institute for the Study of War, Lysychansk is part of the battle of Sievierodonetsk, so we can count the 150 civilian deaths in that city for the infobox as well - total of 1,638+ civilian deaths during the battle.

Again, if the figuring seems a little suspect, feel free to revert - but I'd like to make a strong case for this figure -- 90% of the city's housing has been destroyed, and if we are to believe the combat footage we've seen from the battle, and the reporting of crazy door-to-door fighting battles taking place, the figure seems right.

Thanks, PilotSheng (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The source clearly states the 1,500 claimed figure is for the whole period of the invasion (3 months), not just this battle (less than a month). There is no evidence that the figure of 12 dead before the battle you are presenting is a definite number, it only confirms 12 dead on those three specific days. Thus this does not conform to WP:CALC and goes into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Regards. EkoGraf (talk) 19:38, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

4152+ killed in Mariupol

Are you sure that 152 discovered bodies should be added to the 4000+ claim? Probably they died later, but it is not stated, and it is not like the previous claim was made by counting bodies, AFAIK. Smeagol 17 (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Smeagol 17 The 4,000 claim was made mid-April. They still had one more month of heavy fighting and the 152 claim was made only now based on, according to them, recent findings. So the two claims/figures are separate from one another. EkoGraf (talk) 17:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on Wagner

Hey, I didn't mean to upset you. Disagreements are everyday occurrences on Wikipedia. Don't give up, contrary to what you may think, I respect your opinion. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella Just trying to word the sentence in a way that the terminology is correct, regardless if a journalist somewhere incorrectly thinks neo-Nazism and far-right extremism are two separate things. The original compromise wording agreed to with VM was correct - neo-Nazi far-right extremists. And he himself has stated that neo-Nazism is far-right extremism. Anyway, like I said, if you insist on separating the two with the "and", so be it. However, I think the sentence is overcited now (WP:OVERCITE). The last ref by Project Syndicate should maybe be removed since it only repeats what's already stated in the previous sources so its redundant. The original three sources agreed to were enough in my opinion, but six now is unnecessary. EkoGraf (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello can you help me?

I saw your discussion on Ghouta chemical attack and was wondering if you can fix the page again? Since 20121 it has been heavily vandalized by politically bias users who’ve broke multiple rules in wiki editing it, when I try to revert their edits they revert my changes in groups to avoid edit warring while still leaving up the rule breaking edits so I can’t fix them anymore, can you fix the page for me please as I can not? Bobisland (talk) 07:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Davydiv Brid

You're right though. I thought it was simpler to make the article in two phases and it seems to me that the Ukrainian army is again pushing the Davydiv Brid offensive in a similar way to the battle of Dovhenka in two phases where also a similar Ukrainian counter-attack in the direction of the east like the current southern counter-attack is possible to the south. What do you think? If the Ukrainian army launches a major ground attack on Davidiv Bird (and it will have to 100%, because this counter-offensive is meaningless for Ukraine without capturing that small and strategically important city), should we supplement the first article in two stages or open a new separate article? I tried to open a new article last night but it hated me because it was too late and I thought I'd go for the cheaper option. You are an experienced Wikipedian and I want to hear your advice Mr. EcoGraph. – Baba Mica (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Unlike the previous operation which was solely focused on Davydiv Brid and its surroundings, the current offensive is a general one taking place across Kherson province (from north to south) and we already have an article covering it 2022 Ukrainian southern counteroffensive, including the fighting near Davydiv Brid. The only reason based on which we could make a new Davydiv Brid battle article is if a battle takes place for the town and if (more importantly) its a highly notable one so to warrant the sub-article of the general offensive one, otherwise it would just be a fork article and promptly redirected or deleted. So lets wait a month to see how the offensive develops. EkoGraf (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What if the battle for Davydiv Brid continues regardless of the outcome of the battle? I agree that a summary should be added. — Baba Mica (talk) 17:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Second Battle of Izium (Lyman)?

I created the article, and you do as you wish. Share it or merge it. Your business. what to do with the new battle for Lyman? – Baba Mica (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

OK. I understand. Is it necessary to divide the Battle of Davydiv Brid or to combine it in one article into two phases as I did on September 1st?

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 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) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste moves

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give First Battle of Kreminna a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Battle of Kreminna. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Battle of Svatove a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Battle of the Svatove-Kreminna line. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 08:50, 29 December 2022 (UTC)