You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki.
You've changed this file description post-factum, so it is not any motive to upload your new version which you call a 'current situation map'. It is not if we will look at the map demonstrated at 1-st channel of Russian TV, the real area rebels controlled is much smaller.
But this map (where is no cities) is useless in the purpose to reflect any 'current situation'. We need a much more detailed map, isn't it? But this map is used in the infobox to reflect the area of armed conflict, using this map we will see all the area, contolled or not controlled, where was fighting. It is not a map of s.c. 'Novorossia' (=rebels) control area. It is a map of the war area, I guess. So the boundaries proposed (with Mariupol area) are too small, as a lot of areas are involved in conflict as troops are concentrated at this areas - this situation is not a 'normal life' but a theater of war part, I see. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the author of the map, so I think I have the right to change the description to better describe my idea of the map.
The idea of this map is to show the current area of conflict, not the history of it.
But you have not any owner of this map, everybody can change description and map content. You reverted my edit with the reason 'I've change my mind and now it is a tactical map', but when I was uploading my map I was sure of use this map in the infobox, that is why this map has to reflect all historical areas of the conflict - at the map of I (or II) WW in the infoboxes we need to see all war area involved in the war.
We need a map of the conflict area, not a tactical map, isn't it? Your (or my) map is useless as a sort of 'tactical map'.
And a tactical map of the current situation is useless for the infobox, we don't need a 'poor version' of the tactical map in the infobox. But if more areas will be involved in the conflict we will add them in the pink to the current version of the "East Ukraine conflict.png", I guess. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the owner. But as the original author of the map i have the right to change the description to better describe my work. Logically, only the original author has this right.
By the way, it's the original idea of the map, i just gave some clarification. I'm not sure if you speak Russian, but the original description in Russian was: "Территория, на которой происходит вооружённый конфликт на востоке Украины". Note: the word "происходит" is in present simple time, meaning it's the actual situation.
I don't think it's a good idea to mark all territories, because the conflict is still ongoing, and the readers want to know the actual situation, not the history of the conflict.
Everybody (even me) can change the description and/or map content.
Draft map depicting an area of the conflict used in the infobox has to depict all historical area of the article topic. That is why this map is in the infobox. If fighting was in Mariupol city - this spot we need being depicted or the map in the infobox hides a portion of the battle area. Bogomolov.PL (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't simply change a description. You can do it only in two cases: 1) there is a consensus about the changes (or nobody cares), 2) you're the original author of the map (the person who only really knows the original idea of the map).
It's not required to depict all historical area in the infobox. For example, take a look on this article. Only the current situation. Or this article. The same thing. --Alex1961 (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Alex. I think this is the first time I talk with you, so, nice to meet you. I recently uploaded a map of the 2014 insurgency in Donbass with latin characters. I will update this map every day and if you have time or interest, let me invite you to fix or update it. Cheers.--Turkmenistan (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Autonomy territories in Townsips map Guizhou.png Можете на прикрепленной карте сделать полоски как тут?:
File:Autonomy territories in Guizhou.png Но что бы полоски были ровные и одинаковой ширины. Полоски для автономных уездов были тоньше чем для автономных округов. И в границе двух АО или АУ с одинаковыми народами цвета полосок менялись что бы границы были видны. Полоски как в Южной части этой карты File:Autonomy territories in Guizhou.png. АО -автономный округ, АУ-автономный уезд. Могу сделать карту с указанием где что и как сделать полоски. Цвет полосок меняется там где граница. Например синяя полоса на территории другой автономии такого же состава превращается в зеленый, а зеленый в синий.Легенду еще изменю и доработаю.--Kaiyr (talk) 09:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ок, теперь примерно понятно где они должны быть. Но я всё равно недостаточно владею графическими редакторами для такой работы. Да и тема этой карты мне не очень интересна, честно говоря. Извините --Alex1961 (talk) 11:28, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pervomaisk - Map from NSDC not correct because this source yesterday also showed on the map that Pervomaisk on 12:00 here was under army control but yesterday evening Ukrainian TV channel said that the city is under the control of insurgents.Podrobnosti and yesterday another Ukrainian soure said that city Pervomaisk still inder cintrol by rebels.Grdon UA Also, this map on August 15 showed Pervomais'k under the control of the army.here Although many sources have confirmed that it is controlled by the rebels. Pravda Ua--Hanibal911 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listen guy you have to understand that Pervomaysk Zhdanovka not taken a your map is not an exact because the map from NSDC is outdated and rarely updated. With this agreed many editors on the talk page. So if you continue to distort data on the map based on the not correct map and ignore the data from other sources, I'll have to notify the of admins about your actions.--Hanibal911 (talk) 13:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The of RNBO is still the best source of the data about the topic. There is no alternative for it. This is the most correct map of all, and the RNBO is reputable source.
I'll have to notify the of admins about your actions, because your constant reversions regardless of changes are vandalism. --Alex1961 (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.
Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!
You currently appear to be participating in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, and once it is known that there is a disagreement should discuss the issues on the relevant talk page rather than repeatedly undoing other users’ contributions. If necessary you can ask for more input at Commons:Dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to ask for temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing – even if you are right about the content issue.
Please correct the map! Ukrainian sources said tiday that Ukrainian army is fighting for the retention of cities Novosvetlovka, Khriaschuvate, кургана Saur Мogyla. Алсо fighting against rebels continues in the towns Donetsk, Lugansk, Ilovaisk, Yasinovataya, Shahtersk, Thorez, Snižne, Zuhres, Gorlovka, Krasny Luch, Stanytsia Luhanska.UNNRNBO And here another source confirmed that now clashes in Stanytsia Luhanska.Segodnya UA. So you can correct map? Let us together update the map to the correct version.--Hanibal911 (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I remember! I'll add it, i just don't want to download/edit/upload because of one small change. Better to do it together with other changes. --Alex1961 (talk) 11:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But yesterday evenings according to the information of the "Information resistance" Dmitry Tymchuk terrorists counterattack Stanytsia Luhanska. So I think we need again noted Stanytsia Luhanska to contestedю.IPress UA and today source said that clashes in Stanytsia Luhanska cintinued.Glavred
Also this source which provided the editor EllsworthSK does not not said that the army captured this city Petrovske. But source only noted that during the day the armed forces of entered into the fire contact with terrorists, particularly in the area of Petrovske.source
Also this source which provided the editor EllsworthSK does not not said that the villages Lenina, Bilorichenski under control by army. Source said that from the village of Belorechensky reported about volleys in Lenin and Lutugino. In area the village Vrubochki go clashes. According information from the village Lutugino, rebels try advance from the Lugansk to the village Lutugino.Segodnya UA We need to note these villages as contested! Fix this bug.--Hanibal911 (talk) 05:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can optimize our collaboration. I would ask you to provide updates in such format:
Name of the settlement --- changes ("controlled by the army" / "...by insurgents" / "fights") --- source.
Firstly post from Twitter by the rules of Wikipedia herehere are not reliable sources and cant be used to edit in Wikipedia. And secondly, this source dated on 17 August, and he already outdated but your source also dont said about clashes in the city.--Hanibal911 (talk) 06:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amvrosiivka --- Ukrainian army lost control of the city --- RacursMig News Also possible that the villages which located are on the road from the border to Amvrosiivka no longer under the control of the army.--Hanibal911 (talk) 15:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Popasna --- rebel advance to side city --- now city under control army
Debaltseve --- rebel advance to side city --- now city under control army
Ilovaisk --- troops to take control 50 percent of city but now began to retreat --- Battalion commander Dnepr-1" Vladimir Parasyuk gave the following statement: "We are fucked! We took in the ring. We even hold the position, which yesterday recaptured. Pass all: Staff ATO makes a fool of the people on their cards, they write, that we released Ilovajsk, but it's a lie - it took 50%, and now are moving away because there hell, and no help. Vesti UAInfo center UA--Hanibal911 (talk) 10:28, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
villages Markyne,Sherbak,Rozy Liuksemburh --- under control by insurgents --- Now 6 of border villages in particular, such as Markyne,Sherbak,Rozy Liuksemburh under control by rebels.UNIAN Now they taken control over of eight kilometer zone from the Russian border to the city Novoazovsk and now go fighting for the city.--Hanibal911 (talk) 18:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are proclaiming separatist claims as a fact. Saur-Mohyla links specifically states that seps claim that. They also claim to control Telmanove and yet a Reuters reporter who drove through Telmanovo twice on Sunday saw no sign of a rebel presence in or near the town[1].
The above mentioned Reuters article also directly challenges the FB status that is in the UNIAN, saying that at the time of visit, there were no close positions of separatists anywhere near Novoazovsk. EllsworthSK (talk) 02:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carefully read your source because it said that late on Sunday there were no rebel formations within about 30 km (20 miles) of the area where the armored column first appeared, and had not been for weeks beforehand. But Ukrainian news agency(UNIAN) said in Tuesday that now rebels taken control over of eight kilometer zone from the Russian border to the city Novoazovsk and now go fighting for the city and 6 of border villages in particular, such as Markyne,Sherbak,Rozy Liuksemburh under control by rebels.UNIAN--Hanibal911 (talk) 09:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing such written in any of that sources. Do you even bother reading them or do you just rely that Alex cannot speak Russian / Ukrainian and hence you´ll get a free pass here? EllsworthSK (talk) 10:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I corrected his record because sources only said that Russian troops or rebels entered the city! Thank that you pointed me to my mistake. Regards!--Hanibal911 (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From Donetsk to Mariupol --- Almost the entire southern flank of the front defeated remained only fragments forces ATO ---
Ilovajsk --- Troops which were surrounded near Ilovajsk ceased to exist as an organized force. Coupling to the environment is not. Trying to create a corridor for the withdrawal of troops failed. Most of the survivors were taken prisoner. On the number of killed and wounded can only guess. Most of the volunteer battalions ceased to exist in a meat grinder under Ilovaisk. A small strike forces sent to break through to Ilovaiskaya destroyed ---
Donetsk --- From the south and east of Donetsk unblocked, furthermore, the rebels now has a direct link with Russia on the whole stretch of the border that runs through the Donetsk region. There is information that the enemy occupied the district center Volnovakha. In the case of confirmation of this will mean that the formation of the separatists came to the operating room and can choose the direction of further strikes in the west of Donetsk region. Also there is a danger that rebels can besiege city Debalcevo. ---
Lugansk --- Under Lugansk, near Lutugino continued systematic destruction of another "pocket" in which there were Ukrainian troops. In other sectors of the front were positional battles.
Other area --- Enemy fully seized the initiative in all areas. Under Mariupol offensive formations separatists terminated for taking such a big city forces them is not enough. Information about the complete environment Mariupol not yet been confirmed, but it does not mean that the enemy abandon the plan to create a new "pot" --- Inforesist UA--Hanibal911 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Alex1961, can you please add sources to your image Donetsk dynamics.png? Years 1897 and 1750 are highly speculative - Donetsk doesnt even exist at the time, there was Yekaterinoslav Governorate. Also, as was contested by other user at the talk page - word Ukrainian doesnt even exist, this cannot be connected to Malorussians as this means something else. Please answer where did you get these data from, otherwise this image could be nominated for deletion. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:03, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First steps tutorial
Getting help
Goodies, tips, and tricks
Made a mistake?
Done --Alex1961 (talk) 11:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
