User talk:KronosLine

Maps in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
You had reverted my edits in 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, and your edit summary was "Kiev is separate from Kiev Oblast and Sevastopol is separate from the Autonomous Republic of Crimea", but those maps showed them as separate.  JC  ·&#32; Talk  ·&#32; Contributions 20:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The SVG maps you introduced represented Kiev and Sevastopol as a circle inside the surrounding regions which implies them to be a part of those administrative divisions. If you look at the PNG files you attempted to replace then you will notice that the borders of the city Kiev and the city Sevastopol are a lot bigger than the two little circles shown in your maps. If you want to change the current PNG files to SVG files then you must change the borders of Kiev and Sevastopol. --KronosLine (talk) 20:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please explain to me how a circle inside the surrounding regions implies them to be a part of administrative divisions, because, in my perspective, the circles implied them to be independent of the administrative divisions.  JC  &middot;&#32; Talk  &middot;&#32; Contributions 20:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The circle is a lot smaller than their realistic borders, and since the realistic borders are not shown then it implies for the cities to be a part of the surrounding administrative divisions. There is no need to use a circle to represent the cities as they have very significant borders. --KronosLine (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed.  JC  &middot;&#32; Talk  &middot;&#32; Contributions 21:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great! Thank you!--KronosLine (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome.  JC  &middot;&#32; Talk  &middot;&#32; Contributions 23:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Flags in the navbox
The use of flag icons in navboxes such as Campaignbox Post-Soviet conflicts is limited by policies and guidelines such as MOS:FLAG and WP:ICONDECORATION.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 06:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A request for clarity
For somebody who joined Wikipedia joined Wikipedia 10 days ago you know a lot about Wikipedia procedures. In fact you seem to know more about Wikipedia procedures then an experienced editor. A.O. I find it strange that somebody new to Wikipedia can be so sure on how a "template is intended".... Also I noticed that all your edits seem to be reflecting of the anti-Ukrainian hysteria on Russian TV of these days. Case in point: Euromaidan was a lot less violent then the Russo-Georgian War; a fact you seem to be whitewashing on Wikipedia. Hence I was suspicious of your |maps of Ukrainian provinces edits. Have you created a new account because your old one was on the list of banned users? Or are you an experienced editor who set up a new account?

Everyone has points of view with inherent cultural biases - recognition is the first step to achieving '''NPOV. And your edits so far have not been a hindrance'''. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  15:21, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have used Wikipedia before but only as an IP address, I decided to make my own account as I feel that Wikipedia is becoming an everyday thing for myself. --KronosLine (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also want to clear up that no I do not have an anti-Ukrainian POV, I never said the Russo-Georgian war was less violent than the Euromaidan, I only stated that the Euromaidan itself was a very violent event and it had to be included. --KronosLine (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for my doubts; but Ukr. articles have been plagued by sock puppet before and Wikipedia in general by "pro-Russian disruptive editors". So I was "better safe than sorry" in my behaviour towards you. So it seems it is possible to behave "better safe than sorry" and rude at the same time. I am sorry for my rudeness towards you. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:26, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Yulia Romero,No worries :) I understand your reasons for concern. --KronosLine (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice
RGloucester — ☎ 03:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Euromaidan
You are incorrect. Euromaidan is the main event, and the revolution event is just one part/phase of the Euromaidan. And the infobox does not separate the individual phases of a conflict. The revolution article event explicetly states it is part of Euromaidan. EkoGraf (talk) 01:27, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf, I agree with you that the Euromaidan is the overall main event, however most people would consider it just a wave of mass protests with some violent incidents. Any revolution has a level of high importance as it is usually the most brutal part of a conflict. Your argument of the revolution being only one part or phase of the Euromaidan contradicts itself on the Post-Soviet conflicts template as the Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass] are also only certain parts or phases of the [[2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine however they have a high enough level of importance to be mentioned. --KronosLine (talk) 01:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * There you are mistaken. The Donbas war and the Crimean crisis are events/threads that unfold separate from each-other, they are not phases of one singular event. While with Euromaidan we had one singular event, of which the revolution is only one part of that one singular thread. Its even described as such in the main article. Also, your argument that most people would consider it just a wave of mass protests with some violent incidents is just that....your personal argument, and an unsourced one at that, which is not permissible when editing on Wikipedia per its policy. We deal with sourced fats, and sourced facts state Euromaidan is the main event. In addition, arguing that I am the one who is conducting an edit war while you are also reverting at the same time is rather contradictory. I would like to point out that in essence I was reserved before about even the inclusion of the Euromaidan events into the infobox because it is reserved for military conflicts, like those other editors pointed out. But I wasn't going to get involved in the issue. However, trying to separate/point out the revolution which is just one phase of the Euromaidan, while phases of other conflicts are not pointed out, is simply contradictory to the established template of the infobox. You are requesting a discusion from me to resolve the issue, but you have not proposed a version where the issue could be resolved satisfactory for both sides of this argument, despite me compromisinly proposing to eat least cut it down to just the Euromaidan, the main event. If you do not propose a satisfactory compromise proposition by tomorrow, I will edit once again to just Euromaidan. And if you continue edit warring with reverts of my edit I will be than further forced to side with the editors who are arguing that the event does not even have a place in a campaignbox reserved for military conflicts. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 03:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S. Fair good faith warning, when counting the revert of that editor who removed the link altogether from the campaignbox, you conducted 4 reverts in less than 24 hours and thus broke the 3RR rule. It would be advisible to be more careful in the future so an administrator does not decide to block you. EkoGraf (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf, Please re-read my reply more carefully. I never said that the Crimean crisis and the War in Donbass were the same thing, I said that they are both a part of the pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, which they are. The reason they are included in the template is because they are significant enough, just like the Ukrainian revolution. As for my statement of the Euromaidan being a mass of protests with violent incidents, this isn't just my opinion, it is what the Euromaidan was. If you choose to disagree then please read the Euromaidan article to understand Wikipedia's stance on this. You can't count the revert of the user who removed the link for Euromaidan as that altogether wasn't 24 hours so I did not brake the 3RR rule. --KronosLine (talk) 03:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I did read your reply carefully, but you obviously didn't read mine. I said Donbas and Crimea are not parts/phases of a singular event (which you implied), unlike the revolution which IS a part/phase of a singular event which is the Euromaidan. Also, I did read the Euromaidan article, and it clearly talks about the revolution as one part/phase of itself (Euromaidan). As for the 3RR, I apologise, it looked to me like the user removed the link today. In any case, my compromise proposal to you is plain, I await your compromise proposal. EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
 * EkoGraf, The Conflicts in Crimea and Donbass indeed are part of one big event, the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. I'm not sure what compromise you're expecting for me to introduce as this is a matter of either including or not including the Ukrainian revolution. I would also like to point out that before editing a template you must carefully read its related article. The Post-Soviet conflicts article includes the Ukrainian revolution in its listing. The template must match the article. No one is arguing that the Ukrainian revolution is a part of the Euromaidan conflict, which is why it is included in a bracket and not separately, just like Crimea and Donbass are included in the brackets to the pro-Russian unrest. --KronosLine (talk) 05:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)