User talk:Lvivske

Etymology

Thank you for your contribution at the page about Ukrainains. In my opinion, Fedor Gaida is not a relevant historian at all, but it is OK to allow other users to play with Ukrainian name for so long they respect ukrainian sources and historians. Thanks for support!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Mila Kunis is proud to be Ukrainian

During an appearance on Jimmy Kimmel Live to promote Black Swan (film), Kunis explained that her family doesn't celebrate the high holy days – HOWEVER, she did say that they celebrate Orthodox New Year with a casserole that uses herring and root vegetables. And during another appearance on Kimmel to promote Friends With Benefits (film), Kunis pronounced the name of her grandfather as "BorYs" – not "BorIs". Just FYI before you go hatin'. – Jwkozak91 (talk) 00:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

How do you even pronounce Boris and Borys differently? lol. She also said on Conan that she's "Russian".--Львівське (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

This has been discussed on her talkpage and it was concluded that we don't know exactly what he heritage is since she keeps sending conflicting signals... For instance most Russians do not state in Russia they are from Ukraine while giving no indication they feel they are Russian.... Your statement below temporary residence in the Ukrainian SSR makes one an ethnic Ukrainian is bullocks cause her family may have lived in Ukraine for ages.... If you care about Ukraine you keep away from drawing conclusions on what seems to me Blut und Boden-theories. Making Ukrainians look like Nazi's will not benefit anybody. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Yulia, the fact that you state "it was concluded that we don't know exactly" and "her family may have lived in Ukraine for ages" indicates that you are contributing to original research and synthesis, in that you assume because her family emigrated from the Ukrainian SSR that she could be Ukrainian. The fact remains, as you admit, there is no conclusive evidence to suggest this. Without a reliable source, this information cannot be included on her WP:BLP as fact. Also, the fact that she temporarily resided in Ukraine is not, as you put it, "bullocks", because it is a fact to her biography. She does not have Ukrainian citizenship, she (to my knowledge) can't speak the language, and there is no evidence suggesting she identifies with, or as, Ukrainian. I love Mila, she's gorgeous and one day I'm going to marry her (kidding), but Wikipedia is not a place for you to pad some mental list of yours of famous pseudo-Ukrainians. Furthermore, your accusations of Nazism and blatantly fabricated quote you attributed to me on the talk page for Ukrainian Americans is not proper conduct for Wikipedia, Godwin's Law be damned.--Львівське (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about my aggressive tome lately. I think it would be best if everybody would just be categorized themselves solely on the place they live in now. This would solve so much problems in the world... But since it seems to me I am starting to POV-push this view lately I am retracting myself from this discussion... — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Block and Final warning

I warned this account months ago for inappropriate conduct on articles with regard to edits (and edit summaries) about race and ethnicity[1]. It seems that this account has returned to that behaviour. This is the final warning you will receive for edits incompatible with wikipedia's core principles, core policies and codes for behaviour. It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect.[2]
Your action in revert warring on two articles[3][4][5][6] about this (diffs show original edit and reverts), although not making more than 3 reverts this action (across 2 articles) does constitute a breach of WP:EDITWAR, due to repeated reverts without discussion and the spill over from one article to another (something an account with your history of edit-warring should be aware is inappropriate by now) - this has resulted in a 72 hour block. For clarity WP:3RR does not give an automatic right to 3 reverts per day on articles.
Previously I had to warn you that a person being black and English is absolutely possible - it is your problem if you haven't got that message. The fact that you are now edit-warring over your apparent belief that being Jewish & Ukrainian is not possible is pointy, incorrect, and contrary to the core policies of this site (source based, neutral point of view edits). You should be in no doubt User:Lvivske that further behaviour like this will be prevented by block if necessary.
Over the course of years you have been counseled and notified about your improper conduct on this site[7][8][9] - most recently by me - the behaviour of this account since indicates that you are either not learning, or are ignoring these warnings, and are continuing to use wikipedia as a battleground. This sort of behaviour is forbidden on site and is explicitly listed as grounds for imposing sanction at both the Eastern European disputes RfAr and the Digwuren RfAr.
This message is both an official notification of these Arbitration findings in light of this account's edit warring about ethnicity and nationality on an article (Ukrainian Americans) and a related BLP (Mila Kunis) and a final warning generally for edits, comments and other actions on this site, about race and ethnicity, (actions that either constitute POV editing, use of wikipedia to further off site/real world disputes, or push a POV) that are fundamentally at variance from the stated aims, goals and purpose of this project as an encyclopedia will result in this account loosing its editting privelages--Cailil ^talk 13:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

1) Your view on the ethnic English / black position is that of your own POV and not necessarily fact by any sense of the word. That is your own personal belief and you should, as a person of authority here on Wikipedia, not allow your own personal views into edit wars or content resolution. 2) The link you provided to a book about Mila Kunis proves nothing, and shows nothing relevant to the discussion at hand. It's just a book cover with no page number, quote, or anything. As I stated previously, she's an ethnically Jewish person from the Soviet Union who is now an American citizen. How is she Ukrainian, ethnic or otherwise? This is just WP:OR on your own part; inferring that temporary residence in the Ukrainian SSR makes one an ethnic Ukrainian, and somehow qualified to headline a diaspora article she does not identify with. 3) The so called "edit warring" you are citing was hardly edit warring, as I have primary sources to back up the reason for my edit regarding Tkachuk, and I was also engaged in communicating the edits with 2 people so far. This is not edit warring. 4) Are you seriously citing arbitrary filings against me that resulted in no action because I was innocent, as some sort of proof against my general behavior or conduct? 5) IS THIS CONCLUSION OF YOURS SERIOUSLY BASED ON YULIA'S FABRICATED QUOTE OF "People who are Jews are never Ukrainian" FROM THE TALK PAGE? If so, then wow. I asked for a source and she warped it into that tripe.

Know the situation before handing out discipline for what was clearly a good faith series of edits. I suggest you follow up on disputes a with a little more attention to detail than you did with this one because if this is a reflection of "findings" then I fear for safety of others' accounts who actually push a real boundary, unlike the BS you're citing above.--Львівське (talk) 02:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske, it is very clear that you don't understand or don't want to hear about, what wikipedia is for. Your block is a result of revert warring, without discussion (as a review of your contribs shows there was no discussion on this topic during the reverts except the remarks on this page which fail to address the point), and the spill over of the dispute from one article to another. Your edits and edit summaries are what led here (particularly this one[10]). My determination is based on your edit summaries (listed in the diffs above). Also it is very easy for those of us reviewing your edits to see that reliable sources describe this person as Ukrainian and reliable soures are what we use on Wikipedia, not your opinion Lvivske.
Using wikipedia to further off site agendas or your POV is prohibitted. And especially so in Eastern European topics. You have been formally placed on notice of this.
Your failure to get the point vis-a-vis edits about race and ethnicity on wikipedia is your problem - whether that's due to a POV or a language barrier doesn't matter: wikipedia is a) not a battleground and b) requires competence to use. If you cannot adjust your behaviour to comply with our policies you will simply be prevented from breaking them.
I will remind you that ad hominem and uncivil comments like the above are not aceptable on wikipedia and may lead to further blocks, or the revocation of your talk age access while blocked. Please see WP:UNBLOCK for advice on how to request a review of this block--Cailil ^talk 11:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• A note for reviewing admins. This block was made in light of reverts on the same issue/topic but on two articles - all done without discussion or attempts at discussion by Lvivske. Given his history of editwarring he is, or should be, aware of WP:EDITWAR - hence the length of the block. Also the block is made in light of previous edis (wrt race & ethnicity) incompatible with wikipedia's purpose and code of conduct (see above comments).
  Also although Lvivske has only been listed as being notfified of WP:DIGWUREN by me yesterday - he was infact officially warned and notified here. Thus his behaviour in editwarring was in breach of those RFAR remedies after being warned.
  I've erred on the side of caution here only imposing a 72 hour block and officially listing Lvivske on WP:DIGWUREN's list of notified users, however this block does fall in a grey area of ArbCom enforcement of WP:DIGWUREN's discretionary sanctions[11] as Lvivske was previously notified. If another admin feels that this should be reduced, but is concerned about it being an AEBLOCK, I'm happy to discuss this block with them and reduce it if given sound reasoning--Cailil ^talk 11:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am not asking for a change or anything but I couldn't help but comment when I saw this. Using a warning from 2 years ago as a reason to block now without warning is a very large stretch. You need to warn users with a recent warning. A two year old warning is stale. -DJSasso (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

• Agreed hence my erring on the side of caution with a 72 block for editwarring (which is the reason for blocking) and a 'fresh' and official warning about WP:DIGWUREN. However I've given the full history for anyone who wants/needs it, and as I said I'm more than hapy to discuss--Cailil ^talk 13:41, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

One single revert to remove unsourced WP:OR material does NOT constitute "edit warring" in any sense of the word. It seems you wish there was an edit war to justify your power trip, but it simply didn't pan out like you're describing here. Your condescending, contentious attitude and blatant misuse of sysop powers here are plain as day and I'll be sure to file a real report on your conduct as well. Blocking without warning, inventing an edit war that never occurred, pretending to link to an RS, lying about arbitration findings that were never filed or made. Is this some sort of sick joke?--Львівське (talk) 21:58, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Lvivske you have been warned already with regard to WP:CIVIL. If you cannot abide by wikipedia's code of conduct you will be prevented from breaking it.
Please follow the proceedure laid-out at WP:UNBLOCK if you wish to request a review of this block. Further misuse of the talk space here may result in the revocation of your talk page access--Cailil ^talk 23:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Misuse of the talk space now? Get over yourself. Baseless statements about 'competence' and a "language barrier" and you have the audacity now to talk about civility? Your entire diatribe so far has stunk of a reading comprehension issue on your end. I suggest you keep your personal inclinations and fervent at the door if you're going to continue with this baseless and entirely ignorant understanding of any of this site's rules you've stated thus far.--Львівське (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Lvivske (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I was blocked without warning for an alleged violation of WP:EDITWAR, for the following edits: [12][13][14][15]. The edits related to the article Ukrainian Americans were simply removal of unsourced material, as stated in the edit summaries. The first and only revert I made was because my good faith and reliably sourced edit was contested for being "opinion not fact", when I do have WP:RSs for the Tkachuk case, and per Kunis' talk page, no source exists to confirm her status. All I did was remove unsourced information that was inserted due to WP:OR. The other article I was reprimanded for was Mila Kunis, whom I made 2 category removals on, and was uncontested (ie. no warring or reversions even took place). I was blocked without warning, and without chance to discuss on the respective article's talk pages (however I did begin communication on my own talk page).
Based on a single revert, and no real back-and-forth disruptive editing taking place, my conduct in no way contravenes Edit Warring or Battleground policy. My record on this site is rather clean, save for a couple deserved cool downs over the last 2 years, and a warning dating back 2 years.
I have full understanding of wikipedia's code of conduct regarding 3RR, WP:BATTLE, and WP:EDITWAR. Neither myself, nor the article(s) in question were under a 1RR restriction. My edits were entirely in good faith, based on reliable sources (or in this case, a lack thereof), and were done from a neutral POV.

Accept reason:

Per my statements at WP:AE and in the discussion below. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:34, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Again for reviewing sysops. Please see here[16] this is not an AEBLOCK - Lvivske is blocked for edits about race, nationality and ethnicity that are not compatible with wikipedia's core policies or code of conduct. He is blocked for edit-warring about them. He was warned that this was coming[17] too. He has been officially notified of WP:DIGWUREN, not sanctioned under its terms.
  Where there seems to be confusion is that Lvivske has already been warned about WP:DIGWUREN. I have stated that due to this prior warning it falls into a grey area, but I have erred on the side of caution with a 72 hour editwarring block. But in case an admin is worried that this might be a dodgy area for them to over turn (I'm not saying it is one fr definite just that some ppl might feel it is) I am happy to discuss or reduce it myself.
  Simply put, Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish - and editwarring over the latter. To date Lvivske has not recognized why he was blocked or agreed not to repeat this behaviour (both of which would be grounds for immediate unblock from me) and has instead posted incivilly--Cailil ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this; waiting for some more feedback at WP:AE, where I have commented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In my defense, concerning being "blocked for edits about race, nationality and ethnicity that are not compatible with wikipedia's core policies or code of conduct". The previous 'warning' by Cailil was about me changing English to British from a BLP lede, which is the WP:MOS suggested route (that is, citizenship in the lede, not ethnicity). In this case, just like the current case, Cailil invented an ethnic debate that simply did not exist. Per Cailil, "Simply put, Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish", this statement is entirely a lie and fabrication of what my edits were about. The English example was changing ethnicity to citizenship, the current situation was removing unsourced WP:OR information. I never once said that you cannot be "English and black" or "Jewish and Ukrainian", these are fabrications and misquotes on Cailil's part.--Львівське (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, in the English/British/black case your edit summary at least invited such a misunderstanding, if it was one (but I agree the outcome of that edit was easily justifiable). In the present Ukrainian/Jewish case, I'm concerned about the way your position was misquoted in a rather distorting way here, and can only hope Cailil wasn't misled by that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Admittedly, the edit summary was just something I jotted in and saw in hindsight how it did invite a problem; between Black people and English people, I saw no sources for ethnic identification so I erred on the side of nationality. It was a long time ago. I never intended for a blanket statement on ethnic mixing or some nonsense. The actually libelous misquote from User:Yulia Romero didn't help my case here, but Cailil knew what my edit summaries were, so why he would believe her lie without fact checking it is unknown. Unless, he just wanted to believe it.--Львівське (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

outside views

Ok, there's a bunch of bunkum going on here.

• First, referring to an established editor as "this account" or "that account" (as in "I warned this account", "It seems that this account ", "something an account", "the behaviour of this account", "in light of this account's", "will result in this account " - why not you just go ahead and call it "a little thing I'm going to play with like a cat with a mouse", have some guts and be honest - pretty clear sign that this is just an example of a power hungry admin lording it over small editors) is obnoxious and appears to be an attempt at de-personalizing Lvivske with a view towards making the sanction seem justifiable. Put a hood on their head before you block'em, that way you don't have to look into their eyes. But there's always a person behind "this account" and just because you don't refer to them as a person does not make it ok for you to ban them as if they were just an "account".
• Second, the statement by Cailil above that "It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect." pretty clearly indicates that s/he has a very strong opinion on this matter and hence, whatever the protestations to the contrary, is not "uninvolved" and hence has no authority to impose this kind of sanction. If you gonna block "accounts", then at least pretend not to take sides in the disputes.
• Third, there's no goddamn violation of any Wikipedia rules here. There's two reverts on one article. There's two reverts on another article. The two articles are sort of related. True, there's nothing on talk but the edit summary here is pretty descriptive [18]. If this continued I could see a reason for some kind of a sanction. But it was still in the "we are having a disagreement - let's see what happens" stage. What the hell happened here? Been a long time since you banned some peon and were looking for a peasant to slap around or something?
• Fourth, this block shouldn't be "reduced". It should be overturned and Calil should be reminded that the job of administrators is to serve the Wikipedia editors and help them, not to bully them around. A note should be made in Lvivske's block log to that effect.

Seriously.

 Volunteer Marek  04:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

VM has a valid point. Unless Lvivske is under a 1RR restriction, this block is not justified. PS. I have rarely interacted with Lvivske, and when I did, more often than not we disagreed. I think this is true for VM as well. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

This is true, when I got the email notification of your comment, I was like "oh crap, Pio's going to tear me a new one"--Львівське (talk) 04:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... looking at this further, it seems that on the Mila Kunis article, the two diffs of supposed "reverts by Lvivske" presented above by Calil this one and this one as evidence of "edit warring" are...

1) consecutive, hence even if they were "reverts" of another user's edits would not count as 2 edits. 2) are not even reverts of another user, but simple straight forward edits. Who exactly got reverted here?

Ok. This is the point where you start wondering if somebody is just totally incompetent or lying. Given the nature of the accusation by Calil this does seem like the latter case. Volunteer Marek  05:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with VM's characterisation. Quite frankly, I do not see any "edit warring" going on here. When I checked the edit histories of the articles in question, I saw what VM saw; that is, a few edits which can hardly be classified as "reverts", let alone "edit warring". Invoking The Notorious D.I.G. does not give one a licence to smack heavy-handed blocks on users willy-nilly for editing within the norms of the project on a mildly contentious topic. This block is, IMO, totally unjustified and reflects poorly on the neutrality and judgement of the blocking admin. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not this is a DIGWUREN block, there was no bloody edit warring. Category removals and a single revert with a descriptive edit summary are everyday occurrences that do not breach WP policy. I decided to stalk your RfA to see what people thought of you (and why on earth you were given the nightstick mop to begin with), and I can honestly say that the concerns of several Opposers regarding your neutrality (or, more appropriately, lack thereof) are completely justified. You are incapable of acting rationally when it comes to a sensitive sociological topic, and are far too quick to stigmatise and punish someone editing in a way that does not suit your own blatant POV. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 13:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a serious enough abuse of admin power that I filed an AE report on it here [19]. Volunteer Marek  06:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• I am here because I have been asked to provide an independent review of the comments made above about Cailil. It seems to me that Cailil has made some errors of judgement. However, there is no justification at all for the incivility and personal attacks to which he has been subjected.

1. Lvivske has been editing in very unhelpful ways over a long period, and has received numerous warnings about the problems, but clearly has no intention of changing. The latest edits fitted in with previous patterns of problematic editing, and it is clear that the block was based on the combined effect of accumulated editing problems, with the latest edits being just the last straw. It was probably a mistake to use the expression "edit warring" in referring to the block, as the edits referred to scarcely constituted edit warring in themselves. However, Cailil made it perfectly clear that those edits were not the whole reason for the block: "Lvivske is blocked for making edits that claim in BLPs that a person cannot be English because they are black and that a person is not Ukrainian because they are Jewish - and editwarring over the latter." As Cailil has pointed out, "the block is made in light of previous edits", and although an unfortunate choice of wording in describing the block may have initially given the impression that the block was for those edits alone, that error does not justify the accusations made above. To argue as though the whole block rests on the few edits referred to, and the reason for the block falls down if those edits do not constitute edit warring, is to completely ignore the explanation given.
2. Perhaps "I warned this account" would have been better expressed as "I warned this editor", and likewise with the other examples given, but really that is not a matter of great significance, and placing undue emphasis on that does not help.
3. Cailil would, in my judgement, have been better advised to have stood back and got less involved in arguments following the block.
4. The statement by Cailil above that "It is, as has been pointed out, recorded in third party reliable sources that your views on Mila Kunis's ethnicity is incorrect" is a simple statement of fact. Lvivske has a persistent habit of denying that Jews from the Ukraine are Ukrainian, denying that black people who are born and bred in England are English, and so on. Cailil could perhaps have tried to seem more objective by saying something like "contrary to the consensus view held by Wikipedians and by society at large" instead of "incorrect", but to claim that making such a statement makes Cailil into a biased participant who cannot take administrative action is absurd.
5. We are told that the two edits to Mila Kunis are not reverts, and we are asked "Who exactly got reverted here?" The two edits removed content, so they were reverting the edits that inserted that content. For example, this edit reverted this edit by USchick from 29 August 2010. I am at a loss to understand why anyone would think that it is possible to remove content without reverting whatever edit put the content there.
6. Volunteer Marek should remember to be civil. While some of Cailil's actions were not perfect, there is no justification for accusations of "bullying" or of suggesting that he is "totally incompetent or lying". Even if Volunteer Marek and Lothar von Richthofen think that Cailil's judgement was severely at fault, I see no reason at all to think that the actions were taken in anything other than good faith, and there is certainly a case for the block, whether or not one thinks that the case against is stronger. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

JamesBWatson (talk) 14:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A few notes: (a) I don't generally agree that all removals of content automatically constitute reverts (that assumption leads to conundrums if you take it to its logical consequences, but that's for another place to discuss; as a pragmatic guide, I would normally consider a removal a revert only if the edit that first added the content can be reasonably supposed to be within memory.) But even if we count it, it's still only a single edit on Mila Kunis. (b) As I stated elsewhere, I have the impression that Cailil got something seriously wrong if he though Lvivske was generally denying that Jews from Ukraine could be Ukrainian; if indeed there should be a "persistent habit" of him editing with such a tendency, I've not seen evidence of it. On the face of it, Lvivske's edit to Ukrainian Americans can well be described as a legitimate enforcement of WP:BLP. – I am considering lifting this block. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:37, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You were cordially asked by the admin in question to review conduct on the talk page. How this makes you an "independent" reviewer is beyond me. Yes, incivility is to be found here, I will be the first to admit, having contributed a portion of it. But it was not baseless, and your pretensions of neutrality don't make things any better. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 15:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As someone who has had disagreements with Lvivske in the past I only noticed the discussion earlier since I have this page on my watch list and mostly didn't want to get involved which is why I only made a comment. But to be truthful I almost unblocked immediately this block was a very bad block by someone clearly involved and biased. So if people are taking a count do a +1 for lifting the block. -DJSasso (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Likewise, I have Lvivske on my watchlist because of our past disagreements. Having looked through the edits in question it seems clear that this block should not be held. Additionally, the content disagreement between the blocking admin and Liviske regading whether Mila Kunis is Ukrainian or not, not only does not warrant a block but on the contrary, should make the admin more cautious, and refrain from using his admin priviliges (esp. where no technical criteria for using them were met). Besides, the fact that Cailil thinks that a person born in a Soviet Union republic must have the nationality of this republic shows little understanding of nationality and citizenship issues in the former SU. For example a Russian born in Estonian SSR is still a Russian, not an Estonian after the collapse of the SU. Similarly, a Jewish person born in Ukrainian SSR does not have to be Ukrainian. Any U.S. or British analogies are not relevant here, as the historical background and the situation is different. Anway, as to the block, I don't see why it has to take that much to admit the mistake, apologize, and have this over. I assume good faith of both Cailil and Lvivske. --Lysy^talk 20:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Sure, I'll be civil - but I don't see that as being the same as refraining from strongly worded criticism. Some situations require us to speak plainly and to the point. On the ladder of uncivil things one editor can do to another on Wikipedia, wrongly blocking someone and then pouring salt on the wounds is about as high as you can get - for one thing it leaves permanent scars on the block log, unlike an off-the-cuff comment which can be easily forgotten or ignored.

I also - like Lothar and FPS above - don't see anything wrong with the edits in question. I think you (JamesBWatson) bought into the whole story that Calil is telling. But it's just a story and not a particularly accurate one. There's been no edit warring. There's been no incvility on Lvivske's part. As to the content, I think FPS addresses the Mila Kunis one sufficiently. With regard to the David Haye article, Lvivske changed "English" to "British" since the term "English people" links to an article about a population which "Historically (is) descended from several genetically similar peoples—the earlier Britons (or Brythons), the Germanic tribes that settled in the area, including Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, collectively known as the Anglo-Saxons, who founded what was to become England (from the Old English Englaland), and the later Danes, Normans and other groups. ". If changing "English" to "British" was "racist", or something, in this context, then quick, find, whoever wrote the "English people" article and ban them too.

It should also give you two pause that folks who have had disagreements with Lvivske in the past are coming here to defend him. It's pretty clear that this was a horrible block, that it was abusive and that now just a whole bunch of excuses are being made. There's nothing uncivil about stating this fact. Volunteer Marek  17:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:SPADE offers useful insights. I agree VM is calling spade a space, but let's all try to do it in a nicer way. On the subject of being nicer, it would be helpful if the blocking admin would apologize to the victim (Lvivske). Being nice and respectful cuts both ways - it is not only the admins who should be treated fairly... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

With regards to the warning

Cailil's DIGWUREN warning to Lvivske was handed out for the same "reasons" as the block. After much discussion, these "reasons" were found to be spurious at best. As a result, the block was summarily overturned. Shouldn't this mean that the warning also be rescinded? ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

AE notes (since I'm blocked from defending myself)

• Cailil: " He then on October claimed that becuase Mila Kunis is Jewish she isnt Ukrainian link and edit-warred over that. That's what got Lvivske blocked."

The above statement is yet another distortion on the part of Cailil. No sources exist proving she is Ukrainian. End of story. I never said, because she is X she can't be Y. I never took part in racial calculus to determine her Ukrainianness being outweighed by her Jewishness. No source exists to prove she is Ukrainian. Fin.

• Cailil: "rversions without discussion and spilling over of content disputes to otehr articles will get them into trouble for editwarring."

Discussion happened between myself and the person I reverted here on this talk page, and again with another party involved. All parties involved in the "1 revert edit war" here discussed it on some level here. The edit summaries were descriptive enough to not warrant an article:talk page entry. Not every tagging requires a lengthy discussion. Find a source, put it back in. Tkachuk isn't Ukrainian so even if Mila is, the picture had to go in the interim.

• Cailil: Also below is a list of diffs that show further questionable edits from Lvivske in case another sysop wants to deal with the actual issue that Lvivske is blocked for.:

• "Unexplained removal of content: [20][21]"

These are just normal edits that I took the initiative to correct the articles. In the first I removed a redundant, duplicated statement (just clean-up), the second, the hockey player changed teams so I removed a sentence saying he played for an old team. Why is Cailil conducting a witch hunt here? Or is this more diff padding?

• "Unsourced alteration of nationality/ethnicity: [22][23][24], the David Haye edits[25][26]note edit summary here[27]

1, I removed ethnicity from the lede since it was already present in the body. 2, the guy is Russian (ethnic and citizenship) so I was correcting a mistake by another editor. I'm an expert on this subject (hockey), I can be bold and not discuss minor edits like this. 3, Yul Bryner is a Russian-born, American and later Swiss national. Rather than get convoluted I simplified the lede.4. Haye was simply removing ethnicity from the lede and placing citizenship. Cailil, why don't you familiarize yourself with the BLP styleguide?

• Editwarring with User:Aspects about subnational falgs in violating of WPEDITWAR and WP:MOSICON: [28][29][30][31][32][33]

We're both at fault here, I couldn't be bothered to discuss this with him, he reverted the articles I was working on so I restored them. On WP:HOCKEY we never had, to my knowledge, a style ruling on this so I continue with discretion, especially since I made the freaking infobox template this guy was reverting on.

• Adding questionable & POV material to Nelson Mandela: [34]

Is it questionable? Is it POV? Umkhonto is exactly what I inserted, I was simply filling in pertinent information. Nothing more.

Holodomor (again)

Just thought I'd let you know (in case you don't already) of a MedCab case regarding the latest drama at Holodomor. For whatever reason, you weren't listed as a participant, even though you certainly have been. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 14:59, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I saw it, but do I just add my name, or do I have to be allowed in?--Львівське (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

I went ahead and added you in; I think that will be fine. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor mediation

Hi there Lvivske, this is just a reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. We can't get the mediation under way until we have statements from each of the participating editors, so it will be very helpful if you could post it on the mediation page when you next have a chance. As a refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:

1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thank you very much for your participation. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

KHL player nationalities

Hi Lvivske, where do you have those numbers from? I am aware that player nationalities are sometimes not well defined. What source do you have for those numbers? I don't mind a different source, but please don't just change without giving a different reference. Wild8oar (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't you see the footnotes for Latvian and Ukrainian players on the list? Each player active this season is fully referenced. If we're going by "origin" as the NHL article does, 11 are active. If we're going by national team, then 4 are. I can see the list getting messy if we go by citizenship since so many import players receive Russian passports under the table and are documented on sites under varying nationalities....--Львівське (говорити) 14:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I am aware that there are some problems: Origin (place of birth) I don't like, players can be born anywhere, also at places to which they have no connection. National team would be nice, but what about players that never played in a national team? Citizenship is problematic for players from former Soviet republics (and there are also dual citizenships). I personally don't care which numbers we use, but it would be nice if we can find a reference for it. And then we should add a sentence above the table that says what the numbers precisely mean. Wild8oar (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That said, we don't know how Quant Hockey is arriving at their numbers. KHL.ru lists every single Ukrainian player, regardless of national team, as Russian (and this is obviously problematic)--Львівське (говорити) 14:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

OK then, since you seem to have done case to case research for the two countries where it is most difficult, why don't you fill in the numbers according to that and then we leave it that way? But looking at the list of Ukrainians, I wouldn't count those that have played for Russia at a senior level. Wild8oar (talk) 15:39, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Quanthockey

No point of posting this on main board so I'll continue here. Ignat Zemchenko already played for Russia internationally, albeit not in a IIHF competition ( some sources like EliteProspects even list him as born in Angarsk, Russia). Denis Bayev is harder case, because not so long ago there wasn't any evidence of him being born in Ukraine, but with this info coming out I found interview that says he was born there while his father was doing his time for Soviet army, so in my eyes makes no sense to call/list him as a Ukrainian player as he has no real bonds to the Ukraine beyond just being born there. Would you consider Craig Adams a Bruneise hockey player, probably not? QH does its research, but like all sites its prone to errors. Hope this bit helps. Utinsh (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

can you link me to this interview? I don't think the Craig Adams analogy applies here, though. I'm aware of Zemchenko playin in some exhibition tournament but seeing as his father was a prominent Ukrainian hockey player and we don't count non-IIHF tournaments here to determine nationality....well that's why I don't count him as Russian (yet)--Львівське (говорити) 15:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you about Zemchenko, if we follow wiki guidelines, he is still a Ukrainian player. If you don't like Adams analogy how about Robyn Regehr's case? Is he a Brazilian hockey player just because his parents were missionaries in Brazil when he was born (I know he played for Canada national team, but what if he didn't)? Bayev is very similiar case, born in Ukraine while his father was in army (and Ukraine was a part of CCCP), but started playing hockey with CSKA Moscow and has spent all his career to date in Russia. Here is the article I referenced (it says that webpage got its info from Atlant officials, so its reliable enough for me) - http://www.goroddosug.ru/hk_atlant/profile/41/69/ Utinsh (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I understand what you're saying, but there's a big difference between Canada-Brazil and Russia-Ukraine, especially since they were at the time the same country. Not only that, but most Ukrainian players are dual citizens (Regehr isn't Brazilian, is he?), even those who still play for the UKR national team. A lot of players, because of this, are (in interviews) pretty ambivalent about nationality. Anyway, according to the Atlant site, they only have Bayev on record for playing for CSKA....since he was 17. FWIW, we don't know the rest of history. Also I may be wrong, but it was my understanding that after the USSR collapsed, Ukraine inherited the soldiers into the Ukrainian army.--Львівське (говорити) 17:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I assume you you missed this sentence "Баев – воспитанник московского ЦСКА" ? At 17 he graduated from CSKA hockey school and turned pro and his stats of course started to be kept. No player on Atlant site has his youth league stats given. Utinsh (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I read it as he was on CSKA-2 when he was 17, we don't know what youth school he attended prior--Львівське (говорити) 18:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

You really are stubborn... ;) http://www.sports.ru/tags/1078883.html?type=dossier Utinsh (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

To be fair we have considered Regehr Brazillian in the past. If he hadn't played for the national team that is how we would list him. There are many examples of the hockey project listing players in that way. -DJSasso (talk) 17:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I understand why policy looks like it does, but that doesn't mean I agree with it or think it's particularly useful to readers. Though I'm not trying to bring this issue back once again, just arguing QH's research. Utinsh (talk) 18:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Holodomor statement deadline

Hello again Lvivske, this is another reminder to submit your initial statement at the MedCab Holodomor mediation. The other mediators and I have decided to impose a deadline for initial statements of 00:00, 23 October 2011 UTC. If you have not submitted your initial statement by this time, then you will be excluded from the mediation. Thank you for your understanding. As another refresher, the statement must be no more than 250 words, and should answer the following four questions:

1. What are your interests in regards to the Holodomor articles? How did you discover and start editing the article? Do you have any potential conflicts of interest?
2. What problems you think have caused this dispute to require mediation?
3. What is your view of the dispute at present, and what issues need to be addressed in this mediation, that would help resolve this dispute amicably? Give a list of issues, if possible.
4. What do you hope to achieve through mediation?

Thanks again — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:03, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I'll enter it in, I've been procrastinating. The topic frustrates me, which is why I took a wiki-break from it for a year. --Львівське (говорити) 19:59, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, you only have one day left, so now is the time. Regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Fiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine, gawd--Львівське (говорити) 03:28, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

AE

I mention you briefly here [35] though you're only tangentially involved I think. Volunteer Marek  17:12, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for watching the page about Ukrainians. We should not allow vandal acts there so if you know reliable administrator, it will be great to report problems on this page. Page is realy under occupation by various ukrainophobic users, there is no simillar act in other pages, for exam. Russians or Poles. Please keep watching, thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Where is the alleged Ukrainophobia? I saw the pic he removed but didnt notice the content being out of wack? Just curious, I'll look harder.--Львівське (говорити) 06:09, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

It is about Anti-Ukrainian sentiment. Other thing: it is better to erase Cossack photo because this is still part of antiukrainian propaganda. Russian nationalists want to show that Ukrainians are only Cossacks but they are not. Cossacks are only one smaller part of Ukrainians. This Cossack photo belongs to Cossack page, Ukrainians have much more interesting photos to show.--SeikoEn (talk) 06:33, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Cossack Mamai is to Ukrainians what Uncle Sam is to Americans, nothing more. It absolutely works for the article, and it is by no means "anti-Ukrainian" or some sort of stereotypical caricature meant to induce prejudice. Cossack culture and history is extrmely embedded in Ukrainian culture and identity. Heck, "we are the Cossack nation" is in the national anthem!--Львівське (говорити) 06:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but still cossacks are only warriors, we have also other important peoples. Cossacks are important part of Ukraines history but they are not separate nation, if you understand me. On the other hand there is allready Group Cossack picture in history section, look down! I think it is better to revert first image back to right postion and to erase Cossack photo, visually will look nicer.--SeikoEn (talk) 06:46, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree it shouldn't be in the infobox, what the IP user was doing was downright silly. Every ethnic article does the grid-of-pics thing...not national mascots. Even so, I personally think it works for the 'identity' section and put it there. If this is an issue for you, we can maybe try to get some votes in for consensus. I'm for it though somewhere in the article...and his other edits were good IMO.--Львівське (говорити) 06:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Be careful not to be involved in other users tricks, I am historian so believe me in our case. Ukrainians have people like Ivan Kotlyarevsky or Mykhailo Hrushevskyi which are more important then Ukrainian Cossacks. Ukrainian king Daniel of Galicia is also more important for our identity then any other Cossack and he shows our true Rus'-Ukrainian identity, he shoew that Ukrainian history belong to Europe etc. Think about setting up their photos!--SeikoEn (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

But those are individuals, the Mamai portrait is an apt catch-all for Ukrainian identity as a whole. You see Cossacks on oblast and city flags, at festivals or other ukrainian culture events. What's the one Ukrainian movie Ukrainians (here) know? Taras Bulba. You're speaking of figures that in no way influenced Ukrainian culture or identity (literature and scholarship only amplify it). Cossacks are to Ukrainians as Cowboys are to Americans or Mounties to Canadians, etc..--Львівське (говорити) 07:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Please read article about identity, there is a word about Holodomor and not about Cossacks. Maybe you don't understand my point of view but it's realy doesn't metter. Sorry but I must go now. Nice talking to you, thanks for help!--SeikoEn (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes it's difficult to find common words but I believe I will find them. Your support is allways welcome, thanks!--SeikoEn (talk) 08:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Revert limitation

Because of the recent multi-party revert warring on Ukrainians, I have imposed several new sanctions under the discretionary sanctions rules of WP:DIGWUREN. I am placing you under a revert limitation. Please see Talk:Ukrainians for more details and explanation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:39, 30 October 2011 (UTC)