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)

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)