User talk:Lvivske: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 17:32, 2 August 2013

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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.
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.
Cailil would, in my judgement, have been better advised to have stood back and got less involved in arguments following the block.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1RR violation

Okay, I'd hate to see anyone blocked over this but I'm starting to get irritated. With this edit [20] you violated the 1RR restriction that is in place on the article. Please self-revert - and that includes this edit as well [21].VolunteerMarek 02:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being combative. --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was being combative I would have already reported you on this - or on one of the previous occasions. I'm being reasonable and asking this as a favor.VolunteerMarek 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me trying to hide the text to work on it and me inserting refs are two different edits, why should I revert myself for adding refs discussing on the talk page? That's a bit ridiculous--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed text/numbers which are the subject of contention between yourself and others, and which you were changing in your previous revert. If you really want to wiki-lawyer it then sure, we can let an uninvolved admin decide whether or not those edits constitute "reverts" or not. (VM) 02:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Which sources do you have a problem with now? Because by your tone on the talk page, you said there was nothing up for dispute. Now I edit the page and you have a dispute with reliable sources. What gives. If you insist on me reverting myself just so I can do it again and you can revert me again tomorrow, just so we can arrive here again...why not skip that and tell me what the problem is?--Львівське (говорити) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just self revert. To prevent the edit war which you are forecasting/threatening here.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you want me to self-revert to, I'm making a series of constructive edits here and intend on adding more. Unless you just don't want me to add stuff that doesn't support your POV...--Львівське (говорити) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your subsequent edits - they may be fine. But the first two are a definite violation of 1RR.VolunteerMarek 03:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I included the KW figure since it is a more accurate range than JUST using Motyka, and I added the citation; the other in the infobox shows the range we know of (and use the Magocsi citation for the lower bound). I don't see how this is 1RR at all, the previous edit that was reverted touched nothing in specific. Unless you're going back how far now? Why play games, tell me what's wrong with the edits that you want to dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained what the problem was. But alright have it your way.VolunteerMarek 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. [22].VolunteerMarek 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what it feels like when doves cry.--Львівське (говорити) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's uh... a bit of an unsettling analogy [23].VolunteerMarek 03:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you just leave me standing, Alone in a world that's so cold? Maybe I'm just too demanding, Maybe I'm just like my father, too bold--Львівське (говорити) 04:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's pretty funny.VolunteerMarek 04:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR violation at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for 1RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per WP:AN3#User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week). Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to take a one-month break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 believe that this block was not necessary because a) I took a voluntary, unasked 3 days off editing prior in a show of good faith b) Was not engaged in an edit war, and c) Was making good use of the talk page and engaging other users in further showing of good faith editing. Furthermore, considering my show of good faith so far, I find a 1 week block from all of Wikipedia is excessive.
In the complaint, it is alleged that I violated the 1RR on the page, saying that my 2nd edit (in response to a revert) was in the same as my 1st edit. I'm contending that the first edit was, after 3 days off and lots of page talk, not an revert to "my version" but an attempt to forge neutral ground on the stagnant dispute, so I hid the text until we could reach consensus. Following a revert, I tried plan B which was standard WP:CYCLE editing, and tried to be inclusive of all sources (I removed nothing, only added; the complete opposite of edit #1). The editor whom I had the back-and-forth with, as you can see on this talk page, was reluctant to tell me what about the edit he didn't like, and was more focused on having me self-revert rather than finding a solution, which I would have been more than happy to oblige. I don't believe the conduct displayed here constitutes either edit warring or a violation of the 1RR on the page. --Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As VM stated below, Lvivske now understands the sanctions and the purpose of this block has been served. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock. Ці статті дуже тенденційні з точки зору українською позиції. Щкода що тебе там не буде щоби якусь рівновагу дати. Bandurist (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a comment from the blocking admin. This is not the first time that Lvivske has been in trouble for edit warring on a topic involving Eastern Europe. Lvivske is still under an editing restriction about editing Ukraine-related articles that was imposed on Lvivske last October, taken from the log of WP:DIGWUREN:

Sanctions all round after a particularly nasty bout of revert-warring on Ukrainians. See Talk:Ukrainians#Sanctions [24] for more details and background.
- Voyevoda (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked for long history of edit-warring and personal attacks.

Lvivske brought no credit on himself with the collective edit-warring behavior described by Future Perfect at Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2#Sanctions. It looks like him getting together with others to wage a battle for the common national cause. I continue to recommend that Lvivske agree to a one-month break from editing the disputed article, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. If he made that agreement, an unblock would be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:DIGWUREN: As seen above with the whole Cailil snafu, the repealed block related to that DIG filing was utterly false. It should be removed from the record, but that's a matter for another day. That particular DIG comment should have zero effect on me or this case. More to the point, the accusations now that I get together with others to "wage a battle for the common national cause" is a load of you-know-what.--Львівське (говорити) 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewing admins might want to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98#Cailil, which led to your block being lifted (by Future Perfect) but no action being taken against the admin Cailil. The sanctions that are now logged against you at WP:DIGWUREN were imposed by FP on 30 October 2011 *after* the Cailil business and I don't see any record of that sanction ever being appealed. This implies you are still under an indefinite 1RR/48 hours restriction on all Ukraine-related edits, as logged in the WP:DIGWUREN case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I've actually read this. Now the above quoted makes sense. Lovely.--Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who filed the original 1RR report. I think the block has served its purpose and should be removed.VolunteerMarek 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For openers ...

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For your hockey contributions over the years, you're part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! Ravenswing 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Now I will give you a warning you peasant ukrainian peace of shit. You may indeed lie about the nature of that monstrous creation – upa, you fucking criminal, but it will never be forgotten what it truly was. Your little demigods murdered my great grandmother, an elderly woman, and burned my family’s home. Of course their “honor” is equivalent to yours. PS A little content-related information - according to every modern standard upa was a terrorist organization willing to fulfill political purposes with genocide and fear. So fuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.200.212.143 (talk • contribs)

Back at'cha, Slick. --Львівське (говорити) 00:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 1 week for personal attack. You might however take some time to read WP:CIV, Lvivske. My granny used to talk of "holding the cat's tail to the fire", that is, starting or promoting an argument. Please refrain from comments such as "Back at'cha, Slick", which generate more heat than light. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He typed all that of just because I issued him a warning. Being snide? Sure. Me starting this? Surely you jest!--Львівське (говорити) 00:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he started it. No jest and no question there. You continued it. Stop doing so, please. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic states

Those discussions have me wanting to make changes to the NHL team roster templates Canadian & American entries. I would prefer replacing the provinces, territories & states with the countries Canada & United States. However, I suppose I'd face resistants. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's too vague, especially since most players are from Canada/US; it helps to state their actual region. Just like with east euro rosters, I prefer to state the republic (since they are virtually ALL "x, Soviet Union" born players. I tried to have the soviet-republic in the NHL rosters, but got shot down - I think by you ;) --Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency sake with Canadian & American entries, along with the fact that I've mellowed, I wouldn't oppose such usage for any of the players. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Nug & Jaan are determined to have it their way at the article. They're playing the wear'em down game. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned. Consensus is weighted heavily against them and Jaan is on the verge of a time-out. Just keep your cool. The maddening part is that the talk page is going in circles, I'm getting sick of repeating myself and them ignoring everyone's points of discussion. You're right about them trying to 'wear em down'... The ironic part is that normally I'd be on their side arguing against the pro-Soviet crowd of editors. If they've got me arguing in favor of the USSR then something's rotten lol --Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though they're concerned about Estonia & not at all about ice hockey, they've managed a rarity at WP:HOCKEY. They've gotten myself, Resolute & most notably Djsasso on the same side of an argument :) GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you know I have mostly agreed with you on this topic. But I just wanted to suggest you try to avoid provocative comments like this. It is only going to make the situation more tense. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Sometimes I think I'm still on reddit.--Львівське (говорити) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, indeed

Seems as though there's a consensus to include 'Soviet Union' or 'USSR'. Now to figure out, which style. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torn on this one. I never liked "Ukrainian SSR, USSR" because it was too many acronyms, but with the SSR of the state, USSR may be better because it's shorter...but I just prefer words over acronyms...not sure yet--Львівське (говорити) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see there is concensus for your proposal in regard to Baltic articles but you can certainly treat Ukrainian or the other former Soviet states any way you like, you will not get any opposition on that. For what its worth, my opinion is that Ukrainian SSR alone is sufficient since it is obvious that it was a member of a Union of SSRs, but that is entirely your call. --Nug (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were all members...all occupied and operating under duress, but still all members--Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However the boundaries of pre-1940 USSR was formally recognised internationally in the 1920's and 30's. Here is a fun fact, Estonia was the first country to recognise the Soviet Union in 1920 when they signed the Tartu Peace Treaty. --Nug (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burn. --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped out of the discussions & have thus changed my position to neutral. An event continued on February 5, has forced my departure. Sorry, I can't elaborate further. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did they get to you?--Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's not related to Baltics discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand *wink* --Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone needs to watch this before continuing on the Komarov discussion. It's theraputic. --Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus / concession

First to help ease tensions

I'd like to propose a solution. As it stands now, Nug/Jaan (and the 2 others I forget) who don't even touch hockey articles, want to remove the USSR from the ice hockey info box birthplace. There are only like 4 Estonian players, 1 of which is marginally notable (Komarov). WP:HOCKEY is entirely in favor of the USSR remaining, bio infobox wants sovereignty, and all RfCs or talks so far have been against or otherwise not in line with the idea of the proposed city, Estonia revision put forth. I suggest, rather than getting to the point of trying to redefine sovereignty so you can change the manual of style so you can change general infoboxes which will domino over hockey player infoboxes...just let it go for hockey players. WP:HOCKEY has a certain way we present birthplace, just as WP:MLB has their own format that doesn't state the country at all. Good for them. None of the hockey editors are going to care about tennis players or soviet-born estonian actors (or whatever), or carry on a battle in other topic areas to make a point. Is this crusade worth it over one hockey player?--Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. Therefore, I understand your frustration ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just shoot me now.--Львівське (говорити) 05:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...you're welcome? --Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sovereignty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 acknowledge that I made 3 reverts, on two separate matters. Within that initial 24hr period, I was at 3 net reverts, but did not exceed. (the fourth cited in the dispute wasn't a revert & didn't remove content). If this is for the dispute in general other conduct, and not 3RR specifically, just let me know. Львівське (говорити) 02:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Lvivske agrees not to edit Sovereignty without clear consensus for the edit; otherwise, he may be reblocked. Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, what'd you do now? This seems like another silly thing not worth getting blocked over. Anyway, I know both of these users and I'm sure they were both acting in good faith but one or the other might have gotten a little hot headed. As long as there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page aimed at resolving the dispute this block is sort of pointless and should be reduced to "time served" after a promise not to revert anymore before consensus is reached.Volunteer Marek 03:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, I blocked you for edit-warring, not for breach of 3RR. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that you reverted three times. Volunteer Marek's suggestion is a good one. If you will promise to leave the article alone until a clear consensus is reached on the talk page, I will withdraw any objection to unblocking you. I've made the same offer to Nug. Unfortunately, I really need to get some sleep, so, if you agree, it will be another admin who unblocks you if they wish to; I can't make any promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I don't think either of us even care about the topic, which is what makes this so silly. (this dispute started with hockey and ended up in political theory while only invoking Godwin's Law a handful of times, classic) --Львівське (говорити) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your agreement to the conditions of the unblock, I am going to unblock you. Bear in mind that as I write this, Nug remains blocked. That doesn't change anything, though, as far as you're concerned. You are not permitted to edit the article unless there is a clear consensus for doing so; otherwise, you may reblocked. Perhaps you should go back to hockey articles. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth-place of Latvian born people

There was a scandal recently about this in Brussels regarding an issue where Belgian officials were thinking that current Latvian citizens have been in fact born in USSR and had been issued valid USSR birth certificates. As it turns out, it is illegal to write USSR as a birth place because that automatically denies the continuum of the present day Latvia which was re-instituted on the grounds that there has never been a legal USSR regime in Latvia -- the way it is recognized by the international society. Although the annexation of Latvia was made to look legal, there were a couple of points breached that made it illegal. Therefore, legally the country named Republic of Latvia had never ceased to exist. See this article: Article in Latvian. As long as there is no practice to specify, i.e., that people who were born in France from May 1940 to December 1944 were born "in Nazi Germany" there also cannot be a practice to do otherwise for the countries occupied by the Soviet Union. The birth-place of anyone born during that time in the current territory of Latvia is Latvia (geographical place name). This is 100% official, it is written so everywhere in all personal ID documents and other places where person's birth place is registered. In no place, other than the USSR issued birth certificates (which have been rendered illegal since 1990) does it say otherwise. So please stop interfering with these changes unless you have valid proof that Latvian SSR should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getadagnis (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the ongoing argument goes: The Soviet Union and LSSR had de facto sovereignty over the territory of Latvia, and all citizens were valid in the eyes of the USSR and other states that recognized it. Of course, Brussels would see this otherwise, but they have their own opinion and MO. This isn't European law, this is history.--Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have minimal idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as 'de facto sovereignty', de facto meaning "in practice or actuality, but not officially established". Sovereignty is the authority, not the just the de facto control. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just making things up...just stop--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the term Raion

The proposal did not include the move of the individual articles. A proposal to move them is at: Talk:Cherkasy Raion#Requested move. Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rus' Khaganate

I am very grateful for your question as I have itched to ventilate out my thoughts on that issue to somebody who is as suspicious as I on that subject. I never ran across such a term either, however I did not study much of the history of Ruthenia before conquest of Kiev by Oleg the Seer. It is pretty much as far as the history of Ruthenia land is traced, commonly. I believe khaganate term is a theory based on stories of foreign travelers who referred to Ruthenia as khaganate as far as I understand. I posted few comments on the talk page for the article. Some of them that I read now seem to me a bit rude, but I was simply astonished then about it. I did some checking of references in the article as well as my own research.

The article was pushed by User:Briangotts who also created the following map.

The map is sort of contradictory to the above mentioned article as in place of khaganate were Finnic tribes. Moreover the Russian version of the article states that it is a hypothetical state, existence of which is not well studied due to scarcity of sources. The article Rus Khaganate seems to trying to escape that fact.

If you look on the origin of khagan, you may notice that the title was used by several peoples particularly one who lived in Pontic steppes such as Avars and Khazars. Coincidentally those people had its own state formations sometime in 7th-9th centuries. If there were such a state, how come there is not much information about? Khagan is a very high ranking title. And why is only selected ancient political entities used? Where is a pattern? Where is a trace?

Officially neither the history of Ukraine nor the history of Russia recognize existence of title khagan as one related to the Ruthenian history. Also in English there is no such a term as Rus, but rather Ruthenia. Rus is a 20th century adaptation which should be recognized as selfname rather than a correct English term. Therefore the article of Briangotts can hardly be considered as a good one. It is interesting, of course, however the article should be more informative and more research on its subject is required. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note how the Rurikids are closely associated with Norsemen until Yaroslav the Wise. It is even more surprising that the Ruthenian princes would use a title of Altaic origin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a poorly researched field on the influence of Khazar culture and to what extent. The lands of east Slavs I believe were culturally diverse and did not only consisted of slavic people. There were probably elements of Turkic, Altaic, Greek, Finno-Ugric, and Baltic cultural mixture and considering the hegemony of the Khazar and Avars khaganates in the region it is possible that the Ruthenians were also associated with similar government structure. Nonetheless, it is a well documented theory which however is not well researched and studied. The native versions of the article (Russian and Ukrainian) explicitly state that the idea is hypothetical. I think that the article should start with those words that there is an idea, not claiming it. It is all about interpretation. Other than that the article is fine and should be preserved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous painting of Vasnetsov depicting a rendezvous of Slavs and Scythians and their relationship. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks more like Rus' Varangians vs. Pechenegs--Львівське (говорити) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your notice on the article about Christinization of Rus, it is once again another theory. There is a well known fact that Princess Olga was one of the first Rurikids who converted to Christianity. Yet even long after Vladimir the Great who baptized Ruthenia, there were many others who opposed it continuing practicing the religion of their forefathers. Moreover Vladimir himself earlier was among such supporters, yet after his conversion he had greatly changed. It is believed that first Christians appeared on the hills of Dnieper river already in the 1st century AD, among which was Andrew the Apostle. Supposedly where he placed his cross, there is a beautiful church was erected in his name, the St Andrew's Church. Anyway there are many theories and stories like that about the grey ancient times of the Eastern Europe, a history of which I doubt will be ever unveiled completely. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I fully support your discontent in regards to your mentioned articles. However as you noticed even though after addressing the issue of unreliable theory, the article not only was not reformatted, but it was evaluated as a good one. I do not know how else to influence that opinion. I fully oppose the thought of Ruthenia having its own khagan. For me it is a crazy talk, in which I guess some people would like to believe. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-linguistic depiction of the European Russian in the 9th century AD

The 15th century Muscovy expansion

Well, that part of history is not widely disclosed in a school curriculum. It also leads to studying the origin of East Slavs as well as Slavic people in general. There is also a great deal of mystery settled in regards to the fate of Oka river valley Finnish tribes of Merya, Meshchera, Mordva, and Muroma who have completely assimilated into the Russian culture, yet still can be spotted in the region of Volga river. A tributary of Volga, Oka river is the true heart of today Russia and the Russian culture. There should has existed a type of polity that eventually with establishment of the Rostov eparchy gradually became associated and fully integrated into Ruthenia. Later when the territory was passed to George the Long-Armed, it gave the rise of Muscovy state. That is however my own believe. Note that map on the right avoids the usage of khagan by simply replacing it with its English equivalent of emperor and with which I fully agree. Also, striking to me are the similarities between armaments of Celts and the knights of Ruthenia such as bogatyrs. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Ukrainian mountainous tribes in Carpathian, Boykos, are believed to be descendants of the Celtic tribe of Boii, while the well known toponym Galicia is also believed to be of Celtic origin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed two different maps to demonstrate you how close the former territory of Finno-Ugric peoples of Oka river valley resembles the 15th century Grand Duchy of Moscow. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be aware that the Celtic origin is one of several theories. At some point most of the modern Ukraine was part of the Khazar Empire and it is possible that title of khagan was a common custom of that time and place. The Eastern Europe went through so much transitions that to track down the real origin becomes close to impossible. About the reverts I am aware, but thanks for sharing that with me. The article about Ukraine in general came out well described although may be lacks some info and some might be skewed in a way. But the general picture is close to the real one. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intensity of Celtic influence as well as Gothic (or Germanic) cultures can be traced in the article about Magyars and how they arrived to the Pannonian Basin from Ural Mountains. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said before, simply the article is poorly written and I am surprised that it obtain a designation of a good article. I think it seems that some one wants to bring own politics into wikipedia. I think someone simply wants to show off. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice regarding DRN

Hello, just to let you know I have closed your dispute in WP:DRN as unsuitable as DRN is for content disputes whereas you are raising issues over user conduct. Other avenues for conduct disputes are available here WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied on my talk page. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Professional Hockey League season

Hello. I reverted your edits. See Talk:2012–13 Professional Hockey League season for details. Use WP:RM procedure if you want to rename page again. NickSt (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note, all competition articles from Category:2012–13 ice hockey leagues have such format: 2012–13 (league name) season. NickSt (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles act as a dual PHL season / Ukrainian national championship tournament articles, so they buck the trend - which is fine.--Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus' article

Hi, Lvivske. I'm wondering whether you're still interested in involving yourself with the entry for "Kievan Rus". There's been a resurgence of editing & talk and, although there are some who seem to have good intentions, the entry is sliding into a state of further disrepair (I use this term loosely as we know whose interests are being served and continue to be served).

Hoping to hear from you on the subject ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dnipro Kherson and 8 other hockey teams

Back on 2011 you PRODded these, and they were deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored them, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, having once been de-PRODded, they cannot be PRODded again - if you want to suggest deletion, it must be by AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha --Львівське (говорити) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lvivske. I had forgotten all about these until recently, but decided to have them restored today as I feel they have a place on Wikipedia. Three of them (Patriot Vinnytsia, Vatra Ivano-Frankivsk, and Dnipro Kherson) qualified for the playoffs in either the 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasons. The others, while they did not qualify for the playoffs, still had the opportunity to while playing in Divisions B and C. That is why I consider them to be notable. These teams weren't just toiling away in some forgotten amateur league, Divisions B and C were still considered part of the Ukrainian Championship during the 2009-10 season. Also, since they were - albeit at a lower level - part of the championship, a number of sources would've covered them as they report on the whole championship, not just the A Division. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B and C were entirely amateur. Even A teams were semi-professional. Patriot may join the PHL this year so they may be able to stay, but I'm still iffy on the whole thing to be honest.--Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware that they were amateur. But them being amateur has no significant bearing on their notability. For instance, all teams playing in the Soviet Union were amateur, although they obviously played at a much higher level. What matters is whether they get/got significant media coverage, which I believe these teams did, as Divisions B and C were usually mentioned along with Division A. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Soviet top league was a big deal, and players who played in it are automatically notable to get bios on wikipedia; amateur nationals in Ukraine are not, and no player from even the A-league qualifies for a wiki article per notability. The A-teams got no media coverage, the B and C are beyond obscure. I think we should just take this to WP:HOCKEY and get some outside opinions? I obviously like expanding on the topic of ukrainian hockey, I just think a line needs to be drawn on what's worth putting on wikipedia.--Львівське (говорити) 01:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that would be the best approach. :) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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[25]. 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.[26]
Your action in revert warring on two articles[27][28][29][30] 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[31][32][33] - 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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[34]). 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)[reply]

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[35] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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: [36][37][38][39]. 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)[reply]

Again for reviewing sysops. Please see here[40] 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[41] 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [42]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I think this is a serious enough abuse of admin power that I filed an AE report on it here [43]. Volunteer Marek 06:50, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.
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.
Cailil would, in my judgement, have been better advised to have stood back and got less involved in arguments following the block.
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.
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.
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

1RR violation

Okay, I'd hate to see anyone blocked over this but I'm starting to get irritated. With this edit [44] you violated the 1RR restriction that is in place on the article. Please self-revert - and that includes this edit as well [45].VolunteerMarek 02:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just being combative. --Львівське (говорити) 02:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I was being combative I would have already reported you on this - or on one of the previous occasions. I'm being reasonable and asking this as a favor.VolunteerMarek 02:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me trying to hide the text to work on it and me inserting refs are two different edits, why should I revert myself for adding refs discussing on the talk page? That's a bit ridiculous--Львівське (говорити) 02:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You changed text/numbers which are the subject of contention between yourself and others, and which you were changing in your previous revert. If you really want to wiki-lawyer it then sure, we can let an uninvolved admin decide whether or not those edits constitute "reverts" or not. (VM) 02:48, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Which sources do you have a problem with now? Because by your tone on the talk page, you said there was nothing up for dispute. Now I edit the page and you have a dispute with reliable sources. What gives. If you insist on me reverting myself just so I can do it again and you can revert me again tomorrow, just so we can arrive here again...why not skip that and tell me what the problem is?--Львівське (говорити) 03:04, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just self revert. To prevent the edit war which you are forecasting/threatening here.VolunteerMarek 03:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what you want me to self-revert to, I'm making a series of constructive edits here and intend on adding more. Unless you just don't want me to add stuff that doesn't support your POV...--Львівське (говорити) 03:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at your subsequent edits - they may be fine. But the first two are a definite violation of 1RR.VolunteerMarek 03:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I included the KW figure since it is a more accurate range than JUST using Motyka, and I added the citation; the other in the infobox shows the range we know of (and use the Magocsi citation for the lower bound). I don't see how this is 1RR at all, the previous edit that was reverted touched nothing in specific. Unless you're going back how far now? Why play games, tell me what's wrong with the edits that you want to dispute.--Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained what the problem was. But alright have it your way.VolunteerMarek 03:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. [46].VolunteerMarek 03:39, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So this is what it feels like when doves cry.--Львівське (говорити) 03:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's uh... a bit of an unsettling analogy [47].VolunteerMarek 03:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can you just leave me standing, Alone in a world that's so cold? Maybe I'm just too demanding, Maybe I'm just like my father, too bold--Львівське (говорити) 04:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that's pretty funny.VolunteerMarek 04:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:1RR violation at Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for 1RR violation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

Per WP:AN3#User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week). Any admin may lift this block if you will agree to take a one-month break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

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 believe that this block was not necessary because a) I took a voluntary, unasked 3 days off editing prior in a show of good faith b) Was not engaged in an edit war, and c) Was making good use of the talk page and engaging other users in further showing of good faith editing. Furthermore, considering my show of good faith so far, I find a 1 week block from all of Wikipedia is excessive.
In the complaint, it is alleged that I violated the 1RR on the page, saying that my 2nd edit (in response to a revert) was in the same as my 1st edit. I'm contending that the first edit was, after 3 days off and lots of page talk, not an revert to "my version" but an attempt to forge neutral ground on the stagnant dispute, so I hid the text until we could reach consensus. Following a revert, I tried plan B which was standard WP:CYCLE editing, and tried to be inclusive of all sources (I removed nothing, only added; the complete opposite of edit #1). The editor whom I had the back-and-forth with, as you can see on this talk page, was reluctant to tell me what about the edit he didn't like, and was more focused on having me self-revert rather than finding a solution, which I would have been more than happy to oblige. I don't believe the conduct displayed here constitutes either edit warring or a violation of the 1RR on the page. --Львівське (говорити) 15:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

As VM stated below, Lvivske now understands the sanctions and the purpose of this block has been served. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What a crock. Ці статті дуже тенденційні з точки зору українською позиції. Щкода що тебе там не буде щоби якусь рівновагу дати. Bandurist (talk) 20:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a comment from the blocking admin. This is not the first time that Lvivske has been in trouble for edit warring on a topic involving Eastern Europe. Lvivske is still under an editing restriction about editing Ukraine-related articles that was imposed on Lvivske last October, taken from the log of WP:DIGWUREN:

Sanctions all round after a particularly nasty bout of revert-warring on Ukrainians. See Talk:Ukrainians#Sanctions [48] for more details and background.
- Voyevoda (talk · contribs) indefinitely blocked for long history of edit-warring and personal attacks.

Lvivske brought no credit on himself with the collective edit-warring behavior described by Future Perfect at Talk:Ukrainians/Archive 2#Sanctions. It looks like him getting together with others to wage a battle for the common national cause. I continue to recommend that Lvivske agree to a one-month break from editing the disputed article, Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia. If he made that agreement, an unblock would be reasonable. EdJohnston (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE:DIGWUREN: As seen above with the whole Cailil snafu, the repealed block related to that DIG filing was utterly false. It should be removed from the record, but that's a matter for another day. That particular DIG comment should have zero effect on me or this case. More to the point, the accusations now that I get together with others to "wage a battle for the common national cause" is a load of you-know-what.--Львівське (говорити) 16:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reviewing admins might want to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive98#Cailil, which led to your block being lifted (by Future Perfect) but no action being taken against the admin Cailil. The sanctions that are now logged against you at WP:DIGWUREN were imposed by FP on 30 October 2011 *after* the Cailil business and I don't see any record of that sanction ever being appealed. This implies you are still under an indefinite 1RR/48 hours restriction on all Ukraine-related edits, as logged in the WP:DIGWUREN case. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First I've actually read this. Now the above quoted makes sense. Lovely.--Львівське (говорити) 17:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who filed the original 1RR report. I think the block has served its purpose and should be removed.VolunteerMarek 20:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For openers ...

		The Hockey Barnstar
		For your hockey contributions over the years, you're part of the original Hockey Barnstar class! Ravenswing 01:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An award for you

Golden Wiki Award

You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month! 66.87.7.126 (talk) 23:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last warning

Now I will give you a warning you peasant ukrainian peace of shit. You may indeed lie about the nature of that monstrous creation – upa, you fucking criminal, but it will never be forgotten what it truly was. Your little demigods murdered my great grandmother, an elderly woman, and burned my family’s home. Of course their “honor” is equivalent to yours. PS A little content-related information - according to every modern standard upa was a terrorist organization willing to fulfill political purposes with genocide and fear. So fuck you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.200.212.143 (talk • contribs)

Back at'cha, Slick. --Львівське (говорити) 00:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked for 1 week for personal attack. You might however take some time to read WP:CIV, Lvivske. My granny used to talk of "holding the cat's tail to the fire", that is, starting or promoting an argument. Please refrain from comments such as "Back at'cha, Slick", which generate more heat than light. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He typed all that of just because I issued him a warning. Being snide? Sure. Me starting this? Surely you jest!--Львівське (говорити) 00:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he started it. No jest and no question there. You continued it. Stop doing so, please. Tonywalton ^Talk 00:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baltic states

Those discussions have me wanting to make changes to the NHL team roster templates Canadian & American entries. I would prefer replacing the provinces, territories & states with the countries Canada & United States. However, I suppose I'd face resistants. GoodDay (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's too vague, especially since most players are from Canada/US; it helps to state their actual region. Just like with east euro rosters, I prefer to state the republic (since they are virtually ALL "x, Soviet Union" born players. I tried to have the soviet-republic in the NHL rosters, but got shot down - I think by you ;) --Львівське (говорити) 21:09, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency sake with Canadian & American entries, along with the fact that I've mellowed, I wouldn't oppose such usage for any of the players. GoodDay (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, Nug & Jaan are determined to have it their way at the article. They're playing the wear'em down game. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned. Consensus is weighted heavily against them and Jaan is on the verge of a time-out. Just keep your cool. The maddening part is that the talk page is going in circles, I'm getting sick of repeating myself and them ignoring everyone's points of discussion. You're right about them trying to 'wear em down'... The ironic part is that normally I'd be on their side arguing against the pro-Soviet crowd of editors. If they've got me arguing in favor of the USSR then something's rotten lol --Львівське (говорити) 03:29, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Though they're concerned about Estonia & not at all about ice hockey, they've managed a rarity at WP:HOCKEY. They've gotten myself, Resolute & most notably Djsasso on the same side of an argument :) GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I know you know I have mostly agreed with you on this topic. But I just wanted to suggest you try to avoid provocative comments like this. It is only going to make the situation more tense. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Sometimes I think I'm still on reddit.--Львівське (говорити) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus, indeed

Seems as though there's a consensus to include 'Soviet Union' or 'USSR'. Now to figure out, which style. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Torn on this one. I never liked "Ukrainian SSR, USSR" because it was too many acronyms, but with the SSR of the state, USSR may be better because it's shorter...but I just prefer words over acronyms...not sure yet--Львівське (говорити) 05:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see there is concensus for your proposal in regard to Baltic articles but you can certainly treat Ukrainian or the other former Soviet states any way you like, you will not get any opposition on that. For what its worth, my opinion is that Ukrainian SSR alone is sufficient since it is obvious that it was a member of a Union of SSRs, but that is entirely your call. --Nug (talk) 08:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They were all members...all occupied and operating under duress, but still all members--Львівське (говорити) 15:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

However the boundaries of pre-1940 USSR was formally recognised internationally in the 1920's and 30's. Here is a fun fact, Estonia was the first country to recognise the Soviet Union in 1920 when they signed the Tartu Peace Treaty. --Nug (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Burn. --Львівське (говорити) 16:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've dropped out of the discussions & have thus changed my position to neutral. An event continued on February 5, has forced my departure. Sorry, I can't elaborate further. GoodDay (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did they get to you?--Львівське (говорити) 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's not related to Baltics discussion. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand *wink* --Львівське (говорити) 21:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone needs to watch this before continuing on the Komarov discussion. It's theraputic. --Львівське (говорити) 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus / concession

First to help ease tensions

I'd like to propose a solution. As it stands now, Nug/Jaan (and the 2 others I forget) who don't even touch hockey articles, want to remove the USSR from the ice hockey info box birthplace. There are only like 4 Estonian players, 1 of which is marginally notable (Komarov). WP:HOCKEY is entirely in favor of the USSR remaining, bio infobox wants sovereignty, and all RfCs or talks so far have been against or otherwise not in line with the idea of the proposed city, Estonia revision put forth. I suggest, rather than getting to the point of trying to redefine sovereignty so you can change the manual of style so you can change general infoboxes which will domino over hockey player infoboxes...just let it go for hockey players. WP:HOCKEY has a certain way we present birthplace, just as WP:MLB has their own format that doesn't state the country at all. Good for them. None of the hockey editors are going to care about tennis players or soviet-born estonian actors (or whatever), or carry on a battle in other topic areas to make a point. Is this crusade worth it over one hockey player?--Львівське (говорити) 06:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. Therefore, I understand your frustration ;) GoodDay (talk) 05:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just shoot me now.--Львівське (говорити) 05:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Nug (talk) 00:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...you're welcome? --Львівське (говорити) 01:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

February 2013

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at Sovereignty. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Bbb23 (talk) 02:38, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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 acknowledge that I made 3 reverts, on two separate matters. Within that initial 24hr period, I was at 3 net reverts, but did not exceed. (the fourth cited in the dispute wasn't a revert & didn't remove content). If this is for the dispute in general other conduct, and not 3RR specifically, just let me know. Львівське (говорити) 02:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

Lvivske agrees not to edit Sovereignty without clear consensus for the edit; otherwise, he may be reblocked. Bbb23 (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ay, what'd you do now? This seems like another silly thing not worth getting blocked over. Anyway, I know both of these users and I'm sure they were both acting in good faith but one or the other might have gotten a little hot headed. As long as there's an ongoing discussion on the talk page aimed at resolving the dispute this block is sort of pointless and should be reduced to "time served" after a promise not to revert anymore before consensus is reached.Volunteer Marek 03:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lvivske, I blocked you for edit-warring, not for breach of 3RR. I'm pleased that you acknowledge that you reverted three times. Volunteer Marek's suggestion is a good one. If you will promise to leave the article alone until a clear consensus is reached on the talk page, I will withdraw any objection to unblocking you. I've made the same offer to Nug. Unfortunately, I really need to get some sleep, so, if you agree, it will be another admin who unblocks you if they wish to; I can't make any promises.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:57, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. I don't think either of us even care about the topic, which is what makes this so silly. (this dispute started with hockey and ended up in political theory while only invoking Godwin's Law a handful of times, classic) --Львівське (говорити) 06:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your agreement to the conditions of the unblock, I am going to unblock you. Bear in mind that as I write this, Nug remains blocked. That doesn't change anything, though, as far as you're concerned. You are not permitted to edit the article unless there is a clear consensus for doing so; otherwise, you may reblocked. Perhaps you should go back to hockey articles. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Birth-place of Latvian born people

There was a scandal recently about this in Brussels regarding an issue where Belgian officials were thinking that current Latvian citizens have been in fact born in USSR and had been issued valid USSR birth certificates. As it turns out, it is illegal to write USSR as a birth place because that automatically denies the continuum of the present day Latvia which was re-instituted on the grounds that there has never been a legal USSR regime in Latvia -- the way it is recognized by the international society. Although the annexation of Latvia was made to look legal, there were a couple of points breached that made it illegal. Therefore, legally the country named Republic of Latvia had never ceased to exist. See this article: Article in Latvian. As long as there is no practice to specify, i.e., that people who were born in France from May 1940 to December 1944 were born "in Nazi Germany" there also cannot be a practice to do otherwise for the countries occupied by the Soviet Union. The birth-place of anyone born during that time in the current territory of Latvia is Latvia (geographical place name). This is 100% official, it is written so everywhere in all personal ID documents and other places where person's birth place is registered. In no place, other than the USSR issued birth certificates (which have been rendered illegal since 1990) does it say otherwise. So please stop interfering with these changes unless you have valid proof that Latvian SSR should be used instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Getadagnis (talk • contribs) 14:23, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the ongoing argument goes: The Soviet Union and LSSR had de facto sovereignty over the territory of Latvia, and all citizens were valid in the eyes of the USSR and other states that recognized it. Of course, Brussels would see this otherwise, but they have their own opinion and MO. This isn't European law, this is history.--Львівське (говорити) 15:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have minimal idea what you are talking about. There is no such thing as 'de facto sovereignty', de facto meaning "in practice or actuality, but not officially established". Sovereignty is the authority, not the just the de facto control. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 15:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just making things up...just stop--Львівське (говорити) 15:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation of the term Raion

The proposal did not include the move of the individual articles. A proposal to move them is at: Talk:Cherkasy Raion#Requested move. Aleksandr Krymsky (talk) 06:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rus' Khaganate

I am very grateful for your question as I have itched to ventilate out my thoughts on that issue to somebody who is as suspicious as I on that subject. I never ran across such a term either, however I did not study much of the history of Ruthenia before conquest of Kiev by Oleg the Seer. It is pretty much as far as the history of Ruthenia land is traced, commonly. I believe khaganate term is a theory based on stories of foreign travelers who referred to Ruthenia as khaganate as far as I understand. I posted few comments on the talk page for the article. Some of them that I read now seem to me a bit rude, but I was simply astonished then about it. I did some checking of references in the article as well as my own research.

The article was pushed by User:Briangotts who also created the following map.

The map is sort of contradictory to the above mentioned article as in place of khaganate were Finnic tribes. Moreover the Russian version of the article states that it is a hypothetical state, existence of which is not well studied due to scarcity of sources. The article Rus Khaganate seems to trying to escape that fact.

If you look on the origin of khagan, you may notice that the title was used by several peoples particularly one who lived in Pontic steppes such as Avars and Khazars. Coincidentally those people had its own state formations sometime in 7th-9th centuries. If there were such a state, how come there is not much information about? Khagan is a very high ranking title. And why is only selected ancient political entities used? Where is a pattern? Where is a trace?

Officially neither the history of Ukraine nor the history of Russia recognize existence of title khagan as one related to the Ruthenian history. Also in English there is no such a term as Rus, but rather Ruthenia. Rus is a 20th century adaptation which should be recognized as selfname rather than a correct English term. Therefore the article of Briangotts can hardly be considered as a good one. It is interesting, of course, however the article should be more informative and more research on its subject is required. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:31, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also note how the Rurikids are closely associated with Norsemen until Yaroslav the Wise. It is even more surprising that the Ruthenian princes would use a title of Altaic origin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a poorly researched field on the influence of Khazar culture and to what extent. The lands of east Slavs I believe were culturally diverse and did not only consisted of slavic people. There were probably elements of Turkic, Altaic, Greek, Finno-Ugric, and Baltic cultural mixture and considering the hegemony of the Khazar and Avars khaganates in the region it is possible that the Ruthenians were also associated with similar government structure. Nonetheless, it is a well documented theory which however is not well researched and studied. The native versions of the article (Russian and Ukrainian) explicitly state that the idea is hypothetical. I think that the article should start with those words that there is an idea, not claiming it. It is all about interpretation. Other than that the article is fine and should be preserved. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 19:37, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a famous painting of Vasnetsov depicting a rendezvous of Slavs and Scythians and their relationship. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks more like Rus' Varangians vs. Pechenegs--Львівське (говорити) 21:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to your notice on the article about Christinization of Rus, it is once again another theory. There is a well known fact that Princess Olga was one of the first Rurikids who converted to Christianity. Yet even long after Vladimir the Great who baptized Ruthenia, there were many others who opposed it continuing practicing the religion of their forefathers. Moreover Vladimir himself earlier was among such supporters, yet after his conversion he had greatly changed. It is believed that first Christians appeared on the hills of Dnieper river already in the 1st century AD, among which was Andrew the Apostle. Supposedly where he placed his cross, there is a beautiful church was erected in his name, the St Andrew's Church. Anyway there are many theories and stories like that about the grey ancient times of the Eastern Europe, a history of which I doubt will be ever unveiled completely. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear friend, I fully support your discontent in regards to your mentioned articles. However as you noticed even though after addressing the issue of unreliable theory, the article not only was not reformatted, but it was evaluated as a good one. I do not know how else to influence that opinion. I fully oppose the thought of Ruthenia having its own khagan. For me it is a crazy talk, in which I guess some people would like to believe. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethno-linguistic depiction of the European Russian in the 9th century AD

The 15th century Muscovy expansion

Well, that part of history is not widely disclosed in a school curriculum. It also leads to studying the origin of East Slavs as well as Slavic people in general. There is also a great deal of mystery settled in regards to the fate of Oka river valley Finnish tribes of Merya, Meshchera, Mordva, and Muroma who have completely assimilated into the Russian culture, yet still can be spotted in the region of Volga river. A tributary of Volga, Oka river is the true heart of today Russia and the Russian culture. There should has existed a type of polity that eventually with establishment of the Rostov eparchy gradually became associated and fully integrated into Ruthenia. Later when the territory was passed to George the Long-Armed, it gave the rise of Muscovy state. That is however my own believe. Note that map on the right avoids the usage of khagan by simply replacing it with its English equivalent of emperor and with which I fully agree. Also, striking to me are the similarities between armaments of Celts and the knights of Ruthenia such as bogatyrs. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One of the Ukrainian mountainous tribes in Carpathian, Boykos, are believed to be descendants of the Celtic tribe of Boii, while the well known toponym Galicia is also believed to be of Celtic origin. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I placed two different maps to demonstrate you how close the former territory of Finno-Ugric peoples of Oka river valley resembles the 15th century Grand Duchy of Moscow. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please, be aware that the Celtic origin is one of several theories. At some point most of the modern Ukraine was part of the Khazar Empire and it is possible that title of khagan was a common custom of that time and place. The Eastern Europe went through so much transitions that to track down the real origin becomes close to impossible. About the reverts I am aware, but thanks for sharing that with me. The article about Ukraine in general came out well described although may be lacks some info and some might be skewed in a way. But the general picture is close to the real one. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:41, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The intensity of Celtic influence as well as Gothic (or Germanic) cultures can be traced in the article about Magyars and how they arrived to the Pannonian Basin from Ural Mountains. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said before, simply the article is poorly written and I am surprised that it obtain a designation of a good article. I think it seems that some one wants to bring own politics into wikipedia. I think someone simply wants to show off. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notice regarding DRN

Hello, just to let you know I have closed your dispute in WP:DRN as unsuitable as DRN is for content disputes whereas you are raising issues over user conduct. Other avenues for conduct disputes are available here WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Thanks, Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 15:50, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I have replied on my talk page. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 16:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012–13 Professional Hockey League season

Hello. I reverted your edits. See Talk:2012–13 Professional Hockey League season for details. Use WP:RM procedure if you want to rename page again. NickSt (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Also please note, all competition articles from Category:2012–13 ice hockey leagues have such format: 2012–13 (league name) season. NickSt (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These articles act as a dual PHL season / Ukrainian national championship tournament articles, so they buck the trend - which is fine.--Львівське (говорити) 00:13, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kievan Rus' article

Hi, Lvivske. I'm wondering whether you're still interested in involving yourself with the entry for "Kievan Rus". There's been a resurgence of editing & talk and, although there are some who seem to have good intentions, the entry is sliding into a state of further disrepair (I use this term loosely as we know whose interests are being served and continue to be served).

Hoping to hear from you on the subject ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dnipro Kherson and 8 other hockey teams

Back on 2011 you PRODded these, and they were deleted. Undeletion has now been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored them, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 20:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that, having once been de-PRODded, they cannot be PRODded again - if you want to suggest deletion, it must be by AfD. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha --Львівське (говорити) 20:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lvivske. I had forgotten all about these until recently, but decided to have them restored today as I feel they have a place on Wikipedia. Three of them (Patriot Vinnytsia, Vatra Ivano-Frankivsk, and Dnipro Kherson) qualified for the playoffs in either the 2008-09 or 2009-10 seasons. The others, while they did not qualify for the playoffs, still had the opportunity to while playing in Divisions B and C. That is why I consider them to be notable. These teams weren't just toiling away in some forgotten amateur league, Divisions B and C were still considered part of the Ukrainian Championship during the 2009-10 season. Also, since they were - albeit at a lower level - part of the championship, a number of sources would've covered them as they report on the whole championship, not just the A Division. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 21:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

B and C were entirely amateur. Even A teams were semi-professional. Patriot may join the PHL this year so they may be able to stay, but I'm still iffy on the whole thing to be honest.--Львівське (говорити) 21:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was already aware that they were amateur. But them being amateur has no significant bearing on their notability. For instance, all teams playing in the Soviet Union were amateur, although they obviously played at a much higher level. What matters is whether they get/got significant media coverage, which I believe these teams did, as Divisions B and C were usually mentioned along with Division A. --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Soviet top league was a big deal, and players who played in it are automatically notable to get bios on wikipedia; amateur nationals in Ukraine are not, and no player from even the A-league qualifies for a wiki article per notability. The A-teams got no media coverage, the B and C are beyond obscure. I think we should just take this to WP:HOCKEY and get some outside opinions? I obviously like expanding on the topic of ukrainian hockey, I just think a line needs to be drawn on what's worth putting on wikipedia.--Львівське (говорити) 01:09, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think that would be the best approach. :) --Hockeyben ^{(talk -} ^contribs) 01:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns Jokerit?

Hi, you deleted my removal of Gennady Timchenko from owners list. Since I don't care much about editing wars, I contact you via this. I could show about hundred sources which would confirm that he actually doesn't own any part from Jokerit, unfortunately all of them are in finnish. So, could you check this via google translate or similar, and redo the removal of Timchenko? Link to finnish article. If this isn't enough, please provide reliable sources to support your argument 84.230.22.179 (talk) 23:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are like 4 sources on the article currently saying that Timchenko & co. bought shares in the team, with the option to buy more in the next year. One source is even the IIHF. I checked your source and I don't see anything to the contrary. Maybe you're confused in that Harkimo retained majority ownership and didn't sell the team outright? --Львівське (говорити) 23:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm not confused. Check this IIHF article, then. There's nothing about selling the team, only about the arena. It's not even my burden of proof, since it's quite hard to find source that Barack Obama didn't buy Jokerit or any other pro hockey team. I'm aware that rumors on thursday 27th stated that the team would also go, but those weren't correct. Maybe you, or your sources, are confused because of this? Russian businessmen have only that option to buy part, they don't own a single share from Jokerit. 84.230.22.179 (talk) 00:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The new owners of the arena that hosted the IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship in 1997, 2003, 2012 and 2013 also have an option to acquire shares in the hockey club next year. “The option doesn’t include the majority of the shares. I will stay in charge,” said Harkimo." - you're right, it only discusses the option. That said, every other English source details the current sale.

sources:

Jewish Business News: "Rotenberg, in partnership with his brother Boris and Russian mega-billionaire Gennady Timchenko have acquired are controlling interest in Finland’s Jokerit ice hockey team"
Bloomberg: "Gennady Timchenko and two other billionaire acquaintances of President Vladimir Putin bought a stake in Jokerit ice hockey team. Timchenko, Arkady Rotenberg and Boris Rotenberg will also buy Hartwall Areena" "Harry Harkimo, the Finnish real estate developer and sports investor, sold the stakes in Jokerit and the arena after taking charge of the struggling team 23 years ago and managed the club to five domestic championships in 1992 to 2002." "Publisher Sanoma Oyj (SAA1V) sold its 18 percent stake in Helsinki Halli Oy, Harkimo’s holding company for the team and arena, it said in a statement two weeks ago."

Well, sources say different things. Like IIHF and Jewish Business News. Or then those guys have invented the most bizarre option which allows controllling interest owner to buy shares, but not enough to maintain the controlling interest ;). Harkimo himself says here that he owns 100%, so that should be good enough? English version about ownership starts at 2:25 84.230.22.179 (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should get some other opinions on this from hockey editors. Bloomberg is a terrific source so I don't want to just ignore it for no reason, I wish there was at least one English source supporting the claim that he still has 100% ownership.--Львівське (говорити) 01:23, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

S,ounds fair. In situatuion like this we can't rely on sources. Could you do that, because you're registered and respected user when I'm just anonymous IP or newbie? 84.230.22.179 (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Smee again. Jokerit says in its official site (unfortunately in finnish only) that Harkimo still owns 100% of the team, and russian businessmen have option to buy part after next season. I consider this to be the most reliable source, so I remove other owners from the article. Let's put them back next year. Thanks for your help! 85.156.112.51 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Link? I'll add the source to the article and try to clean it up so there's no confusion. Good looking out.--Львівське (говорити) 14:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already did that. Link is http://www.jokerit.com/?id=254 85.156.112.51 (talk) 14:20, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree File:Rusyn flag.png

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rusyn flag.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Professional Hockey League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kalush (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lvivske. I have looked at all your contributions and appreciate the work you have contributed to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me out with the page on my sandbox. Any advice or tips would be helpful, but I was mainly hoping you could help me out with this reference: http://www.justrelaxmagazine.co.uk/#/tee-ashira/4575254751 I was trying to write out the citation so that I could add some more text, but the citation just wouldn't work out for me. Could you help me out? Awaisrahman007 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 592: / Line 592: @@
 It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these [[User:DPL bot|opt-out instructions]]. Thanks, [[User:DPL bot|DPL bot]] ([[User talk:DPL bot|talk]]) 10:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
+Hello Lvivske. I have looked at all your contributions and appreciate the work you have contributed to Wikipedia. I was wondering if you could help me out with the page on my sandbox. Any advice or tips would be helpful, but I was mainly hoping you could help me out with this reference: http://www.justrelaxmagazine.co.uk/#/tee-ashira/4575254751
+I was trying to write out the citation so that I could add some more text, but the citation just wouldn't work out for me. Could you help me out? [[User:Awaisrahman007|Awaisrahman007]] ([[User talk:Awaisrahman007|talk]]) 17:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)