User talk:Lvivske

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Lvivske and slow edit warring. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

If you are going to accuse me of harassing you, perhaps take a look at the history first. Otherwise, it reflects poorly on you. Not to mention you are not following WP:BRD. Mellk (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Boykos shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Mellk (talk) 18:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You have already made three blanket reversions while refusing to use the talk page 3RR. Please stop trolling me - again (as you were on the Holocaust Trivialization article). I issued you a warning for this and your response was to delete the warning and tell me to "get bent". There is no way else to see this other than a pattern of disruptive editing. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 18:54, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You made a change that was disputed and decided to use your usual approach of using brute-force to force your change through. Do you need to read the policy on consensus as if you're a new editor? You are not making it easier when you habitually cast aspersions like accusing me of trolling or harassing you. Mellk (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Every accusation you make is an admission of your own conduct. You have a pattern of following me around on here, blanket reverting, and refusing to use talk pages or sources - and then have the audacity to bring up WP:BRD. In today's example, you lied that the sources don't agree, even though nothing from the sources conflicted. I give you a warning, you tell me to get bent. I ask you to use the talk page - you say I'm "writing nonsense". You clearly have no intent on playing by the rules or even with civility. Grow up. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:04, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Where is it mentioned that this is only the case for the diaspora in the Encyclopedia of European Peoples? I added this source to the article, yet you have the audacity to accuse me of following you around. I stated why I reverted you, but you simply restored your edits without getting consensus for your change by starting a talk page discussion, as mandated by WP:CON. You are sticking to attacking me with aspersions because you have no interest in discussing. Please tell me where you got consensus for your change. If you come up with more excuses, I will simply request a block instead because you are a net negative. Mellk (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

You're being pedantic, wikipedia is not supposed to plagiarize sources word for word, and nothing from the original intent of the sources was changed as far as I can see. What is incorrect? One sentence dealt with how its viewed in Ukraine, the other is how its mostly viewed for the diaspora outside of Ukraine. If you had a problem with the wording I used you could have just changed the sentence instead of a total revert.

You can't cite 'consensus' when there is none for what we're talking about here, and it seems you're using that policy incorrectly to WP:OWN articles and justify reverts to other users. I'm under no obligation to 'get consensus for my change' as you are not a one-man-consensus and no one else is disputing here but you.

Yes, you are following me around because this is like the 6th time I make a random edit on this site with you immediately reverting it like you own the article. A trend is a trend. If you cared about discussions, you would have used a talk page. Again, accusing me of things you are guilty of, and now threatening me. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 19:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:V says the content should be directly supported by the citation. Are you telling me you can insert "diaspora" even though the source makes no mention of this? I even included the quote because disruptive editors like yourself often make changes without bothering to read the source. Also, read WP:EDITCON.

I would not suggest digging a deeper hole for yourself by still accusing me of harassing you. Unless you also want to accuse me of constantly monitoring your contributions for me to revert you 10 minutes after you while I was going through my watchlist and somehow ignoring the article in question on my watchlist. Sorry, but I do not care about your contributions. Either withdraw your accusation of harassment, or I will ask an admin to intervene instead, because your constant accusations of trolling and harassment are against policy. Mellk (talk) 19:35, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Any change made was directly supported by the citations & established content, since as you know it was a minor edit and nothing really changed. Yes, I can use "diaspora" just like any other synonym, that's what writing and editing is when not using direct quotes, and a good faith edit would be to just change the word to something that works better if that was actually the issue you had at first. But this is not the first time you've misrepresented sources to justify disruptive edit warring.

You can't muzzle me on my own talk page from describing your conduct, and your continued threats are duly noted. I asked that you 'use the talk page' and 'please stop harassing me' and so far your response has been to ignore the talk page, weaponize my request and issue ominous threats.

Personally, I dont know how deeply you follow me, but it's beyond coincidence at this point if you keep engaging in the same behaviour which you know to be wrong. Maybe you watchlist every article under the sun, but odds are you aren't fighting with every single editor simultaneously, so this looks like targeted conduct. Not once have you used an article talk page or just engaged in civil editing, and you keep coming back and doing the same thing. What else am I supposed to call it. LeVivsky (ಠ_ಠ) 01:05, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello. You're invited to participate in The World Destubathon. We're aiming to destub a lot of articles and also improve longer stale articles. It will be held from Monday June 16 - Sunday July 13. There is over $3300 going into it, with $500 the top prize. If you are interested in winning something to save you money in buying books for future content, or just see it as a good editathon opportunity to see a lot of articles improved for subjects which interest you, sign up on the page in the participants section if interested. Even if you can only manage a few articles they would be very much appreciated and help towards making the content produced as diverse and broad as possible!♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Phenomenon (UFO album), a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rock was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Down II: A Bustle in Your Hedgerow, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2026 (UTC)