User talk:Liliylo

Welcome!

Hello, Liliylo, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Template:Information and reference site, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's content policies and may not be retained. In short, the topic of an article must be notable and have already been the subject of publication by reliable and independent sources.

Please review Your first article for an overview of the article creation process. The Article Wizard is available to help you create an article, where it will be reviewed and considered for publication. For information on how to request a new article that can be created by someone else, see Requested articles. If you are stuck, come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can help you through the processes.

New to Wikipedia? Please consider taking a look at our introductory tutorial or reviewing the contributing to Wikipedia page to learn the basics about editing. Below are a few other good pages about article creation.

Article development
Standard layout
Lead section
The perfect article
Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. You can also type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Information and reference site

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Information and reference site, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other test edits you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam guideline for further explanations. Because Wikipedia uses the nofollow attribute value, its external links are disregarded by most search engines. If you feel the link should be added to the page, please discuss it on the associated talk page rather than re-adding it. Also please bear in mind that editing to promote or further a point of view is not permitted by Wikipedia policy. JBW (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I improve the article by adding a link to a foreign language wikipedia with an interpretation of the words mentioned in the topic, supplementing the article. Liliylo (talk) 18:26, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to Eastern Europe or the Balkans, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Mellk (talk) 17:31, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are clearly editing in order to promote a nationalist point of view. You have virtually said so in the edit summary of this edit, but it was already clear from the nature of your editing before that. Almost all of us, when we start editing Wikipedia, know little or nothing about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, so nobody can be blamed for starting out doing things that are contrary to policies and guidelines that they don't know about. However, continuing to do the same things after being told about the relevant policies and guidelines is a different matter. Please stop; if you don't, there is a serious likelihood that you will be blocked from editing by an administrator. Complying with Wikipedia's policies is a requirement, not an option. JBW (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

Hello, I reverted your edits to Ukrainian language because they appear to be plagiarised from Yeromlenko et al Українська мова. Короткий тлумачний словник лінгвістичних термінів (and possibly other sources which I could not verify). You must not submit plagiarised material to Wikipedia; it hurts the whole project. See WP:NONENGPLAG. It's possible I mis-identified some of your edits as plagiarism (because there were so many of them, and the majority appear to be plagiarised). Feel free to re-add anything you think is bona fide, but please also avoid removing useful content and POV-pushing – especially as concerns Ukrainian's East Slavic origins and Polonisation of Ukraine. All the best, Akakievich (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This was accurate information. Your information is falsified. I will make a public announcement if the following edits are similarly deleted. All my actions are captured on video. Liliylo (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't open the links that I added in the description and indicate that my work is plagiarism? How can you lie like that? Liliylo (talk) 23:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the following two excerpts, the first from your work in Ukrainian language:

Ukrainian language is the language of the Ukrainian nation. Belongs to East Slavic languages. According to some characteristic features, it shows closeness to West and South Slavic languages. From the point of view of dialect division, it has three types: northern, southwestern and southeastern. The norms of the Ukrainian language were developed during the VI-XIV centuries. The basis of this language was proto-Ukrainian dialects, which stand out in the reconstructed Proto-Slavic language, as well as in the Galician-Podilskyi and Kyiv-Polish-speaking regions.

and now from Yeromlenko et al Українська мова. Короткий тлумачний словник лінгвістичних термінів:

Українська мова — сова української нації. Належить до східнослов'янських мов; за деякими характерними ознаками виявляє близькість до західно- та південнослов'янських мов. З погляду діалектного членування має три наріччя: північне, південно-західне і південно-східне. Норми української мови складалися упродовж VI-XIV століть. В основу української мови лягли протоукраїнські говори, які виділяються у реконструйованій праслов'янській мові, а також у галицько-подільському та києво-поліському говіркових регіонах.

A direct translation, plagiarism, and copyright infringement. You didn't even bother to update the century numbers to use Arabic numerals as is the norm in English. The only difference in your version appears to be that Polissia has been replaced by Poland, for reasons I won't even begin to speculate.

This is a vague summary of the history of Ukrainian, which isn't even contradicted by anything currently in the article, plagiarised and poorly translated. Feel free to upload your video evidence (?) – it will show only what I have already documented above.

Якщо ви хочете брати участь у Вікіпедії продуктивно, будь ласка, слухайте інших користувачів, які тут повідомляють вас про правила та норми. Більшість із нас - не українофоби, ми будемо раді працювати разом. Але так поступати не можна. Всього найкращого, Akakievich (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article contains inaccurate information. Someone published false data with the aim of discrediting the Ukrainian language in the eyes of the West. Go through scientific encyclopedias and what I wrote is studied in all universities of Ukraine, in all schools. 2. The Ukrainian language does not come from the Ruthenian language, it comes from the Old Ukrainian language, and the Ruthenian language is the fourth East Slavic language according to the classification in this article, and the modern Ukrainian language was not created in Western Ukraine - how you confuse readers! Go to the Ukrainian Wikipedia and read everything. I am currently creating an article in my own words, if my orders are revoked I will make a splash in the world press. The thing is that I replaced inaccurate information with factual information and wrote a lot in my own words - in this case, you need to make edits, and not delete all the content! Liliylo (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are you confusing the Ruthenian language with the Rusyn language? Ruthenian is the (exonym descriving the) common ancestor of Ukrainian and Belarusian. Ukrainian Wikipedia even names it as an "alternative name" for Ukrainian in years gone by (which is not exactly the view taken here on enwiki, but you can see where it fits in).

Please can you point to where we say that "the modern Ukrainian language was created in Western Ukraine"? I thought it was common knowledge that literary Ukrainian is based on the dialect spoken by Kotliarevsky in Poltavshchyna.

If you are referring to the last sentence of the lede – yes, I agree that could be confusing, but it has nothing to do with the origins of Ukrainian. We should probably reword it. Akakievich (talk) 08:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments regarding your messages above

Hello, Liliylo. From reading the messages above, I have noticed a few things which may be worth drawing to your attention.

I get the impression that you may not have understood what Akakievich said to you at the tip of this section. Their point was that you posted a copy of someone else's work, or at least a translation of it, without attribution, which is what "plagiarism" means. In response, you have repeatedly insisted that the information you posted was accurate, which has no bearing whatever on the question as to whether it was copied or not. It is perfectly possible for accurate information to be copied.

Akakievich has concentrated mainly on the issue of plagiarism, which is to say copying withiut acknowledgement. There may, however, be a more serious problem, namely copyright infringement, which is to say copying without permission from the owner. It is almost never suitable to copy content from another web site to Wikipedia, for more than one reason, the most important being copyright. When you post anything to Wikipedia you release it for anyone in the world to reuse it, either unchanged or modified in any way whatever, subject to attribution to Wikipedia. It is very rare that the owner of a web site licenses content for such very free reuse, and in those few occasions when they do so, we require proof of the fact. We don't assume that content is freely licensed on the unsubstantiated say so of just anyone who comes along and creates a Wikipedia account.

You say that "Someone published false data with the aim of discrediting the Ukrainian language in the eyes of the West". Are you seriously suggesting that someone from what you call "the West" is likely to look at article and think "Oh no! The Ukrainian language is descended from Ruthenian! That means that Ukrainian is a really inferior language"?

You have accused Akakievich of lying in describing your editing as plagiarism, without providing any evidence for that. Even if what Akakievich has said is wrong, to presume that it was a lie, rather than a good faith mistake, is not helpful. I see nothing in what Akakievich has said which is inconsistent with the possibility that they genuinely believed (whether correctly or incorrectly) that you had copied the text in question; if so then it was not a lie.

The general tenor of your comments indicates that your approach to finding disagreement with other editors is to express anger, to be determined to fight against them to defend your own preferred views, and generally to treat dealing with disagreements as a battleground. There are two reasons why doing so may not be in your own interests. Firstly, you are likely to find that orher editors are more likely to consider what you say constructively if they perceive you as cooperative and civill than as aggressive, so you are likely to get less, not more, of your preferred changes accepted if you take the battleground approach. Secondly, Wikipedia policy is that we work collaboratively, rather than fighting one another, and we deal with disagreements by discussion rather than by fighting, so that if you are seen as being belligerent then before long you are likely to be blocked from editing by an administrator. For both of those reasons, you are likely to find it more effective to be civil and cooperative, even if you sincerely believe that other editors have acted in ways which mean that they don't deserve civility. JBW (talk) 11:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look, where is the plagiarism here? It's okay to accuse someone of plagiarism when they've posted a link for every sentence! You have rules to suppress Ukrainian adjustments. The truth is on my side.

The Dnieper Ukraine played a leading role in the cultural development of the Ukrainian people and their language. Liliylo (talk) 08:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You gave a reference linking to the book from which you had copied, but you did not state that the link was to text which you had copied, and nobody just reading the Wikipedia article would have had any reason to think that it was copied. It is not reasonable to expect every reader of every Wikipedia article to check every reference, if it is in a language that they don't understand (which for the overwhelming majority of readers of English Wikipedia would include Ukrainian) then get the text of the reference translated, compare it with the text of the Wikipedia article, and discover that the one is substamtially copied from the other. You posted material which you had substantially copied, which almost all readers of the encyclopaedia would not have realised was copied, and you must have known that they wouldn't. It is your responsibility to make sure that, if you post a quote from elsewhere, that it will be clear to everyone that it is a quote. However, all of this pales into insignificance by comparison to the copyright issue. JBW (talk) 12:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My work cannot be called plagiarism

There were links to all my quotes. My work cannot be qualified as plagiarism. I did not create plagiarism, but wrote the truth about the origin of the modern Ukrainian language, and this does not suit Russia. Everyone knows that the Ukrainian language sounds more beautiful than the Russian one, and giving it meaning is not beneficial for Russia. Anyway, I'm writing a new edit that I'll post soon. All material is based on the data of our scientists and often even Soviet scientists. You need to write the truth and write beautiful texts about my country. And it is enough to deliberately mention the country that kills us every day in every article about Ukraine! Liliylo (talk) 08:09, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As JBW has already noted, it is not sufficient to cite the source you have copied from; the body of the text needs to make clear that it is not original work – and even then, the issue of copyright persists. I do not believe you plagiarised deliberately, but your edits nonetheless constitute plagiarism.

Everyone knows that the Ukrainian language sounds more beautiful than the Russian one

I speak both, and I agree with you! but this is an opinion, not a scientific fact. The article on Ukrainian language should be based on the general academic consensus, and not linguistic pseudoscience. If there are disagreements in the literature, we should attempt to deal with these in a balanced way.

You will notice, for example, that 19th-century Russian theories about Ukrainian as the "Little Russian language" are not represented in the article, because they are completely false (and made up to discredit Ukraine as a nation). In the same way, however, we cannot include theories that suggest that Russian, Belarusian and Ukrainian don't have a common ancestor, because they are simply wrong.

If you see any factual inaccuracies in the article, please could you point them out? I would be very happy to work together in order to correct them. I have already revised the final sentence of the lede which mentions Western Ukraine, because I agree it was misleading and unhelpful.

You need to write the truth and write beautiful texts about my country

I have spent a great deal of time attempting to write "beautiful texts" about Ukraine, a wonderful country which I love dearly, both on and off Wikipedia. I am very sorry that you feel Ukrainian culture has been misrepresented – a lot of articles on Ukrainian topics are indeed poorly written, and we are trying (gradually) to fix that – but this doesn't justify the inclusion of pseudoscientific or plagiarised material. If there are concrete inaccuracies in Ukrainian language which you would like to address, please point them out and we can work out solutions! You are also most welcome to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ukraine – there is a lot of work to be done to fix the representation of Ukraine on Wikipedia, which stretches well beyond just this article. When I have spare time, I'm currently working (very slowly) through the list of missing articles about Crimean Tatar architecture. As you can see, there is a lot to be written, and even more which we could do with being translated from Ukrainian into English – please see Wikipedia:Translate us.

I hope this clears up some of your questions and reassures you that I am not malicious, nor a Ukraine-hater, even if we do not agree 100%. Please take care, stay safe, and I hope to see your ideas for improving Ukraine-related articles in the future! All the best, Akakievich (talk) 16:47, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Book archive

Template:Book archive has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:An excerpt from a historical TV show from the national television of Ukraine

Template:An excerpt from a historical TV show from the national television of Ukraine has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for sockpuppetry

Wikipedia's technical logs indicate that this user account has been or may be used abusively per the evidence presented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Liliylo. It has been blocked indefinitely from editing to prevent abuse.

Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted.
If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you should review the guide to appealing blocks, and then appeal your block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}}. Note that anything you post in your unblock request will be public, so you may alternatively use the Unblock Ticket Request System to submit an appeal if it contains information that must be private.

Administrators: Checkusers have access to confidential system logs not accessible by the public or by administrators due to the Wikimedia Foundation's privacy policy. You must not loosen or remove this block, or issue an IP block exemption, without consulting with a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee. Administrators who undo checkuser blocks without permission from a checkuser or the Arbitration Committee may be summarily desysopped.

Courcelles (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good day! Why was I blocked? I haven't edited anything on Wikipedia for a long time, and I was blocked just today. I want to know the reason for blocking. I did not make any edits without references.Unfortunately, I don't have the ability to edit right now from a good phone or computer, but that doesn't mean I can't be a Wikipedia editor, right? What is the violation? In the fact that I slightly corrected the material written by the Russians? Liliylo (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]