User talk:Mellk/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

No

Look at IIHF’a website theyre competing as Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.213.115.81 (talk) 22:34, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@217.213.115.81: Sure they are referred to as Russia, but they are officially competing as ROC, due to ban. As a result, team name is ROC, Russian flag is prohibited, and national anthem of Russia is prohibited. Which is why Chaykovskiy's music was played instead. Similiar situation as in 2018 Winter Olympics with OAR. See this on the IIHF website. Mellk (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Ryanair Flight 4978

I noticed you've been adding Russian sources to the article. Whilst these are not prohibited, it would be helpful if you could format them properly. Using {{cite web}}, you need {{cite web |url= |title= |trans-title= |language=Russian |publisher= |accessdate=}} at a minimum. Other parameters may be added as required. Mjroots (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Mjroots: I think you got the wrong person. I only added Reuters, BBC News and DW refs. Those other refs (some in Belarusian) were already there before I started editing that particular article. Mellk (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies. Looks like I'm going to have to run them through Google Translate then. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

I will help out with formatting later on if there are any other sources. Mellk (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian armed forces history section

Where should the 2021 Black sea incident be mentioned? --Specac (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Specac: There is already a dedicated article for this (2021 Black Sea incident). It is also already mentioned in Black Sea Fleet article. Mellk (talk) 21:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps another subsection should be added after 2008 military reform subsection? Then events after 2008 could be mentioned.--Specac (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Specac: This history section seems to be more about organisation of the armed forces as a whole. Maybe it can be very briefly mentioned somewhere in the Russian Navy article since this is more specific and it already mentions exercises in June. Mellk (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestion. --Specac (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. Mellk (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2021 Russian legislative election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leonid Volkov.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Treaty of Brest-Litovsk

Hello, you just reverted

"even though no Russian lands were separated from Russia, like the Allied Powers separated German lands from Germany."

as supposedly "unsourced original research". What is there unsourced or original? It is well-known that Brest-Litovsk only recovered the territories of the former areas of Poland-Lithuania and Finland. So, of course no genuine Russian lands were separated, like the Allied powers did with Germany. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.16 (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@77.75.244.16: You need to cite a reliable source. Is Rostov-on-Don not Russian territory? What do you define as "Russian lands"? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 01:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

A reliable source is already in the article under Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk#Terms There you can see the map. "Russian lands" are those lands where the majority of the population is Russian. The Versailles Treaty removed lands from Germany with majority German population, such as Alsace-Lorraine, Pomerelia, Danzig, Memelland, Eupen. Also, Republic of German-Austria (including Sudetenland and South Tyrol) were forbidden to join the German unified state. Much more harsh to Germans than Brest-Litovsk to Russians. Rostov-on-Don was not included in the area ceded by the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

@77.75.244.16: Which map? This?. This?. You need to cite something like a journal, book, news article etc. that directly supports what you wrote. Rostov-on-Don had a Russian majority yet was ceded. So how do you explain this? Regards. Mellk (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Rostov was occupied but not ceded. One map where it shows the ceded areas does not included Rostov, only the other map which says occupied includes Rostov. So, obviously neither Rostov nor any other Russian city was ceded by Russia in Brest. Rostov became occupied because the Bolsheviks reneged on the treaty, therefore the war continued some time after the signing of the treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.16 (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@77.75.244.16: If we are judging by Russian-majority areas at the time, then what about for example Kharkov/Kharkiv? Not to mention that Ukrainians and Belarusians at the time were officially considered "Russians" (Little Russians and White Russians). Mellk (talk) 01:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

And of course you have Kiev. Mellk (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

That was for the Ukrainians and Russians to decide. Nothing of Ukraine was ceded to Germany, but that area was designated for self-determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.112.26 (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, all I can say is that you need to cite a reliable source that supports what you wrote, that "no Russian lands were separated from Russia". Mellk (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The text of the treaty itself is a reliable source. And it clearly states that there are no majority Russian lands separated from Russia. How much more reliable can you get? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.8 (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Where exactly does it state that? Also see WP:PRIMARY. Mellk (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Here is the full text: https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Peace_Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk and it says no reparations (Article IX) and which areas in the West are to be cleared from Russian troops in Article VI. Article IV deals with the Caucasus. Article III even states that the borders will be drawn "in agreement with their population." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.8 (talk) 08:15, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it does refer to the newly independent states but this does not reliably support "even though no Russian lands were separated from Russia". This of course was written on German terms. In Russia, this was seen as outrageous to the opponents of the Bolsheviks who saw lands in Belarus and Ukraine as historically Russian. Anyway the main issue here is that you are using a primary source and doing original research (WP:NOR). If you can find a reliable secondary source that directly supports that statement, you can re-include it with a citation to it. Alternatively you can use the talk page of that article for assistance and feedback from other editors. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

See, that is a major problem with Wikipedia. Primary sources are considered "original research" while arbitrarily selected second-hand sources are considered "reliable". No wonder that Wikipedia is considered to be an unreliable and biased encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.49.111 (talk) 14:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

It's quite simple. The treaty does not say "no Russian lands are being separated from Russia". This is the conclusion you reached. Mellk (talk) 15:21, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So I need to just use a different formulation, such as ", even though the treaty of Brest-Litovsk freed Finland, several Caucasian peoples, and the peoples of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from Russian rule." Is that free of "own research"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.43.49.111 (talk) 20:42, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

In the lead of the article it is already stated that Russia lost those territories. I am also not sure about "freed" when some of those territories were supposed to come under the domination of other empires other than Russia, and "even though" looks like editorializing. Mellk (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So why is that sentence about "Versailles not being harsh" in there? What has this to do with Brest-Litovsk? Is that not "editorializing"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.75.244.2 (talk) 02:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

From what I can see, it cites The Lights that Failed. And of course if you see any other problems with the article, i.e. statements unsourced or not supported by the citations, you are welcome to make changes and give your explanation in the edit summary. Or ask in the talk page. Mellk (talk) 06:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, there is currently a requested move at Talk:Odessa where you participated in a previous discussion about renaming the article. OjdvQ9fNJWl (talk) 03:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Pic placard

Hi the pic on your userpage has a placard. What does it say? May be you can include the translation in the pic page at commons. I was curious. Thanks. Venkat TL (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

This is picture from 10 years ago during 2011–2013 Russian protests (I just have pictures here as anniversaries). The banner says "Russia without Putin" which was a popular slogan during those protests. Mellk (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I was under the impression that it was a recent pic. Thanks for the translation. I will add it under the pic. Venkat TL (talk) 17:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

No worries. Regards. Mellk (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded for efforts in expanding multiple articles to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

very good :)

good job :) 👍 ArccosLV (talk) 08:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Battle of Kyiv

[|Article I want to discuss]

You've just undid my previous edit and I dont really understod why. Can you please explain me what exactly that reply mean "Undid revision 1080768346 by Anonymiosity-isFiction (talk) only after successful RM". Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymiosity-isFiction (talk • contribs) 14:57, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

@Anonymiosity-isFiction: See Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles for current consensus. You changed the titles of the linked articles from their original titles. If you want the articles to be moved to a new name, you need to open a WP:RM but these will almost certainly be unsuccessful due to the current consensus as I already linked. Mellk (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Thx a lot. Now i at least understand what is it all about. Then I will follow your advice and will not try to change anything. Anonymiosity-isFiction (talk) 16:12, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries, but in contexts after 1991 it is probably fine to change. Regards. Mellk (talk) 16:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

April 2022

Hello, I'm Toadspike. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Vladimir Putin seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Apologies if I am mistaken, but the edit you made doesn't seem to fit NPOV and contradicts your edit description. Toadspike (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Toadspike: I reverted another user's edit who decided to break off a paragraph to make a fifth one which gives undue focus on recent events, my edit summary mentioned MOS:LEAD, in that ideally there should not be more than four paragraphs. Please tell me exactly how it "doesn't seem to fit NPOV" (the stable version) and why you decided to falsely label it as "vandalism" in your edit summary, which has a very clear definition? Perhaps you did not check the changes carefully, in which case I ask you to undo your revert. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk I'm very sorry, I think I accidentally misused RedWarn. I saw that you were removing the sentence about "death toll of at least several hundred civilians", while the edit summary said that "death toll is higher now", which is contradictory, and made assumptions I shouldn't have made about your intent. I didn't realize that this would also revert your previous paragraph restoration, which I did not see at all. I apologize again and will now be more careful with how I use RedWarn. Toadspike (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Toadspike: That's OK, I decided to remove that part as the civilian death toll is in the many thousands now (rather than just hundreds) but I didn't think thousands was sourced there so I decided it was better to remove that sentence for the time being rather than outdated information being there. Sorry if I came off as too aggressive there, I also should have been clearer in the edit summary there. Thanks for clearing that up. Mellk (talk) 21:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Toadspike: If you do not have any objections to my changes there anymore, can you kindly self-revert? Thanks. Mellk (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Mellk Done! Sorry again about that, have fun fixing the casualty numbers up. Toadspike (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add a source then. Mellk (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Putin and Fascism

Recently there has been many attempts to label Putin's regime as fascist here on Wikipedia, on some articles relating to his regime as well as to the war in Ukraine, categories about fascism and the far-right have been added without any basis (e.g. Putinism, Nashism, Z (military symbol)).

I tried to remove them in some of those articles, but they got restored, so recently I started a discussion trying to get some comments on this: [1]

I would like to hear your opinion on this issue, it seems to me these categories are POV and an insult, more than anything. -- 2804:248:f675:6f00:a46b:8e3f:296f:8a44 (talk) 08:10, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes I have noticed these changes as well and a lot of new accounts working on those. I will have to look deeper into it first but I do not see any evidence that this is some kind of majority viewpoint, so in that case it would violate WP:DUE for this kind of outright categorization. That is not to say that such characterizations do not exist, but I already see such characterizations disputed in RS. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 22:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Melik,

Thank you for your update / clarification re " #KyivNotKiev" edits on existing wikipedia entries.

While I understand the broken links to articles are not constructive, I am not sure I agree with your position to maintain the Russian language translated spelling of the Ukrainian town and Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, which is properly, translated from the Ukrainian alphabet and Ukrainian language (Ukrainian-Cyrillic alphabet has more characters and sounds than Russian, so properly articulates the Ukrainian name Kyiv).

That said, I am only an occasional Wikipedia editor and do not claim any authority for my point of view and accept your/wikipedia's positin on this topic. I especially appreciate your ongoing and active monitoring of the Russia/Ukraine posts and thank you for this.

Best wishes,

Vaaltje Vaaltje (talk) 13:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Vaaltje: Hello, thanks for your message. This position is not mine but based on consensus. As I have linked on your talk page, the consensus on this spelling was agreed here. As Kyiv article was moved in 2020, in general, it is OK to change "Kiev" and use "Kyiv" in modern (after 1991) contexts but not for historical contexts. Your edits, which I reverted, were on historical topics and subjects, such as Igor of Kiev and Kievan Rus'. Note that those articles still have "Kiev" and "Kievan" in the title as a result. So it should not be changed different to the article title, or else a WP:RM is needed to change the article title but this has been tried before on a few articles and have been unsuccessful. I understand you may think this is a wrong decision but it is something that we must follow and of course it is something that may change in future. If there is a future WP:RfC, you can state your opinion there. If you have any other questions, you can ask me. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Discussion to move Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation to Ukrainian anti-Soviet resistance movement

I note you had participated in the discussion on the Talk:List of wars between Russia and Ukraine move and/or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Russo-Ukrainian Wars. There is currently a similar discussion ongoing at Talk:Ukrainian Insurgent Army war against Russian occupation where your input may be valuable. Kind regards. 79.155.36.178 (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Crimea

Good work. I will fully support this revision. Thanks for the effort. --Coldtrack (talk) 20:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Mellk (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Russia lead

Hi there, please see discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia#Add_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine,_2022,_to_the_lead

If you want to suggest alternative language feel free. Colinmcdermott (talk) 11:14, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, since when was this discussion concluded? Have you also noticed how in MOS:LEAD, it states: As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs and be carefully sourced as appropriate? When there is a consensus on the wording and the inclusion of this, you can re-add this. Mellk (talk) 19:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Russia economy

Greetings. Could you update the import and export data from the section? Its written that Russia is the 20th-largest exporter and importer. However, according to newer data from 2021; Russia is the thirteenth-largest exporter and the 21st-largest importer. Stuntneare (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare: Can you submit a edit request on the talk page and I will take a look at updating from there? Mellk (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I submitted an edit request. Stuntneare (talk) 12:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Stuntneare: Thanks. Sorry, I have been busy lately, I will look at it when I get the chance. Regards. Mellk (talk) 22:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Why reverted change in Askold and Dyre article?

I've corrected mispronunciation on this article, and this user reverted change. Name for the city is KYIV not "Kiev". So why should Wikipedia use wrong name? It always has been Kyiv. I will wait for answer and then correct the article again. If this user will try to revert changes i will report him as a russian nazi bot SOROSHENKO (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at: Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles. Mellk (talk) 16:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Kaliningrad Oblast

Please explain your edit. Xx236 (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at the talk page. Mellk (talk) 09:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Please stop your ad personam attacks. Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Which attacks are you referring to? Politely asking you to not hound is not a PA. Mellk (talk) 10:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not to mention this [2] comment to me where you said: Usage of criminal language makes editors co-responsible. So really, it should be you to be careful with this kind of behavior. Mellk (talk) 10:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Oleg of Novgorod"

You are pursuing a policy of deceiving Wikipedia viewers. No "Oleg of Novgorod" exists, none of the chronicles mention this, why are you misleading people? Even according to the rules of the Ukrainian language, Kyiv is correct, not Kiev. Kyiv is a city of Ukraine, and is included in its linguistic jurisdiction. Honest of History (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

No, see WP:COMMONNAME, if you want to change the title, then there needs to be a WP:RM but this certainly will not be moved to "Oleg Vischy". And there is a consensus to use "Kiev" here, per Talk:Kyiv/Archive 9#RfC: Kyiv/Kiev in other articles. So rather than edit warring against multiple users, use the talk page if you are not familiar with such things rather than making these type of accusations. Mellk (talk) 13:36, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And this is English Wikipedia, so we are not following the rules of the Ukrainian language, please do not write nonsense about "linguistic jurisdiction". Mellk (talk) 13:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Such a question, are you an administrator? The fact that this is English Wikipedia does not mean that you can violate grammar. Kyiv is a Ukrainian city in the Ukrainian language. Your Kiev will be Russian, not Kyiv. There is no word "Kyiv" or "Kiev" in the English language, it is a common name borrowed from another language. Also, this "common name" is outdated, as it was based on Russian, according to the rules of Wikipedia, information should progress, change, and not live in the past. Honest of History (talk) 15:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I already linked you the consensus on naming[3]. Please read WP:Consensus. If you disagree and think another name (such as "Oleg Vischy") is most commonly used in English-language sources then make a case on that article's talk page and read WP:RM. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't skip ahead, let's talk about Kyiv in English first. Honest of History (talk) 19:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

[4] This is all that matters. There is nothing else to discuss about it. Mellk (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

what is wrong with you You run away from the discussion, you delete my edits, and you ignore the dude who deleted Kyiv from the place of Oleg's death, and also the burial. Honest of History (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Which discussion did I "run away" from? I linked you the WP policies. If you want to move the article, see WP:RM, and there needs to be another RfC for this consensus on naming to change. There is nothing else to say about this, saying "Kiev" is incorrect spelling and must be removed from all WP articles will not get you anywhere. Of course, edit warring and then leaving a message on my talk page accusing me of intentionally "deceiving Wikipedia viewers" when you yourself are a new account and clearly unfamiliar with such policies is not a good look. And I have reverted the other user's edit now because it contradicts the rest of the article. Mellk (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I'm new here, and I don't know everything. I decided to be active, seeing how foreigners reading such articles see "Oleg of Novgorod", who never existed, was Oleg, who was nicknamed Vishchy. There was no Novgorod, why is it "Novgorodsky"? I see how they use the romanized Russian name of Kyiv, even though Kyiv is a Ukrainian city, so it should be romanized in Ukrainian. If you are really for justice and are interested in helping me, I will be very happy to find a like-minded person. Honest of History (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

The title is based on WP:COMMONNAME, so the most commonly used name in English-language sources. Can you demonstrate that this is not the case? Oleg Veshchy/Vishchy would be based on Russian/Ukrainian name. And this should not be about justice, read WP:RGW. Mellk (talk) 19:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Also an example[5]. Mellk (talk) 19:04, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So you don't mind helping me here if I need help? I will not be able, I do not use English sources when I have copies of chronicles remaining until 2022. How do you count articles / works where Oleg is prozed? What is the name of Kyiv then? Honest of History (talk) 19:13, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I am happy to provide advice. One helpful tool is Google Ngram (with language set to English). The current consensus is to use "Kyiv" for current topics and "Kiev" for historical topics (as general rule of thumb). Or at least, WP:BRD should be followed. Mellk (talk) 19:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Also can I guide you to WP:UAPLACE. Mellk (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

The edit on the 2022 Russian invasion article which you just reverted by Deborah Lipstadt was her response to comments made by Putin during the Prelude to the invasion which she present later in May of this year. The edit should be restored I think since she was talking about Putin's comments made during the prelude to the invasion. ErnestKrause (talk) 19:09, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

@ErnestKrause: From what I can see (video interview), she mentions Kremlin narrative in general as weaponisation of the Holocaust and then specifically mentions Lavrov's comments about Hitler, rather than specifically mentioning Putin's comments. And this is it. There is already mention of misuse of Holocaust history so I do not really see this as being necessary to include. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 19:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Please do not leave comments on my talk page

Self-evident. Stay away from my talk page or I will consider it harassment. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus: I have already warned you about your behaviour, so I do not need to warn you again, further personal attacks by you will go to ANI. You may also want to familiarise yourself with WP:HARASSMENT though, so you do not risk getting another indef block over this policy again. Regards. Mellk (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Do not comment on my user page, it is simple enough. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

And no, my reply on your talk page was not out of place. Considering you created a new section ranting about other editors, but now instead doing this along ethnic lines. Mellk (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

You are mistaken if you believe that I was "ranting" about other editors. Half of the crap that I write on my own user page is literally just talking to myself. Indeed, I spend a lot of my time talking to myself, and what better place to do that than on my own user talk page? Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus You kept restoring colinmcdermott's comment (yes there is a valid reason that multiple editors reverted it), you left a bunch of comments on his talk page which included clear personal attacks against those editors using slurs, then you created a new section on your talk page complaining about Russians as a result of this "censorship" (as you put it), which can be interpreted as racist and also warning people not to delete your comments because "things will get messy". You did not specify how things will get "messy" which can be interpreted as a thinly veiled threat. I understand you may have been pissed off, but it is best to take a break so things like this can be avoided. Mellk (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am clearly not racist against Russians, and indeed accusing me of holding such views is a personal attack. I have stated clearly numerous times that I am opposed to the Russian government primarily. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus I said your comment (where you said "Russians are mafia" who "cannot handle criticism", and ask if they have any humanity left) can be interpreted as racist. This is also following the slurs on colinmcdermott's talk page. You disagree with that assessment? Mellk (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

If you pay attention to what I actually wrote, I was asking someone to "change my mind" and prove that there is some humanity left in that country which, in my opinion, is on the verge of becoming the contemporary equivalent to Nazi Germany. One user replied to me in a civil manner, and I have responded to this user in a civil manner. Also, he happens to have Russian ancestry. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I am well aware of what you wrote. Mellk (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Then why aren't you quoting the parts that matter? We are going in circles here. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Final comment. The comment you kept restoring was removed per WP:TPG, where it says that off-topic posts as well as harmful posts (which include personal attacks) can be removed. This post you restored was both off-topic and personal attack. There was nothing about how the article could be improved. It simply attacked other editors (also casting aspersions). You then called this "censorship" and kept namecalling the editors who were "censoring" you, then made a new section on your talk page titled "Russians are mafia. Change my mind". Now you say (on the user's talk page) such people are "honorary soldiers" to justify the comments you made. This removal was justified and the comments you made in response were not appropriate and you have demonstrated WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. Even if you still think you were right, all I can say is that you risk getting blocked. That is all there is to say. Mellk (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Colin was originally talking about the inclusion of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine in the Russia article. This means that he was actually talking about improving the article itself, if perhaps in a non-neutral way. As for my own talk page, I can basically say and do whatever I want there. It's none of your business. Clearly, my comments on my talk page were not directed towards you. They indeed weren't directed towards anyone in particular. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Let me put it this way. You are actually worse than CMD (by a small margin) because he commented on my talk page by creating a new section within which to threaten me, whereas you commented on my talk page by butting into a pre-existing conversation that had nothing to do with you and threatening me there instead. At least CMD had the courtesy to create a new section, no? Your decision to butt into an unrelated conversation is basically an attempt at derailment. In other words, it is disruptive behaviour. You've done this twice since you also did it on Colin's page, wherein you decided to start threatening me there inside of a discussion that was originally between me and Colin. By the way, what were you doing threatening me on Colin's page? That seems inappropriate and another example of disruptive behaviour. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

@Jargo Nautilus Your talk page post was in response to being "censored" by other editors and targeted towards such editors. This is very obvious. Just because it is your talk page, it does not mean you can write whatever you like there. That includes vague threats. Hence why you were warned. Also on the other user's talk page, where you made personal attacks and walls and walls of text. You really need to be aware of WP:NOTAFORUM because these walls of text of yours is a habit. Mellk (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I already asked you to stop pinging me. Furthermore, you are presenting your opinions as fact here. Indeed, I myself, the person who actually wrote the text, am saying that it is not directed at anyone in particular. It is indeed just you who is interpreting it as being a threat when it clearly isn't. Indeed, when I say that "censorship is normal in Russia" (paraphrased), I am saying that I already know that censorship in normal in Russia, just like how it is in China, for example. I know from firsthand experience that censorship is a part of daily life in China. Most obviously, thousands of Western websites are blocked in China. Meanwhile, in Russia, there is no freedom of speech, and it is common for political opponents to be silenced. Hence, I am pointing out that I have witnessed Russian censorship and it has confirmed what I already knew. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You did not witness "Russian censorship". This is now coming across as casting aspersions. There is no excuse for this battleground behaviour. End of. Mellk (talk) 07:26, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the extent of your knowledge of Western culture is, but the phrase "X is Y, change my mind" is a very specific reference to Steven Crowder, a conservative Canadian political commentator who uses this catchphrase as one of the main gags in his YouTube videos. He sits at a table in public with a sign that has that catchphrase, and he invites (baits) members of the public to come and debate him about various topics. This gag is also popular as an internet meme, beyond specific references to Crowder himself. So, it can simply imply "I want people to come and debate me" in general, without necessarily carrying the exact political associations of Crowder's own views. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I am aware. All I will say is please stop treating WP as a battleground. If you think all your actions were appropriate, that's fine, but continuing such behaviour, you will have to try to make your case on ANI instead. Mellk (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

You are repeating yourself over and over again. And, in total, you have pinged me more than five times throughout the past couple of hours, even when there is no particular need to do so. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, you are clearly misinformed about this entire situation, since I am fairly certain that the Steven Crowder reference went over your head. If I was explicitly threatening people, then why would I be inviting people to debate me? And obviously, I was not asking people to come and harass me, which is why I have banned you from commenting at my talk page. I have allowed the other user to continue commenting in that discussion because he has been civil the entire time. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:31, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

This is why censorship is bad. Memes are one of the greatest features of internet culture that you are missing out on. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)