User talk:Mellk/Archive 1

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Mellk. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Mellk. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2021 Russian protests

On 24 January 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2021 Russian protests, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Indefensible (talk) 00:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

2021 Russian protests article

Hi Mellk,

I appreciate your creation and edits of the 2021 Russian protests article. However, I think the table which you removed should be kept. I think it's useful for readers, and the fact is that the Russian article is still using this table. All the best, Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: I appreciate your contribution to the article however I removed the table for a number of reasons. Firstly, the information on the number detained is outdated. It lists around 2,600 detained, while currently it is at over 3,600. It is possible to update this but I do not find it useful to list the number detained in every single town and city, maybe just some notable ones. Especially if there are future protests. You can find the number detained and where using OVD-Info. So I'd suggest to at least remove this portion of the table at least so that outdated information is not displayed. I also thought that listing these figures in table form was not the best way, in that it would be better to list them using prose paragraphs (MOS:TABLES), and I was planning to transfer the information provided into a different form eventually. Mellk (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: And to add, there are a lot of blank spaces, which is why I believe that table form is not the best way to present the information. Mellk (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Quick reply (haven't read your entire response yet): what if it was possible to make the table collapsible, so that readers would only see the entire table if they chose to expand it? This way, people who don't want to see a table and who prefer paragraph format would be more satisfied. Do you think this would be a satisfactory solution? Ethanbas ^(talk) 23:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: Possibly, but this would this not be against MOS:COLLAPSE? Mellk (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I'm not an expert. BTW, on the Russian article the table numbers are getting actively updated it seems. Anyway, I'll think about this more tomorrow; need to sleep now. Ethanbas ^(talk) 02:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: Well the table is getting more and more outdated now in terms of number of people detained. The number detained is almost 4,000 now. It is best to at least remove this portion until it can be updated. I've also noted other errors in the table (for example the fact that it says 30,000 protesters in St. Petersburg which is not supported by the source). Mellk (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've removed detainees and venues temporarily until this can be updated, it's not ideal to present this information until it's at least somewhat up to date. Mellk (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mellk, got it. I'm happy with the table as it is at the moment. Thank you for keeping the article updated! I don't have much time for Wikipedia editing these days unfortunately; sorry for my belated reply. Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 21:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: I'll look into checking over the attendance for each city and adding back the column for detainees with updated figures when I have some time. The number of detainees should not really change anymore. As the table is now, I am also happy with it. Mellk (talk) 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the NYT article about Alexei Navalny from his wiki page.

Hi Mellk, I believe the NYT article is highly misleading without context/details, and will surely leave many readers with an impression that, somehow, Navalny's criticism of Chechens militants was due to dark skin and not their radical beliefs, especially now that you removed the reference link to the original video. Please note that all Chechens in the video are Caucasian white. Not a single one of them has a dark skin. So I firmly stand by my opinion that the article by the NYT is factually incorrect, disingenuous, and requires further clarification. I'm a proponent of a respectful and non-invasive editing on Wikipedia, which is why I did not remove it but merely added details to provide full available information to the readers. So I would like you to tell me how I can improve my edit and resubmit it to make both of us happy and avoid any further dispute or undo's. Please share your ideas! Regards! FreeThinker095

@FreeThinker095: I removed your edit because it was original research, which needs to be avoided (WP:NOR). Everything needs to be sourced so you need to cite sources that explicitly supports what you write. You can try finding reliable sources (WP:RS) that discusses that specific video and citing them. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Belgorod Oblast Duma moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Belgorod Oblast Duma, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. Even the sparse information in this article is not supported by the current sourcing. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:48, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Legislative Assembly of Ulyanovsk Oblast has been accepted

Legislative Assembly of Ulyanovsk Oblast, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

LDPR

Do you think that "Fascism" should be changed to "Neo-fascism" in the ideology section in the infobox? Vacant0 (talk) 18:40, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think either should be included in the infobox. Mellk (talk) 20:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think it should be there either but I just wanted to hear your opinion on changing "fascism" to "neo-fascism". I know that LDPR isn't neo-fascist, but the overall discussion was just a mess. Vacant0 (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I just saw Bacondrum's edit from a few days ago so yeah, I won't be willing to change it to "neo-fascism" actually. Thanks for your response Vacant0 (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

No worries. All the best. Mellk (talk) 22:06, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: There doesn't seem to be opposition in removing this from the infobox, though do you think this should be mentioned in the lede? Or in the article at all? Mellk (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

"Fascism" is already mentioned in the lead section and in my opinion, it should stay. Vacant0 (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

I think this lede needs to be redone so that it gives a better idea of ideology as it seems rather simplified but also include this mention. But the current sourcing is weak, as I said in the article's talk page, 2/3 of them do not exactly describe the party as fascist, so there will need to be better sources here. Mellk (talk) 14:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The lead section needs to be rewritten I agree. You can do it if you want to. Vacant0 (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Would you say there is no consensus for this inclusion in the infobox? I'm now getting an IP from the blocked sockpuppet Caretaker John now trying to restore this again after it was removed. Mellk (talk) 07:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that "fascism" can be removed from the infobox, however, it can be kept in the lead as it is now because of their past. Vacant0 (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Bacondrum is now edit warring to restore this, after falsely accusing me of edit warring (when reverting a blocked user evading their ban is an exemption) and there is clearly no consensus to include it. I can't even be bothered anymore. Mellk (talk) 05:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Consensus wasn't achieved for "fascism" to be included in the infobox, and thus it cannot be included, these edits were unanimously added by sockpuppet Caretaker John and your previous two reverts as of now are alright, I don't have a problem with that. The discussion on the talk page has to be continued by Bacondrum and others that support the addition of "fascism" in the infobox, and during that period that part of the page has to stay unchanged until you reach consensus with others, per WP:QUO. I will add LDPR to my watchlist and I will keep my eye on it to keep the status quo on the page. If something happens, you can reply here and I'll be glad to help. Vacant0 (talk) 11:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, it's much appreciated. Hopefully won't have to deal with more of his sockpuppets anytime soon. Mellk (talk) 11:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprised to see this reverted again, but what's even more bizarre is that he removed the NPOV dispute tag because I inserted it in a "pointy manner" when quite clearly there is an ongoing dispute and multiple other editors have disputed it, but now he opened a RfC which says nothing about the infobox, when this is what the whole dispute has been about. Is this an attempt at getting more people to agree and then using it to justify keeping "fascism" in the infobox? Honestly, I find this behaviour shocking and this might need to go to ANI. Mellk (talk) 07:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: OK, I think if this user is going to revert again, I will just have to take them to ANI. It's not acceptable. Mellk (talk) 09:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Bacondrum is a leftist and most of his contributions consist in "fighting" against far-right for months. He personally strongly dislikes nationalism, right-wing populism and advocates for removing right-wing label for all political parties which are a bit further right than Angela Merkel German's CDU (far-right only instead of right-wing to far-right). So he (falsely) perceives your edits as an attempt to soften/whitewash the image of this Russian party, while you just revert a banned user. In fact, he never edits in the LDPR page in the past, but intervene suddenly after a message on his talk page by the sockpuppet "Caretaker John" 1 who tried to get support for fascist label. I am impressed with your patience regarding this situation anyway. I brought its case to ANI last February, but I had expressed myself too awkwardly without using the good arguments and I almost had additional problems; personally, I no longer want to intervene on political parties' articles that he has in his watchlist, he tends to edit in an authoritarian manner. --Martopa (talk) 14:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The older sockpuppets like this one did plenty of canvassing as well. I will see how the RfC turns out. Mellk (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if he's a leftist or not, what matters is following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies and keeping your behavior calm. A discussion has to be started in these cases because there will be other editors who won't agree with you with your bold edits, in this case, "Fascism" was added by a sockpuppet user called Caretaker John and this was supported by Bacondrum. Discussion was started on the talk page soon after, however, consensus hasn't been still reached (Bacondrum claimed that it did, but in reality the whole discussion was between Mellk vs Bacondrum+Sockpuppet, which ended up being 1v1 – consensus definitely wasn't reached since Bacondrum supports the addition of "fascism" and Mellk doesn't). Per WP:QUO, If there is a dispute, editors should work towards consensus. Instead of engaging in an edit war, which is harmful, propose your reverted change on the article's talk page or pursue other dispute resolution alternatives. During a dispute discussion, until a consensus is established, you should not revert away from the status quo. Isn't this obvious? Again, Bacondrum restored the false status quo. Let's keep the current version even though it isn't the proper status quo, RfC is still ongoing and other editors should vote in it. Vacant0 (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you explained it well there. The issue has been his behavior. I have never dealt with someone like this before, he has too much of a battleground mentality. The false accusations he's made and now the unjustified removal of the NPOV dispute tag I think is a step too far. I will see how the RfC goes, though I think it's being very misleading. Mellk (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Law and Justice

Hello Mellk. I was interested if you can comment here in the current discussion about the ideology section on Law and Justice's page. I want to close the discussion soon but it's been inactive for past 2+ weeks since no one commented on it. I'd appreciate if you do, thanks! Vacant0 (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@Vacant0: Unfortunately I do not know enough about PiS so I do not think that discussion is something I am able to add to. Thanks. Mellk (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's completely alright, thank you! Vacant0 (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Belgorod Oblast Duma has been accepted

Belgorod Oblast Duma, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Bkissin (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2021 (UTC)