User talk:Mllhnkz

Hello Mllhnkz, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Marvel Omniverse, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: per previous G7 declines. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note - You should not keep adding a speedy deletion back after an admin has declined it. If you want the page to be deleted, all you have to do is leave it alone. If it remains untouched for 6 months, it will be deleted via WP:G13. -- Whpq (talk) 01:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks for the information. I didn't know that in six months the page will be deleted automatically. Have a nice day. Mllhnkz (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Dmitry Rogozin. Thank you. Mellk (talk) 14:40, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

So according to you, photos and videos which are linked in the references of him giving a speech in a nazi rally and photos of him performing the fascist salute while holding white nationalist signboards somehow doesn't mean he was in a nazi rally nor made the nazi salute?? In my view, you are comitting vandalism. I'm adding the information again, while adding more references; let's see if that is valid. Cheers, Mllhnkz (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Read WP:RS and WP:BLP. It is not our job to interpret primary sources. Mellk (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Dmitry Rogozin. Mellk (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

I have reverted your latest changes because you are still adding low-quality sources to make contentious claims. One of the sources you initially cited even claimed that this is not a fascist salute. Please stop adding low-quality sources, otherwise I will have no choice but to bring this to the attention of administrators. Mellk (talk) 16:11, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The "fascist salute" in question is not the one on that photo of that article you say, but the one he did in the 90's: https://uc.od.ua/columns/1533/1227242 The source you are talking about was for the fact that he gave a speech in a nazi rally.

Are all of these sources really low quality? Your veredict seems rather arbitrary to me.

https://www.dsnews.ua/ukr/world/kolishnih-nacistiv-ne-buvaye-rogozin-porivnyav-glavu-pentagonu-z-mavpoyu-25022024-496713

https://news.pn/uk/politics/153236

https://www.brd24.com/news/vid-rivnya-diskusiy-z-ilonom-maskom-do-eksperta-po-chopikam-na-berdyanskomu-vodokanali-nu-za-shcho-n.html

https://uc.od.ua/columns/1533/1227242

I think several other editors should give their oppinions about this issue and I will abide by their decision. I will create an entry in Rogozin's discussion page here then: Talk:Dmitry Rogozin#Rozogin's probable fascist past Mllhnkz (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

This is the third time you have added the same statement to the article and multiple editors (not just me) have said this does not belong in the article as they are BLP violations. You included some of the same sources as before even though in the noticeboard discussion the reliability of those sources were discussed.

You now say it has nothing to do with the nationalist march in 2007, even though in your previous edit you cited this video. Ironically, you cited PolitRussia, which tried to 'debunk' this and portray the opposition leader Navalny (who had also attended such marches in the past) as a far-right nationalist. It seems like you are not even reading the sources you are citing. Mellk (talk) 16:54, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

That video was used to cite the fact that he attended a nazi rally, not that he performed a fascist salute in the 90's while holding a white nationalist cardboard, as I said. Several other sources were used to cite the fact that he performed that nazi salute while holding a white nationalist cardboard.

Some of the sources I added in the Talk page were not rejected by the editors in the noticeboard, so let's just see what the Wikipedia community has to say. Mllhnkz (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

The YouTube video is WP:SPS. The PolitRussia blog post that you initially cited also says "there was nothing fascist or neo-Nazi about the purpose of this rally". I also do not think you are a good judge on the reliability of sources. As another editor said: If you think Medium and YouTube and molfar.com/en/blog are "very reliable" sources for a contentious claim about a living person, you probably shouldn't be editing the article at all. Mellk (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

PolitRussia is not a reliable source, that's why I deleted it shortly after. Mllhnkz (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Jay8g [V•T•E] 03:08, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living (or recently deceased) persons, as you did to Germar Rudolf. The placement of your edit may mislead readers to assume that the quote is from the cited article in Nature (journal). Thank you.JimRenge (talk) 07:23, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

@JimRenge Why would anyone think it was from Nature? The only source quoted directly after was The Holocaust History Project (which included the quote). Nothing else was cited after, and it was the last sentence of the section. The Holocaust History Project was also the previously mentioned source in the text (“Richard Green and Jamie McCarthy from The Holocaust History Project”). Nature wasn’t even cited in the same paragraph. It was cited eight sentences earlier. LordDiscord (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

LordDiscord, Mllhnk, sorry, this was my fault, Rudolf is in fact cited in the Green source. I still think that Green is a weak source but the good faith edit was clearly not unsourced; I have used strikethrough to clarify that my user warning was an error. JimRenge (talk) 17:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Would you then agree to add the quote again? I can add some more sources on top of the one I used before, if you wish. This information seems too important to be left out. Mllhnkz (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Please move or copy your question to the talk page of Germar Rudolf. I will answer it there. Thanks JimRenge (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

@JimRenge It’s all good, and sorry if I came across as hostile. Mllhnkz and I were previously harassed by a LTA with false user warnings, so I am perhaps overly sensitive on the issue. LordDiscord (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

Calling me an "LTA" is a blatant personal attack and you have already been told to cut it out. Kindly strike out the personal attack. Mellk (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

You called Mllhnkz’s contribution garbage and made a slew of personal attacks against me (even after I warned you about this, and escalated them after I defended Mllhnkz from similar attacks). Me being asked to “cut it out” with supporting newer users for admin is completely unrelated to your personal attacks. LordCollaboration (talk) 02:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

I referred to the sources as garbage, hence "more garbage" referred to the addition of more low-quality sources even though the statement was the same, but I did not expect you to be honest with me. Mellk (talk) 04:27, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You did not just say the sources were garbage, not that this would be civil either, you reverted them with just “more garbage”. If you wanted to say the sources were not reliable, you could have said “I don’t think the new sources are reliable - please discuss in talk”.

Nor did you even know the sources, it wasn’t like they cited infowars. Perhaps they are in Mykolaivska, and decided to cite the most widely-read news source in their area . Perhaps they saw it was used as a source by numerous reliable news sources, such as Reuters , Kyiv Post , the Kyiv Independent , Ukrainska Pravda , The New York Post

, Interfax Ukraine , etc. Perhaps they saw it used as a source in numerous published journal articles and books . Perhaps they saw it was previously used by us in numerous articles for other living people . Or perhaps I should go on every one of those pages, revert their changes, all with the text “garbage” (no worries, I am just referring to the source!).

Their contribution was made in good faith and was worthy of respect. Nor is using more personal attacks in defense of your previous personal attacks helping your case. Do not treat newcomers this way again, it is clearly hostile and discouraging. This is your final warning on the matter. LordCollaboration (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Before this, they continually restored their changes and then proceeded to label my edits as "vandalism", so spare me this bullshit. Mellk (talk) 12:46, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

They were receptive to your (positive) feedback and added better sourcing after you told them the original sources weren’t reliable. That is known as being constructive. And three times over a few weeks is not “continual” - you did five reversions, due to others adding as well, which is much closer to “continual”. Instead of immediately engaging in a hostile edit war, you could have simply compromised and collaborated, as is the point of Wikipedia.

When you openly accuse people of BLP violations, as you did in your first interaction with them, people are going to accuse you of violations too. You still cannot call their contributions garbage or engage in other personal attacks. Focus on content and policies. LordCollaboration (talk) 14:21, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

There was agreement at the BLP noticeboard that their edits were BLP violations, so please do not pretend that their accusations of vandalism were similar in that they had any merit. This is irrelevant anyway and if you want to continue complaining about this edit summary, take this to a noticeboard. Either way, this not justify calling other editors in good standing a "LTA". I take it you are not going to strike this comment? Mellk (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Continually engaging in personal attacks is exactly the issue I was referring to, so it is absolutely relevant. Again, happy to mutually strike. Calling other editors in good standing dishonest, or hounding, or calling their comments garbage, or… (etc.) is not acceptable. LordCollaboration (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. If a source doesn't mention white demographic decline, don't slap it into an article about white demographic decline. If a source doesn't mention Thailand, don't slap it onto a paragraph about Thailand. For old primary sources like the UN one, cite reliable secondary sources and use those to provide context. Grayfell (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mllhnkz. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Marvel Omniverse, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 17:06, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved content from List of fake news websites into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content (here or elsewhere), Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. MCE89 (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mllhnkz. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Marvel Omniverse".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission, and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello Mllhnkz! Your additions to List of NATO exercises have been removed in whole or in part, as they appear to have added copyrighted content without evidence that the source material is in the public domain or has been released by its owner or legal agent under a suitably free and compatible copyright license—to request such a release, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it's important to understand and adhere to guidelines about using information from sources to prevent copyright and plagiarism issues. Here are the key points:

• Limited quotation: You may only copy or translate a small portion of a source. Any direct quotations must be enclosed in double quotation marks (") and properly cited using an inline citation. More information is available on the non-free content page. To learn how to cite a source, see Help:Referencing for beginners.
• Paraphrasing: Beyond limited quotations, you are required to put all information in your own words. Following the source's wording too closely can lead to copyright issues and is not permitted; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Even when paraphrasing, you must still cite your sources as appropriate.
• Image use guidelines: In most scenarios, only freely licensed or public domain images may be used and these should be uploaded to our sister project, Wikimedia Commons. In some scenarios, non-freely copyrighted content can be used if they meet all ten of our non-free content criteria; Wikipedia:Plain and simple non-free content guide may help with determining a file's eligibility.
• Copyrighted material donation: If you hold the copyright to the content you want to copy, or are a legally designated agent, you may be able to license the text for publication here. Please see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• Copying and translation within Wikipedia: Wikipedia articles can be copied or translated, however they must have proper attribution in accordance with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. For translation, see Help:Translation § Licensing.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices. Persistent failure to comply may result in being blocked from editing. If you have any questions or need further clarification, please ask them here on this page, or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:06, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Your edit to Protocell has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for information on how to contribute your work appropriately. For legal reasons, Wikipedia strictly cannot host copyrighted text or images from print media or digital platforms without an appropriate and verifiable license. Contributions infringing on copyright will be removed. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

You should not alter comments after they have been replied to. Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 15 March 2026 (UTC)