User talk:MelanieN/Archive 95

Are you sure to have administered my contribution properly?

Hello, Dear MelanieN, You seem to have failed to administer my contribution to WP World War II casualties of the Soviet Union. Its title is "How 56,9 percent Mortality Rate in Red Army Became Known". It happens to be the key passage of the whole Article. I know it, I am a pro historian.

Russian generals still regard military losses of the Red Army in World War II a top secret matter. After complete destruction in 1953 of registration cards on the enlisted men and warrant officers at all military commissariats throughout the Soviet Union the Soviet military losses can only be estimated. Entirely preserved, however, are the records of Communists and Komsomol members. Both groups represented 40.01 percent of the total draft —  40,656,993 —  all ages of servicemen and all regions of the country. That is why, Communists and Komsomol members remain the most representative part of the Armed Forces to assess all military losses in WWII. We know the exact total death toll of Party and Komsomol members in WWII. It is 9,269,542. All figures are from the cross verified Soviet publications.

The table of my contribution was taken from an article by a Russian historian Igor Ivlev http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2013/0559/analit02.php. I have only adapted it for WP standards. As any other science history keeps developing. For example, Mr. Ivlev has based his numbers 5 years ago on the other full toll of conscripts - almost 6 million less. He has also cited the number of invalids of 3,465,100 from general Krivosheev's studies. The correct figure is known now as 11,7 million.

There seems to remain a group of Anglowiki editors on the payroll of the Russian Defense Ministry who try to obstruct all efforts to reveal the true death toll of the Red Army. Kindly do not follow their advises. Let the table of the Party and Komsomol members death toll be preserved in the Article.

I put the table into the Talk page in January. Not a single person has objected its contribution into the Article. Why this fuss and vandalic deletes now? Въ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.188.39 (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

• Dear MelanieN,
  • May I resubmit my contribution "How 56,9 percent Mortality Rate in Red Army Became Known" to WP World War II casualties of the Soviet Union? It contains obviously undisputable Soviet data on the Communist Party and Komsomol members' losses in WWII. Let any EnWiki editor prove the contrary in the Talk page if he can. Only then one is entitled to delete anything.

The RuWiki page is also well guarded by Russian Defense Ministry watchdogs. You may put any truth into the same article and it will disappear the same day.

Watchdogs of the Russian DM in EnWiki are ridiculous at any time, in the present especially. Въ 109.252.188.39 (talk) 13:06, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Replied at the user's talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Closure at WP:Articles for deletion/W41 (2nd nomination)

Dear Melanie,

Working on the Afd-merge backlog, I am confused about the outcome of WP:Articles for deletion/W41 (2nd nomination). The closure mentions merging B46 and B46 nuclear bomb, while the discussion mentioned merging W41 into B41 nuclear bomb. In my mind, however, the only sensible place to merge W41 would be into B41 nuclear bomb, of which the W41 is the warhead version.

Do you have any thoughts about this? Felix QW (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Felix QW, and thanks for catching this. I apologize for my confusion. Yes, the intention was to merge the nominated article W41 into B41 nuclear bomb. I will correct my closure. Thank you for your work on these backlogs! -- MelanieN (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your quick response, and apologies for the mess-up of the Wikilink. I'll set to work then :) Felix QW (talk) 20:11, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

EPAM Systems

I saw that you were interested in politics and was hoping you might be willing to weigh in at Talk:EPAM Systems (near the bottom, where there are three edit-requests with “edit request” and “rationale” bolded). Some background: I work for the article-subject and have disclosed a COI. I asked for some of these changes at BLPN, but while one editor seemed to agree, no changes were made. I followed up on the Talk page, but the editor responding said they were not knowledgable enough in the topic area (Ukraine related) and invited talk page watchlisters (none active that I know of). Therefore, I’m pinging a couple editors with an interest in politics that might have the topical knowledge to feel confident enough to weigh in one way or another. Ladida555 (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Replied at the article talk page. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Unsalt request (.io games, Io games)

Hello. I want a redirect to be created from the pages .io games and Io games, which you salted in 2017, to ".io#Usage". A previous discussion implies that these pages used to be entire articles.

There is consensus for the page ".io game" to be redirected to .io#Usage, which is why I'm requesting to unsalt these pages. Thank you. ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me • contribs) 15:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello, User:lol1VNIO. Wow, that was a long time ago! But I have unsalted the pages as per the RfD discussion. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

McGarry, Ontario

The land claim has been settled. Here is the reference to cite to use as a citation, https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2022/05/24/beaverhouse-first-nation-achieves-historic-recognition.html. I don't know how to update the Land Claim section over on McGarry Ont page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.103.52.68 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the note. I have added the information and reference to the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)