User talk:Volunteer Marek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Radeksz)
Jump to: navigation, search


Russian soldiers killed[edit]

I already know what's your personal take on the whole invasion vs not invasion thing from the discussion on the deletion of that article. But please keep your personal POV aside. The source is Russian as you say, but the number is not officially confirmed by the Russian government and the Russian government in fact denies the presence of any combat-engaged Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Also, the number was firstly reported/claimed by that non-governmental organisation which has always had an anti-Kremlin policy since the Chechen war and today even claims the number of dead in that war is double compared to the official figure. Besides, there is an editor who wants to fully remove the number and its source and I had to revert him twice today because of it. The word alleged was put there as compromise wording because of him. Also, you removing the word alleged makes it to seem as the figures are official and fact, which they are not. All of the figures that have been presented in the infobox on the unrest come from official sources of each of the combatants. While in this case, its a non-official source which is also in opposition to the combatant in question. So you see the conandrum. If you have some other word to put instead of alleged than go ahead and propose, but removing it entirely won't work. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can say the same thing to you; "keep your personal POV aside, your take is obvious". Now that we've gotten the mutual recriminations out of the way, let's talk about the actual matter. Here's the essence of it: *it doesn't matter* whether the Russian government confirms it or not. We are not a press agency of the Russian government. *It doesn't matter* whether the Russian government denies it or not. We are not a PR company for the Russian government. We're an encyclopedia. *It doesn't matter* whether the NGO that reported the number - in your personal opinion - is anti-Kremlin or not. Finally, if some editor wants to completely remove the - reliably sourced - number, then the thing to do is not to try and accommodate their disruptive behavior but simply to revert him/her. If they continue, report them.
What *does matter* is what reliable secondary sources say. Is the source for the number reliable? Yes it is. Does the source say this number is "alleged"? No it doesn't. As long as we stick to reliable sources, we won't go wrong and in this case that means removing this WP:WEASEL "alleged".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I was not making recriminations, but stating facts. Second, I have never propagated my personal POV over a neutral POV. Third, the source, which is an anti-Russian government one, may be reliable in your personal POV but fact is again its an anti-Russian government one, thus not making it neutral. It can not be more clearer than that. You may choose to ignore what Russia says, but that is not a neutral stance which is required of us by Wikipedia. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
"Alleged" certainly should not be used, and for good reason. Read WP:ALLEGED, for instance. Keep in mind that as long as you put in and in-line citation for the numbers, they have attribution to the source. Anyone can see the source and judge it based on its merits. One could also do something like (such and such estimates). There are many options, but "alleged" is the worst of them. "Alleged" as a word is legal jargon that isn't appropriate, which the Manual of Style explains. RGloucester 05:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Gloucester, you may need to reread WP:ALLEGED, which counsels against use of the VERB allege and not the adjective "alleged" or the adverb "allegedly".Haberstr (talk) 13:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@EkoGraf - You keep confusing primary with secondary sources. What matters is whether the secondary source is reliable and whether or not it actually uses the word "alleged". Volunteer Marek  20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable in your personal POV, but its anti-Kremlin stance makes them non-neutral and that is undeniable. The fact the figure was relayed by the reliable Reuters does not make the claim itself reliable because Reuters simply did just that, they relayed what the anti-Kremlin source said. They did not present it as fact, unlike what you are trying to accomplish. If it was a Reuters journalist who said I have been able to confirm the deaths of 100 soldiers that would be another matter entirely. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable... - Ughhhhhh! You. Are. Not. Listening. It. Doesn't. Matter. Who or what. The. Organization. Was. It matters only if the *secondary* source is reliable. You are way into WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT territory, which, honestly, I expected better from you. *You*, nor I, don't get to interpret primary sources. We don't get to second guess reliable secondary sources. That job is for someone else, however tempting it may be to engage in it, on a highly visible internet project. There is room for editorial discretion, but this isn't a case of it. Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
No. That's not how an encyclopedia works. This is getting tiresome. We describe what secondary sources say. We do NOT throw about our own interpretations of primary sources *("How about describe the reports and their content"?). It's really, really, not that hard to understand. Also, how did you find this page?  Volunteer Marek  00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And you, person who left the comment below, since I'm pretty sure you're a disruptive sock of some banned user, I'm removing your comment and please don't post here again. <comment below removed per WP:DFTT>  Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

POV tags should be removed NOT immediately, but after a civil discussion and attempted consensus[edit]

Volunteer Marek, please conform to Wikipedia policy regarding POV tags. The official policy is emblazoned on every such tag: "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." I will enjoy having a civil discussion with you and others at Haberstr (talk) 13:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And one shouldn't engage in spurious tagging of articles based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Putting in a POV tag simply because reliable sources don't reflect your world view is POV in itself. Volunteer Marek  13:14, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek, please let's engage in discussion on the matter on the entry's talk page. That is the appropriate procedure, and it likely won't take more than a few weeks to reach a consensus, assuming good faith by all. Worryingly, however, I have stated numerous NPOV problems with the entry on the talk page, and you haven't engaged with any of them. Instead, you've issued a blanket and uncivil statement questioning my good faith. Please review, noting especially the passages on civility, in WP:EDITCONSENSUS and WP:CLOSE.Haberstr (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, I note you have removed a second POV tag, violating Wikipedia's explicit instructions again. Instead of censoring a POV tag, let's have a discussion of my substantive criticisms at .Haberstr (talk) 14:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry but you're going to have to justify the insertion of the tag substantially before it can go in the article. So far you've only basically said that the article fails to utilize "alternative media" - i.e. non-reliable sources - and is therefore POV. That's actually turning things upside down on their head. Hence the tags are spurious. Volunteer Marek  15:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Huh? You can read the huge number of POV criticisms I and others have made at the start of the now two 'POV tag' discussions you have cut short, here: [1]. You do understand that you're supposed to conform to Wikipedia policy on removal of the POV tag, don't you?Haberstr (talk) 15:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Seem to be quite a few complaints about you removing NPOV tags Sceptic1954 (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive edits[edit]

If you want to help, please remove sources like YouTube and replace them. Removing tags only hides the problems. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are more than one sources where you're adding these spurious tags. If you want to help, you can start by not behaving in a disruptive and WP:POINTy manner. Volunteer Marek  22:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Marek, you are clearly editing pages with the intention of giving the articles a slavic bias. Wikipedia is not a place for you to skew history in favor of slavic peoples without any verifiable proof. The statement you made on the Stettin page saying poles were sometimes discriminated against is vague and not substantiable. As long as you continue in making false claims, I will keep altering your edits to portray a more accurate depiction of history. Prost! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Volksdeutscher1871 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

blogs are restricted from use as a reference of wiki[edit]

Thanks for respecting wiki policy against the use of blogs as references. --Russiansunited (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It depends on who the author of the blog is: Cathy Young. Volunteer Marek  23:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
And oh yeah, that's actually NOT a blog. Volunteer Marek  23:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for switching your position to "neutral" at the deletion debate, and for listening to what I've been trying to say. I know I've probably come off as a bit mad with regard to this whole business, but it just really rubs me the wrong way. I respect you as an editor, despite what it may seem, and I hope that I've made a fool of myself over the past few days. All I want is for us to have coverage that makes sense, and isn't a mess organisationally. If you haven't noticed, organisation and copy-editing are the most of what I do here, because I think they are important to the reader. Given that, all this PoV on every side feels like too much to deal with. Regardless, please continue to make good edits in this area. Yours are always appreciated. RGloucester 23:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers from me, too, VM. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Great to see you three getting all warm and fuzzy again!Haberstr (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
There's no reason for you to be obnoxious. It won't accomplish anything. RGloucester 15:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You have an extremely low threshold for obnoxious. Lighten up!Haberstr (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Rescue mission[edit]

Hi, Volunteer Marek. Would you please review my ageing DYK nom submission if you get a minute? I feel that after an altercation with a problem user in talk (long archived), it is now slated for oblivion like dozens of already abandoned noms since June 24. Thanks in advance for your help, Poeticbent talk 00:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Noticeboard about POV tag removal[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Here: [2].

Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014 and Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity[edit]

You deleted information that others and I regard valuable about the open letter to Angela Merkel without discussion. Since there is an edit war both at Russian invasion of Ukraine 2014 and at Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity I ask for an outside view at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law. I guess it's best if we find uninvolved users who decide without previous bad feelings. Galant Khan (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


I have recently noticed that User:Haberstr has been Canvassing in an attempt to gain support for their case in Arbitration Requests. I noticed that you were the nominator for the Arbitration request and I wanted to notify you. I will also be warning Haberstr. Thank you for your time. SantiLak (talk) 01:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Sun[edit]

So, I don't even know where to start given the obvious tension surrounding this Ukraine thing. I will put it in simple terms: instead of "fighting" me, why don't you want to cooperate? Ukrainian soldiers do use Nazi symbols and so does the Svoboda Party. It is a fact, it documented by reliable sources. If you think the wording of my contribution is not correct, I have no reason to doubt it, I trust your judgment, but why not propose a better wording instead of deleting the whole thing without even talking about it? I really hope that you will pick up this olive branch and you will choose to cooperate, which is what Wikipedia in theory is all about. Hopeful regards for an amicable solution. --Mondschein English (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is one "volunteer" battalion which apparently uses it. The text you're inserting tries very to make it seem like this is widespread or something. It's not. Volunteer Marek  15:26, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, I just went by what I see on your everyday news sources, AP, Reuters, etc.: that ‘’Black Sun’’ crap is *ubiquitous*!!
you say that the Black Sun is only used by these Azov battalion soldiers, or whatever their name is, I have no reason to doubt your word: let’s then make sure that we clearly state that in the article in order to avoid having readers think that every single Western Ukrainian is a Nazi. Once again that black sun crap seems to be *EVERYWHRE*. I just want to make sure that the fact that we are supporting, financing, arming Nazis and Anti-Semites is out there for people to read about. Do we want to support the government in Kiev? Sure, but let’s at least put a caveat in it: either y’all get rid of those Nazi rats, or y’all won’t get a single penny form us!
Now, please, allow me to explain to you where I am coming from: I am a first generation American of Swiss/Austrian background and when I see certain symbols (BTW both the symbol used by the Azov folks and the one used by the Svoboda party are illegal in Germany, being Nazi symbols) I get a certain amount of fear. My grandparents and some of my great-uncles died before and during the war. I have one great-uncle, who was basically a grandpa to me, who was taken to Concentration Camps *TWICE*: the first time as a political prisoner in the late 30’s, and the second time in the spring of 1945 when he was captured by volunteer SS (I think from Eastern Europe, possibly the Ukraine) and almost shot right there on the spot. He miraculously came back. Many did not. We all know that part of history. That being said, is Putin widely publicizing the presence of these Nazi scumbags among Western Ukrainians in order to gain sympathy from anti-fascists all over the world? Very likely, he is indeed a politician, what can anybody expect?
If you have read this far, thanks for reading.
Last but not least: are you under the impression I might be this User:Звонок Путину guy? I have no idea who that might be. I thought that was Russian, but Google Translator gave me “Up To Putin”, which makes very little sense: what is “up to Putin”? Then I tried Ukrainian and it said “Call Putin”… I am still at a loss… What is that supposed to mean? Why would anybody want to call Putin?
I see where you are coming from, now, you thought I was a sock puppet fighting all battles, or something, hence your not very friendly attitude… I am not that guy though, I speak no Ukrainian and no Russian, aside from the obvious, Vodka, da, nyet, Pivo, etc. I am just an old time editor on the German Wikipedia (one of the few to be given the triple Edelweiß award there), the Boarisch Wikipedia, the Alemannisch Wikipedia, the Rumantsch Wikipedia, the Lombardisch Wikipedia (Admin there), and the Italian Wikipedia. That is it. Kind regards, --Mondschein English (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Iwan Moldowan[edit]

He's a sock of Lokalkosmopolit? Hm. I blocked him as a sock of User:Abdurrahman Muslim but didn't raise an SPI. User:Звонок Путину was blocked by another Admin as another sock, as was User:Andrew Stepanovich Gongadze-Kolokowsky (who just called me an FPS operative), User:Ukrainiansummer95 and User:Schwupofakrüneg. Ping me please if you have any comment. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds right. Was definitely Patriot Donbassa/Lokalkosmopolit. It wasn't worth filing an SPI. Volunteer Marek  20:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. At the moment we seem to say there are two separate puppetmasters and we are underplaying Patriot's socking. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Do you have some kind of an obsession with that user? You are reverting helpful edits - I mean this one [3], as well as unhelpful changes. A sysop really should know better... Advice Polack (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for piping here "Advice Polack". Now someone might notice you and block you for the offensive username, for obvious trolling, for disruption and possible sock puppetry. Volunteer Marek  21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Russo-Ukrainian War[edit]

A tag has been placed on Russo-Ukrainian War requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G6 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an orphaned disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates two or fewer extant Wikipedia pages and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic); or
  • disambiguates no (zero) extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

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 "Click here to 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 removed 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. RGloucester 17:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  • This is clearly controversial, with people removing and adding entries, so I have declined speedy delete, It can be nominated on WP:MFD though. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment ordering[edit]

Just a personal opinion, I think this comment may be better placed at the bottom of the section, rather than threading and fragmenting the discussion. Stickee (talk) 00:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your comments at ANI. Some sanity in the face of some really weird stuff. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

NP. Volunteer Marek  14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
See User talk:Sitush#Explanation. Dougweller (talk) 15:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


At what point do you think the socking that's going on at MH17 rises to the level that would justify a SPI? Do you think it should wait until it becomes more annoying, more obvious, or is it ripe now? Geogene (talk) 14:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Massive Expansion of Poles in Ukraine article[edit]

Hello, I thought I'd let you know that I've done a massive expansion of the Poles in Ukraine article, largely rewriting it. Any further contributions or changes you can provide would be welcome (I did not touch, for example, the Chłopomania movement).Faustian (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

October 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Free City of Danzig may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • into the [[Kingdom of Prussia]] in 1814, after Napoleon's defeat at the [[Battle of Leipzig]] ([[Battle of Nations]] by a coalition that included Russia, Austria and Prussia.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Reverting edits on Donetsk Page with out citing source[edit]

Please give your reason for reverting edits on the Donetsk page with out giving any sources.Elevatorrailfan (talk) 03:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fairly much self-explanatory, Elevatorrailfan. Don't make up WP:OR WP:BOLLOCKS about 'de jour' and 'de facto' states where they don't exist. Any more questions? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Off wiki "Fan Page"[edit]

It looks like you have added further comments to your initial one [4], while you were logged out, but I'm not sure if it was you who did? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that wasn't me. Looks just like a new user who's a little confused about how to post comments to the talk page just put their message right on top of mine. No opinion on whether their claim is correct or no. Volunteer Marek  17:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Congratulations on your "block-buster" score of 5. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
I would've been disappointed by anything less. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You can blame me[edit]

I'm sorry you freaked out. Tennispompom and I veered off into a different discussion in that same section, so I separated our section where we were discussing. Your old comment was still there at the bottom and you came in and freaked out. If you look at the section you closed, there are new discussions started below. The only thing out of place is your one comment. USchick (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "RT Network". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 27 October 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 14:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: Failing to recognize that the Neutrality of the article is not fulfilled[edit]

PLEASE answer on the talk page of the rt article, there is an identical post under this headline, thank you.

As of now Ymblanter is the only editor who understands in some sense the glaring hypocrisy of this article. Being new to this kind of kindergarten, NPOV denialism is quite instructive for me in as to how wikipedia works. Most disputes should be made evident for any casual reader of wikipedia. Instead editors try to hide behind a consensus made by editors who partly have VERY strong views about Ukraine/Russia and seem to be so desperate in their war like thinking as to becoming blind to any challenge to their views, dismissing it out of hand with bogus accusation of NPOV pushing and removing the NPOV tag (Volunteer Marek)(Iryna Harpy).

For once find some facts not some he/she said expert. I am sure many people, including myself, are very interested in finding out facts in the organisational structure, modus operandi actual work related misconduct that is systematic to this organization and the implications for its reporting. By failing to do that and just asserting names like "propaganda" you know fully well you are becoming an propaganda combatant with his/her own agenda; you absolutely understand that for most people "propaganda" has a negative connotation (not even to mention the Etymology, it will conveniently discourage any serious discussion/contention with the organization itself and/or its published information). Guess what? articles on the "BBC" and "CNN" etc. don't feature this quality name, except they fully satisfy your definition of propaganda (as in pushing a certain line favourable to their owners, which dosn't imply that the narrative is necessarily wrong because the "forces of darkness" i.e. Kremlin is behind it or necessarily right because the "forces of light" i.e. the white house or benign businessmen are pushing it) but aren't declared as propaganda tools. The reason for this is quite normal in that editors of these articles are "just like you" similar cultural background, views, interests, similar tendency in evaluation and similar ideology.

And here comes the kicker the article for "China Central Television" doesn't feature a propaganda introduction - the article for "Broadcasting Board of Governors" doesn't either. The only concern (BBG) for english-language editors under the "criticism" section is just that the agency is intransparent/ineffective and the counterpoint is that "conservatives" don't like the liberal orientation of it.

How come that almost every article on "western media" [maybe seemingly] reads like a discription of a toilet paper factory with beautiful smiling people in it and the articles on "cctv" especially "rt" [maybe seemingly] reads like a script of (history) accusations [the obligatory picture of Mr.Medvedev and Mr.Putin behind the scenes, having a watchful eye on the operations] ---> rebutal of rt, (organization) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (On-air staff) "oh look how unsatisfied/unprofessional they look and oh look how they are very friendly with Mr.Putin [the personified Satan cough, cough]" , (Reception) accusation ---> rebutal of rt, (criticism, disgruntled employee) accusation ---> rebutal of rt and finally we have to concede they are very good at their propaganda --> professional awards. Something wrong with this picture?.

The entire purpose of the article seems to demonize, sow distrust and make the reader feel like "rt" is a virus ready to take other your mind. This is so obvious you achieve the exact opposite. Instead of infantilizing the casual reader of wikipedia get a grip on facts (and not this pathetic, yés but we have reliable sources like some NGOs and the State Department and our consensus is...). You appear like employees for the Ministry of Truth. This is plainly pathetic.Spotter 1 (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of well referenced text[edit]


I noticed that you removed well referenced text at Demonization of Vladimir Putin to replace it with redirect. If you think there are issues with wiki policies, please be so kind to point to them at article's talkpage. Don't remove text about notable topic cited by reliable sources. Thanks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

You again removed referenced text at Demonization of Vladimir Putin. Please don't repeat it. If your point of view is correct you will easily reach consensus at AfD you initiated. Don't kill the article by removing its text, either completely or partially. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Look, the article is based on a bunch of non-notable opinion pieces and editorials. Those are not reliable sources, even if you "attribute it". There's millions of editorials written every day and you can't use them to synthesize an encyclopedia article. AfD is about one thing, POV and non-reliable sources are another. Volunteer Marek  08:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed this edit of yours (diff). No doubt you know delphinos are unrelated to the topic of this article, so your edit can be only seen as your another attempt to compromise this article. Please be so kind to stop with your disruptive actions and revert youreslf. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The "demonization" articles[edit]

I'm curious: why did you start an AfD discussion for Demonization of Vladimir Putin but not for Demonization of United States? The latter duplicates at least two articles, Criticism of the United States government and Anti-Americanism, whereas the former does not duplicate any articles, as far as I know. That means that a much better case can be made for deleting the US-demonization article than for deleting the Putin-demonization article. Yet you start a deletion process against the latter but not the former. Why is that? – Herzen (talk) 09:38, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The Demonization of US article was started - or at least I did not become aware of it - after the AfD. In fact I think (I'd have to check though) it was started by the same editor as a sort of a WP:POINT. Don't worry, that one is getting AfD soon too. Volunteer Marek  17:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, he put up that "Please don't rush to nominate it for deletion" tag up on the US one. Volunteer Marek  18:05, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the clarification. Sorry to intrude on your Talk page. Yes, it does seem to be a case of POINT (a concept I only learned about recently). In case you didn't notice, my take on the Putin demonization article is that an article with such a title/subject is unencyclopedic, and its content should go into the Russophobia article. I was surprised to find that there is an article on Russophobia, and, sure enough, there is a discussion underway to rename it to "Anti-Russian sentiment". Finally, the Demonizing the enemy article should go as well. Demonizing the enemy is one propaganda technique among many; it doesn't deserve its own article. – Herzen (talk) 19:21, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning RT Network, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, User:TransporterMan (talk) 12:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Your edit[edit]

Regarding this edit: Th quote WhisperToMe added was inside the ref tag, so it wouldn't be in the article anyway. Stickee (talk) 04:42, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake. Feel free to revert. Volunteer Marek  04:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I don't want to create the appearance of an edit war over it. Perhaps a self-rev? Stickee (talk) 04:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Olympics edit[edit]

Given your edit to the Winter Olympics ceremony page, I invite you to comment on a RfC that I started to discuss that change once it had been reverted, located on Talk:2014 Winter Olympics opening ceremony. 331dot (talk) 08:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is RT (TV Network)...neutral feedback desperately needed!.The discussion is about the topic neutrality of lede. Thank you. --Kenfree (talk) 22:23, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Offensive edits[edit]

Please stop labeling people you don't like with "ultra nationalist", "neo nazi", "anti-semitic", etc. tags. For example, the way you did it here [5] can be viewed as vandalism and intentional disruption and slander. Because as an experienced editor you certainly knew that you were violating WP:BLP because it didn't matter what some website said about some party who allegedly "supported Alexei Mozgovoy". I will report you to admins if you don't stop. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "labeling", the sources are. No, it cannot be viewed as "vandalism" nor "intentional disruption" and "slander" (you're not making a legal threat are you?). The source is reliable and it says it right there. Report away if you wish. Volunteer Marek  03:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
It's a threat to report you to admins with links to every time you labelled someone as "neo nazi". In this paticular case, your source is for the party that "supports him" (whatever it means). The source has nothing to do with Mozgovoy personally, it doesn't mention him. (And the source is not reliable, too.) And by the way, the party is not antisemitic. Read their program: [6], I have found it especially for you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 03:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
See the additional sources in the article. Volunteer Marek  04:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
1. The sources don't mention Mozgovoy. 2. To explain about the party, as far as I know, the LDPR party was more extreme long ago, but I still don't think it was ever antisemitic. Their leader does many humorous statements, so a person who don't get jokes may accuse him of anything, but this doesn't mean that the party is anywhere near extremist. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:13, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Well, then don't put the LDPR party in the article unless there is a source for it. But if it's in the article, it's nature should be clarified. As to the second part, see the sources I added to the article. Volunteer Marek  04:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the one who put it in the article. Let's just delete all mention of him being "supported" the parties, okay? --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
I've just noticed you already removed the whole unreferenced sentence. Thank you! --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:33, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
Glad we've worked that out. Volunteer Marek  04:36, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 8 November[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:36, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Your behavior.[edit]

I have asked you many times to stop offensive behavior and personal attacks.This was done with kindness and with hope that you could stop and engage constructively on Wikipedia. Not just today but many months ago[7] and several times.Unfortunately not only you are engaging in continued attacks, but have also engaged in threats now as well. For sake of our old work together, I really don't want to do this, but if you continue to act this way, I will have to ask for official intervention. This is my last request to stop the incivility and attacks. Kind regards.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 02:54, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not what you have done. You've just started crying "personal attack!" whenever I disagreed with you or critized your behavior (duly). You are of course free to ask for any kind of official intervention, but somehow I have a feeling I'll come out of that much better than you. And really, accusing someone of "engag(ing) in threats", while posting threats to their talk page is ... I dunno, silly, hypocritical, unproductive, stupid, bad faithed, and a few other things. Volunteer Marek  02:59, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
I am not threatening you.I am asking you to stop personal attacks and threats that you constantly engage in(I asked you for this months ago).--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 03:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
One more time. I have not made any threats or personal attacks. In fact, I've refrained on numerous occasions from reporting you, because of past friendship. But you've pretty much used up all the "Get Out of Jail Free" cards or whatever on that score. Assuming good faith can go so far, when evidence clearly contradicts it. On the other hand, "I will have to ask for official intervention. This is my last request" damn well sounds like a threat to me. And your comments on AE? I'm still dizzy and questioning whether I'm not actually asleep and dreaming, after reading those words. Volunteer Marek  03:19, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

GamerGate neutrality[edit]

I apologize for putting this here, but the talk page on GamerGate is protected.

There has recently been a massive edit war over this thing, including my own personal shaming by Ryulong who claimed I was a sockpuppet (I'm not) and petitioned my ban for suggesting he might be biased on the GamerGate talk page. I had to justify that indeed I exist, and I'm a real person, for a comment on a talk page. That indeed had a chilling effect, and tainted this article. Had Ryulong not tried to actively ban and shame editors who disagreed with him, I might let this one go. But the fact is, the vast majority of the websites being used as sources are either the very ones alleged to be involved in corruption, or freelancers (or freelance editors) alleged to be involved in corruption writing for more respectable websites. Which, I'm fine with... because such is the nature of Wikipedia; it is particularly susceptible to media corruption in niche beat press. By all means, reflect that in the article. However, I think this controversy is clearly ongoing and will probably escalate during the Christmas shopping season. I humbly suggest letting things cool off a bit before "settling" the matter of neutrality. Lasati (talk) 05:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Re: Your edit on Euromaidan[edit]

? ThanksWikidgood (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

21st century economic migration of Poles[edit]

I am mostly done - I think it's good enough for a DYK, but please feel free to expand, correct, etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. Volunteer Marek  07:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Kenfree (talk) 17:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. USchick (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

History of Pomerania[edit]

I removed these article improvement tags a second time as there has been no discussion in talk for many months. If you feel there is a current problem there, please raise it at article talk in the first instance. --John (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Look at the talk page. There's plenty of discussion. Do you expect me to write the same thing all over again? Additionally, there are factual mistakes with the article. Basic ones, like names of regions. These haven't been fixed. Why are you removing those tags as well?  Volunteer Marek  19:17, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I've looked at the talk page. Most of the stuff there is from two years ago. I expect you to give me a clue as to what you think is currently wrong with the article. If there are factual errors in the article, why not fix them rather than keep reverting an ancient tag into it? --John (talk) 19:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, nothing has changed in those two years. There have been a couple attempts at clean up (by other users) but those were quickly reverted by the same person who refused to improve the article in the first place. I don't have the time, to write the same thing over again. Nor do I necessarily have time to fix the errors. That in no way changes the fact that these errors are still in the article. Errors don't magically fix themselves just because they get old. Volunteer Marek  19:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I see. Do you have time to briefly explain to me what the errors are and what the other problems you have identified are? It's only fair to point out that this has now cost both of us more time than if you had just posted at talk in the first place, but ok. --John (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. Ok. Gimme a day or two and I'll sit down and go over it again (I'll leave the tags out for now). Volunteer Marek  19:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. --John (talk) 22:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Labeling everything pro-Russian as "nationalist extremist"[edit]

Could you stop randomly labeling "pro-Russian" people and organizations as "nationalist extremist"? [8]. Like really, I saw the words "nationalist extremist" in the article and I immediately looked in the edit history to see whether it were you. --Moscow Connection (talk) 20:02, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not labeling "pro-Russian" people and organizations as "nationalist extremist". I am labeling nationalist extremist organizations as "nationalist extremist". They are nationalist, yes? They are, banned and they represent the fringe, and they were founded by a collection of far right and anti-semitic personas, yes? They are nationalist extremist. Volunteer Marek  20:04, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
No. Yes, banned by Ukraine, and no. It's not so. --Moscow Connection (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes. My very best wishes (talk) 05:12, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Are you seriously claiming that they are not nationalist?  Volunteer Marek  05:20, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
"the nationalist is he who supports his people in an unjust cause". According to the source, these guys are worse, they are modern-day Nazi, and yes, they are nationalists as well. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)


Why did you remove my comment? --AmaryllisGardener talk 20:10, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I got like three edit conflicts in trying to post mine and I must have accidentally cut yours when I was copy/pasting. Volunteer Marek  21:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
No problem. --AmaryllisGardener talk 21:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe[edit]

Please would you contribute to Talk:List of sovereign states and dependent territories in Europe#Should there be a list of so-called "partially recognised states".-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk and Donetsk Oblasts[edit]

The official websites linked on the infobox. It still shows Luhansk as the de jure capital (on the Luhansk Oblast website) and Donetsk as the de jure capital (on the Donetsk Oblast website). Also stop changing the map to your POV version, Crimea is a disputed region and should be depicted as such. --Leftcry (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 11, 2014, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Ks0stm (TCGE) 22:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Russian casualties[edit]

That's not how Wikipedia works and my personal feelings have nothing to do with it. The reliable sources that you cite (Reuters) are actually the media which are relaying the claims. That does not make the claims themselves automatically reliable. Not to mention one of those media is Kyivpost which is non-neutral in this conflict. The claim of 2,000 is made by the top Ukrainian military spokesman (non-neutral), as for the 4,000 it is made by a HR activist, which is the claim relayed by the previously mentioned Kyivpost, and also by the very language of that HR activist it can be seen she is anti-Putin and anti-Kremlin thus she is also non-neutral. Wikipedia is based on reliability and neutrality. You have two non-neutral claims and one non-neutral media outlet. The claims would have been reliable if they were reported by a Reuters journalist or any other representative of the neutral and reliable media outlets, but that is not the case, they are relaying claims by one of the beligerents in the conflict as well as a claim by a person which is hostile towards the government of one of the beligerents. Need I go on? Besides the HR activist actually claimed in her original statement that 4,000 Russian soldiers and MERCENARIES (non-neutral language) died... So its not Russian Army casualties exclusively that are talked about, with which the infobox deals with only. EkoGraf (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The article has a talk page. Please discuss there rather than here. Volunteer Marek  03:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I did. And again, when we talk about reliable sources during a conflict we mean the un-biased neutral media. Not beligerents, persons hostile to one of the beligerents or media outlets belonging to one of the beligerents. EkoGraf (talk) 03:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

3RR on Crimea[edit]

WP:DTTR so consider this a 3rr warning on Crimea. Gave one to Leftcry as well. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. But come on. This is a fairly new but experienced WP:SPA (with a bit of Whitney Houston thrown in for good measure) dedicated to pushing a particular line. Based on [9] [10] compared to [11] [12] I'm guessing it's User:LokiiT who's got a history of sock puppeting. It'd be a strange coincidence otherwise. Not sure why his last one [13] only earned the sock a block. Volunteer Marek  06:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Suggest that you do a WP:SPI report - we can do without POV socks like him/her.-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Woah there. My account has nothing to do with User:LokiiT. If there is any way I can prove it I am ready to do so as I have nothing to hide. --Leftcry (talk) 05:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this, this and this looks suspicious My very best wishes (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Please refer to this message. If you're going to accuse me of sockpuppeting then you have an obligation to follow through with it. Otherwise this is merely harassment, which you have a documented history of as well. LokiiT (talk) 05:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
You tell: "If you're going to accuse...". Yes, sure. There is a big "if" because I did not accuse you of anything. My very best wishes (talk) 06:21, 5 December 2014 (UTC)


Elevatorrailfan (talk · contribs) has been editwarring a number of articles, inappropriately adding country infoboxes to non-country articles [14], [15]. I warned him on his talk page that he should seek consensus first on the article talk page, to no avail. I note his edit warring on the Donetsk article too. --Nug (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png I guess you can do with one of these. Drmies (talk) 04:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: - Thanks, it was actually much closer than I expected. For awhile there it almost seemed like we had you. For two quarters it was the team from last year all over again. Unfortunately, for the other two quarters, it was still the team from this year. Good luck with the championshipS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Thanks Marek. Yes, it was a nailbiter. Good luck finding a new defensive coordinator, and I hope y'all get a juicy bowl game. I had a few pleasant interactions on Saturday morning (out shopping) with some Auburn fans: they're people too, I discovered! Drmies (talk) 14:58, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at DRN:Malaysia Airlines Flight 17. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Antonioptg (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for that edit. The idea of "control 'passing' to Russia" made me laugh. RGloucester 22:00, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

IP editor[edit]

You've recently reverted a IP editor who was trying to push his POV that Occupied territories of Georgia was biased. He/she has returned and is asserting that the article reflects only the view of some political party. Also he/she insists that the history section does not reflect the background while the article is part of the series on the Russo-Georgian war and reflects only the aftermath of the war. He/she suggests that all information that is critical of Russia should be removed. --UA Victory (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2014 (UTC)