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)

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)