User talk:Volunteer Marek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Your big red button[edit]

Your script for finding unsourced BLPs is a great idea but over half of the ones it kicks out are not eligible for BLPPROD because of their creation date. I had to start using Twinkle to automate the check. You might want to edit the script to check creation date. Otherwise... I love it! JBH (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not my script, I lifted it off another user's page, but I agree it's great. I'll see if I can find out who first made it and let them know about checking the creation date.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I looked into the templates used and I might be wrong. I think PROD reason-Unsourced BLP and a BLPPROD are two different things so maybe it is a non-issue. JBH (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
I think it sends the worst possible message to people. A link to WP:BEFORE would be better. Or to the Cleanup Listings. Encourage new editors to delete stuff isn't ever going to end well. The-Pope (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

SWH® talk[edit]

Hey, all citations are given to extremely reliable sources. Please give your reasons on talk rather than removing because "you don't feel like it". SWH® talk 03:36, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope, a lot of that was unsourced and you sneaked in some stuff, as well as removed other sourced material. And I did start a discussion on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
You should realize that lead section should summarize the article's content. And I didn't sneaked in some stuff. Your accusations are groundless and assumed bad faiths. "Other sourced materials" were added by myself when the international studies were absent. SWH® talk 05:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Ok. Just leave it. Now I added sources in the lead. SWH® talk 06:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice[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. -YMB29 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I saw your revert and added some commentary to the talk page regarding the use of the word "forcible" in the annexation of Crimea lead in. I am sure you made a good faith revert and would like to discuss the matter further. Best... Lipsquid (talk) 05:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Have you seen this AfD candidate? -- Nug (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Covert United States foreign regime change actions". 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 26 February 2015.

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. 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Polish United Workers' Party flag[edit]

For the Polish United Workers flag I gave a source for the flag. I understand that you don't think the source is reliable but that is just your POV, unless there is a source that says that the flag that I added, I personally think that there is no reason for it to be removed. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 07:14, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Whether a source is reliable or not is not a matter of POV but a matter of whether or not it satisfies the criteria at WP:RS. This doesn't look like it. And it's not to others to come up with a source which says your source is wrong, it's up to you to show that your source is reliable. You can bring it up to WP:RSN and ask for input. But because the onus here is on you, please don't start edit warring without actual discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. My apologizes. Elevatorrailfan (talk) 20:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin[edit]

Do you think this Wikipedia:Requests for page protection would help? The vandal has the ability to IP hop, so blocking his/her IP will not stop him/her. How long should we ask for page protection?-- Toddy1 (talk) 06:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless it's permanent semi it won't help. He'll wait it out or just create accounts. Pending revisions would help but I don't know if that can be put in for this article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Covert United States foreign regime change actions, 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anti-Katyn, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memorial society (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Murder of Boris Nemtsov[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Boris_Nemtsov&diff=649783334&oldid=649782567 Xx234 (talk) 07:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Nemtsov - political positions etc.[edit]

Hi Marek. This is an article many editors have been filing at, tempers getting quite high at times. I have repeatedly tried to introduce new mini-headings and have been "shot down" by more than one co-editor. What I want to say: every word there has been published with a LOT of work and consideration. Erasing large bits is not always appreciated.

I.e.: the "political positions". It is very relevant who he was politically. I don't think his appetite for young blondes got him killed. Nor was he of any significance as a private person and single citizen. So his political positions certainly ARE important, so much so that they belong in the lead (or lede, whatever). Apart from logic, there seems to be a consensus about it - which isn't always self-understood :)

There is a long paragraph on his political career further down, but that's smth. else. We're speaking here about the lead, which even a hurried reader would look at.

About the bold pseudo-headings: as people add to the article daily, I tried bringing in some order, so that single topics don't get scrambled together. But creating proper ==Headings== splits that bit away from the lead, which is NOT what's required here, as I have hinted at already. It's part of the "in a nutshell" lead, still.

OK, that's my two pennies' worth of opinion. Have a nice day - or shall I rather say miłego dnia? :) Arminden (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)Arminden

Thanks for the note and I understand your reasoning. The problem is that the lede is suppose to summarize information rather than be a list of stuff. It should probably only mention only the most significant positions he's held.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Anti-Katyn[edit]

It's a disaster. I have corrected several basic errors.Xx234 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps a sock?[edit]

Hi,
I'd like a second opinion before collating hundreds of diffs and taking this to SPI, and few opinions could be better than yours. Is it possible that Zozs is a Jacob Peters sock? I think there are strong similarities in both the editing style and the POV being pushed. What do you think? Maybe I'm too close to this problem to get a good perspective. bobrayner (talk) 22:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

There are similarities and the thought occurred to me. But there seems to be one key difference in the POVs being pushed. Zozs wants to argue that "Stalinism wasn't real Communism, it was capitalism in disguise" (or that Marxism-Leninism wasn't) if I read them correctly. Jacob Peters on the other hand loves his Stalinism, and would probably take issue with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That's a good point, thanks; but [1] isn't exactly distancing Stalin from the shining light of true Communism, and edits like this seem to underline (at length) that Stalin was Marxist-Leninist and that M-L is communism. Hmm. Are there any other good "tells" for Jacob Peters socks? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you accept such language?[edit]

Dont be a jerk and stop following me around with jerkish POV. Take it to the talk page if you disagree with the sources, and dont revert me again, this is your last warning? Xx236 (talk) 10:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Where? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Voice of America Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Eh. Shrug.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hurray for sanction alerts[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

Bosstopher (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration[edit]

I mentioned you.[2]

Dear0Dear 22:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source[edit]

I wouldn't cite RT on a controversial issue, just as I would not cite The Economist. These are all opinions. All media have bias. For articles that are political or have controversies, a reliable source would be research, poles, documents, images, and not opinion pieces written by RT or The Economist. In the article on RT I see people adding criticism to intro which is the OPINION of many (including myself). But it repulses the reader and puts the article's neutrality in question.

Wikipedia a great source for topics that are not subjective, but when it comes to subjective issues, even admins have opinions.209.59.105.237 (talk) 08:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Russia Today has had several newscasters resign on air after they could not stomach its lies (3 mentioned by The Guardian[3]). Russia Today has been declared disinformation by the EU, about the last time its member states could agree on anything.[4].
  • Newscasters resign daily from tens of media outlets throughout the world. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. You fail to remember that news media, whether RT or Guardian, MInd or Telemundo, all exist because they write/show what its readers/viewers want to hear/see. The mere title "Most memorable moments" should had been a dead giveaway to you that it was no other than a entertainment piece, at best wonderful piece of gossip. I would expect respectable press outlets to use "Most memorable moments" to highlight accomplishments, awards, prizes and the like. I don't have a lot of respect for a magazine that makes its living by bashing other media. It seems you do. The "they could not stomach it lies", based as it is on such isolated cases, are a perfect example of the POV that the above anon IP 209.59.105.237 is precisely attempting to bring to light. Journalists with personal biases should not be talking on newscasters jobs if they are weak at maintaining neutrality. An undeniable fact is that each of those 3 journalists proves that freedom of speech is well and alive in RT, or the network would had pulled the plug on each one of them midstream during their 15 seconds of glory, right? Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I would just delete trolls, Marek. (C.f. Al Jazeera [5])
Dear0Dear 10:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Uuug? And just what is that link supposed to prove or disprove? Do we use RT stories to disprove Fox? Or AlJezzera to disprove Univision? Perhaps BBC to disprove NHK? So why are you using AlJezzera to bash RT? What a bunch of nonsense! Wake up, they all lack objectivity and it is up to you to scan the various media channels and draw your own conclusions...or does you mommy still feed you baby food so you won't choke up? (LOL) Grow up! What the hell is that link suppose to prove, ODear, other than you haven't outgrown your kindergarten indoctrination? That was fine back then, but now you need to think for yourself. When dealing with controversial issues (Crimea, gay marriage, the Keystone pipeline - you name it), the media from each of both sides will be biased; it is up to you to draw your own informed conclusions. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
There are no both sides. Xx236 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Not that I consider Poles to be unreliable, but if you meant polls, then those can certainly be biased and thus unreliabe. Lklundin (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps, but do we nail the anon IP 209.59.105.237's perfectly fair reasoning above just because he erred in 1 of 4 entries, or do we show good citizenship and praise him because he was 75% correct in his list - and over 100% correct in his good faith? Again, when RT-phobia overcomes someone, it seems that even the best citizens among us have a hard time using a bit of common sense to apply the WP:NPOV rule... to themselves! Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RT ad of the month too trivial[edit]

Thanks for pointing out the "of the month" part. I hadnt seen it in that light before. Mercy11 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

buk[edit]

Hi marek, with this edit you accidentely removed my comment as well. In case the discussion continues you could perhaps restore it. No harm done. Ellywa (talk) 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Party Status[edit]

Speaking only for myself and not for the arbitrators or the other clerks, I think that the reason for identifying someone as a party is to give them the right to post 1000 words of evidence and 100 diffs.

Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party.

Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 arbitration case opened[edit]

Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]

Barnstar of Reversion Hires.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your good work removing sock-puppets who game the system-- Toddy1 (talk) 08:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, well done, Volunteer Marek. I just hope you don't get tired of this Wikipedia version of Whack-a-mole. Lklundin (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nazi Party[edit]

Your source is being disputed. --NeilN talk to me 15:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

SPI[edit]

See the similarity:

  • Haberstr (→‎Crimean public opinion: Restored this part of the Volunteer Marek's senseless revenge revert)
  • Phil070707 (Undid revision 653041362 by Volunteer Marek (talk) stupid revenge revert due to me daring to question him)

-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there is a connection or not, but this guy needs to go to AE. He is making revenge and obviously PoV edits across many articles. RGloucester 18:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it's two different people who are in communication with one another. There's similarities in rhetoric and things they say but the fundamental style is different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It's obviously not a new user but based on that alone it's hard to pin point it. Some of the other IPs on those page are obviously the same person but there are a couple which are not (the one with interest in Albanian stuff for example).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SPA/SP alert[edit]

Have any ideas about who this is? I'm sure it is one of the usual characters. RGloucester 06:07, 7 April 2015 (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. Thank you. Tobby72 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milton Friedman, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bretton-Woods (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon[edit]

As a listed party to this case, this is a notification that the evidence phase of this case is closing soon on 14 April. If you have additional evidence that you wish to introduce for consideration, it must be entered before this date. On behalf of the committee, Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC).

Reference errors on 12 April[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) 00:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 April[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) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed[edit]

The evidence phase is now closed on the American Politics 2 arbitration case, which you are a named party to. You are welcome to add proposals at the workshop. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Reason?[edit]

Why did you revert my edit?

This section is about the organization funding. The comparison to the BBC is not on topic, and only serves to try and imply something about RT funding by making a vague comparison between different organization (from different countries, with different structure). --77.127.242.49 (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI, I have logged (to avoid the roaming ip issue). Again I have removed the comparison. It has nothing to with RT budget, but tries to imply the POV that Russia gov funding of RT isn't that great based on a superficial comparison of the two different organization budgets. (Even though RT initiative budget comes as separate and on top of the usual tv\radio taxation) --Elysans (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

The source makes that comparison explicitly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phrase[edit]

Hello Volunteer Marek, the workshop phase on the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, has been extended to 24 April 2015. This is the best opportunity to express your analysis of the evidence presented in this arbitration case. For the Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

American politics 2 workshop phase closed[edit]

The workshop phase of the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to, is now closed. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 April[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) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External debt[edit]

Check [6], dating varies, there is no fixed date for all countries that were listed until yesterday.[7] OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 06:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

But the data is from World Bank/IMF, no? That should have the latest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you think that they provide for each of the nation the way cia.gov has done? OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, and their data is better, or at least more frequently used in academic sources [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tomasz Kamusella[edit]

In the change introduced on 19:16, 24 March 2015‎ by User:Volunteer Marek (talk | contribs)‎ . . (10,230 bytes) (-5,125)‎ . . (→‎Books in English: rmv reviews and self published), it is proposed that the titles deleted were of books that were self-published. I wonder if a proof could be given that it is indeed the fact, meaning that the books were self-published.

With regard to the above, it is quite a standard to provide the titles of all the books published by a scholar, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Bauman.

I wonder why you chose to delete all book chapter and articles by T. Kamusella from this entry, while it appears quite a standard element of biographies of scholars, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_Anders_Rudling.

Likewise, is there any guideline on not using book reviews as references commenting on this or that volume? I see, browsing that many Wikipedia biographies use book reviews in this way, also in the main body of the entry, eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo_Fox.

And if you want an example of an article that makes the fullest use of all the aforementioned elements plus many others, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snje%C5%BEana_Kordi%C4%87.

Personally, I believe that articles on scholars and researchers should let Wikipedia readers to access the former's research. In this way Wikipedia functions as a portal to knowledge. Does it make sense to limit this portal, making it in a small hole through which one can hardly see anything.

Last but not least, why did you choose to bowdlerize the entry on T. Kamusella? There are many other biographies of scholars, which could be cut down to the size preferred by you. But is the size preferred by other Wikipedia users, as well?

User:Hyrdlak 13:10, May 5, 2015 (GMC)

Dear Volunteer Marek,

I see that you persist in bowdlerizing this entry. I propose you take a minute and read through my reasons of undoing your changes. I would be happy to hear your arguments why you disagree with me, as long as they are supported by proofs. Otherwise, I propose to refer our disagreement to another editor. Regarding your latest May 18, 2015, please, feel free to point out and improve on any fragments that seem to be too resume-like to you. Don't bowdlerize this entry.

User:Hyrdlak 14:21, May 18, 2015 (GMC)

First, Kamusella does not compare to either Bauman or Rudling in terms of importance. For a very minor academic who barely passes the threshold of notability, the article in your version goes out of its way to promote him and his works. Only the most important books and articles should be listed. The article should not read like a resume or a CV, which it does now. This is an encyclopedia, not LinkedIn or a similar site. Please don't remove the tag until the problem is addressed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:56, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 May[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) 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by external debt[edit]

I think we should not remove the list altogether just because it is not up-to-date. We should update it without removing. Removing the list won't do any help. Thank you Supdiop talk 18:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

So in other words, you think it's better to have factually incorrect info in an encyclopedia, rather than no info at all? Did I mention the word "encyclopedia"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It is not incorrect information. There is a difference between incorrect info and old info. We should note the point that not all the info is old, some info is up-to-date. In my opinion we should leave the info as it is until someone updates it. Maybe latest information is not available. We may leave a note that all info is not up-to-date in the article. We can change the year mentioned in the article to the correct year in which the info is taken from. I think having old information is better than having no information. Thank you. Supdiop talk 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tito[edit]

Hello, thank you for your edit on Tito. However, whatever modification you make to the article Tito, user Tuvixer will undo. There is very little that can be done. He has already reverted edits from other users (including myself) and discussing with him has proven useless.Silvio1973 (talk) 11:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI notice[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. I don't imagine this will take long. BlusterBlasterkablooie! 11:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]

Not sure if you received this before, but as a matter of form: (apologies if you did)

Commons-emblem-notice.svg This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Balkans, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Stick to consensus-building, please. And please bear in mind one thing: the issue (as far as I'm concerned at least) is not whether those additions are relevant for the article - only whether they're appropriate for the lede. And no less than the very start of it.. -- Director (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously if they're relevant to the article, they should also be mentioned in the lede as the lede summarizes the article. Consensus-building works both ways. You can't just veto anything you don't like and expect others to play a fools game of "seeking consensus" when you're not willing to compromise.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
No. The lede summarizes the article. It doesn't mention every single thing in the article. "Obviously". And simply because your position is opposed on the talkpage, doesn't mean anyone is "vetoing" you. Wikipedia works by consensus. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
So what you are saying is that any mention of abuses by Tito's regime is not notable enough to include in the lede. Minor detail that should be swept aside. But obsequious praise about him being a "benevolent dictator" does. Despite the fact that numerous sources were provided. Riiiiggggghhhhhtttt. WP:NPOV?
And from what I see on the talk and in the history of the article is 1) one user who mindlessly reverts any and all changes to the article because... not sure why, they appear to think they WP:OWN it and 2) you, who edit wars to remove any negative information about the subject matter, making up any flimsy bullshit excuse that can be pulled out of one's air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Who were you arguing with? It is MY CURRENT POSITION that we expand the treatment of the negative side of Tito's rule to include repression of political opponents! That is what the OZNA/UDBA did, that is a good summary (for the lede!) of what the sources state. I just don't think that we should go into "the how and the why?" of that repression in the lede - because its a complex issue. It can be argued that would round off the source talking about human rights as well. The "human rights violations" in question was basically the UDBA shutting you up if you oppose the regime, that's it - "repression of political opponents".
The "benevolent dictator" thing can be supported by upwards of two dozen individual scholarly publications! I think I've shown that?? Its been in the article for eons. And not only that, but its qualified with "seen by most as", and its in parentheses. Its FINE, by any standard.
I do NOT mindlessly revert. Up to this recent push by Silvio - I can't recall when I was last even active on the article. Must be months and years. I did edit extensively ages ago, but what I wrote back then has been distorted and jumbled to the point it lost contact with the original sources. Is that OWN? Good luck with that claim..
Similarly, if you honestly think supporting "human rights violations" from sources that don't even mention them isn't OR?? Good luck with that too. And with your fantasy "campaigns of terror" dreamed out of thin air. This is the second sentence of a controversial, and reasonably high-profile article - that kind of "back-alley editing" just won't fly.
I do not accept, for one second, that I'm being biased - even in the slightest. Indeed - it seems most of what you talk about is countering me more than anything else. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusation[edit]

Why have you just simply undone my edit here and responded with an ad hominem accusing me of being a sock puppet?--Hashi0707 (talk) 10:21, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

VDARE[edit]

Why would you remove text which is germane to the article, and without explanation or edit summary? It doesn't pass the smell test. I really hope you're not POV-pushing.

I would second the following opinion, as noted above on your talk page:

Obviously if they're relevant to the article, they should also be mentioned in the lede as the lede summarizes the article. Consensus-building works both ways. You can't just veto anything you don't like and expect others to play a fools game of "seeking consensus" when you're not willing to compromise. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Quis separabit? 01:20, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

It's WP:GEVAL and non-RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I disagree and respectfully submit that this reflects your opinion. If VDARE is not a RS then no comments made in its name should be cited anywhere on Wikipedia. It is fundamentally unfair, unnecessarily rigid and rather illogical to ban from an article about an entity or institution -- which is the target of serious charges -- the defense of itself issued by said entity, even if seen as boilerplate. In any event, I would respectfully argue that the text is permissible -- preferably in the lede, but if not then elsewhere -- under WP:IAR. Quis separabit? 04:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

AN/I[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is POV pushing, removal of sourced material. Thank you. Tobby72 (talk) 22:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Lead section citations[edit]

On Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, I referenced the exact section that applies to lead citations that showed you were wrong, but since you didn't read it, I'll quote it here: "there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads." from WP:CITELEAD. The article is really long, with hundreds of sources. The sentence I tagged with CN has multiple claims, including it being unconstitutional. That deserves a citation. If it is cited in the text, why not just add the reference to the lead? Mnnlaxer (talk) 04:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not indeed?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Because I just dropped by to read the lead and don't know the sources. Like I said, the article is huge. I would be obliged if you either added the source yourself or allowed the CN to stand until someone sourced it. Oh, and acknowledgement of your mistaken impression on lead sourcing would be be nice, too. Mnnlaxer (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation[edit]

Invitation to enter your counsels in Talk:Josip Broz Tito#NPOV formatTeo Pitta (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)