User talk:Volunteer Marek

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

Agreement to mediation[edit]

Would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to the Schiller Institute mediation in the Parties agreement to mediation section on the mediation page? Sunray (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


Wiatrowicz ma władzę na Ukrainie i IPN musi z nim współpracować, czy jest historykiem czy propagandzistą to zupełnie inna sprawa.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)


Artykuł jest naiwny, literatura jednostronna, usuwanie odnośników do literatury to wandalizm.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a good bit of hagiography in the article. It's one of those article that it would take a lot of time and effort to make it encyclopedic. This would involve removing or rewording nonsense from both the UPA-fans and the knee-jerk superficial purely negative descriptions of UPA which are also forced into it. In an alternative universe where I have an infinite amount of time I could make it work. But unfortunately I don't have an infinite amount of time. So for now I'm gonna pass, although I'll note my interest in the article and declare the fact that it's on my watchtlist and if anyone gets too crazy with the POV I'll speak up and revert their ass. One thing thought - the editors who are disagreeing with you on the talk page are good people, although their point of view is different. Rather than just throwing out this "this is all wrong!" kind of stuff, try and approach them in a respectful manner - it's not that you haven't, it's just that your comments are sort of "very assertive". Unlike some other areas of Wikipedia's Eastern European topics this subject can actually be discussed in a reasonable manner (just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're out to get you). I hope it stays that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
Nie będę cytował wyzwisk pod moim adresem, sam je przeczytaj.
Przed laty błędnie podałeś liczby wysiedlonych. Dopóki liczby były wygodne dla Ukraińców nikt ich nie weryfikował. Ja znalazłem ten błąd. Teraz edytorzy zamiast mi dziękować, ewentualnie sprawdzić w literaturze, zarzucają mi korzystanie z ukraińskiego bloga i wstawiają sprawdzić. Żenada.
Co znaczy "trzy okupacyjne potęgi"? Czy okupowana Polska była "okupacyjną potęgą"?
Jak pisze Hrycak - wielu Ukraińców nie jest w stanie znieść prawdy historycznej, więc ją sobie poprawiają.. Ale to jest Wikipedia, której celem nie jest "pokrzepianie serc".
Nie forsuję poglądów polskich nacjonalistów. Wymagam tylko szacunku dla ofiar.
UPA i SB mordowały Ukraińców. Jakoś zabrakło miejsca dla tych niesłusznych ofiar. Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interested in a little challenge?[edit]

Hi VM: "Something Like Elvis" have a pl:Something Like Elvis article and their 2002 album Cigarette Smoke Phantom (soon to be speedy deleted, if not already) gets G-Hits a plenty. Worth looking into, maybe? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammar correction Campaign of Grodno[edit]

Hey there, Marek. Some time ago I created the article about 1705/1706 campaigns in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, namely the Campaign of Grodno. I tried to make the article meet the "good article criteria" but failed in the grammar section (some confusing elements here and there). I know you have corrected many of my article grammars before, and wonder if you'll just have a quick look. The article is 28,981 bytes, and the review is over at the talk page, if you're interested and willing to help out with the grammars I would be really happy. Regards, Imonoz (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
I've started copy editing it. Sometimes when the initial wording is somewhat odd and the meaning unclear, copy edits can change the substance of text - so please look over it and make sure that the essence of the text remains as it should be. I might however make some minor alterations and additions (for example I think it might be worth to note that Patkul ended up executed partly as a result of the failure of the campaign).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much, I will look it through in detail, only thing I've noticed thus far is the siege of Warsaw in 1704, here's the German article about the siege, only there's no article for the siege in English Wikipedia, yet. I think the translating have gone really good and I really appreciate your help, Marek. You should definitely make additions if you like, there might be many smaller details I've missed. Imonoz (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm a little confused on the siege of Warsaw. From what I understand Swedes took it without fighting in early 1704 and then declare Leszczynski king. Then in September 1704 the Saxons took it. But somehow, by July 1705, it was back in Swedish hands [1]. Is that right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
The Swedes took it in 1702 I believe, just before the battle of Kliszów. When Charles and the main army went to attack Lviv in 1704, Agustus quickly attempted to seize Warsaw. However, if I remember correctly, the Swedes were still able to hold the castle in Warsaw. Augustus retreated with his army when Charles were approaching him from Lviv. Later the Battle of Poniec happened as Charles tried to catch the retreating forces. The battle of Warsaw in 1705 was probably not a serious siege attempt as the allies consisted of only cavalry, instead they tried to overwhelm Nieroth and then quickly interrupt the coronation, but I'm not completely sure. Anyways, I'll try to expand the 'lead' or do you want to do it? Imonoz (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some minor adjusting in the article, to check if everything was still accordingly to the sources, as you suggested. I got to say you've done an incredible work with copy editing. On two occasions I changed the grammars a bit:

  • Having secured two quick and decisive victories over his opponents which greatly increased his reputation, in early 1701 Charles marched against the Saxon forces. I put "in early 1701" in the end of the sentence instead.
  • While they disagreed among themselves about their course of action, on January 24 Charles' army appeared before the fortifications of Grodno after its quick march. I put "on January 24" after "fortifications of Grodno".

Now, I don't know if these minor edits I did were grammatically correct, as you're far more superior in English I thought it'd be good telling you, if they're not, you can just re-edit them if you like. Seeing there's some issue with the casualty reference, as per talk, I'm not sure I understand the solution jrcrin001 is suggesting. Will it not work just adding each source from the battle casualties into the article? Like in Gemauerthof 1,900 Swedish and 5,000 Russian, Warsaw 300 Swedish and 1,800 allied, Praga 150 Swedish-Polish and 250 allies, Grodno 100+ Swedish and 17,000 Russian, Fraustadt 1,500 Swedish and 15,000 Saxon, Nesvizh 50 Swedish and 700 Cossack, Lyakhavichy 1,400 Cossack and Kletsk 30 Swedish and 4,000 Cossack-Russian. In all about 4,000 Swedish and 45,000 Russian? I got sources for each of these battles. I don't however, have exact figures for Mitau, Olita or Olkieniki, but shouldn't it be allowed to have a "at least" figure in front of each number? Apart from that I once again want to thank you for helping me out, without your copy editing there's no way on earth this article would ever reach the good criteria. Imonoz (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the suggestion is to have a separate section for "footnotes", where the additional casualty info would go, and a separate one for "References". An alternative solution would be to grab all the references from the relevant articles and put them in one combined citation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I am the reviewer of the Campaign of Grodno article. Some time ago, Piotr brought up that Wikipedia had been cited for the number of casualties during the campaign. You replied about 13
days ago that you would fix this. It has not been fixed yet. The article's review started on June 1, and it should have been done on June 7. I apologize if I seem impatient, but if it not done soon,
I may have to fail the article. Thank you for your work on this article. Feitlebaum (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I have been quite busy lately (plus there's some sporting event on or something), but I'll try to get to fixing the issue tonight or tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Schiller Institute, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Could you fix[edit]

This ref which I believe you added? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Yes check.svg Done OccultZone (Talk) 06:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)


I've expanded for DYK, can you provide the req cite for the one sentence I couldn't verify? Also, could you expand Feliks Młynarski for DYK? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I guess there are about 2 sources for that information, I have added one to the article. I am not that sure but there is some resemblance.
I'm pretty sure this is also in Korboński, with more details, but I don't have the book handy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Feliks Młynarski was also a social thinker. He had written about 29 books, all of them should be added. Wladyslaw Lachert, headed the Bank of Poland, later it was renamed to Bank of Issue GG and chaired by Feliks Mlynarski... There's a lot. I can help. OccultZone (Talk) 11:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

On Mlynarski I'm going to need a bit more time. Busy with other stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I was able to expand, mostly - still can use more, and I couldn't find a source for his UJ job. Also, I started Template:Did you know nominations/Feliks Młynarski, and we could get some nice DYK view hits (and a triple new article DYK) if we can finish Operation Góral - I think I found out most sources for you (didn't look for English mentions in Google Books). I am going to be mostly AFK for a day or two, however... Ping User:Poeticbent. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg I did not find the mention of "Młynarki" in the text of "Siekiera, motyka". Please read it yourself and double-check the source listed as Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
"Mlynarki" aren't mentioned by name, the "Goral" is, which is what the article says. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Go check it out. No mention of "Goral" either. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Those lyrics are incomplete: 1:18.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Nice. Do you have Korbonski's book? Mine's at home and I'm travelling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Karl Marx: is it possible to put USSR and socialism in the same sentence?[edit]

I've read your posts at Talk:Karl Marx with interest. I think The Four Deuces gave a perfect off-ramp from the attempt to persuade Zozs on how Wikipedia works, how a controversial article is edited, or what the USSR was at some point in its history. I suggest just giving Zozs the last word in the talk thread, while maintaining the current wording in the sentence that evidently offends that one editor. Dogmatists do not respond well to facts. And whack-a-mole is not a very interesting game. - Neonorange (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please participate in the Conversation on Germany[edit]

Hi, Thank you for your participation in the image review on discussion on the Germany talk page. The Image has now been reverted for the third time and ruins of Berlin photo is back. I would really appreciate your participation in this discussion and hopefully reaching a consensus. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ueckermünde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Wilhelm I (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) 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Autonome Nationalisten[edit]

Hi Marek, regarding your reversion of a paragraph with an image from Autonome Nationalisten - [2] with a short note: "None of this is in the source!" Could you please explain, what was not in the source since there were several ideas and several sources? Thank you! --Nabak (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek writes: "No. Stop putting in text supposedly cited to sources which do not discuss the topic at all. You're misrepresenting sources and using them as a cover for POV pushing". (See here) User Nabak replies: "POV pushing? Wow! These are pretty loaded words and serious allegations! Thanks, but where’s the beef? --Nabak (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You are using this [3] as a source. It doesn't even mention AN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Finally! You made me worry, Marek! Responding to your query, indeed I am using the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014", as an authoritative source on May 2 Riot on Odessa casualties. You know, the press differs on that. Any other questions?--Nabak (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't ask a question. I pointed out that you are using a source which doesn't even discuss the topic of the article. In a way that misrepresents the source and which looks like POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Come on, Marek, give me a break, did you actually read what I wrote above?

I am using the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014", as an authoritative source on May 2 Riot on Odessa casualties. You know, the press differs on that.

O.K., now could you please kindly answer two more questions:

  • How come that you don't like the United Nations so much?
  • Is there a rule that does not allow to use a source that does not contain the name of the given article inside?

Anxiously waiting for your reply. Sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know what source you are using. The problem is that you are misrepresenting it - it doesn't support the text you're adding.
As to your questions. I take the first one to be either rhetorical, or posed in bad faithed. The answer to the second one is straight forward and common sense: the source has to actually support the text being added, not just be vaguely related in some editor's mind. Misrepresenting sources can get you sanctioned fairly quick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Thank you for a quick answer, Marek, I really appreciate that! You know, at the beginning I just thought that all this is some kind of a practical joke... you know, an experienced user provides organizational socialization for a newbie, but after you started threatening me with "sanctions" instead of discussing and resolving the dispute in a spirit of friendship and cooperation, I have to ask you one more time: "What exactly do I misrepresent in the article by using a United Nation's document?" Sincerely, --Nabak (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Marek, while you are building you argument to answer my previous question I might as well formulate a second one regarding your claim that my Autonome Nationalisten edit throws the article off of its neutrality point. Since you accused me in "POV pushing", Could you please kindly explain how exactly my edit does it? With best regards, --Nabak (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Shock Doctrine[edit]

Hello Marek. I don't think it does us any good to debate the extent of the sanctions on the article talk page. (Such a discussion is off topic from article improvement.) And when I answered your comment, I was really trying to tell the other editors to behave. Hopefully this has had the intended effect. In any event, I would not want someone to misbehave, whether or not Arbcom enforcement was warranted, and then have them come back to say "you can't sanction me because this article really doesn't come under DS." Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. And I appreciate your efforts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:European cities real wages.png[edit]

Dear Marek,

which table has you used? I can't find an appropriate table in There are only Nominal Wages, Consumer Price Index and Welfare Ratios--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kopierspierre, the welfare ratios in the paper are really real wages, just indexed to a poverty threshold consumption basket. Also, I can't remember exactly but it might be the case that for the graph I used the data that came with the paper rather than duplicating any of the graphs from the paper itself. Bob used to have it available on his website. Some of the same data may also be available here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Here is Bob's page with the data under "Data: Wage and Price History" [4]. You can get real wages by dividing nominal wages by the price index.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute[edit]

MedCom laurel.png

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

My name is Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs), and I'll be your mediator for this case. It's good to meet you! I'm currently in the process of researching the content issue regarding this article (and the wider dispute) in some detail, and I hope I'll be able to assist in bringing some consensus to this editing dispute. I would like to ask all parties to bear with me while I complete this research, and am extremely grateful for your patience whilst I get things underway. I will let you know as soon as things are underway.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Servicemen (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) 09:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


Another user has asked that I request you not to personalise things on article talk as you recently did there. Do you think you could comply with this? --John (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Petro Poroshenko may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"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:
  • s father is [[Jews in Ukraine|Jewish]] and had been murdered.<ref name=PpofileSO/>|group=nb}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Feliks Młynarski[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Młynarki[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Góral[edit]

Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute[edit]

MedCom laurel.png

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

I have written an initial analysis, and requested contribution from all mediation parties. Please read what I've written and participate at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look[edit]

At 2014 France train crash. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Are you asking for help in expanding the article or just to keep an eye on it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop stalking my edits[edit]

You have repeatedly followed me on wikipedia pages where I have edited to revert me and post unproductive comments not contributing anything to the quality of either discussion and the article.I kindly request that you stop this behavior. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above, and that you're just playing the Wikipedia game when you write stuff like that with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I find it disappointing that you are unwilling to engage in productive discussion to engage in valuable contributions to Wikipedia project. I warmly suggest you reconsider. That is all. Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I warmly appreciate your warm suggestion and will warmly think on it in the near future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel saddened by your reaction, I remember engaging with you in many productive edits and improvement of the articles on Wikipiedia. It seem with time, improvement of the content stopped being your main reason for being here.Anyway, like I said, have a good day, and hopefully you will think it over.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And of course, I am saddened that you are saddened. Deeply.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA[edit]

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember this. Why did I oppose last time? The 1RR restriction or reverting in general is not something I'd normally loose (much) sleep over. It must've been something else. Is there a link to the old RfA? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
D'oh! Maybe I should've included a link to the RfA in the invitation to comment; there's one on the admin review page itself. Here you go. Thanks for whatever time you take for this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! ·  20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Marek! Where are you, my buddy?[edit]

@Volunteer Marek:Did you forget that we've got some unfinished business with Autonome Nationalisten? So, it would be nice if you could kindly stop stalking innocent wikipedians for a moment and instead answer the questions that I have asked above regarding the war of edits that you tried to provoke. Thanks! Yours, --Nabak (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First that business was finished - sources you're trying to use don't even discuss the topic. Second, don't accuse me of "stalking innocent wikipedians" or I'm not going to appreciate you posting on my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Volunteer Marek:Hi Marek! Hope this message finds you in good health! I am talking about my questions that I asked you exactly a month ago! It looks like you purposely evade answering them despite all your eloquence in defending yourself against the charge of "stalking" other wikipedians, as they claim it on your talk page (see above). But back to our Autonome Nationalisten business. Please DO answer these questions and if you fail to do that again, please be informed that I will revert your edits. So:
What exactly do I misrepresent in the article by using a United Nation's document?
Could you please kindly explain how exactly my edit threw the article off of its neutrality point?

Sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)