User talk:Volunteer Marek

A cupcake for you!

I've only just found out you'd been through the wars! Something full of sugar to get your energy levels up and back into your good work might do the trick. If not, I'm sending a big hug (although that has to get to you via snail mail)! Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Help needed

Could you offer an opinion here please: [1].Faustian (talk) 00:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Minor note

Here is a study on the Svoboda party by Osrodek Studiow Wschodnich-practically a neo-nazi group[2], they named their research center after Goebbels.And yes, they are part of the self-imposed government in Kiev--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Blue Army peer input request

I'd like to ask for third party assistance on several issues regarding the Blue Army article. In particular the greatly over-expanded Controversies section, which was significantly enlarged to include big chunks of text dedicated to subject matter not directly associated with the Blue Army. Also, I would like to point out that most Wiki article admins control the size of content as not to have one user come-in and dump larger amounts of text in one section, and in the process completely shift the balance of the article, by creating un-due weight issues by simply over expanding one section.

Redundant statements re-emphasize similar points: (the two phrases are only one sentence apart).

• many ethnic Ukrainians and Jews generally see its conduct during the war in a negative light.
• As a result, Jews perceived Haller's Army as particularly harmful to their interests.

Overstating wrongful claims; as those made by historian William W. Hagen. If his claims were soundly disproven, why include them? More importantly why does the paragraph go into such detail about the events of the pogrom when the Blue Army was not even there in the first place? Also, as noted by historian Edward Goldstein, the Blue Army was accuse of several pogroms; that they had nothing to do with, so Hagen's wrongful accusation is nothing unusual. Finally, other editors proposed to remove the text in the past.

• Also, you agreed above that it'd be a good idea to remove Hagen. Can we do that? Volunteer Marek 19:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

The Blue Army was wrongly accused of committing the Lviv Pogrom of 1918. Historian William W. Hagen claimed that after helping to capture Lviv, some army units together with Polish civilians, engaged in three days of violence against the Jewish and Ukrainian inhabitants of the city, resulting in hundreds of civilian deaths.[29] But the army's participation in the pogrom is highly disputed, and according to the Cambridge History of Poland, when the Lviv Pogrom actually took place the Blue Army was still in France fighting on the Western Front. Also, it has been documented that the first units did not reach Poland until the spring of 1919, nearly five months after the actual pogrom had happened.[30] The Kronika Polski lists 14 April 1919 as the start of the first transports form France to Poland,[31] and historian Kay Lundgreen-Nielsen stated that the first units of the army did not leave France until 15 April 1919; its departure having been delayed by opposition from Britain and the United States.[32] Thus, requiring a special protocol before the Blue Army was allowed to return home to Poland.[33]

Over emphasizing individuals not directly linked to the Blue Army. The entire paragraph about Hugh S. Gibson, and his opinions about the Jews are completely irrelevant to our topic. Also, the American envoy did not come to Poland to look after Haller's troops. Finally, his reporting on the "food riots" is also not directly related to this article, as the events primarily occurred during civilian unrest, and not done by the army.

The United States sent an envoy to Poland, Hugh S. Gibson, a man who stood out for his antisemitism.[25] Hugh Gibson along with Dr. Boris Bogen, who was the general director of European relief operations of the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee (JDC), were tasked by the United States Government to investigate the situation.[26] Throughout their stay in Poland, Gibson and his colleagues ridiculed Jewish traits, customs, and appearance.[25] The official report sent back to Washington stated that many of the newspaper reports in the American press had been inflated, and Gibson himself wrote in his correspondence that he was concerned about separating fact from rumor. In his investigation, Hugh S. Gibson also addressed the issue of "food riots", and after investigating the circumstances reported that an even larger number of Christian shops had also been ransacked, thus disputing the claim that all the violence was strictly a product of anti-Jewish sentiment. Gibson also claimed that Zionists were conspiring with Berlin; according to historian Carole Fink, Gibson emphasized Jews' "social, economic, and ideological transgressions" and described the victims of the pogroms as "exploiters." [27] Gibson also expressed the opinion that Jews in Poland ought to "reform themselves" and assimilate into general Polish society.[28]

Since, we have had problems like this in the past regarding the Blue Army page; I ask that we all come together to finally create a fair and balanced article. Again, your input on this issue would be greatly appreciated. --COD T 3 (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

MkuCr

Did you forget about your unopposed proposal on the talk page? AmateurEditor (talk) 23:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Sort of, thanks for the remainder. The thing is, only admins can make edits to that page, so after the 'supports' on the talk page I figured some admin actually would. My fault for assuming that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Adding an edit request template to the section usually gets someones attention pretty quickly. AmateurEditor (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Alfreda Markowska

The DYK project (nominate) 16:02, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

I don't know why you did this, but thanks for your comments on my talk page regarding a ban i recieved some time ago. Krakkos (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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 find a resolution. The thread is "2014 Ukrainian revolution". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 06:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Food in occupied Germany article

FYI, I'm planning on redeveloping the former American food policy in occupied Germany article so that it provides a more neutral and broad discussion of this topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. I've been quite busy lately, but I'll try and help out on the article shortly.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions 2013 review: Draft v3

Hi. You have commented on Draft v1 or v2 in the Arbitration Committee's 2013 review of the discretionary sanctions system. I thought you'd like to know Draft v3 has now been posted to the main review page. You are very welcome to comment on it on the review talk page. Regards, AGK [•] 00:15, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Volksliste

Hi, based on my understanding of a source published in West Germany, Menschen und Grenzen by Alfred Bohmann. I believe the Volksliste figures include about 300,000 ethnic Germans resettled in Poland. Bohmann's presentation of the Volksliste figures shows that cat A & B totaled 710,000 persons, he then goes on to describe the resettlement of 287,000 ethnic Germans in Poland. To me this implies that 710,000 persons from pre-war Poland were in Cat A/B, not the 1 million that appears in the sources cited here on Wikipedia. Alfred Bohmann was an SS officer during the war and a well known supporter of the expellees in post war West Germany. If this is the case, the number of ethnic Germans in prewar Poland has been overstated in historical literature. I need your help. What do Polish sources tell us about the classification of persons on the Volksliste?--Woogie10w (talk) 15:54, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For helping to protecting the 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine page! Thєíríshwαrdєn - írísh αnd prσud 22:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Any opinions?

Hello, you and I have worked together on the Blue Army article in the past. There is a discussion here: [3] about the article. Any opinions would be welcome. In my opinion, rather than remove info about antisemitic violence, the article should expand info about other activities. Faustian (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look, but the depth of the issue and the intensity of the discussion may mean that I simply don't have the time to really commit enough time to make meaningful comments, at least at this time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Although much is being written the issue basically boils down to user: COD T 3 wanting to remove reliably sourced information about the Blue Army's antisemitic acts because he claims undue weight (that section is now only 26 lines long - I would add another 5 lines or so worth of additional info). He'd rather do that than he would build up other sections of the article. We had worked collaboratively on the article and it was stable until he came in. The stuff he wants removed is stuff that we had already looked at previously.Faustian (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to make a statement in the defense of my arguments. Two paragraphs were already removed because in the first Dispute Resolution board the mediator sided with my arguments regarding the content of the text, and commented on the actual length of the Controversies section as being out of balance with the rest of the article. Now, the dispute has been opened up again in a second Dispute Resolution, and my argument is still based on the basic fact that the section carries undue weight, the language used lacks neutrality, and some "sources" that are questionable. Here are two points that I would like to highlight regarding the BA.

• In Dreamland: Europeans and Jews in the Aftermath of the Great War on page 25 we can find this statement: "their ordeal [Jewish casualties caused by BA] could not be equated with the raw genocide committed by Petliura's and Denikin's armies in the eastern "integral" Ukraine".
• In Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces; page 43 historian Norman Davies is quoted, that Jewish casualties were "minimal" during the war, and a figure of 400-500 actual casualties is provided, in contrast to the 25,000 to 50,000 jewish casualties caused by the Ukrainian army commanded by Symon Petliura.

I can understand Faustian's argument that there should be a mention of the fact that some troops within the ranks of the BA did abuse Jewish locals, but I strongly object to the disproportionate text that's was added, also the questionable sources that are being rejected by the current dispute mediator, and the language that's unencyclopedic, and bias. --COD T 3 (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Stalking

Please refrain from stalking me and reverting my changes in articles that you have never edited in before. Considering all your recent public attacks against me and edit-war like behaviour, it would not be a hard case to prove if I decided it was worth reporting. LokiiT (talk) 02:07, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If you have some kind of a "case" then go ahead and "prove it", wherever. The article's long been on my watchlist. Also, how exactly am I engaging in "edit-war like behaviour" (the fact you have to try to weasel that by using the word "like" pretty much establishes you're full of it) with a single edit, which added references to an article? Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Without diffs, it is your comment that looks like harassment instead. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:17, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree with Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus. Who is harassing whom? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:40, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Crimea articles

Hi Marek, I know you don't agree with the approach I've taken to your RfPP requests, but I wanted to explain my thinking and let you know what I'd done so that at least you can see that I've put some thought into it and it's not just a knee-jerk reaction. There are constructive edits being made to those articles by IPs and new accounts, and it's widely believed that articles on high-profile events help to recruit new editors, so I really would like to leave them open if at all possible. I know that means we (you, I suppose) have to put up with some bollocks, but if the bollocks starts to outweigh the constructive edits, we can use short-term semi to restore order (as I did he other day). I'd really like to avoid protecting them for the duration if that can be avoided, but if you keep bringing issues to my attention, I'll do my utmost to make your life easier. I blocked the 109 IP who was causing problems (and added a rangeblock to catch his other IPs); only for 48 hours, but if that has the desired effect, there's no problem, and if not, it's no effort to re-block for longer. If they hop to a wider range or they carry on regardless in 48 hours' time, drop a note on my talk page. You probably think I'm mad but I hope you can at least see the method in it. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, I don't agree with the approach. While it's good to recruit editors, most of these aren't exactly the kind of editors we *want* to be recruiting. But thanks for the support.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

You have mail

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

To reply to your inquiry, off the top of my head, I don't remember an incident such as the one you describe. But it's been a long time here, even stuff that's happened a year ago is old news. So it's very plausible, particularly in terms of the circumstances as you describe them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Dmytro Klyachkivsky

What do you mean not a standard? It is a point of view of certain people. Genocide perpetrator is a criminal accusation and labeling people as such without detail explanation is wrong. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The standard is whether the info is found in sources. If sources accuse him of it then those cats belong in there. I do agree that the article could use more info on his role in the massacres but even at present there is enough to justify the categories. Also, while one can make some kind of arguments that Lebed, or Bandera were not responsible/perpetrators, it's pretty much impossible to make that argument for Klyachkivsky as he was the guy who initiated the massacres and carried them out.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute. I have sources that suggest that Josef Pilsudski was a train robber, but I am not tagging him as such as there are no official records that confirms them (ОСНОВНЫЕ ИСТОЧНИКИ ФИНАНСИРОВАНИЯ ЛЕВОРАДИКАЛЬНЫХ ПАРТИЙ РОССИИ В НАЧАЛЕ ХХ ВЕКА). The same goes for Stalin who supposedly was also a double agent for okhranka. However, tagging definitions on someone without a proper and special evaluation qualifies for original research. Volunteer Marek, please, understand me correctly, I will not object such category if there will be direct evidences of such a fact. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Pilsudski was a train robber (probably), at one point. But whether or not we put him in that category depends on whether this was one of the most noteworthy things about a particular person. For Pilsudski this was a very minor part of his biography. On the other hand, the initiation of Volhynnia massacres by Klyachkivsky is one of the most noteworthy aspects of his life. And it's not original research because that fact's gonna be in any halfway decent source on the guy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We should probably discuss this on the relevant article talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring

You are starting an edit war at Crimean status referendum, 2014. Please adhere to the WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. — Petr Matas 06:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I am removing unreliable sources and your attempts at misrepresenting the nature of these "observers". Don't restore without consensus please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Reliability of 'Russia Today'

Your views on the reliability of Russia Today seem somewhat confused.

1 Crimean Status Referendum, editorial note

"No, actually removing non-reliable sources does not require consensus, it's wikipedia policy. IF consensus is involved, then it would imply getting consensus to INCLUDE non-reliable sources)"

2 Ukrainian Revolution 2014 Talk

"look for discussions at WP:RSN. It is reliable for 1) simplest facts and in some instances 2) expressing the view of the Russian government."

Under 2 I looked for discussions. Many editors question its reliability, but that doesn't amount to a definitive ruling implied in 1. It surely doesn't give licence for blanket removal of any reference from RT. Under 2 which facts are 'simplest'? and can you define which instances?

Of course it has to be treated with caution Sceptic1954 (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't see the confusion. Most of the text that was cited to RT was also cited to other, reliable, sources. Hence, the inclusion of RT was not necessary, and to the extent that the text itself was potentially controversial, unwarranted. There were a couple (one?) statements which was controversial and solely cited to RT. In that case I replaced RT with a tag, per WP:RSN. There was also an instance or two, I think, were there were actually "simplest of facts" cited to RT and I left those alone.

Basically, if it's a "simplest of facts" then usually we can find a more reliable source, unless we're feeling lazy. If it's anything controversial, then we shouldn't use it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I only know the detail of what is on the Ukrainian Revolution page so please limit the detailed discussion of actual edits to that. However I discuss also the differences as they appear to me between your two statements above. Nothing wrong with having two references, one from RT and another from another source. Potentially controversial claims should surely be mentioned as such, like the claim that Pravy Sektor fired on Maidan Protestors. Where RT is quoting someone I don't see any reason to think that they would invent quotes. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if one of the sources is not reliable, then there is actually something wrong with having two references. Why mix fresh milk with rancid milk? As to specific claims about Pravy Sektor I haven't paid attention to that, but Wikipedia is not suppose to be a mouthpiece for RT propaganda.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you said that RT is reliable in certain circumstances, now you say it is not reliable period. Indeed if it agrees with another RS then it can be assumed reliable in that instance. You have also implied that there is a Wiki ruling that RT is not RS but merely referred me to a discussion. If RT has not been ruled unreliable period then I cannot see how you can go through articles simply extirpating any reference from RT, it would seem that you are simply imposing your preference. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC) Regarding claims re Pravy Sektor, the claims may be controversial, but it is beyond dispute that such claims are made. Sceptic1954 (talk) 11:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

It is reliable for "simplest facts" but even in those cases if better sources can be found then those should be used instead. There's no such thing as "Wikipedia rulings" for content (too bad actually). WP:RSN is pretty much the board for discussion of reliability.Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is no ruling then you shouldn't give the impression there is one. If there are clear statements which show that the great majority of Wikipedia editors regard RT today as unreliable then you should refer to these in detail, you can't expect anyone to plough through pages of discussions to see if this is so. What's wrong with additional sources? you've not answered that. My own rule is that if RT and a Western RS agree then something is likely to be true.Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There have been several discussions about it at WP:RSN. There is Wikipedia policy which outlines what constitutes a reliable source, WP:RS, which RT fails to satisfy. That's about as much of a "ruling" as you get on Wikipedia. It's not that there's something wrong with "additional sources" it's that there's something wrong with "additional unreliable sources".Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to quote specific sections as to why RT is not RS period please do. I looked at the page and the first thing I came up with was "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the """best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."""" I make absolutely no claim that RT is neutral, unbiased or objective, but WP is meant to include all significant viewpoints.Sceptic1954 (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, my edits from the Crimean status referendum page were completely removed. How can I undo the corrections or complain about them? Firstly, the interviews with the actual observers of the referendum were removed not only if they were from RT but also from other sources. The specific observer whose interview I referred to provides his name and describes what he observed exactly - not just to RT. We can question a source if they provide interpretation but not if they air an interview. On the other hand, a youtube video of a female is retained and a reference to "Russian journalist was allowed to vote" statement. In the video, the female states that she is a journalist with Russian citizenship and she was allowed to vote in the Crimean referendum. We are not given her name, there's no proof of her having voted. There is no proof of her having a Russian citizenship or being a journalist. I can make the same video and claim whatever I want - would that make for a reliable source? My modification of her being a purported Russian journalist was removed. All sources are owned by someone and have their agendas similarly to the editors of Wikipedia, it seems. It is not correct to remove only one single source because it provides a view that is not popular. All references are available and can be verified by the readers. Please correct the page. And let's not remove references or text that is simply unpopular among people who own major networks. Let's describe the situation from all sides. CanadianProfessional (talk) 17:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Helenka Adamowska Pantaleoni image

Hi Volunteer Marek. We last communicated a couple of years ago regarding Tadeusz Adamowski. Now I have a question about his sister Helenka Adamowska Pantaleoni. I've come across an image in a Polish source, obviously from her early years, but I don't know how to assess whether this image can be used on Wikipedia, nor do I know how to do that. I wonder if you could take a look and make such an assessment? Thanks a lot ~Mack2~ 17:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC) . http://www.photoblog.pl/milionkobiet/145571349/helenka-adamowska.html

I've come across a second image, obviously much later, here: http://thecubanconnection.unblog.fr/files/2012/05/helenka-pantaleoni2-205x300.jpg. Here's the source:

https://www.google.com/search?q=helenka+pantaleoni+picture&client=firefox&hs=VdB&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&channel=sb&tbm=isch&imgil=T4Mo7SB4g2LFdM%253A%253Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fencrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com%252Fimages%253Fq%253Dtbn%253AANd9GcTgZk0mzCNe5c_dZ3yAdbMEfmvLASjiIgWYK2S0DyX45beSk2Gzlg%253B205%253B300%253B1AXute3DW9WNpM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fthecubanconnection.unblog.fr%25252F2-personnages%25252F&source=iu&usg=__Y60edLj-xV2BhgKsgZW1fP3C4fk%3D&sa=X&ei=fkBAU9XcNOqpsQTx5oCYCw&ved=0CDoQ9QEwCA#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=T4Mo7SB4g2LFdM%253A%3B1AXute3DW9WNpM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fthecubanconnection.unblog.fr%252Ffiles%252F2012%252F05%252Fhelenka-pantaleoni2-205x300.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fthecubanconnection.unblog.fr%252F2-personnages%252F%3B205%3B300

Through my extended family I have copies of certain documents the mid-1940's concerning the disappearance and ultimate loss of Helenka's husband Guido behind the lines in Sicily. This includes carbon copies of some correspondence between a family member of mine, Helenka, and U.S. government agencies. The details would mainly would be relevant here if there were an article about Guido, but at best they're a footnote to the article about Helenka. One fabulous story, however, is about how one of Guido's German captors, an officer, befriended Guido (they communicated with one another in French), and how after the War he sought out and visited Helenka in New York. However, I don't think this is technically quotable from the non-public documents that I have.~Mack2~ 17:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In addition to this, I have some documentation about Tadeusz's repatriation to the U.S., but not about how he got out of the officer's camp after it was "liberated" by the Red Army. (I know the story, but it's not documented, except parts about his return to the U.S., which was complicated by the fact that he was not a U.S. citizen, though he grew up here, as well as by the fact that he was still technically an officer in the Polish Army and as such could not be given an expedited entry visa to the U.S.).~Mack2~ 17:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

To use these two images on Wikipedia you would have to figure out 1) where they were first published, 2) when and hopefully 3) who the photographer was. Most likely the second image is under copyright so couldn't be used, unless, possibly, it's some official government photo. The second one - it depends.

As to using personal documents. It's a bit of a violation of WP:PRIMARY. Some people on Wikipedia think it's okay to use primary sources as long as the info is not controversial. Others take a bit stricter stance.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick comment please

This is a simple issue, perhaps you can chime in; it would be appreciated: [4]. Is the the title Soviet Annexation of Western Ukraine insulting to Poles because this was part of Poland? This seem to be the best title because these lands are all now in western Ukraine, has been prior to 1919, and prior to 1939 had been part of either Poland or Romania. Also "Ukraine" here means a geographical region not the modern state of Ukraine.Faustian (talk) 13:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

DR/N discussion on Crimean referendum, 2014

Hello, you may be interested in WP:DRN#Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy. — Petr Matas 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk Republic

Hello!

I undid your reversal and I'd like to briefly explain why. The Donetsk crisis in general would be covered under this wiki page.

The sources were in fact all Ukrainian media sources. Nothing wrong with that, were it not that due to the political situation they are currently almost entirely spin and in many cases, along with the government(See: this), straight up lying.

Have a nice day, Klop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klopsikon (talk • contribs) 22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, see that second sentence is exactly the problem with your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your diligence in the discussion at keeping the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boys are stupid, throw rocks at them! controversy debate on track despite attacks at your editing style and motives and your comitance to keeping Wikipedia NPOV Drowninginlimbo (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Chojna, etc.

Marek, regarding your callous revert of my edit at Chojna: You don't seem to understand that I am not attempting to interpose an anti-Polish, pro-German POV. The town was called Königsberg (in der Neumark) approximately 10 times longer than it has been called Chojna. Clarifying this has nothing whatever to do with irredentism or revanchism, and has everything to do with historical transparency.

(Incidentally, I've been through Chojna — I lived in Poland for a time, and I'm fully aware of the horrors of the WWII German occupation.)

You might be interested in this pic from my contributions to Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/broguggs/4512181559/ Sca (talk) 16:47, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that your edits were motivated by irredentism or revanchism. But spamming the German name as many times as possible violates WP:UNDUE and is also bad, unencyclopedic writing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Spamming" is not what I did. What you did in reverting was callous & a knee-jerk reaction. Sca (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way. The revert was not intended to be callous. Look. If you had added one or two instances of the name into the article I wouldn't have reverted it. But you added quite a bit which did resemble spamming, even if that was not your intent.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My editing was not just inserting "Königsberg" — I smoothed out what appeared to be poor translations (from ... ??) and fixed glitches like the bollixed reference to "Luftwaffe." I could go back and count how many times I inserted "Königsberg" (though I don't think it was so many as to constitute "spamming"), but I'd rather just take another stab at editing the article. However, I detest revert wars and don't want to play that stupid game with anyone.

Incidentally, I've also inserted present-day Polish names in various articles mentioning ex-German places — to assist readers who may wonder where this or that town is/was. Sca (talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Godwin point

DELETED MY OWN COMMENTS, SORRY AGAIN Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how what should be an honest content dispute has leapt into accusations of deliberate vandalism. Remember to WP:AFG. --Львівське (говорити) 22:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And now you're calling my edits vandalism? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you added a link to a Nazi crime in good faith, so I removed it. But you added it back. Then yes, the second time it was vandalism. Please refrain to do this. Thank you! Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You're not using the word vandalism correctly. This is a content dispute. You removing content would by the same token be classified as vandalism, no? --Львівське (говорити) 22:36, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What if I added a Nazi link to your user page? Yes this vandalism, because it is offensive.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

? Are you now trying to go back to pretending that my edit was "pro-Nazi"? I didn't add a "Nazi link" to any user's talk page, I added a link to an article about an event from WW2 which was relevant to the topic. The way you twist that into "pro-Nazi" says a lot about your WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You added a Nazi link to his user page? When?--Львівське (говорити) 23:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

No you did not understand. My point was that a random link to nazism would have been vandalism if it was unrelated. But I was wrong, since he provided a source. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link to Godwin's law omitted by the master. Poeticbent talk 22:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize since you provided a source. At the moment, I really thought that you were pushing a POV by adding random links to nazism. Now I realize I was completely wrong. Perhaps when a subject is controversial, it would be better to put a source in the first place. Sorry.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright, that's cool. Just be careful in how you word your responses and edit summaries.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Massacre of Kalavryta, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tripolis (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) 09:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

thanks

		The Freemasonry Barnstar
		For all of your help in clearing out propaganda and conspiracy junk from articles recently. Львівське (говорити) 00:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, now this makes you and ultra-nationalist. --Львівське (говорити) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

2014 Ukrainian revolution

Whose sock? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably of this guy for starters. Obviously of this guy. Very likely a few others.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for defending me against the accusation of sockputting when I was unable to do so myself. I hope this qualifies as thanks Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Mens Rights Article Probation

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Men's rights movement, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is necessarily any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- Kyohyi (talk) 16:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hi Marek. I'm not sure if I've run into you in the past but the past few days have been rather difficult. I wanted to reach out and apologize, I went too far in a number of occasions, did not assume good faith, made accusations which were exaggerated, and made childish comments. I know you're a long-time editor here and I should have treated you with more respect; I let my frustration get the better of me. Again, I'm sorry, and I hope we can move forward productively. please have some pl:Róża karnawałowa on me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Alright thanks, your comment is appreciated.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

RT SPI

Hi Marek,

I’ve resisted talking to you directly in the hope of avoiding suggestions of collusion. However I have questions about the SPI. I have to confess I have little experience with RfCs and non with SPI requests. I’m assuming that things have quietened down on the RT talkpage while we wait for the SPI. How long is it likely to take do you think? Do I need to add more info on my suspicions? I’m getting the feeling that we’re looking at a serial account creator, would you agree? While digging around I found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nenpog, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Drork & Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 79.180.48.58 (can’t find SPI). All bare similarities (esp last one). I‘m wondering how the SPI is likely to improve the situation, in terms of getting a better article in the future? Could we push for long term semi-protection? What about trying to get more senior editors to watch it? My WP time is limited at the moment but I’m determined to do my bit with this.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope you’re off doing something enjoyable. The SPI didn’t go well. While I think you are spot on with LTS is the IPs, my feeling (based on previous talkpage comments) that that the IPs are likely to have been linked to LokiiT. Maybe I should have added more about Sietecolores and Balaenoptera but after reading more, I doubt it would have helped. It is obvious that both accounts belong to experienced users, with similar styles and have seemingly come from nowhere to get involved in this RfC (and used the phase "ad hominem attacks"). But while poking around their histories (I’ve had a few pauses for thought) I can’t find the smoking gun. I also see that you’re already ahead of me on the semi-protection idea. What about trying to get a sandbox version of the article to GA standard for getting more people involved?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Russia and Vladimir Putin [5]? In the East Ukraine? Fighting against Ukrainian troops? It really looks like vandalism. --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Serfdom in Poland for GA

Do you think it is comprehensive enough for a GA level? In either case, I'd invite you to do a B-class review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please refer to the talking page

and don't delete exactly the same disputed articles as USER:Lvivske which is quite suspicious following the talking pages:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government#Government_lacks_legitimacy
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yatsenyuk_Government#Government_lacks_legitimacy

--Wrant (talk) 10:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)