FYI re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=816844214&oldid=816844156 this], adding a userpage link or ping after the fact does not generate a notification; it only makes it look like a notification was generated. If you want to generate a ping, you have to (1) revert the original comment and start over, or (2) add a new comment containing only the notification. [[Wikipedia:Notifications]] makes a feeble attempt to explain this, and it's also covered elsewhere that I can't recall, I think in Mediawiki space. If you don't care to take my word for it, you could contact the target user and ask whether they received the notification; I'm fairly certain the answer will be "no". ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
FYI re [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=816844214&oldid=816844156 this], adding a userpage link or ping after the fact does not generate a notification; it only makes it look like a notification was generated. If you want to generate a ping, you have to (1) revert the original comment and start over, or (2) add a new comment containing only the notification. [[Wikipedia:Notifications]] makes a feeble attempt to explain this, and it's also covered elsewhere that I can't recall, I think in Mediawiki space. If you don't care to take my word for it, you could contact the target user and ask whether they received the notification; I'm fairly certain the answer will be "no". ―[[User:Mandruss|<span style="color:#775C57;">'''''Mandruss'''''</span>]] [[User talk:Mandruss|<span style="color:#999;">☎</span>]] 03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
== [[WP:NPA]] ==
[[File:Information orange.svg|25px|alt=Information icon]] Please do not [[Wikipedia:No personal attacks|attack]] other editors. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please [[Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot|stay cool]] and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> [[User:Hastiness|Hastiness]] ([[User talk:Hastiness|talk]]) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
Edit warring & removing NPOV tag when talk page discussions are ongoing
You have posted enough edit warring notices on other talk pages to know what it means and to know about WP:3RR. You are edit warring at Brexit. It's not helping. There are discussions ongoing and you're simply ignoring them and inserting what you want into the article. And removing what you don't like: removing a NPOV tag when so many editors have pointed out POV problems is not on. I invite you to reconsider and undo this edit so that the talk page discussion can continue. EddieHugh (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've made two reverts since Nov 24. That's quite different then everyday tip toeing right up to the 3RR line by making three reverts the way you and Gravuritas are doing. Volunteer Marek 16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The first reverted the previous edit; the second reverted the addition of the NPOV tag; the third also reverted the previous edit. We can call the second one something other than a "revert" if you prefer, but together there's no disputing that they're edit warring. How about restoring the tag and discussing? It's the only way to resolve things and have all editors still standing at the end. EddieHugh (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Volunteer Marek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
I can *sort of* understand what it's trying to say though 1) how anyone who hasn't taken a couple courses in History of Economic Thought is suppose to understand this is beyond me and this is confounded by 2) the fact that whoever wrote that is themselves very confused. The idea of endogenous money is one of those things that has some truth to it but for some reason it brings out the cranks who really run with it. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At a conceptual level, just about everything -- certainly including e.g. climate change, regulation, etc. is "endogenous" -- but a well-formed theory of most such phenomena is beyond our current knowledge or even the framework of our current theories. I agree with VM, money is clearly endogenous, but we don't have a well-formed theory about that, and in the meantime we have pretty good understanding and measurements of some more limited monetary processes. So the self-published economic kangaroo pups come hopping out of mom's pouch to share their ruminations on the subject, thinking that the rest of us are so dumb we don't even understand what King Knut and others knew but could not fully elaborate over the ages. I mean for starters, you can be darn sure every "banker" since the Bible has known that "money is endogenous". SPECIFICOtalk18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And part of it is also that it may not matter. Money is endogenous. So what? Just worry about the interest rates and let the money supply adjust to whatever it wants to. One implication of endogenous money may very well be that central banks shouldn't even worry about money in the first place, as long as they have the ability to control interest rates. Volunteer Marek 19:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I found this presentation which explains something very well in terms a layman can understand. It also gives a seemingly clear explanation of the theory it is opposed to ('money multiplier'). OTOH it looks as though the author ran into trouble. Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removing german village names even though a reliable source is given!
Why are you removing all the source given names of the villages? Please stop this! Plus you neither give any explanation why you do so nor do you have any reason to remove a source given change.Renekm (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not User:Kaiser von Europa so all those revisions were unreasonable. Plus I am not using any automated tools, all source given changes were hand made. How can I use an automatic tool, when every single source is different? This shows you did not even had a look on the sources but just changed it.
Renekm (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's only one other user that did this in the past so you're not fooling anyone. Also these edits are less than a second apart. So yes, you're using automated tools. Volunteer Marek 16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After I posted on the ARE board, things changed a bit--Trump's tweet was picked up on by Moore, and Trump called Moore; that phone call is now being used in a Moore ad that runs here in Alabama, so this is no longer some construction by others. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On this note, for the avoidance of doubt, your topic ban from all things Donald Trump is to be broadly construed, as are all topic bans unless explicitly specified otherwise. Personally that wouldn't have included everything Roy Moore for me, but that's up to an individual admin's discretion and the point of a topic ban is for you to avoid the topic widely. GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> : Volunteer Marek
to
<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> : Volunteer Marek
I've spent an hour or two reading that hyperactive talk page (been a while since I did so, I've been a very occasional contributor) and I am more than a little shocked at what you had had to put up with for quite some time as the near-lone voice of policy (I am loath to say reason or sanity), but that last anon really took the cake; it stretches credibility that the anon did not "understand". Suspicious, too, that so many anons suddenly turned up for an RfC when few editors weighed in, but then that article has attracted disruptive socks before. You should be commended for your dilligence and patience. If I could award a Barnstar I would. I've seen worse and more obsessive NPOV pushers and RS-deniers (one that pushed a discussion for over a year) but that was on a Doctor Who page with a chorus of editors tag teaming and it was over something incredibly trivial: whether three episodes consituted a three-parter, a two-parter and one more, or just three episodes. Just in case you needed to be told: you're not alone in this project, though it may sometimes feel like it. Warm wishes this winter holiday season. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary "please stop jumping into the middle of my edits" is pretty ridiculous. One editor cannot know when another is editing and if you hit an edit conflict and have to do it all over, welcome to the club. Quis separabit?01:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Strzok BLP, please revert the last of your four reverts. You reverted around 22:11 on 16 Dec. then on 17 Dec. around 1:32 then 1:36 then 3:50. Incidentally, do you view Wikipedia as some kind of competition between opposing propagandists? I ask because you seem to edit that way. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Adding info to an article certainly is a revert, if it was previously removed. You've been around long enough to know that, right? I am saying this edit around 22:11 on 16 Dec. was a revert, because it restored an NYT piece that had previously been removed here. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a betting man I'm giving even odds that both of you would be blocked if this was reported to AN3. The smart money says AYW's block would be longer because of the aggressive and accusatory edit summaries. So how about if both of you agree to call it a night? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Those two edits are no more different than the series of edits you recently succeeded in getting me sanctioned at WP:AE for. The NYT article at the Strzok article was removed and you put it back, so that's that. But I will take Boris's advice and drop this matter because I'm such a nice guy. Seriously, I would like to have a sincere discussion with you one of these days, if possible, to learn how you view Wikipedia and your role in it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
AS one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors,
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. ~~~~
Feedback shows that it scares a lot of people. Initially created with some encouragement from me, I wasn't aware that that it was going to be so complex. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diak4 opening RfC based on objection to "left-wing partisanship" in Alternative for Germany
Hey there. I just wanted to inform you that User:Diak4 has opened an RfC on the lede for Alternative for Germany [here that goes as follows: "I am concerned of the partisan nature of this sentence and it disrupting the neutrality of the page since it is making an allegation that many supporters of this party are racists, neo-nazi's, etc. I am even more particularly concerned with the sources being so biased against this party as well as being partisan, left-wing sites. I understand that this is not against WP:RS however it brings the opinion of these sites and states them as facts on the Alternative for Germany page." This is based on a previous discussion here:[2] which you were involved with. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 12:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Andrew McCabe. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. The article is now under discretionary sanctions, which includes a 1RR limit and a requirement for consensus before restoring challenged edits. Please heed this warning or you will be blocked without further notice. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 10:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Coffee: why do I always find you enabling disruptive fly-by-night accounts and IPs? The TidyToons account was obviously created for the sole purpose of starting an edit war on the article, it is mostly likely a sock of a banned user, and it's only edits are reverts on that article. Yet here you are coming to its rescue rather than just banning it. Thanks for proving once again that a good chunk of our admin corps are useless, if not outright counter productive when it comes to improving the encyclopedia. Volunteer Marek 23:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you want to clarify how your DS affects the current status of the article? Is this a violation of 'can't revert without consensus' or not? It's a BLP issue so WP:ONUS is on those wishing to add controversial material, so it seems like it would be. But hell if I can understand how that sanctions is actually suppose to work. Volunteer Marek 23:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Topic Ban as part of Discretionary Sanctions
You are hereby topic banned from editing anything that can be possibly construed to be related to post-1932 American politics, for your repeated failure to adhere to the standards expected in this area. This topic ban lasts for 24 hours (logged at WP:AC/DSL), and will be increased if you cannot be reasonably be expected to discuss your edits. Please review our banning policy, and the relevant Arbitration Committee decision for more information. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:39, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made a single damn edit to any article since you posted that little notification above, and now you come running here to ban me for... what? Oh, this is such bullshit. What, you just felt like ruining someone's Christmas or something? Volunteer Marek 23:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Logging in does not give you special privileges in edit-wars against other editors. If you fail to see how this isn't acceptable thinking in such a contentious area, I will increase this ban's length. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:43, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The ban is explained in full here and at WP:AC/DSL. This diff is why you are topic banned. You will not be warning anyone in this topic area, nor editing in it, for 24 hours after your behavior. Either discuss your edits like a normal person when this ban expires, or I will be forced to extend it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is NOT explained in "full" anywhere. Not here, not at AC/DSL. All that says is "Coffee banned Volunteer Marek". That's not an explanation.
As to the diff, are you seriously topic banning me for leaving a note (not a fucking warning) on another user's talk page, pointing out that their edit MIGHT violate the discretionary sanction which YOU just imposed, as well as our policy of BLP???? What the fuck are you doing? Or is it because my comment above hit a little close to home and this is just a "respect mah authoritah block"? Volunteer Marek 23:49, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After just reading this now, I fully stand by this decision. I was in the process of posting the ban when you left that, apparently without any idea why you were warned here for edit-warring at all. You do not get to edit-war, period. And you don't pretend like that's acceptable. No sir. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't handle legitimate criticism of your actions then you don't deserve to be an admin. Get a thicker skin and grow up. And kid, YOU ARE THE ONE WHO LEFT THE EDIT WARRING NOTICE, so how in hell were you "without any idea why you were warned here for edit-warring". You're. The. One. That. Left. It. Is there multiple people using your account or something?
And I didn't edit war. I reverted a single purpose account which was obviously a sock. Didn't violate 3RR. ANOTHER USER made further reverts. Then ANOTHER USER continued the edit war. Why the hell aren't you banning them?????? Volunteer Marek 23:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Because what I see in their contribution history after I warned them to stop is nothing, not posting threats to anyone's userpage as if they were in the "right" ... after my warning, and after several previous topic bans in this area like in your history, you should have immediately reviewed your behavior, not began defending it. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:04, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you snot nosed brat, save your lectures for someone who's not twice your age. I did not post any "THREATS" to anyone's talk page. I posted a fucking request for someone to self-revert their edit because it potentially violated BLP and because it potentially violated the discretionary sanction which YOU fucking imposed on the article. To topic ban someone for that is sheer absurdity and just another example that you lack the maturity and temperament to be an admin.
Also, can you please make an effort at writing in coherent English sentences. Sentences such as "I was in the process of posting the ban when you left that, apparently without any idea why you were warned here for edit-warring at all" or "Because what I see in their contribution history after I warned them to stop is nothing, not posting threats to anyone's userpage as if they were in the "right" don't even make grammatical or logical sense and I resent the fact that I have to guess what you're talking about when you should be the one doing me the courtesy of explaining why you're trying to fuck me over.
One more thing - you saying that I'm not a "normal" editor (I've been here far longer than you have, thank you very much) is a straight up personal attack. Volunteer Marek 00:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@VM: I noticed Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Uh, what the fahhhh?. It would be a good idea to leave that discussion for others now, apart from calmly responding to any factual issues that arise. Unfortunately many passers-by will claim to be affronted by your forthright language—it ain't helping. The only topic that should concern you at the moment is having the basis for admin action examined. Anything else is a distraction. Johnuniq (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Late pings don't work
FYI re this, adding a userpage link or ping after the fact does not generate a notification; it only makes it look like a notification was generated. If you want to generate a ping, you have to (1) revert the original comment and start over, or (2) add a new comment containing only the notification. Wikipedia:Notifications makes a feeble attempt to explain this, and it's also covered elsewhere that I can't recall, I think in Mediawiki space. If you don't care to take my word for it, you could contact the target user and ask whether they received the notification; I'm fairly certain the answer will be "no". ―Mandruss☎03:23, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hastiness (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MenofTomorrow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ). Your name is mentioned because the user in question reverted two edits by you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Hastiness (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)