User talk:Volunteer Marek

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy orders a second round. Cheers to one of our best! Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*hic* here's another :) sláinte! ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	A Resilient Barnstar
	I’m very sorry to see the harassment you have faced. Stay strong Volunteer Marek! starship .paint (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpages of Wiki articles are officially called as FORUMS

Hello Marek! You confused the Wiki articles, which are NOT FORUMS with the talkpages of Wikiarticles, which are the definition of forums.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought See POINT 4: Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with people about Wikipedia-related topics on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. In addition, bear in mind that article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. If you wish to ask a specific question on a topic, Wikipedia has a Reference desk; questions should be asked there rather than on talk pages.

So in talkpages we can spoke about anything, which things are strongly related/belong to the original topic of the article, this is the place of the debates about the article and the discussion forum about future editing.

Have a nice day! --Creator Edition (talk) 09:44, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Just an FYI, a user named WhizICE attempted to doxx you on the RSN, including posting a photo of you. This was swiftly oversighted thanks to my intervention, but I thought I should let you know it happened. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RSN misuse

VM, I got your two pings — what are you doing? A 10K conduct report, really? (diff) I would have expected an editor with your level of experience to already know that WP:RSN is not for that. Please only use designated venues for such complaints. You cannot misuse RSN in such a manner, so please do note this for future reference. Thank you. El_C 18:39, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If RSN isn't a place for that, then why is FR bringing it to there? What do you think this is? It's not-so-thinly veiled block shopping and agitation. That comment of his has NOTHING to do with the discussion at RSN. But hey, that one's just hunky dory. Can I remove that?

And the length? If I don't include the diffs I get accused of making unfounded ASPERSIONS (because, you know, I can't expect people to read my mind). If I do include diffs, it's too long. I'm sick and tired of this. FR has been warned again and again and again and again. He's done this to several users and has a history of it. He has one IBAN already, blocks for doing it to others and almost got indef banned for harassing yet another editor. And none of that has stopped him or led him to modify his behavior.

Read what I actually wrote and tell me that this right there isn't the fundamental problem in this topic area right now. Tell me that he isn't PURPOSEFULLY trying to escalate the dispute so he, or some Icewhiz sock, can go and file a request for a case. Volunteer Marek 19:16, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

VM, in fairness, you're the one who brought it up first in that RSN discussion. And secondly, just like a pea and watermelon aren't the same, a 500K addition isn't the same as a 10,000K one. This much ought to be plainly obvious, I challenge. El_C 19:22, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 500k addition was short because it was a snide, false unfounded accusation. The 10,000K addition was long because it had a diff supporting every single statement and frankly, it's not my fault that he's received so many warnings and has gotten away with doing this for so long. If he had gotten indef'd like admins proposed previously or if he had taken heed of the warnings, then my comment would've been good bit shorter. But alas. Volunteer Marek 19:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Green for hope

Today, we have a DYK about Wilhelm Knabe, who stood up for future with the striking school children when he was in his 90s, - a model, - see here. - Thank you for your position in the arb case request, - I feel I have to stay away, but there are conversations further down on the page, in case of interest, - in a nutshell: "... will not improve kindness, nor any article". - Yesterday, I made sure on a hike that the flowers are actually blooming ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in 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/RexxS. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 13, 2021, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RexxS/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 04:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APLRS clarification request

Hi - since you were involved in the discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Volunteer_(book), I am letting you know that I have requested clarification from the Arbitration Committee about how we should interpret the wording of the remedy at WP:APLRS. If you wish to comment on the request, it is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations. Best GirthSummit _(blether) 15:45, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks

I realise I botched the ping in the edit summary too - don't know what's wrong with me this afternoon. Thanks for confirming you saw the comment, I was at a loss for what to do at that point! GirthSummit _(blether) 17:26, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Irena Solska

On 15 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Irena Solska, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the German occupation of Poland, the Polish dramatic actress Irena Solska (pictured) worked with Żegota and helped to hide and rescue Jews? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Irena Solska. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Irena Solska), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

Your DYK hook about Polish actress Irena Solska and her work to rescue Jews from the Nazis drew 7,599 page views (633 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

what is the problem with edits on German settlements?

Please explain --Tino Cannst (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A thought

I saw that you removed the timeline box from Teutonic Order. What are you thoughts about this?

Teutonic timeline

Good? Bad? Total garbage? --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:20, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and added it. Hope it is ok. --Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with the timeline itself, it's just that it totally messes up the layout of the article. If there was some way to incorporate it in a more aesthetic way that'd be good. Volunteer Marek 17:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification - Jan Żaryn

Hi, this is just an info that there has been a thread opened about Jan Żaryn at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:49, 28 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Azov Battalion

Good evening, I would like to notify you that a new RfC on Azov Battalion has just started. I am sending you the message because you participated in the 2015 RfC and the topic might be of interest to you. Yours, Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stop

Stop edit warring. Discuss the matter on the talk page. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:25, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you and what are you talking about? Volunteer Marek 20:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: I am a Homo Sapien and your edits at Jan Żaryn TigerScientist Chat > contribs 21:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your account is barely 6 months old and there's basically no way I can think of that you could "accidentally" stumble upon that particular article or my talk page. Did you accidentally log into the wrong account? Volunteer Marek 21:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek nope. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 22:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also ping me next time. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 22:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Zhovti Vody, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksander Koniecpolski.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poznan Protests

Can you check these edits. Does the Polish source (city web site) really says that the protestors demanded more gentle version of national socialism or is it (as I suspect) a vandalism of some sort. Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex Bakharev: I can't find the part in the source where it mentions this detail but I'm assuming it's referring to the so-called "national path to socialism", a la Yugoslavia (a model of socialism tailored to a particular country rather than the Soviet approach) not "national socialism" as in Nazis. We should probably have an article on that. Volunteer Marek 12:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Edited the article accordingly Alex Bakharev (talk) 14:09, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Jan Żaryn - 500/30 policy

This is a continuation of my latest reply. Do not transfer your answer here back to Jan Żaryn's talk page.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the chapter, but the criteria of awareness are defined here, and the rules about striking out users are outlined here. Users should know that they are part of a discussion with heightened restrictions, and while entering it, I was not - I just did so as I would do on a normal talk page, and besides it was even not protected at all. The 500/30 restriction you link to is now part of the rules on discretionary sanctions on the topic due to the ArbCom ruling, so the rules from AC/DS apply too. If they only meant to notify users like you did, they would have decided so; but since such text-only warning can hardly be tracked, there is a specific form to do so that could be monitored for abuse.

And yes, since you have no administrator rights, you may not unilaterally enforce 500/30 restrictions (as you tried to do here) - this was a clear overreach. (Cf. Discretionary sanctions may be placed by administrators within specified topics after the Arbitration Committee has authorised their use.) Of course, you can, however, notify users of restrictions being in place, as defined in the rule, or somehow get an uninvolved administrator enforce them, which I personally have nothing against - in fact, impartial administrators are badly needed in heated discussions like these. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 18:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You forgot these parts:

This prohibition may be enforced preemptively by use of extended confirmed protection (ECP), or by other methods such as reverts, pending changes protection, and appropriate edit filters. Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

Reverts made solely to enforce the 500/30 rule are not considered edit warring.

Frankly, I could've just removed their (and your) comment by revert. Striking it instead was a courtesy.

Volunteer Marek 19:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change anything. The prohibition may be enforced, including by reverting edits, for sure, but those who may do so must be uninvolved administrators. Apart from the quote above, see also: Enforcing administrators are accountable and must explain their enforcement actions; and they must not be involved. and Where there is a conflict between any individual provision authorising standard discretionary sanctions for an area of conflict and any provision in the standard discretionary sanctions procedure, the provision in the standard procedure will control.

Since you are neither an administrator nor an uninvolved person, I'd ask you to refrain from enforcing the 500/30 rule for the future. Please just participate in the discussion as a plain user.

PS. FYI I have just received an official notice about discretionary sanctions, so according to the rules, I will not edit the talk page until I reach 500 edits (as my account is already active for a month). Szmenderowiecki (talk) 19:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's nothing in there which says only "uninvolved administrators" can revert violations of 500/30 rule. Anyone can revert those just like anyone can revert vandalism. Volunteer Marek 20:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Sanctions Alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Uyghur genocide. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has enacted a more stringent set of rules. Any administrator may impose sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 — Mikehawk10 (talk) 22:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there

Hi Volunteer Marek, I’m not sure if you care or not but just letting you know I mentioned your name here[1] - GizzyCatBella🍁 06:01, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI case filed

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for your remarks on my talk page, I have noted them in the case, but I don't consider them substantiated. Some minor corrections were made to clarify some of my diffs presented. Please keep the discussion on ANI. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 17:19, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Other ANI Case

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:FIFIphilippe. Thank you. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been resolved. Feel free to disregard. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 01:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Assassination of Meir Kahane and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,--SoaringLL (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]