User talk:Volunteer Marek

Your big red button

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

It's not my script, I lifted it off another user's page, but I agree it's great. I'll see if I can find out who first made it and let them know about checking the creation date.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked into the templates used and I might be wrong. I think PROD reason-Unsourced BLP and a BLPPROD are two different things so maybe it is a non-issue. JBH (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it sends the worst possible message to people. A link to WP:BEFORE would be better. Or to the Cleanup Listings. Encourage new editors to delete stuff isn't ever going to end well. The-Pope (talk) 15:32, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

SWH^{® talk}

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

Nope, a lot of that was unsourced and you sneaked in some stuff, as well as removed other sourced material. And I did start a discussion on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You should realize that lead section should summarize the article's content. And I didn't sneaked in some stuff. Your accusations are groundless and assumed bad faiths. "Other sourced materials" were added by myself when the international studies were absent. SWH^{® talk} 05:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Just leave it. Now I added sources in the lead. SWH^{® talk} 06:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -YMB29 (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

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

New article

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

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Covert United States foreign regime change actions". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 26 February 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 15:06, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Polish United Workers' Party flag

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

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

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

Aleksandr Dugin

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Covert United States foreign regime change actions, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27

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

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

Murder of Boris Nemtsov

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

Nemtsov - political positions etc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anti-Katyn

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

Perhaps a sock?

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

There are similarities and the thought occurred to me. But there seems to be one key difference in the POVs being pushed. Zozs wants to argue that "Stalinism wasn't real Communism, it was capitalism in disguise" (or that Marxism-Leninism wasn't) if I read them correctly. Jacob Peters on the other hand loves his Stalinism, and would probably take issue with that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, thanks; but [1] isn't exactly distancing Stalin from the shining light of true Communism, and edits like this seem to underline (at length) that Stalin was Marxist-Leninist and that M-L is communism. Hmm. Are there any other good "tells" for Jacob Peters socks? bobrayner (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Do you accept such language?

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

Where? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Voice of America Xx236 (talk) 07:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Eh. Shrug.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Hurray for sanction alerts

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitration

I mentioned you.[2]

Dear0Dear 22:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Reliable source

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

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

Russia Today has had several newscasters resign on air after they could not stomach its lies (3 mentioned by The Guardian[3]). Russia Today has been declared disinformation by the EU, about the last time its member states could agree on anything.[4].

• Newscasters resign daily from tens of media outlets throughout the world. That doesn't prove or disprove anything. You fail to remember that news media, whether RT or Guardian, MInd or Telemundo, all exist because they write/show what its readers/viewers want to hear/see. The mere title "Most memorable moments" should had been a dead giveaway to you that it was no other than a entertainment piece, at best wonderful piece of gossip. I would expect respectable press outlets to use "Most memorable moments" to highlight accomplishments, awards, prizes and the like. I don't have a lot of respect for a magazine that makes its living by bashing other media. It seems you do. The "they could not stomach it lies", based as it is on such isolated cases, are a perfect example of the POV that the above anon IP 209.59.105.237 is precisely attempting to bring to light. Journalists with personal biases should not be talking on newscasters jobs if they are weak at maintaining neutrality. An undeniable fact is that each of those 3 journalists proves that freedom of speech is well and alive in RT, or the network would had pulled the plug on each one of them midstream during their 15 seconds of glory, right? Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I would just delete trolls, Marek. (C.f. Al Jazeera [5])

Dear0Dear 10:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Uuug? And just what is that link supposed to prove or disprove? Do we use RT stories to disprove Fox? Or AlJezzera to disprove Univision? Perhaps BBC to disprove NHK? So why are you using AlJezzera to bash RT? What a bunch of nonsense! Wake up, they all lack objectivity and it is up to you to scan the various media channels and draw your own conclusions...or does you mommy still feed you baby food so you won't choke up? (LOL) Grow up! What the hell is that link suppose to prove, ODear, other than you haven't outgrown your kindergarten indoctrination? That was fine back then, but now you need to think for yourself. When dealing with controversial issues (Crimea, gay marriage, the Keystone pipeline - you name it), the media from each of both sides will be biased; it is up to you to draw your own informed conclusions. Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

There are no both sides. Xx236 (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Not that I consider Poles to be unreliable, but if you meant polls, then those can certainly be biased and thus unreliabe. Lklundin (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps, but do we nail the anon IP 209.59.105.237's perfectly fair reasoning above just because he erred in 1 of 4 entries, or do we show good citizenship and praise him because he was 75% correct in his list - and over 100% correct in his good faith? Again, when RT-phobia overcomes someone, it seems that even the best citizens among us have a hard time using a bit of common sense to apply the WP:NPOV rule... to themselves! Mercy11 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

RT ad of the month too trivial

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

buk

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

Arbitration Case Opened

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

Comment on Party Status

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

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

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

American politics 2 arbitration case opened

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

March 2015

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

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

Nazi Party

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

SPI

See the similarity:

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

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

I'm not sure if there is a connection or not, but this guy needs to go to AE. He is making revenge and obviously PoV edits across many articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it's two different people who are in communication with one another. There's similarities in rhetoric and things they say but the fundamental style is different.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

• As you're the best with SPIs around, who do you think this is? Something fishy is clearly going on here. All the IPs at Battle of Debaltseve and Second Battle of Donetsk Airport, who've been waging a constant campaign, seem to be connected. RGloucester — ☎ 18:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously not a new user but based on that alone it's hard to pin point it. Some of the other IPs on those page are obviously the same person but there are a couple which are not (the one with interest in Albanian stuff for example).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

SPA/SP alert

Have any ideas about who this is? I'm sure it is one of the usual characters. RGloucester — ☎ 06:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Hello, Volunteer Marek. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Tobby72 (talk) 10:33, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11

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

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

American Politics 2 arbitration evidence phase closing soon

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

Reference errors on 12 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Evidence closed

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

Reason?

Why did you revert my edit?

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

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

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

American politics 2 workshop phrase

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

American politics 2 workshop phase closed

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

Reference errors on 30 April

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Aidar Battalion page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

External debt

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

But the data is from World Bank/IMF, no? That should have the latest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you think that they provide for each of the nation the way cia.gov has done? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and their data is better, or at least more frequently used in academic sources [8].Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:51, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Tomasz Kamusella

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Volunteer Marek,

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

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

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

Reference errors on 3 May

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Crimean status referendum, 2014 page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by external debt

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

So in other words, you think it's better to have factually incorrect info in an encyclopedia, rather than no info at all? Did I mention the word "encyclopedia"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It is not incorrect information. There is a difference between incorrect info and old info. We should note the point that not all the info is old, some info is up-to-date. In my opinion we should leave the info as it is until someone updates it. Maybe latest information is not available. We may leave a note that all info is not up-to-date in the article. We can change the year mentioned in the article to the correct year in which the info is taken from. I think having old information is better than having no information. Thank you. Supdiop ^talk 19:15, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tito

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

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. I don't imagine this will take long. BlusterBlaster^kablooie! 11:20, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

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

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

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

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

No. The lede summarizes the article. It doesn't mention every single thing in the article. "Obviously". And simply because your position is opposed on the talkpage, doesn't mean anyone is "vetoing" you. Wikipedia works by consensus. -- Director (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that any mention of abuses by Tito's regime is not notable enough to include in the lede. Minor detail that should be swept aside. But obsequious praise about him being a "benevolent dictator" does. Despite the fact that numerous sources were provided. Riiiiggggghhhhhtttt. WP:NPOV?

And from what I see on the talk and in the history of the article is 1) one user who mindlessly reverts any and all changes to the article because... not sure why, they appear to think they WP:OWN it and 2) you, who edit wars to remove any negative information about the subject matter, making up any flimsy bullshit excuse that can be pulled out of one's air.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Who were you arguing with? It is MY CURRENT POSITION that we expand the treatment of the negative side of Tito's rule to include repression of political opponents! That is what the OZNA/UDBA did, that is a good summary (for the lede!) of what the sources state. I just don't think that we should go into "the how and the why?" of that repression in the lede - because its a complex issue. It can be argued that would round off the source talking about human rights as well. The "human rights violations" in question was basically the UDBA shutting you up if you oppose the regime, that's it - "repression of political opponents".

The "benevolent dictator" thing can be supported by upwards of two dozen individual scholarly publications! I think I've shown that?? Its been in the article for eons. And not only that, but its qualified with "seen by most as", and its in parentheses. Its FINE, by any standard.

I do NOT mindlessly revert. Up to this recent push by Silvio - I can't recall when I was last even active on the article. Must be months and years. I did edit extensively ages ago, but what I wrote back then has been distorted and jumbled to the point it lost contact with the original sources. Is that OWN? Good luck with that claim..

Similarly, if you honestly think supporting "human rights violations" from sources that don't even mention them isn't OR?? Good luck with that too. And with your fantasy "campaigns of terror" dreamed out of thin air. This is the second sentence of a controversial, and reasonably high-profile article - that kind of "back-alley editing" just won't fly.

I do not accept, for one second, that I'm being biased - even in the slightest. Indeed - it seems most of what you talk about is countering me more than anything else. -- Director (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Sock puppet accusation

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

VDARE

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

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

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

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

It's WP:GEVAL and non-RS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

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

AN/I

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

Lead section citations

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

Why not indeed?Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Invitation

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

American politics 2 arbitration proposed decision posted

Hello. The proposed decision for the American politics 2 arbitration case, which you are listed to as a party, has been posted. Thank you, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

A bug?

Any idea why you don't appear on Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Poland? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I know how that list is generated. Maybe it's because I haven't commented on the project page in awhile? Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 3 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Marinka, Ukraine page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresentation of source

You've used this phrase to change what clearly the article cited says. Yes, it is one section or quote, but who said every citation needs to accurately portray the overall message of the source? How is that even possible when many sources give different viewpoints? What WP can you use to justify removing one quote from an article for another, with the intended result of suppressing viewpoints or facts you don't like? Mnnlaxer (talk) 17:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You've blatantly misrepresented a source. See the talk page. I'm very much inclined to haul you to WP:AE over this as it's pretty egregious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

See your egregious actual misrepresenting of a source on the talk page. What policy and specific section or quote of that policy would you haul me to AE over? Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, WP:NPOV? Remember the article is under discretionary sanctions. Anyway, the proper venue to discuss this is the article's talk page (or AE).Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, with the general cite of huge WP. I couldn't find the word "misrepresent" there, however. The word "represent" is used exclusively in the context of the article representing "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." It is never used to refer to a particular citation fairly representing an entire source. Again, how is that even possible? Your edited change just swaps one fair, but obviously limited, quote for another. So you must mean a different policy. I brought it here because you've used "misrepresentation of source" before. I agree to AE. Please haul me up, but I would think providing a relevant WP would be needed before you do that. Mnnlaxer (talk) 18:40, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Nysa Kłodzka

Hello Volunteer Marek, you corrected my edit about the length of above. I looked at German WP and found there Länge 195 km. What's correct? Thanks for checking and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 18:50, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

You could be right. I was basing it on Polish wikipedia but that could be wrong. I don't think this is exactly a reliable source but it does agree with you. My apologies, I'll reinstate your edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:58, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No problems and thanks for correction. You've forgotten it in the infobox. I did it. Regards -- Sweepy (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Merenschwand

Hello wonce more. Please can you help me at above. I wrote the newest date of population, but it's not seeing. What mistake I did? Please correct it and than I can see it. Thanks and regards -- Sweepy (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That seems to be an issue with the template: [9]. It seems like the template (or some bot) automatically generates this information and for some reason it cannot be changed manually. You might want to ask on the talk page of the template about it as I don't know that much about how those things work. Also note that AFAICT the population also shows up wrong.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghouta chemical attack". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 13 June 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:16, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Everything is lined up for the mediation. Please agree or disagree on the request page so we can get started. Mnnlaxer (talk) 15:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Your undue reversions by accusing others of POV Pushing

Ref your reversions in Mukti Bahini and Bangladesh Liberation War:‎ Did you even bother reading the source? Stop behaving like a POV pusher yourself instead of accusing others PakSol (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes I read the source. It is not reliable and the edit is POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Car Costs

Kindly do not remove content from the article Car costs, at least, according with WP rules, without debate and respective consensus. Thank you so much. João Pimentel Ferreira 09:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

If text violates Wikipedia policies then it will be removed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:38, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

And that right there is just an essay, not "WP rules". And that content is just plain weird.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Ghouta chemical attack, 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/Ghouta chemical attack, 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, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Mondschein English

Can you elaborate on evidence of the guy being a sockpuppet. Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:55, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like a sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit/User:Patriot Donbassa. Definitely someone's sock though, note him trying to troll me right above: [10] (a sort of "I know where you live" kind of edit) Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:14, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Filed Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lokalkosmopolit Alex Bakharev (talk) 09:30, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bell Curve

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You need to explain your edits at The Bell Curve, preferably on the article's talk page. Explaining one's edits is considered normal on Wikipedia. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1. Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.
2. Ubikwit (talk · contribs) is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.
3. MONGO (talk · contribs) is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 closed

See my expl

WHY I remove it. "Military build-up" is Section 2 of the article. Besides, within its context, the news reports pasted are quite irrelevant. The person who did the initial edit adding those, apparently had not read the article.Axxxion (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

RT

I understand CITEKILL but...it seems to me this will just invite the same bad editing that inspired/required the mass of refs. Shouldn't we leave the extra refs there for a longer time? Capitalismojo (talk) 19:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand that and that's why I hadn't done that sooner. I don't know - let's leave it with fewer cites and if the hi-jinks resume we can put them back.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Volunteer Marek. You have new messages at Talk:Bangladesh Liberation War.
Message added 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Faizan (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Bangladesh Liberation War

Hi Volunteer Marek, you seem to be locked in an interminable dispute with TripWire over there. Would you like to formulate an RfC or something with a clear question so that the others can chip in? Cheers, 21:04, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Bangladesh Liberation War page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Revert at Marinka

Its not just a claim by some dude. The man is, as per the source, a Ukrainian member of Parliament and former commander of the Kiev-1 volunteer battalion. Plus you ignored the part where the Ukrainian military itself said they regained control of the village thanks to the ceasefire, which means they lost control at one point. And finally the DPR spokesman claimed the Army withdrew from the village. So you got two pro-Ukrainian sources and one pro-rebel source claiming almost the same thing. And not just one person. So please do not remove sourced information. Thank you! EkoGraf (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This belongs on the article's talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring

Saying that someone is edit warring when you freely delete articles without going through AfD is pot calling kettle black. Go through AfD if you want to delete an article. Start a Wikipedia proceeding against me if you think I'm in the wrong. Erxnmedia (talk) 21:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

If these articles had even a hope of being coherent it'd be one thing. But they're just copy-pastes of old documents or random sentences.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Your recent edit deleted reliable sources and new information based on recent data in poverty in Poland article. Please don't do this again. Especially under arguments like "it's crap" or "we have been over this". No we haven't as this is recent data from last month.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 19:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

There's a discussion on this issue on the talk page. As you well know of course, since you participated in it [11]. The obvious outcome of the discussion was against you. User:Piotrus in particular disagreed with you. Hence, WP:CONSENSUS was against you. What you did here is wait for some time until interest in the article died down, then snuck back and tried to reinsert the rejected text.

That's disruptive.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid you aren't even reading my edits. This is new data AFTER the discussion you point out. It has nothing to do with the discussion you mention.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:05, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

It's the same edit. Stop playing games.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Why do you delete information about Republic of Crimea?

• Census 2014
• pop_latest
• license_plates

??

I'm sorry, I have no idea as to what you're trying to say.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!

We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways:

• Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
• Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
• Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
• Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
• Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
• Research coordinators: run reference services

Sign up now

Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of discretionary sanctions

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

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

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

—Darkwind (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Collapsed comment

Telling me I don't understand the issue and then characterizing your opponents' arguments is unproductive, when in fact it seems I do understand what they are arguing per Mnnlaxer. Andrevan@ 20:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Telling you that you don't understand the issue as a response to a comment of yours in which you clearly outline your misunderstanding of the issue actually is productive. You thought: 1) the article said something else than it actually does, and 2) you thought the dispute was about something other than what it is about. Since you're the mediator, any kind of progress in mediation DOES actually require that you are clear on these two points. If you're not, we're not gonna go nowhere. If you are, then we maybe we can solve this. But it's a necessary condition. In that respect my comment was perfectly on point, and I don't appreciate you dismissing - and collapsing - it, arbitrarily.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:01, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Neither of those is true. Please stop participating in the mediation. Andrevan@ 08:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, both of these are true. And what kind of mediation do you imagine having, when you exclude pretty much everyone on one side of the issue (or remove their comment, or collapse them, or tell them to go away)? Is that how you "solve" these kinds of problems?.

How about you stop mediating and ask someone else to do the job?Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't mediate between POV pushers and those who insist on ad hominem, references to Nazis, alleging that the KGB or Kremlin are behind everything. Straw manning others' arguments, telling me I don't understand even as those people are telling me I am on the money. Andrevan@ 08:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I think your comment above in which you characterize the participants in such negative ways basically testifies that yes, you're right, you can't mediate.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

These "negative ways" are in fact some of the things the participants have been doing -- on both sides. A few are interested in having an actual discussion about what the sources say about the false flag theory and writing about that in the article. Others simply want to make Flat Earth comparisons or use Cold War spy lingo to cast aspersions on various referenced quotes from the text. Can I ask who you are and why you are so concerned about this? I'm a volunteer and I do this for fun, to help the project, and my own edification. I am not paid or compensated in any way and I don't have to put up with people who don't understand what I need from them to have a productive discussion. Andrevan@ 08:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

"Can I ask who you are and why you are so concerned about this?" - that's a strange question to ask, especially by a mediator. I'm a volunteer and I do this for fun.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to wade into something nasty here, but I'm also rather appalled by how you've responded to Volunteer Marek both here and on the mediation page, Andrevan. I understand that as mediations go, this one has probably been more frustrating than the average. But I shouldn't have had to point out to you that the "false flag" and "red line" are both already mentioned prominently in the article, and IMO, your response to Marek making that observation should not have been to hat his comments and ask him to stop participating in the mediation. And I don't like the hostile way in which you've characterized the parties to the mediation here. You've redacted comments and upbraided people (myself included) on the mediation page for far tamer statements.

I don't know how things are going to develop, or if they are going to develop, with regard to this mediation. But right now, the sense I get is that if it fails, it's likelier to be because you have been unclear and oftentimes contradictory in your statements and exercises as a mediator than because there aren't folks involved in the mediation who are willing to work collaboratively toward a compromise solution. That either needs to change, or you need to hand off mediation duties to someone else in this case. I don't say that meaning to be harsh or accusatory, or as a personal attack -- that's just the situation as I see it. -Kudzu1 (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• I too expressed my opinion on the subject/content of this mediation, but it has been reverted by mediator [12]. That's fine. However what I said has nothing to do with Godwin's law because it was not me who used the argument about Nazi. To the contrary, I strongly disagreed with someone who uses this argument in quoted source. I also would like to remind that WP:Casting aspersions is about accusing another editor of something. Challenging the sources and the theory (that is what I did) should never be a problem. My very best wishes (talk) 01:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding here since the comments are here. @Kudzu1, I'm not sure when you think I've been contradictory, but unlike seemingly everyone else, I don't have an axe to grind. So it may seem as if I am playing both sides or offering both sides food for thought, my POV doesn't exist per se. My job is to herd cats and get you all to compromise, and sometimes that means taking people to task who aren't working productively. Kudzu1, for the most part you have been productive, however Marek and MVBW have largely not been. MVBW, you're violating Godwin's law if you bring in a red herring Nazi argument - more to the point, you aren't refuting anything, merely repeating your invalid policy position. Take a look at the argument pyramid I posted. Refutation is not simple repetition. As to that position, Flat Earth isn't analogous to a position like this. Marek, the comments I hatted were attacking me, the mediator, and a straw man, so I stand by the hat. You should neither attack the mediator, nor construct a straw man of what others want to do and attack that. And if I remove a Nazi argument you should not revert that. So, while I still may pronounce the mediation a failure, since I am guessing at least a few of you are employees of intelligence agencies and will not change your position. I'm mostly joking, but were I serious, that would be casting aspersions - not describing what you actually did, which is what I did above. Andrevan@

"Employees of intelligence agencies"? That is completely inappropriate and a prima facie violation of WP:AGF, even if you say you're "mostly joking". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially after his weird "Can I ask who you are and why you are so concerned about this?" query right above.

And like I already said, I neither "attacked the mediator" nor "constructed a strawman". For something to be a "strawman" it has to be a misrepresentation ("made of straw"). It wasn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's a valid question - why are we expending so much effort to keep this stuff out of the article? Why do the others want to keep it in so badly? Like I said, mostly joking, but it's been in the back of my head that this sometimes seems to be more serious for y'all than it is for me. What is YOUR motivation? And Marek, you did construct a strawman, because Mnnlaxer said that my characterization of his argument was accurate. You can say that your disagreement is accurate, but you're still holding up a strawman. Andrevan@ 03:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to participate in a mediation being presided over by someone who casts inappropriate and gross aspersions against other editors in this case, whether they're on "my side" of the line or not. And I think it's well past time for you to recuse yourself and hand off mediating duties to someone else based on your comments here. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I already reached out to the Mediation Committee to see if anyone is available to take over the case, but I don't think that is likely because there's currently an open case that needs to be mediated. And frankly I think this is a better bet for Arbitration, who will probably hand out some topic bans and other sanctions liberally. Andrevan@ 03:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That would be unfortunate, as I believe a compromise can be reached between the parties with a different mediator's involvement. Cheers. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That seems unlikely. I believe you, VQuakr, Darouet, and Mnnlaxer might find a compromise, but MVBW, Marek, bobrayner and Erlbaeko have been rather unproductive and intractable. Thus my attempts to get them to stay on the sidelines. Andrevan@ 03:43, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, you now stay off my talk page please (and Arbitration doesn't rule on content and there isn't much of behavioral issues so I doubt it will wind up there unless the arbs are feeling bored and are looking for something to do... right.)Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

VM, could you possibly have a quiet word with...

...Patryk888pt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? Patryk888pt appears to be creating seasons of the Polish spin-offs of reality TV shows that may or may not exist.
Ta, mate. Pete in Australia aka --Shirt58 (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be in his sandbox, no? The only one in main space is The Voice of Poland which I think is an actual show.

Patryk, please don't remove other people's messages from my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Alexander Perepilichny

VM, you keep changing this page saying Alexander Perepilichny was murdered. The coroner has come to no such conclusion. Since Perepilichny died in the jurisdiction of England and Wales, I think we must accept that it is the Surrey coroner who decides whether or not this is a murder case. If/when the coroner decides it is a case of murder, please feel free to add this information to this page. In the meantime, it's probably best to avoid jumping to conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ph1ll1phenry (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of contents

Hello, I'm Erlbaeko. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Khan al-Assal chemical attack without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; I restored the removed content. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The edit summary you did provide, "no, this is still grossly undue and it's still based on unreliable sources", is just to vague to be accurate. In the future, please use the talk page, and explain why the material you remove is undue or why you see the sources as unreliable. Please, also note that once an editor has provided any source that he or she believes, in good faith, to be sufficient, then any editor who later removes the material has an obligation to articulate specific problems that would justify its exclusion from Wikipedia. See note #2 at WP:BURDEN. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 08:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification - Eastern Europe

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

Please carefully read this information:

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

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

Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z33

Hi

Hi Marek. Glad to see you are still around. I will email you. Peter Damian (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Blue Army

Hi Marek, you've done great work on Polish WWII resistance articles and clearly have great knowledge and interest in the subject. I really appreciate that.

Concerning the (earlier) Blue Army, you were right, and I was wrong, about the Lwów massacre: I hope you'll forgive me and understand that many sources still state the Blue Army was responsible. Because of this the issue is confusing; however I'll assume you and the sources you've cited are correct for now. And for Haumann, I actually had trouble finding the same text again when I checked recently, and will ask you about it when I find it.

However, the unsourced lead statement about Jews being targeted because of their allegiance to Bolshevism, and the text statement about the tailor being a Bolshevik, when neither source we use to describe his death say he was, are a blight on the article. I hope you'll agree that these statements, unless they can be sourced, should be removed. -Darouet (talk) 05:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this in awhile but here is my understanding; it's not that the tailor was a Bolshevik or that Jews who were victims were sympathetic to Bolshevism. Rather it's that the perpetrators of the violence believed this to be the case. I'll look at the source again when I have a bit more time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

That may well be true, maybe not re: the individual tailor, but perhaps more generally. -Darouet (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

blogs written by journalists and published on news websites are RS

See here Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29.Rajmaan (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Look. Yes, under some circumstances blogs can be RS. This doesn't look like one of these cases. Second, there's like a half a dozen other Wikipedia policies which those edits violate. Like WP:UNDUE. Or the fact that they're off topic. Or the fact that they comment on something which is not discussed in the article (if a particular article discussed photos of Muslims being killed then maybe you could use these sources). So there's basically no way that this is encyclopedic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Notification of Arbitration Enforcement request

Volunteer Marek, I've filed a request for enforcement of discretionary sanctions at AE involving the dispute at Race and Genetics that involved you.Wajajad (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Reply

• a) I think the above message from @Wajajad illustrates my point.
• b) My second point is that I have witnessed, albeit not otherwise been prominently involved, some of your edit disputes, going back YEARS. I understand your passion about political issues and I get your understandable anti-communist position. I also have gotten into hot water about my political obsessions (albeit in different regions of the world). It doesn't go on indefinitely and you are only going to harm your reputation further. Chill. Quis separabit? 03:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

• • a) You mean the message above from a sock puppet of a banned user about an Arbitration Enforcement request (not ANI) which isn't even about me, I'm only pinged on it? What point exactly does that illustrate?
  • b) Let me worry about my reputation, which is just fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Crimea

What you said it's true "it has been called Crimea for a quite long time"... As long as you don't call it as Xangri-La, for me it's fine. But let's stick to historical facts, OK? As long as they're respected concerning to objective historical facts and not as ideological facts, I respect that, for sure. Therefore, I'll thank you for that edit, though not for the previous one. Viet-hoian1 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Murowana Oszmianka

Commanded and organized by Nazis ≠ Nazis. And it needs to be made clear, because LTDF weren't Nazis and that sentence "The Lithuanian Nazi forces..." implies that they were Nazis when it's the opposite. Furthermore, this article portrays LTDF as Nazistic anti-Polish/anti-Jewish force which is also not true and is very biased. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits to Donetsk People's Republic

In this edit you removed my edit claiming it was undue removal of pertinent material. I was just trying to fix the template it looked like someone was trying to use, Template:Efn, which collapses the information into a footnote. Notice in my edit, the information is still there, with an [a] superscript that you can hover over to read and links to the footnote at the bottom of the page in the Notes section. The reference I removed was a duplicate of the one right before the footnote, but now I realize that was probably citing the demands, and that was my mistake. Either way, when you reverted the article, there's still bare unfinished template code in the text of the article. If your intention is to keep this information in-line with the other text, then the template code should be removed and the list properly formatted. I'd do this myself, but I'm not sure if you misunderstood my edit or don't wish to hide the information in a footnote. StressOverStrain (talk) 01:52, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

User:StressOverStrain, My apologies. I meant to put that back in but got distracted. Please go ahead and fix it again or let me know if you need me to do it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:24, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Some editors are more equal than others

Sorry to raise this subject such a long time after the facts. On 5 August 2015 you reverted two edits I made, one on the article 'RT' the other on 'Ahmadinjad'. Since you didn't try to discuss the matter with me and I was convinced I was right I reinstated my edits and was almost instantly blocked for 12h by Materialscientist. After a long discussion with him (see entries 69 and 89 in his talk page) he finally gave me as a reason that I made 'significant changes without an adequate edit summary'. I therefore believed that I could reinstate my edits provided I added a proper summary, which I did. I was wrong, for, shortly afterwards, I was blocked for 48h by Ymblanter, who invoked as a reason that I 'continued to do exactly the same'. After an even longer discussion in which I tried to ascertain precisely which action he incriminated, he told me it was the edits on RT. I must confess I am somewhat troubled by all this. You were never challenged and even less blocked for your reverting my edits without explanation, even though your edit history shows that you have reverted an immensely larger number of edits than I have. Could it be that some editors are allowed to edit the article RT and others not? Now I would like to address the substance of my edit on RT. I read in the lead of the article the phrase 'former Russian officials'. I was intrigued and wanted to know who they were, so I looked up the source. There, you can read that it is in fact 'Konstantin Preobrazhensky, himself a former Soviet KGB officer who defected to the West'. This convinced me that the article formulation was (voluntarily?) misleading. How can a single ex KGB officer working for the ex Soviet Union metamorphose into more than one Russian officials working for the Russian Federation is a miracle that I would expect to see on Fox News or in the Daily Mirror (or, perhaps, RT) rather than in a respectable encyclopaedia. If you could explain to me how this miracle was performed and why I should be a firm believer, I would be very grateful. You will forgive me for the slightly sarcastic tone, but my first experience as an editor was less than rewarding.Againstdisinformation (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Sorry, I forgot to leave an alert, so you may not be aware of my previous message. Againstdisinformation (talk) 00:18, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Could you please have the kindness to address the issue I raised, I certainly would appreciate your comments. If you do not reply, I will assume that you have no objection to my restoring my edit. Againstdisinformation (talk) 21:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, Preobrazhensky is in fact a former Russian official. There is a room for improvement in the language there but I don't see you having brought up the issue on the talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Preobrazhenskiy left the KGB in 1991, so it is fair to descibe him as an ex KGB officer working for the Soviet Union and not multiple russian officials working for the Russian Federation.I also think that the three lines starting with "RT has been called a propaganda outlet..." should be moved to the criticism section. Againstdisinformation (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

This is something you should be talking about on the talk page. And as a piece of advice, it helps your case if you keep your comments short and on point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:51, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus, etc.

Re this edit summary, you ought to know that the version to which I was reverting was the established version (since Aug 2014 when the box was added) - It was changed here yesterday. There seems to be an odd effort by Poles to treat the bear as a person (see for instance here and here, not to mention the ludicrous arguments being advanced on the article talk page). I would appreciate it if you would restore the stable infobox. Parsecboy (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

@Parsecboy. Actually what that shows is that you did indeed break the 3RR rule since this means that your first edit was also a revert.

You should also ask yourself: "why does this matter"? The military infobox allows us to put in relevant information that we could not otherwise. Aesthetically it makes no difference. Readers are not even going to see that this is a "military person" infobox. So... why does this matter?

I would also appreciate it if you did not engage in ethnic generalizations, such as "There seems to be an odd effort by Poles". What is that suppose to mean, some kind of "Polish conspiracy"? Do you think that "Poles" all think the same? Hell, that IP is from Germany and at least I myself am incapable of determining someone's nationality or ethnicity from behind an IP address. Those kind of statements can be offensive.

(I agree though that the arguments made by the IP on the talk page are silly. That doesn't make you right, it just makes both of you wrong in different ways).Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Dukisuzuki saga

[13] Oh yeah, also, I may as well state explicitly that I am not the same user as User:No such user and have no idea who they are. – my choice of username was apt, wasn't it? :)
Anyway, I didn't feel inclined to comment on the AE, the matter being rather obvious. Regards, No such user (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

		The Editor's Barnstar
		In appreciation for your excellent edits in cleaning out the muck at illegal immigration to the United States and many other articles, I am pleased to confer this Editor's Barnstar upon you. Truly, your edits exemplify the motto: WikiMasters create value by removing that without. Neutralitytalk 03:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Poisoning the well

I edited the article 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine at 14:57, 26 August 2015. You deleted my edit at 15:04, 26 August 2015. But what was there in my edit that elicited such speedy deletion? I merely replaced "George Soros has called on the European Union..." by "the American business magnate George Soros has called on the European Union...". George Soros is not one of the few people who like Socrates or Kant can be cited without any kind of introduction. Would you accept "Charles Simonyi has called on the European Union..." without any kind of explanation as to who he may be. Please, recognize that George Soros may not be as universally known as you think. Besides, in the Wikipedia article devoted to him, he is presented as a "Hungarian-born American business magnate, investor, author, and philanthropist". I suggest you go there and promptly delete 'American business magnate'. Moreover, you never discussed the matter with me, you only left the bizarre and cryptic summary "unnec POVish poisoning the well". I would not dream to impute to you the POVish intention to hide the fact that he is an American business magnate, when citing him about the crisis in Ukraine. I am certain that you will clarify everything as swiftly as you deleted my edit.Againstdisinformation (talk) 19:31, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

He is fairly well known. And his name is wikilinked which I think is sufficient. You can ask for other editors' opinions on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but you are again dodging my question. Why is it necessary to suppress the fact that he is an American businessman? The fact that he is fairly well known is not sufficient in my opinion. If I reinstate my edit, I am certain that you will claim I am edit warring. But what gives you the authority to decide what should be the final version? Againstdisinformation (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	You certainly deserve the Tireless Contributor award, VM. I think you have it already, but here's another one. Keep up the good job! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you! Also thanks to User:Neutrality for the barnstar above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note

Since you claim you are not aware of (ref diff) the 1RR restriction on all pages related to the Syrian Civil War; here are some info for you:

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The details of these sanctions are described here. All pages that are broadly related to these topics are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction, as described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

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

Erlbaeko (talk) 12:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)