User talk:Volunteer Marek

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC

Given that you expressed a desperate interest in such an RfC, Hebel has posted it here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that, should you be interested, you still have a chance to !vote at the Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? RfC. After your edit on Slavs, I suspect that you have a strong opinion on the matter worthy of voicing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your rude manners

@Volunteer Marek: Those statistics are government reports compiled by a Bengali judge. And keep in mind your language is being reported. Wait to get a permanent block due to your manners. Pro Tip: I am about to commence work on a page dealing with rape of Chakma women by Bangladeshi Army, please do not interfere.Towns_Hill 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talk • contribs)

My manners are fine. And those "statistics" are crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. these your edits [1] are unconsensused and even unexplained at talk while the page is under 1rr. The rules on secondary sources just say "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible" (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It doesn't mean we should delete primary sources everywhere in Wikipedia (especially in the articles dedicated to recent events). Thank you. OptimusView (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that "unconsensused" is a clumsy way of saying "no consensus!". But then the text needs to be removed. It's those who want to *add* text that need to get consensus.

And why is it that whenever someone quotes the policy on primary sources, they're always invoking the possible exception? As if every single use of primary sources fell under that one exception? It doesn't. We don't use primary sources for controversial stuff. And if you do want to use them for controversial stuff, then again, the burden to obtain consensus is on you.

And the discussion here does seem to support removing this section.

Finally, this section is based mostly on crap sources like breitbart.com.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

AA2

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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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.

Template:Z33 OptimusView (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of talk page reply and section

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Holocaust_revisionism&diff=720509695&oldid=720503354

You did not explain your reasons justifying this revert. Could you do so now? --Ranze (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 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 Slavs 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) 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT's disruptive editing

There is a case pending regarding EllenCT's disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Numerous_problems_with_an_editor_of_Economic_stagnationPhmoreno (talk)

EllenCT failed to listen and is back to disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. Is there any way we can have her banned from this topic?Phmoreno (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement

As promised: [2]. --Dorpater (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

First, please don't follow my edits to perform silly "revenge reverts" [3]. You had never edited this page before, so you have now obviously taken to stalking my edits. As far as the issue is concerned, it is standard knowledge in political science that Endecja represented the extreme-right camp during the interwar period, it is absurd to deny it.

Finally, could you now stop with the baseless and very offensive insinuations that I'm someone's sock puppet, ok? The allegations are wrong and I thought we had covered the issue already. Dorpater (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You have helped Wikipedia appear messy and bizarre

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

I need a Cracked barnstar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Okay

Because you said please I'll stop. Please play nicer with other editors. Reply so I know you got this and I'll stop immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC01:3E00:A904:E52A:78D5:FE0D (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to reply and finish this or are we still playing games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC01:3E00:311E:85EF:7AD1:44DE (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some observations

Dear Marek, I've had a little talk with EllenCT about her editing style, and to keep it balanced, I should leave some unsolicited advice for you as well.

I've been reading the Economic Growth talk page, and a few things occurred to me that I should mention to you. I think it would be helpful if were be a little less sure in your statements, and be a little bit more willing to listen and compromise – it would come off as less abrasive. To be frank, I think you've overstated your level of certainty about some economic issues. To identify a couple, I don't think it's settled that demand issues cannot affect growth. Summers, De Long etc make the argument that there is hysteresis in economic growth, and that long periods of economic stagnation can depress growth afterwards. Also, I think the literature is still out about whether inequality is bad for growth, but it's leaning heavily that way. I'ld say that empirically, most studies support the contention that higher inequality is associated with lower growth.

I notice that you and Ellen have disagreements about what are secondary sources. I think what Ellen wants to see are closer to tertiary sources in our conception. A good source would be the New Palgrave, and the various field handbooks (e.g. the Handbook of Economic Growth). The articles in those frequently survey the literature, and reflect the current consensus in the field. I think when there is disagreement about what the consensus in the field is, it's more helpful to quote from the articles in the field handbooks, rather than individual papers.

Lastly, you need to relax and tone down a little bit. For instance, this statement was not polite. At the end of the day, thinks will only be settled if you get others to agree with you (or at least, not actively disagree with you). Negativity doesn't help that. The way to do that is by bringing in good quality sources, no matter how much of a pain it is to google up stuff that you already know. (Actually, it's not a complete waste of time to do that. A few times, after being forced to look up the literature, I found out that my understanding of the literature was wrong.)

Let me end by saying that I've always found you to be an excellent contributor, and that I really appreciate how you have cleaned up many economics pages. I know it's hard editing with people who are unfamiliar with the literature, but that's the Wikipedia way. At the end of the day, we can only get stuff to stick if we convince non-experts that what we write accurately reflects consensus in the literature – and the only way to do that is to bring in the best sources available. LK (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. But please realize that the latest tone of my comments to EllenCT is a result of months, even years, long discussion with that editor - and it's well deserved. The discussion has reached a point - actually, quite some time ago - where constructive dialogue is not possible. EllenCT just insists on repeating the same thing and accusing anyone who doesn't agree with her of having a "supply side agenda" (whatever that is). And it's not like I'm unique in my frustration. I mean, she even got banned from Jimbo's talk page for this stuff. At the end of the day, unless SHE makes a dramatic change to her editing approach, there's really nothing to discuss here.

As to the substance of the issues. First, I'm quite sympathetic to the view that greater inequality creates a drag on growth. And I do agree with you that the literature is finding some evidence for this view. However, the argument is actually NOT about whether inequality matters for growth. EllenCT's POV is that inequality is the MAIN and possibly ONLY determinant of growth. And there's absolutely no support for that in the literature. Yes, we do have an obligation to try to explain the literature to non-specialists on Wikipedia, but the other side of that coin is that they have to be willing to listen. We don't have that here.

As to the primary vs. secondary source issue, if you read carefully read through all the past discussions you'll notice that EllenCT's definition of what is a "literature review" and what is a "secondary source" tends to change according to whether a source supports her POV or not. Regardless, both papers which include original research and literature reviews (like from JEL or JEP) are acceptable on Wikipedia so this is actually moot, and I don't see why I should even devote any more time to arguing about what constitutes a "secondary source".

And oh yeah, hysterisis. There might be a reason to put something about it in the article. But even in the whole Blanchard etc. at best the presence of hysterisis would only have a LEVEL effect (higher steady state unemployment rate) not a growth effect, no? So even there the connection to economic growth as a topic is tenuous and it should not be overemphasized in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand and sympathize with what you are saying. However, it behooves us as academics to be polite and generous in our interactions. I know, I'm the pot preaching to the kettle here, but still, it doesn't help to be negative. Calm neutral statements are best. Warm regards, LK (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

{sigh} You were right, and I was wrong. Sorry, LK (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: On the contrary, you are still correct above, including in your characterization of what is and is not a reliable secondary source. That you are willing to capitulate your voice of conscience merely because I have decided to remain opposed to systemic bias is an excllelent illustration of your part in perpetuating that bias. EllenCT (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT, continuing to comment on this matter, here or elsewhere, could constitute a violation of your topic ban. The point of that ban is for you to walk away from the issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte

My two cents, if you want to move this to the talk section of the page as well, that is fine. The material that I removed is all primary sourced material. It comes off as POV pushing without having secondary sources to back up its inclusion. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just a list of some of the things she's published recently. How is that POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Writers publish lots of things, thats what they do. Unless its gains recognition elsewhere and has a conversation around it, its inclusion seems more promotional than informational. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You know what? I think I actually agree. So I'll let it be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

justification

Would you please justify this? Have you checked the sources of the content you remove?--77.69.80.202 (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT administrators' notice board

Hello Volunteer Marek:

I reported EllenCT for disruptive editing of Economic stagnation

[[4]]

She also reinserted a section on inequality in Economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to actually notify me of these things - those articles are on my watchlist and I'll be sure to catch it myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding evidence piecemeal is also not going to be very helpful. You need a concise statement that demonstrates the problem with evidence, not diffs scattered over a long thread that no-one is going to bother reading. GoldenRing (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

You may be right but you know, I got other time constraints, and doing it piecemeal is really all I got time for now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've changed your tune.

From unfairly dismissing complaints about EllenCT's conduct as "opportunistic assholery" [5] last year to describing her in the new ANI almost word for word the same way I and others did [6]. Extended experience with her can do that. Good. I understand that charges against her can seem incredible or exaggerated until one experiences her antics first hand for a prolonged period of time. I tried hard to find common ground and collaborate with her for a long time, but after dealing with her on multiple articles and topics over the years I reached the point a couple of years ago that you apparently did recently. I can and have worked with people who don't understand a topic but are willing to learn, I can and have worked with good faith editors with political views that differ strongly from mine, but I can't work with someone who lies about what a source says and then persists in the lie after being called on it. And then proceeds to lie to try and discredit other editors or get them baselessly sanctioned. Better late than never. Wikipedia is much better off today. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is that Phmoreno has changed their approach to editing a lot. For the better. Back then they had their own problems with pushing fringe-y theories and giving them undue weight but they've really learned a lot in the mean time. They're a very good editor now. On the other hand, the problems with EllenCT just got worse and worse. So yeah, people change, facts change, and when they do, I change my mind. It's what you're suppose to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Given the context, I didn't realize your comment back then was directed at Phmoreno (the op). Phmoreno was relatively new at the time so I'm not surprised he's learned the ropes since then. But EllenCT was doing the same things then and before that she's been doing recently (as has been repeatedly documented). If anything she seems to have mellowed out a little in certain narrow regards, though the basic pattern of misconduct is the same. I appreciate your open mindedness. VictorD7 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

FYI

I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

3rr on Grand Duchy of Lithuania

Hello User:Volunteer Marek, on the matter concerning User:Craft27by I've submitted a report here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Wołyń

Hi VM, just wanted to follow up on the Wołyń Massacre article, one of my thoughts is that perhaps in the Lead Section, we should avoid emphasizing individual historians. The lead is the most direct section of the article which should focus on the most basic facts of what happened, and when you have names of some random historian it places that personality on the level of the event. My suggestion would be to omit names of historian all together from the Lead. The article is about the Wołyń Massacre, not Snyder's views and commentary of it. In short, I would be against including a name of any historian in the Lead Section of an WP article.--E-960 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

• Apologies, I should not have removed the entire statement and source that was a wrong call, I went ahead and kept the statement, but took out reference to Snyder and co. As noted earlier, perhaps the Lead should only focus on the event and not side track itself with dropping names of various historians. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Hello. Do you have a close connection to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? You have been removing lots of referenced criticisms about her. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be advertisements.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, she turned me on to Pokemon Go. Wikipedia articles are not suppose to be political hit pieces.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

No, they should be fair and balanced. That includes criticisms. Anyway, she is resigning...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"Fair and balanced" eh? You're sort of signaling your POV there. They should not be political hit pieces and the fact she's resigning is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on DNC member/officials pages

Please use the Talk feature before removing legitimate content on DNC member/officials' pages. Your edit history suggests an agenda; this is an editorial community and edits which are controversial need to be discussed. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You continue to cite consensus needed when other editors add factual information supported by sources. You do not have authority to sanction. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discretionary sanctions notice on that page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I'd appreciate it if you cut it out with the baseless accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

I wanted to let you know that only admins can place an article under discretionary sanctions, and it has to be logged. I mention this because this is the second time that I've seen you have done this. Perhaps you meant to use another template warning editors that an article may be placed under discretionary sanctions?- MrX 12:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Surely it is already under DS...? Being post-1932 political America  :) _Muffled ^Pocketed 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

See WP:ARBAPDS. 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." In other words, any admin can place any article within the scope of this remedy under standard discretionary sanctions. Prior to this decision, Arbcom had to do it.- MrX 13:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, so they are in the scope of but not automatically under DS? Many thanks MrX. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Slightly confused

Do you have any idea why I got a notification from this that you had mentioned me in a comment? I can't see any reason why it would... maybe a glitch in the software? Anyhow, just curious if you knew of any reason that I can't see. Cheers! Crazynas ^t 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. Wiki software has been really buggy lately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think I know. I initially used { these guys instead of [ these guys, which copied Doc's user page to the article talk page. If you were mentioned somewhere there, then you got mentioned there. I fixed it within seconds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Favor

I also have experience on Wikipedia and would like to work for the HRC campaign. Can you tell me how you started with them? Should I contact the campaign directly or the CTR pac? Thanks. 107.77.224.85 (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Send exactly 47.52$ to this charity. In the "How did you hear about us" field enter this code: r3ddVM!44Wkpd. The HRC campaign will get back to you with sekrit instructions shortly. But don't tell anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

American politics

Hi, I've noticed you seem to be editing articles on the current American political situation from a certain ideological point of view. That a no-no - see WP:ARBAPDS. I suggest that if you feel strongly about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump you should stay far away from their articles or any associated with them or American politics. Kelly ^hi! 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... no. I have not been "editing articles on the current American political situation from a certain ideological point of view". If you think otherwise, plenty of venues for you to raise the issue, bring the diffs and evidence etc. Watch for the WP:BOOMERANG though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

You might also want to take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS. This is a user talk page (my talk page), so I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you really shouldn't make random accusations against long time editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

My apology for occasionally looking at your editing history. I will try to avoid it in a future [7]. No kidding about anything either. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of sockpuppetry is not appreciated

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich, you accused me of being a "sleeper sock account" because I've had an account since 2007 but only made 25 edits. Ever consider that I'm just a regular user, who mostly just reads Wikipedia, doesn't have time to make many edits, and just occasionally corrects small errors?

Your accusation is not appreciated, and I'd like to ask you to withdraw it. Have me checkusered if that's what it takes to convince you.

Also, why did you not sign the comment in which you made this accusation, as per WP:SIG? DestroyerofDreams (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich debate: Why Did You Collapse My Comments w/ Your False Allegation?

Your action:

"collapse misstatements of fact falsely attributed to newspaper article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment. Do you agree that it adds to the notability that 1) Rich got 2 shots in the head and 2) this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology? The NY Daily News seems to regard this as notable. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/washington-dnc-staffer-seth-conrad-rich-shot-killed-article-1.2707538("

The NY Daily News certainly did state that the police located Seth Rich using Shot-Spotter Accoustic technology. That fact is notable. Kindly undo your action. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC))

I think you have me confused with someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Although your comment was in fact... strange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I would like to change or 'alter' the current image shown on the Donald Trump page. I believe it's a better image, although I saw you removed it already I would like you to reconsider. Ititanthompson (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the image already per our NFCC policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa

The page was vandalised in 2014 and partial corrections don't solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Which edits from 2014 are you referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions

Greetings, the discretionary sanctions currently in effect at Donald Trump require that "all editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of the article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Pls self-rv this edit which restored content that had been challenged with these edits. If you have concerns about formatting issues, you can address them in a separate edit. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)