User talk:Volunteer Marek

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Your name has popped up here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Persistent attempts at censorship, tag-teaming reverts, on page for 2014 Crimean Referendum by User:Volunteer Marek Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Your collaboration on "fake news websites"

You say there are stronger sources in the "original version" than in "my version" here:

For reference: my version

Writers in The Intercept, Fortune, and Rolling Stone criticized The Washington Post for including a report by an organization with no reputation for fact-checking (PropOrNot) in an article on "fake news".. The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton were particularly critical of the inclusion of Naked Capitalism on the list of "useful idiots" for Russian propagandists, arguing that the Washington Post article was akin to McCarthyist black-listing. The Intercept called the reporting by The Washington Post "shoddy", and Fortune magazine called the evidence "flimsy". Writing for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi described the report as "astonishingly lazy" and questioned the methodology used by PropOrNot and the lack of information about who was behind the organization.The Washington Post article was criticized in an opinion piece in the paper itself, written by Katrina vanden Heuvel. She wrote that the websites listed by PropOrNot: "include RT and Sputnik News, which are funded by the Russian government, but also independent sites such as Naked Capitalism, Truthout and the right-wing Drudge Report."

References

The version you prefer:

The Washington Post and PropOrNot received criticism from The Intercept, Fortune, and Rolling Stone. Matthew Ingram of Fortune magazine felt that PropOrNot cast too wide a net in identifying fake news websites. The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton were highly critical that the organization included Naked Capitalism on its list. The Intercept called the reporting by The Washington Post as "shoddy", and Fortune magazine called the evidence "flimsy". Writing for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi described the report as "astonishingly lazy" and questioned the methodology used by PropOrNot and the lack of information about who was behind the organization. The Washington Post article was criticized in an opinion piece in the paper itself, written by Katrina vanden Heuvel. She wrote that the websites listed by PropOrNot: "include RT and Sputnik News, which are funded by the Russian government, but also independent sites such as Naked Capitalism, Truthout and the right-wing Drudge Report."

References

As anyone can see the references are identical. Feel free to revert or to give your real reasons for reverting.

Interesting to find you and Neutrality and Snooganssnoogans all working with this new and suprisingly knowledgeable SPA "Sagecandor", I wonder what is up with that... SashiRolls (talk) 19:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Also please note I have not yet corrected all the formatting errors in the text, but the disruptive edit warring by Sagecandor and yourself will make me have to wait until later to do so. SashiRolls (talk) 19:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Of those four sources the Intercept is the weakest one and it is the one given the most prominence in your version. Hence weaker sourcing. Sorry I wasn't more explicit about that. That is the "real reasons".

I have no idea who Sagecandor is and I don't think I've ever interacted with them. If you got some accusations to make, them make them and provide diffs, rather than insinuating whatever it is you're insinuating.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Trumpism

VM, please do not change the thrust and direction of the Trumpism article while it is under AfD discussion. I think we should restore the version that LavaBaron created, so that we can discuss a stable version. Not have to keep changing our opinions every time massive changes are made to the article. I am asking this as a courtesy; I am not suggesting there is anything illegal or sanctionable about what you are doing, just asking as a favor that you leave the article alone and let it be evaluated. I encourage you to weigh in at the AfD discussion, but not to massively change the article a second time. In particular, I am going to restore the lede to the previous neutral version, and I would prefer to restore the whole article to the version that many people have already weighed in on. --MelanieN (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the version that LavaBaron created was simply not based on sources. Yes, it had sources in it but those sources did not actually support the text that he wrote. You can't make stuff up and then add in a barely relevant inline citation at the end to make it look legit. Deleted or not, we just simply don't do that. This is putting asides just basic wrong headedness like titling a section "etymology" when it has nothing to do with etymology, apparently because the editor has no idea what that word means (hint - neologisms don't have etymologies that's why makes them neologisms). I'm not going to restore a bunch of crap to the article, in contravention of policy, simply because it's at AfD. And while I support the deletion of it, editors should be able to make up their mind about their !vote based on as good a version as possible - and that means NOT restoring the orIginal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Marek - this article is under 1RR restrictions per ArbCom's U.S. politics case. I haven't been keeping close track but I think you've reached your limit today. Also I'd appreciate it if you ping me when discussing me or making affirmative declarations about my competence such as I have "no idea what that word means". Best - LavaBaron (talk) 22:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

William John Cox

Earlier this year I did some work on the William John Cox article and just noted the addition of the advertisement notice, apparently by you. Unsure if something I did triggered the notice and interested in ensuring my edits conform with Wikipedia guidelines, could I trouble you as to your specific concerns? I did not see any flagged comments. Incunabulum1 (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2016 (UTC) Recommended changes made by removing all recently added material and external links. The long-standing balance consisting of neutral material based on primary sources not edited. Thank you for your concern. Incunabulum1 (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom sanctions at Steve Bannon

I suggest you self-revert this edit. The notice t the top of the talk page says "All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Whatever you reason for reinstating the edit, you are clearly in breach of this. StAnselm (talk) 01:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

FBI and CIA

That source may have been synth, but see my comment at Talk:Russian involvement in the 2016 United States presidential election regarding some contradictions between the FBI and CIA on this. You may find it interesting. Sagecandor (talk) 05:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but that's not the same as what the text in the article claimed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Lighter fluid

Dear VM, this recent edit of yours is certainly an entertaining quote but wouldn't you agree that it doesn't sound very encyclopedic? I would have reverted but I burned my daily 1RR elsewhere… — JFG ^talk 22:30, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions alert

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 all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, 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 that 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.

Please note that United States presidential election, 2016 and many related articles are under a 1RR restriction. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)