User talk:Volunteer Marek

Quit being butthurt, m8

Your recent edits on the White Supremacy page demonstrates that you have not grown up a single bit since December of 2014. If you want to participate in the talk page, you could provide some actual arguments instead of calling anyone you don't agree with a troll. If you can't do this, then please find something more productive to do with your life. Deciduous Maple (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

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)

A beer for you!

For dealing with this ridiculous "identitarian" issue (your comment in the talk sums it up pretty well. Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrased quotes

Does this look better ? Sagecandor (talk) 08:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Nah, I still think it's WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe we can keep it in principle while trimming it down some? Trying to find some common ground compromise for whoever it was that added it. Sagecandor (talk) 08:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:06, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Casting Aspersions

You accused me at AE of making false or misleading claims (casting aspersions). I have asked that you either WP:REDACT your statement or provide proof that any of the items I brought to the attention of administrators at AE are false or misleading. Thank you. SashiRolls (talk) 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:You can refer to these if you need to in the future: [1] and [2] and [3], and finally, [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

precisely zero of which show me making a false or misleading claim, but you know that, sage.  :) SashiRolls (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump on Libya

Hey Volunteer Marek. I apologise if it seems like I was tampering with the Donald Trump article's foreign policy section. I just wanted to specify Trump's history on Libya because I feel like the phrase "he has since then reversed his position several times," is too vague and needed to be specified in order to maintain objectivity and not risk painting Trump in a negative light. I should have used more good secondary sources, though. On the same token, I believe that when it comes to Donald Trump, in particular, there occasionally are times where primary sources are preferable to secondary sources in that there have been, to be fair, a number of times where the media has taken something Trump has said out of context. I don't want to come across as some diehard rabid fanboy, but this is something I have noticed. For example, in the Access Hollywood tape, I heard the whole thing and read the transcript and not once did I think that he was talking about sexual assault. He was just talking about the sort of "aura" rich and successful businessmen like him have with women, yet if you read/watched a lot of the so-called "reliable" stories about the tape, you were fed a narrative that Trump was proudly admitting to sexual assault, which is simply not true. In this case, offering up a simple transcript of the tape would have been better and more objective than allowing a third party to interpret the tape (and, ironically enough basically do their own original research, at the end of the day) who, despite their occupation, aren't always fair and balanced in their coverage, as a source. And also, some of these publications I have seen be considered "reliable" sources for Donald Trump (take Huffington Post, for example) take pride in their hatred of Donald Trump and openly admit that they are biased against him (just take a look at HuffPo's Donald Trump "editor's note"). Just something to keep in mind. I'm not trying to dog pile on the media. I'm just trying to say that they're not perfect. I also understand, however, that good, reliable, and credible secondary sources are needed to keep the subject in question in check and allow their claims to be examined and verified, rather than just take them on their word. I am willing to contribute to the article (with your help) to make sure there is zero bias towards either side. Not too pro-Trump or too anti-Trump. Neutrality is the key. Again, I apologize if it seems like I was tampering with the page. I am still pretty novice to this whole editing thing (despite being on the site for several years) and am willing to learn. Thank you for reading, Wildboy7 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildboy7 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

We can't use primary sources in situations like these. We really do need to go by secondary sources, whether one agrees with them or not.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I understand. I acknowledge that good secondary sources are necessary in order to maintain objectivity. Thank you for your help. Wildboy7 (talk) 20:04, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Thanks! And same to you! And hell, same to everyone on Wikipedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

talkpage comments

Yes, that was an error due to edit conflict. Thank you for assuming good faith. Athenean (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Volunteer Marek! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 01:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

There is always one card at the bottom of the sack that doesn't go out with the others. Fortunately Rudolph said that he would drop it off :-) Best wishes for your 2017 as well VM. MarnetteD|Talk 01:04, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Certain reversions...

It is for your kind information that a closure can't simply be undone in the lone basis that it is closed by a non-admin.Also, any uninvolved editor may close the discussion if a clear consensus points to a particular way.Thanks!Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 19:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) I,ve reverted you closure temporarily.If you still feel otherwise, you may proceed as you wish without any interference by me on the issue.Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 19:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC) Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 19:45, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure it can, since WP:RfC explicitly states that RfC should be closed by an uninvolved admin. And this "clear consensus" isn't really all that clear, especially if you account for how recent the RfC is and the fact that it's the holidays. So yeah, I'm gonna undo it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Alfreda Markowska.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Alfreda Markowska.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, BOT-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate your file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 03:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

AE report

here. Étienne Dolet (talk) 07:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Operation Earnest Voice

Hello Volunteer Marek, why did you remove referenced content from the Operation Earnest Voice article? In your first edit you said that "wt" (referring to Washington Times) is not a reliable source. Why it isn't? In addition, your second edit removed an entire section, claiming it wasn't referenced, when in fact it was: even though the main fbo.gov URL was dead, there was a mirror URL (http://www.seankerrigan.com/docs/PersonaManagementSoftware.pdf) pointing to the FedBizOpps's PDF document. Faltur (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Though

you have no reason to respond favorably, I've not commented at AE with any intention of arguing for a sanction (I think my comment indicates I've no standing to do so given our past disagreements). Rather, I think banning ED from the AE board would be unjust. -Darouet (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no issue (I think) with your comment, although I disagree. ED has a history of abusing drama boards (it was ANI before it was AE) to pursue grudges, try to intimidate his opponents and carry out his battleground.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Mmmm... ok I have some issues. ED's evidence is a bunch of bunk, not "evidence of disruption". It's precisely his tendency to present run-of-the-mill discussion comments or to misrepresent edits made by others that has admins considering banning them from AE. He has done this several times before.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Wayback to a RFC...

How do you feel the RFC on the page of Battle of Aleppo, you started is going? I doubt the holidays are over(and the editors are back) and as before the consensus is same! I didn't mind (and still don't) about reopening the RFC, but feel a bit gloomy about how that ultimately culminated in the board of wrath setting up chain reactions far and wide! Cheers! Light^{❯❯❯ Saber} 09:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Something like that... I'll take a closer look at it again tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi! I stated my reasoning on the edit on the James O'Keef page in the respective talk page. Please take a look and hopefully we can reach a consensus. Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Saturnalia0 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I've started a thread at BLPN about Rich

n/t

Suggestion

Instead of removing material, which is counterproductive to an article that desperately needs expansion, I'd suggest copyediting the material instaed. As of now, the protests and demonstrations section gives undue weight to the article overall. The article should follow the First inauguration of Barack Obama article as a guideline for effectively documenting the inauguration. Calibrador (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ummm, it looks like you added a bunch of copy-paste WP:COPYVIOs to the article. I'm trying to decide whether to go through and clean it up or just revert to a version before you started editing it. Please stop editing the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Everything I've added was based on reliable sourcing. Anything remotely positive about Donald Trump seems to be counter to your own political beliefs and seems to effect your editing. I'd also suggest to remain civil and avoid telling someone who is acting in good faith to not edit. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and if you disagree you can bring me to the administrator noticeboard. Calibrador (talk) 08:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The problem is you copy-pasted from sources. Which is a copyright violation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

You are attributing edits to me that I did not make. Check yourself before making false accusations. Calibrador (talk) 08:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok, somebody did. Hold on, I'm trying to fix the copyvios right now while you're reverting. (You did also add a bunch of off topic WP:POVFORK stuff).Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Because you disagree politically does not mean it is POV. By that standard there are plenty of POV statements that some would consider glowing endorsements of Barack Obama in his inauguration article. Calibrador (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

It's not about "disagreeing politically" it's about: 1) copyright violations and 2) off topic stuff which isn't about the inauguration.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:59, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of adding copyright violation when none of what you quoted was added by me. Calibrador (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of who added them, they need to be removed. So please stop restoring them.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

The smart thing would not be to remove the statements entirely. The smart thing would be to rewrite and copyedit, but it looks like that is too much effort. Calibrador (talk) 09:03, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

That only works if there's only a couple copy vios, but it looks like there's a whole bunch (the flowery non-encyclopedic language is a tip off). Unfortunately these have to be removed and then they can be re-added because removing copyright violations is of primary importance. Else, we'll have to blank/hide the whole page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I welcome any attempt to expand the article about actual inaugural activities. Calibrador (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Not if these expansions involve copyright violations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Stop acting as if I disagree, I'd appreciate a less combative tone. Calibrador (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, your current POV is abundantly clear when you make nonsensical comments against, for example, Fox News, while ignoring the leftist leanings of CBS, ABC, NBC, et al. I would hope someone with the "master editor" barnstar - if one puts any value in such nonsense - would demonstrate a much higher level of objectivity in editing. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Calibrador - did you make the above comment? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope, I didn't. Calibrador (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm glad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Your NPOV tagging of an article

An incident has been raised here: [5] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

War in Afghanistan discussion on the 2nd sentence's claim

Check the existing discussion on the War in Afghanistan talk page before assuming "source looks fine". SpikeballUnion (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts

It is because of Wikipedia that we were able to research the very relevant legal definition of alternative facts. This is not an "alternate definition" it is what she meant to say, and had it not been for her ongoing credibility issues we might have understood her exact words. I think its context absolutely has merit here because KellyAnne Conway did not invent the terminology, even though it is being ascribed to her because she famously said these words in the context of an interview that has been quoted millions of times. Thwackings (talk) 17:41, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Thousands, maybe. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Couple dozen. Mainly it's just a viral video clip. Nobody listens to the words. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Volunteer Marek. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

You are aware this was a DS violation, yes? Please self-revert and let the tag stand while the talk page discussion resolves itself. And please do not denigrate and ignore my substantive, policy-based concerns. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

You're right. Self-reverted. Though it has nothing to do with the discussion "resolving itself" unless you guys can actually substantiate the tag.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Watergate scandal

A belated thanks for your response to my student's concern on that talk page! Dr Aaij (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Question

In this edit summary you said the source was misrepresented, but the change you made seemed to me to be just a change of phrasing. The point seemed to remain the same (and aligns with the source). I'm not complaining, but could you clarify how you felt the original wording misrepresented the source for me? Thanks.

Also, could you please ping my alt account so I know when you respond? Thanks again. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the distinction either. In fact, don't think either version presents the left's accusations fairly. The sources says that the left accuses the right of "trafficking in disinformation." Disinformation is intentionally false information. Saying the left accuses the right of merely "spreading false news" doesn't convey the accusation of intentionality. Also, technically speaking, the right's complaint isn't of censorship of the right, but censorship of "websites" (unspecified). These might seem like technical quibbles, but it's important to get these sorts of things right to boost Wikipedia's credibility and reduce the hassle of having to deal with accusations of bias from across the political spectrum. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Auschwitz death toll

What's "dubious" about including estimates by Jean-Claude Pressac and Fritjof Meyer? Pressac's book was in fact widely hailed and he became known as one of the experts on the subject during the 1990s. Meyer's article was in a scholarly journal and it was apparently important enough for the Auschwitz museum and Franciszek Piper to respond to it. Both meet wikipedia's standard of having peer reviewed work. It certainly doesn't hurt to inform the reader of the existence of their estimates. MattRay6 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

You got mail

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

EvergreenFir (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Biflation

Hi Volunteer Marek,

I wondered why you have effectively reverted my edit. Biflation is certainly a sword which is in common use. I have Googled it, and there are enough results to suggest that it isn't original research. I would never revert again, so it would be useful to discuss this a little further, if that's okay. SethWhales ^talk 16:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANEW report

I've closed the report on procedural grounds and asked that you redirect your concerns to WP:AE, but I also just noticed something else... most of the reverts, that you claim broke the 1RR restriction, happened before the restriction was even placed. So it may not even be worth trying to open an WP:AE thread about, as it seems there has been no obvious violation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 11:08, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence

User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence, a page which you created or substantially contributed to (or which is in your userspace), has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Volunteer Marek/Evidence during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:AE

Looks like User:Sandstein has deleted your entire statement, with the comment "Admin note: Statement removed because it contains no actionable evidence, in the form of dated diffs, relevant to the request. This is not a discussion forum.". --Calton | Talk 14:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI#Someone might want to get on this quick - BLP issue

Hello, I closed the ANI thread you opened, in the future it would be better to contact the oversight team directly using #wikipedia-en-revdel ^connect or using Special:EmailUser/Oversight. Cheers & Happy Editing :D --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:08, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:47, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

protests against Donald Trump

You say my edit of this page was NOT balance and NOT RS. Explain...Aceruss (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Clan Ostoja

Hello. You removed section about DNA without consulting or noticing or asking. I therefore reverted Your change and in the future, please consult any change. All input are welcome but if everyone start to remove sections as they like, this will not work. Furtheremore, You stated Your opinion in year 2013 and I do not agree with You. Also, there are people that are interested in the DNA composition as modern history research use DNA analysis more and more to be able to establish historical facts and make corrections where so many publications are based on theories more than facts. Thank You. camdan (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No, these are not reliable sources, so it's up to you to get consensus for inclusion. It's also sort of goofy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Its a custom that before changing, one should post message ad raise question, talk about the subject and not only remove as You wish and as You like. Yes, the Ostoja DNA project is part of scientific research and administrated by Lukasz Lapinski, phd in Polish history. It is pretty clear when You look at the page and the administrators but its maybe asking to much. Furtheremore, this project is also part of other, bigger project. Now, stop removing something you dont understand. We live in 21th century and not in middle ages, DNA lead to significant improvement in understanding fact. There is ongoing DNA project on Piast dynasty and Greater Poland population, very interesting research that might rewrite history - but for you its goofy. What give you right to change without any previouse discussion? What give you right to destroy work based on scientific research that is ongoing all over the Europe? This is according to you also goofy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqOSGnjjpR0&feature=player_embedded camdan (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

To give You example - bigger DNA project: https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/r-1a/about/background - that is one of the major DNA projects on FTDNA. Its linked to several smaller like this one: https://www.familytreedna.com/public/lubicz. The DNA projects are now important tool for archeologists, genealogiests or for linguistic research. As for small projects like Ostoja, its about finding origin of the Clan, how it was formed and how it developed. Did slavic population move ab. 1500 years ago (Polans) from Ukraine to West part of Poland of today or did they live there already 3-4000 years ago? Without DNA it is not possible to tell. Ostoja DNA project is a little project but still of importance also for other bigger projects. All seriouse scientific projects are on FTDNA, results that are published are correct and under supervision of people that are highly skilled, like phd Lukasz Lapinski. You posted once before Your statement, nobody supported you. There was not other discussion on subject. Once again, the way you change is not acceptable - you should first raise question and discuss matter - this absolute the main point of my reaction. What you do do not serve good cooperation in order to improve. There is custom on Wiki, please apply. If You want to remove this part, You should then start discussion on subject and forward arguments. As for now, I dont see any arguments from Your side to make any change - words like goofy are ignorant, you can call Einstein goofy too if you wish. Ok, this is second warning from my side to you, that you act in violation of basic rules on Wiki. camdan (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing discussion which may benefit from your contributions

Hi, there's an ongoing discussion at [6] regarding the naming of Polish villages and how to best handle their former names. based on your recent contributions, your opinion in this matter may be helpful. Thank you! Rockypedia (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to delete relevant foreign names from the lead? Lviv and Vilnius? Are you really sure? HerkusMonte (talk) 11:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Those aren't villages.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Sebestyén Gorka

Please, see the talk page of Sebastian Gorka. --Ltbuni (talk) 15:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

1RR on Jeff Sessions

Even counting your first batch of edits as a single edit, your most recent edit (including the removal of the Russian response) violated 1RR. Please self revert. James J. Lambden (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

First, what you mean "even". That's how you count'em - please don't pretend that you're doing me a favor or something. Second, moving text around is not a revert. I guess if you really push it, trimming a quote could count as a revert and I guess I can restore that for the time being. However, note that all the brand spanking new accounts that have magically appeared at the talk page within minutes of the story breaking are violating 1RR left and right.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Whitewashing at Marine Le Pen?

Why did you undue my revert of a change in existing terminology? You know that has to be discussed on the talk page before a disputed change to long standing content is allowed to stand? The sort of change being attempted is an obvious example of whitewashing, as I am sure you can see. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Because it's the term that many sources use. And no this is not "censorship", that's just ridiculous and stupid.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Not you

About the disruptive editing spiel (on my part) - I wasn't referring to you [7]. There would be no reason to do so on that entire talk page. I was referring to this comment [8]. It probably wasn't one of my best moments :>) Steve Quinn (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

DS violation

Please self-revert this. — JFG ^talk 07:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

1. 01:40 edit by Casprings: [9]
2. 05:44 revert by me: [10]
3. 07:33 counter-revert by you: [11] = DS violation
4. 17:56 revert by SlackerDelphi, so the issue is moot, but be careful when reverting.

Have a good day, — JFG ^talk 06:10, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, so you're restoring content which clearly doesn't have consensus. That's a DS violation by *you*.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense: the consensus version stems from Casprings' own RfC, recently closed as "finely balanced", and just a few hours later he jumps in to change the text, I revert urging discussion and you perform a knee-jerk counter-revert, then turn around to accuse me of not respecting consensus. Is this what I can expect from you when AGF'ing your violation by calmly coming to your talk page with a polite request to self-revert? — JFG ^talk 08:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Uh huh. So please explain where exactly that RfC supports your edit warring? The RfC just decided that the Russian interference should be mentioned in the lede. The closer's wording suggests improving the text. Additionally, you know very well, since you were/are ... extremely, active on the Russian interference article, that the consensus there is to use the wording "concluded" not "accused". So yeah, you're edit warring against consensus. And I'm glad you came here calmly, to demand that I self revert to your non-consensus version. I guess that's better than you storming over here in anger. Or something. So let me calmly suggest that you drop the stick, back away from this dead equine and respect consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

As you very well know, consensus in one article doesn't imply the same consensus in another article. Besides, the formulation at the Russian intervention article has evolved too, correctly mentioning both that intelligence agencies have assessed that Russia meddled in the US presidential election, and that the Obama administration has accused the Russian government of directing this operation and has taken retaliatory measures, expelling 35 diplomats, slapping more sanctions and doing unspecified covert things. Casprings was entitled to changing the text post-RfC, but once I challenged his change, you were not entitled to counter-reverting prior to discussion; this is equivalent to claiming that your preferred version has consensus here because there was once consensus on a similar page: no, discuss on this page and refine the wording collaboratively. Anyway, we've got better things to do with our time, I suppose… — JFG ^talk 00:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

And where did SlackerDelphi pop out of? And their edit history sure looks familiar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea who that is and what you are alluding to. — JFG ^talk 08:01, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

That looks helluva like CFredkin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No idea who that is either! — JFG ^talk 00:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

America First (policy)

You didn't even check the talk page. You never made an edit before on the page, except to revert me, just like you did on the Mosulman article, which also turned out to be incorrect.

The America First page is about the policy, not the slogan. You're not even participating and yet you're passing judgement on the article's outcome just to spite me for some reason.

I don't even know you. Stop following me around wikipedia and leave me alone.

Stevo D (talk) 07:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC) no, they answered you, you just didnt listen

I literally waited days to revert the page after it was reverted by User:Kleuske, after leaving a detailed and thorough analysis behind my logic. It was then reverted and the talk page altered after I changed it, despite no one challenging my initial argument as to why.

No consensus was reached. You're just changing it back and saying consensus has been reached, when it hasn't. "Listen to what? No one even updated the talk page until today!!! Stevo D (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Tataral explained it sufficiently on talk. As did User:Neutrality. I haven't commented there because their explanation should've been sufficient and my edit summaries were descriptive enough. Let me point out that you are edit warring against multiple users. Please stop.

Also, thanks for reminding me about the Musulman article. I forgot about that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Those 'multiple users' aren't even updating the talk page--and as it stands right now, I'm the only one who has responded to the talk page in the last 24 hours--and they're just reverting it based on what they think the article is about, when it's about Trump's policy, not that of the AFC, because the AFC never passed policy.

Also, thanks for reminding me about the Musulman article. I forgot about that.

You 'corrected' me on an edit for the term 'Musulman' when you meant 'Muselmann', thus giving correction to a page that didn't need it.

I am beginning to think that you're not so much trying to be helpful, so much as to obstruct my edits for Lord knows what reason, because I don't even know who you are. You seem to be following me around, making reversions to content I'm editing without checking the talk page, making your own useful edits, or (in the case of the Musulman article) not even checking if what you're adding is in the correct article.

What do you have against me? I reiterate that I have no idea who you are and that I've never heard of you before. Stevo D (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Neither I nor other editors are required to engage with you on a daily basis on the talk page, when you have nothing new to say. Your proposal has been discussed and rejected by everyone else. You also don't get to decide what the article is about. An article about America First as a policy must cover the history of the subject.

A policy doesn't have to be "passed" (a very simplistic view on how policies are made, anyway) to be notable. An NGO can still advocate a policy, and the policy advocated by an NGO with almost a million members is bound to be notable. There has always been an isolationist current in American politics with varying degrees of influence, and the policy advocated by America First largely was the US foreign policy until late 1941[12]. Reliable sources have mostly discussed Trump's America First policy/slogan in relation to the original America First policy/movement/slogan of the 30s/40s. --Tataral (talk) 22:03, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

It was rejected by one user (yourself), as the user who initially reverted it in the first page just wanted consensus and Marek isn't part of editing that page seeing as he's never checked in on the talk page before or made any other edits to that page but a reversion.

It's about a Trump policy, not a policy that happened in an alternative timeline.

You're trying to make it seem like there is more consensus than there is not. Stevo D (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

AE process notification

Dear VM, you are hereby notified of an AE process against you, for two recent violations of the DS/1RR regime. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)