User talk:Volunteer Marek

Immigration

Re revert: I removed the weasels. A ty przywróciłeš je. Czemu? Zezen (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure which weasels you're referring to. Can you provide a regular diff? Dzieki.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini

Hi Volunteer Mark, thanks for coming over to the Mukti Bahini] page. The discussion had been deadlocked, and I didn't have the energy or knowledge to do anything about it. I should have thought of calling you in fact, but I have been tied up with too many other things. - Kautilya3 (talk) 12:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

DRN on communism

The noticeboard will be where the recent talk page discussion will be negotiated: here. →Σσς. (Sigma) 05:58, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: disruptive canvassing

You go right ahead and report me. I stand by what i said there, your behavior with regards to this subject has been nothing but abusive. Bonewah (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about what you said. It's about you engaging in disruptive canvassing. Read WP:CANVASS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I know what canvassing says, that has nothing to do with what i did. He was already substantially involved in this dispute before i left a message on his page. I messaged him for exactly the reasons i stated, because you and lipsquid have never missed an opportunity to revert me, and yet didnt lift a finger to revert him. That tells me your behavior is some kind of personal grudge against me and has nothing to do with making a better Wikipedia. Why dont we talk about that for a minute? Why dont we discuss you constantly ignoring my concerns with regard to those edits in favor of endless time wasting and reversions? No matter how many times i say that the issue is that the edits dont match the sources cited you never even bother to respond, including this last time where the only reason you cite for opposing removal is that "What may be undue on Jude Wanniski page may not be undue here. Especially since the curve was, you know, named after him." as if that has anything to do with anything. I cant help but notice you couldnt even be bothered to address any of the objections listed in the RfC both by me and the numerous other editors who also objected. And thats not to even mention that this is the fourth page youve done this on.

I have no idea what your deal is, why you are so determined to waste my time, but if an admin notice board is the only way to make it stop then so be it. If you really think your actions have been in the best interest of Wikipedia then go ahead, waste more peoples time. But I implore you, either substantially respond to the concerns expressed, ALL the concerns on ALL the pages which you have both read and participated in, or for the love of god drop it. Bonewah (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you know. WP:CANVASS is pretty specific: ""Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking."

This is *exactly* what you did. The moment there was a disagreement you went running to a user's talk page and requested "help". Based on this users' prior statements it was obvious that they would be willing to support you. And that was the reason for you request for "help" (i.e. reverts in an edit war).

And I did address your objections, you just haven't listen. Sort of like you claim to have read WP:CANVASS but have not really understood what it says.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

He already voted. He didnt just vote, he removed the material in question. I went to him for help because he saw, and acted on what you constantly ignore, the very clear consensus against including this material. And you have not addressed my objections, you didnt in the RfC, you didnt on Art Laffer or anywhere else. If im wrong, then feel free to link to the part where you substantially replied here or at Art Laffer and ill address them. And when i say objections i mean the objections i spelled out clearly in the RfC, the ones where i said that the source doesnt support what the edit says. You know, one of the Three Core content policies that youve been activily ignoring for months now. Bonewah (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. You went to him to help you in an edit war because based on his previous votes/comments you knew he would be willing. That's disruptive WP:CANVASS to a tee.

I'm not going to rehash the argument here as it appears to be a waste of time. Talk page is over that way, feel free to start an RfC.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If you want another RfC you start one. The wp:ONUS is clearly on you if you would like to re-add this material. Be sure to include links the the other three pages where consensus says that we should not include this material as im interested to hear your logic as to why this page is so different. Bonewah (talk) 00:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

No, no it's not. Just because one RfC on one article is closed one way, that doesn't mean - as several users pointed out to you - that it applies to any other article you fancy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The inevitable ANI thread

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Giedroyć family, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish-Lithuanian (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) 11:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Invasion of Poland

Please check the talk page of this article, where I have laid out my reasons for my edits. 2602:306:C53C:C0E0:2954:44A6:3A12:4111 (talk) 03:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, but is there any reason why you're using multiple accounts? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My apologies! It logged me out before I made that comment. Indy beetle (talk) 04:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have found new information concerning Danzig's role. Please look at Talk:Invasion of Poland. Indy beetle (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Rusiecki/Ruseckas

When I first created that article, I had him as "Polish-Lithuanian". Someone changed that to "Lithuanian", with two references to back it up. Honestly, I'm a poor Angeleno of Scandinavian descent who's totally confused about the appropriate use of place names, personal names, ethnic identities, etc. in the whole Poland-Lithuania-Belarus-Ukraine area. I suspect I'm not alone among English Wikipedia users. Anyway, my rule here is: If you disagree...fine, no argument, I was just trying for consistency. WQUlrich (talk) 21:56, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

PS, I've put all the links back the way they were...there's still going to be a redirect page for the Lithuanian version of his name. WQUlrich (talk) 22:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No problem, these things are always a mess. Best thing to do is to check how sources describe him. And who knows it could be Ruseckas.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive removal of linking to other articles

Clearly the topics in the commons/anticommons articles are completely related. Do not remove appropriate mentions of other articles in Wikipedia on completely dubious grounds like this.GliderMaven (talk) 01:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Find a source or it goes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR defines OR in a particular way; you are instead engaging in disruptive editing. If this continues I will be getting you suspended.GliderMaven (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR is pretty clear. This little table does not have a source. It appears to have been concocted by you out of thin air or some other Wikipedia user. That's the definition of original research. It's unsourced. If it's unsourced it needs to be removed.

If you want to "get me suspended" please be my guest. You might want to read this first.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 2 February

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 History of Poland (1939–45) 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, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Putin

That article has been controlled by Putin-bots forever, it is a lost cause. Will only get you sanctioned if you continue.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I can see that. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried agrueing for neutrality at it once but it was futile. So in the end I thought it made more sense to just go over board with the praise and hiding inconvenient stuff[1][2].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I have closed the AN3 report as "no violation" but Manus is right - there are some battles you can't win and if you scream at people who disagree with you until you're blue in the face, you'll just get blocked, which is just a big waste of everyone's time, isn't it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a bit appalled though that everyone seems to agree that there are serious problems with the article but walks away from it because "it's too much trouble". Which it is, but... . Anyway, I'm going to stick with discussing things on talk and trying to work it out. Outside eyes on the article are much need though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

You would need at least a handful of dedicated neutral editors with lots of time on their hands to turn the tide at that article. ANd my guess would be that if more folks show up to try to claim the article back to the encyclopedia, more people will appear on the other side as well.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest making use of RfCs a lot I really love RfCs for getting outside input to solve stalemates.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, RfC or mediation or DRN or something is needed.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's sort of a Augean stables problem though in that it's such a mess it's hard to know where to even start.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DRN and Arbcom doesnt work for this kind of thing at all. Its the Augean stables except its the stable of a six-butted Hydra and everytime you plug one of its butt two new ones appear. Kind of like the R&I area is becoming lately.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Hehe, tilting a bit at the windmills over there. Really the argumentation they make should itself be the cause of banning as they go directly against the idea of being an informative encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

There are classes of articles that ought to have Hic Sunt Dragones at the top of them as a warning to editors coming armed with common sense (I'm not going to say what exactly but here is a clue). The specific problem with Putin is that, unlike those articles, it's one ordinary people from just about anywhere in the world might actually want to read and get some information from it. It's made doubly hard that the news (at least round here) frequently paints him as a power-crazed warmonger who has stolen so much money he makes Ronnie Biggs look like a 7-year old caught with his hand in the till, so getting decent, high quality sources is something of a struggle. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that man does not deserve a decent BLP page. Let it be ridiculous. My very best wishes (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The fact you agree with Maunus that the article is controlled by "Putin-bots", shows that neither of you should be editing the article on Putin. I will make mention of this to the administrative board, so you don't continue to push a POV on the page Solntsa90 (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Since you're fresh of a week long block for disruptive behavior, you should really ask yourself if that's what you want to do. But whatever.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Mukti Bahini

I have started a discussion at Talk:Mukti Bahini. There was no consensus about anything there, i just did not have time to reply, when there is too much stuff to evaluate, i need to set aside some time to do that. People have other things to do in life beyond Wikipedia. Sometimes i can only do minor edits, so if i could not reply due to a time constraint, you cannot think that i agreed with you but if you think there was any consensus then it is broken now. You need to address the objections and let's see if we can have an agreement otherwise we have other ways to resolve this matter. Moreover you have misunderstanding about WP:CONCENSUS. I suggest you review it. You cannot force WP:CONSENSUS to include unsourced material in an article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

The material is sourced.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:22, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not except the paragraphs in "International reaction" section which are irrelevant to the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident in which you may be involved. Thank you. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Lithuanization

I wonder why you inserted this material again. It has no place there, because everything was done according to laws. Just to make it clear, read Law on the State language sections VII. Names and VIII. Signs and information. Sourced material doesn't particularly mean it belongs in the article. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not actually relevant. It's not about whether some law exists or not, but whether this process constitutes Lithuanization.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, it's relevant. In my opinion, this article has to be removed, because it doesn't contain neutral POV, as it tries to show that Lithuanians are bad to Polish people only. There's no mention about Russians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, etc. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really. And that's not a reason for "removing" the article. If you want to add about Lithuanization of other groups, be my guest.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The state doesn't force the Lithuanization of surnames. Lithuanian alphabet doesn't have Q, W and X, so it doesn't constitute as Lithuanization. If your name/surname was Marek (just an example, because I know it's a name), you don't have to change it to Marekas (Lithuanian form). There are many names/surnames that don't have the Lithuanian ending. This section sets a perfect example, why the statement about surnames should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

As for bilingual street signs, there was a proposition to allow bilingual street signs, but it was never passed and therefore, fines are being issued for breaking the law. This also doesn't constitute as Lithuanization. And it's the same situation as with surnames – only Poles cause these problems (don't have anything against your people as I have Polish friends/acquaintances). – Sabbatino (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Something can be "according to law" and still be a form of discrimination or of "Lithuanization". The government policy on Lithuanian names and signs is perceived as such by many Poles and it is also the view taken by most reliable sources on the subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

...perceived as such by many Poles... Can you justify this claim? Are there any sources about this? Because in Lithuania very few Poles see things as you claimed. Maybe in Poland you hear that Poles are being harmed in every way (I don't know the real situation about the news you hear), but in Lithuanian we hear the same about Lithuanians in Poland. I don't know what you or anyone else in Poland think about Electoral Action of Poles in Lithuania, but they are seen as a laughing stock in Lithuania, Poland and whole Europe. They tend to create conflicts which can be avoided. Their view doesn't represent Polish or Russian minority in Lithuania as they like to claim. Here's something that might give you a good idea who identifies himself as the leader of Poles in Lithuania. I'm not trying to make Polish people look bad, but not everything is true what you hear about things related to them. P.s. Feel free to reply if want as I'm not trying to create a conflict here. I just state facts from my own view. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!!

I just wanted to thank you for all your efforts on the Vladimir Putin article. That article looks like a nightmare to deal with.CometEncke (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

I just wanted to thank you for cleaning up the polish tribunal page. It looks like we may be getting (a very scaled down version of) one here in the US. Should be fun! Costatitanica (talk) 19:33, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thanks! And yeah, when I saw the thing with Scalia I couldn't help but chuckle. (though the details of the situation are sort of reversed) Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)