:::::::You might want to think about this: the time between my "non-continuous" edits is less than a minute. The time between your last edit before I started my review of your edits and before you jumped in is ... 9 minutes. So, yes, you did "jump in" to make it seem like I was breaking 1RR. Again, [[WP:GAME]] and bad faith.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek#top|talk]]) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::You might want to think about this: the time between my "non-continuous" edits is less than a minute. The time between your last edit before I started my review of your edits and before you jumped in is ... 9 minutes. So, yes, you did "jump in" to make it seem like I was breaking 1RR. Again, [[WP:GAME]] and bad faith.[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek#top|talk]]) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::(which also makes this a 1RR violation by YOU, [[User:Anythingyouwant]]).[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek#top|talk]]) 07:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
:::::::(which also makes this a 1RR violation by YOU, [[User:Anythingyouwant]]).[[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]] ([[User talk:Volunteer Marek#top|talk]]) 07:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
---------
Not a 1RR violation. You can't, by virtue of sticking an edit in the middle of his obvious continuous ones, turn his (now-broken) series of edits into an extra revert. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Revision as of 07:44, 9 January 2018
The Barnstar of Good Humor
"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, you now have my admiration. Happy holidays to you and yours! -- ψλ ● ✉✓ 13:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of us are warm and fuzzy, but we all deserve civility and consideration. Hoping this new year will bring a bit more of that for all of us. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Semi
I've semi-protected your talk page again, if you want it removed/altered, just ping me and I'll deal with it as soon as I can. Nick (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well shit, after what I just saw in the page history, I think this should be EC protected for the remainder of Christmas.—CYBERPOWER(Merry Christmas) 19:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding your reckless edit warring. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Origins of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek".The discussion is about the topic Origins of the Cold War.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding your challenging or misinterpreting sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere(or here) 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Much admiration for your editing over the years (even when things have got tricky) and keep the good work up !!! Volunteer Marek, as your edits have related to some extent of Russia related topics, have you come across something scholarly on Russia and its influence (negative, other or positive) on the Balkans ? I want to add some content on Albania-Russia relations which could have more on the modern era. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. With regard to the Balkans and Russia, it's a little outside my area, particularly with regard to Albania. But if you wanna improve that article, I'll take a look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Much appreciated and many thanks. Best. :) Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello Volunteer Marek, I was trying to improve a Wikipedia entry and I was going about it the wrong way by trying to disprove the facts in an article that was cited. You came in and pointed out I didn't have to disprove the facts because it was an unreliable website in the first place, so it couldn't be used as a citation anyway. I'm still learning, and it helps to hear from people with more experience. Thank you for all your efforts, I can see now that you've been doing this for a long time. You're appreciated! Plantlady223 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1RR
This series of edits is a revert, and you already previously reverted at that article today. Please undo your 1RR violation. I’d be glad to consider any objections you wish to make at the talk page, but I don’t think that discretionary sanctions apply to me and not to you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ummmm, that series of edits is indeed a (partial) revert (and a challenge to your non-discussed, unilateral, POV changes), but my last edit to the article before that was in... July.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You made two distinct groups of reverts today, and they were not continuous. Go look. I do not want to bring this to AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bullshit. I did not make "two distinct groups of reverts today" (or any other day). I was going through your unilateral, undiscussed, POV changes one by one, rather than just wholesale reverting you (which I guess is what I should have done so as not to provide you with this bullshit excuse to falsely accuse me of breaking 1RR) I see now that you managed to jump in and make a quick edit in between my edits, so that you can now come here and claim I made "two distinct groups of reverts". Nonsense. This is incredibly bad faithed, even by your usual standards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I made the intervening edit, I was not even aware that you had edited the article at all today, I was simply focused on removing extraneous material from a bloated paragraph. Look, you can make a series of continuous edits and call it a single revert. You can’t call non-continuous edits a single revert. This is very simple. And this is your final warning before AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I made one edit at 6:43. Then another at 6:44. In between you managed to jump in and make an edit at 6:44 (which I didn't even notice until you showed up here with this nonsense), split seconds before I made mine. And now you come here and claim that the edits up to 6:43 comprise a "distinct group of reverts" from the edit made at 6:44 and consequently. Are you fucking serious? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’m very serious, see you at AE. This is a blatant 1RR violation. It’s irrelevant whether I was “jumping in” and I already told you I wasn’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, but knock yourself out. And you did, so watch out for that boomerang.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And what really pisses me off about this cynical attempt by you to WP:GAME policy, is that I could've just reverted all your edits wholesale since there was obviously a ton of POV in there. Instead I wanted to do you the courtesy of going through them carefully one by one and only removing the bad parts while keeping improvements. Once again, I learn that trying to do the right thing only comes back to bite you on Wikipedia when folks like you are around.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to think about this: the time between my "non-continuous" edits is less than a minute. The time between your last edit before I started my review of your edits and before you jumped in is ... 9 minutes. So, yes, you did "jump in" to make it seem like I was breaking 1RR. Again, WP:GAME and bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not a 1RR violation. You can't, by virtue of sticking an edit in the middle of his obvious continuous ones, turn his (now-broken) series of edits into an extra revert. El_C 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
-GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)