Page semi-protected

User talk:Volunteer Marek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Radeksz)
Jump to: navigation, search
Barnstar of Humour3.png 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)

Beauty School Dropout (talk) 04:02, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring & removing NPOV tag when talk page discussions are ongoing

You have posted enough edit warring notices on other talk pages to know what it means and to know about WP:3RR. You are edit warring at Brexit. It's not helping. There are discussions ongoing and you're simply ignoring them and inserting what you want into the article. And removing what you don't like: removing a NPOV tag when so many editors have pointed out POV problems is not on. I invite you to reconsider and undo this edit so that the talk page discussion can continue. EddieHugh (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I've made two reverts since Nov 24. That's quite different then everyday tip toeing right up to the 3RR line by making three reverts the way you and Gravuritas are doing. Volunteer Marek  16:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
this one reverted more than one edit but can be counted as one; this one, and this one, all dated 29 Nov in my system. I've made 2 edits of any kind in the last 5 days, because I'm trying to calm things down. I hope & think that you are too; that's why I asked you to self-revert the tag removal. And I ask now again. EddieHugh (talk) 16:34, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
That's two reverts dude. Like I said. Read WP:REVERT. Volunteer Marek  16:36, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
The first reverted the previous edit; the second reverted the addition of the NPOV tag; the third also reverted the previous edit. We can call the second one something other than a "revert" if you prefer, but together there's no disputing that they're edit warring. How about restoring the tag and discussing? It's the only way to resolve things and have all editors still standing at the end. EddieHugh (talk) 16:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
No. Just read WP:REVERT. Then you can come and bug me. Volunteer Marek  16:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
It's sad that you prefer edit warring to discussion and consensus. I've read Revert. EddieHugh (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
If you did, then you'd know that consecutive edits are not reverts. That's enough for now please. Volunteer Marek  17:05, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Information.svg Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MenofTomorrow reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: ). Your name is mentioned because the user in question reverted two edits by you.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the review on Draft:Robert F. Turner

I'll look at the Publications section. I can probably trim it some. Txantimedia (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me know if you need help. Once it goes live you should nominate it for WP:DYK. Volunteer Marek  02:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Steinle comments

What is 'not RS'?--Fb2002 (talk) 06:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Not a reliable source. See WP:RS and WP:RSN. Volunteer Marek  18:37, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Volunteer Marek. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey finally you guys got it working!  Volunteer Marek  01:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Endogenous money

Scratching my head over this one [1]. Regards, Peter Damian (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

I can *sort of* understand what it's trying to say though 1) how anyone who hasn't taken a couple courses in History of Economic Thought is suppose to understand this is beyond me and this is confounded by 2) the fact that whoever wrote that is themselves very confused. The idea of endogenous money is one of those things that has some truth to it but for some reason it brings out the cranks who really run with it. Volunteer Marek  17:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So it's a mixture of fundamental confusion with stuff that is real, but badly expressed? Peter Damian (talk) 18:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. When I have a bit of time I'll try to clean it up. Volunteer Marek  18:45, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
At a conceptual level, just about everything -- certainly including e.g. climate change, regulation, etc. is "endogenous" -- but a well-formed theory of most such phenomena is beyond our current knowledge or even the framework of our current theories. I agree with VM, money is clearly endogenous, but we don't have a well-formed theory about that, and in the meantime we have pretty good understanding and measurements of some more limited monetary processes. So the self-published economic kangaroo pups come hopping out of mom's pouch to share their ruminations on the subject, thinking that the rest of us are so dumb we don't even understand what King Knut and others knew but could not fully elaborate over the ages. I mean for starters, you can be darn sure every "banker" since the Bible has known that "money is endogenous". SPECIFICO talk 18:52, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
And part of it is also that it may not matter. Money is endogenous. So what? Just worry about the interest rates and let the money supply adjust to whatever it wants to. One implication of endogenous money may very well be that central banks shouldn't even worry about money in the first place, as long as they have the ability to control interest rates. Volunteer Marek  19:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I found this presentation which explains something very well in terms a layman can understand. It also gives a seemingly clear explanation of the theory it is opposed to ('money multiplier'). OTOH it looks as though the author ran into trouble. Peter Damian (talk) 19:34, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Removing german village names even though a reliable source is given!

Why are you removing all the source given names of the villages? Please stop this! Plus you neither give any explanation why you do so nor do you have any reason to remove a source given change.Renekm (talk) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Hey there Kaiser_von_Europa. You know why I'm doing this. Please stop using automated tools to carry out disruptive edits. Also, you're sock puppeting again. Volunteer Marek  15:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
He's taken you to ANEW, not ANI Darkness Shines (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not User:Kaiser von Europa so all those revisions were unreasonable. Plus I am not using any automated tools, all source given changes were hand made. How can I use an automatic tool, when every single source is different? This shows you did not even had a look on the sources but just changed it. Renekm (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

There's only one other user that did this in the past so you're not fooling anyone. Also these edits are less than a second apart. So yes, you're using automated tools. Volunteer Marek  16:04, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
And dude, even your edit summaries are automated! Go bullshit someone else.  Volunteer Marek  16:14, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Moore and Trump

After I posted on the ARE board, things changed a bit--Trump's tweet was picked up on by Moore, and Trump called Moore; that phone call is now being used in a Moore ad that runs here in Alabama, so this is no longer some construction by others. Ah well. Drmies (talk) 15:10, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

On this note, for the avoidance of doubt, your topic ban from all things Donald Trump is to be broadly construed, as are all topic bans unless explicitly specified otherwise. Personally that wouldn't have included everything Roy Moore for me, but that's up to an individual admin's discretion and the point of a topic ban is for you to avoid the topic widely. GoldenRing (talk) 17:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Your signature

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<font style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</font>]]</span></small> :  Volunteer Marek 


<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> :  Volunteer Marek 

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 09:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Brexit article

I've spent an hour or two reading that hyperactive talk page (been a while since I did so, I've been a very occasional contributor) and I am more than a little shocked at what you had had to put up with for quite some time as the near-lone voice of policy (I am loath to say reason or sanity), but that last anon really took the cake; it stretches credibility that the anon did not "understand". Suspicious, too, that so many anons suddenly turned up for an RfC when few editors weighed in, but then that article has attracted disruptive socks before. You should be commended for your dilligence and patience. If I could award a Barnstar I would. I've seen worse and more obsessive NPOV pushers and RS-deniers (one that pushed a discussion for over a year) but that was on a Doctor Who page with a chorus of editors tag teaming and it was over something incredibly trivial: whether three episodes consituted a three-parter, a two-parter and one more, or just three episodes. Just in case you needed to be told: you're not alone in this project, though it may sometimes feel like it. Warm wishes this winter holiday season. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 06:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)