User talk:Volunteer Marek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search



Information icon 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"[edit]

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".[1][2][3]. 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.[1] The Intercept called the reporting by The Washington Post "shoddy",[1] and Fortune magazine called the evidence "flimsy".[2] 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.[3]The Washington Post article was criticized in an opinion piece in the paper itself, written by Katrina vanden Heuvel.[4] 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."[4]


  1. ^ a b c Ben Norton; Glenn Greenwald (26 November 2016), "Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group", The Intercept, retrieved 27 November 2016 
  2. ^ a b Ingram, Matthew (25 November 2016), "No, Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See", Fortune magazine, retrieved 27 November 2016 
  3. ^ a b Taibbi, Matt (28 November 2016). "The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting". Rolling Stone. 
  4. ^ a b vanden Heuvel, Katrina (29 November 2016), "Putin didn't undermine the election. We did.", The Washington Post, retrieved 1 December 2016 

The version you prefer:

The Washington Post and PropOrNot received criticism from The Intercept,[1] Fortune,[2] and Rolling Stone.[3] Matthew Ingram of Fortune magazine felt that PropOrNot cast too wide a net in identifying fake news websites.[2] The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton were highly critical that the organization included Naked Capitalism on its list.[1] The Intercept called the reporting by The Washington Post as "shoddy",[1] and Fortune magazine called the evidence "flimsy".[2] 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.[3] The Washington Post article was criticized in an opinion piece in the paper itself, written by Katrina vanden Heuvel.[4] 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."[4]


  1. ^ a b c Ben Norton; Glenn Greenwald (26 November 2016), "Washington Post Disgracefully Promotes a McCarthyite Blacklist From a New, Hidden, and Very Shady Group", The Intercept, retrieved 27 November 2016 
  2. ^ a b c Ingram, Matthew (25 November 2016), "No, Russian Agents Are Not Behind Every Piece of Fake News You See", Fortune magazine, retrieved 27 November 2016 
  3. ^ a b Taibbi, Matt (28 November 2016), "The 'Washington Post' 'Blacklist' Story Is Shameful and Disgusting", Rolling Stone, retrieved 30 November 2016 
  4. ^ a b vanden Heuvel, Katrina (29 November 2016), "Putin didn't undermine the election. We did.", The Washington Post, retrieved 1 December 2016 

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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Commons-emblem-notice.svg 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 (TCGE) 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png For dealing with this ridiculous "identitarian" issue (your comment in the talk sums it up pretty well. Face-wink.svg Chrissymad ❯❯❯ Talk 14:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Paraphrased quotes[edit]

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)


Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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

talkpage comments[edit]

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[edit]

500px-Xmas tree animated.gif 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)
Candy stick icon.png
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...[edit]

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[edit]

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, 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

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[edit]

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

Operation Earnest Voice[edit]

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 URL was dead, there was a mirror URL ( pointing to the FedBizOpps's PDF document. Faltur (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)


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...[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]



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. (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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

Information icon 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[edit]

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[edit]

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


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[edit]

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[edit]

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.

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


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[edit]

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[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg 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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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

Clan Ostoja[edit]

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? camdan (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
To give You example - bigger DNA project: - that is one of the major DNA projects on FTDNA. Its linked to several smaller like this one: 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[edit]

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[edit]

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

1RR on Jeff Sessions[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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! Face-smile.svgJFG talk 00:59, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

America First (policy)[edit]

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)

Disambiguation link notification for March 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Michael Flynn (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) 09:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey there[edit]

I reverted you earlier on the Bannon page, and thought it a strange enough edit that I checked a few other recent ones of yours. Some of those I've reverted as well. I am totally willing to understand those and agree with your edits once your make your case. Arkon (talk) 22:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair Warning[edit]

Marek, I'm giving you fair warning that I intend to file an incident about your removal of POV tags from Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and non-collegial (to put it mildly) comments on the talk page ([13] [14]). You've been around here long enough to know that you don't remove POV tags when there's an ongoing POV dispute, and that the way you're talking to your fellow editors is inappropriate. I'll give you a day to strike your comments and self-revert on the tags. If you don't, I'm filing an incident, and I will be requesting a block, so that you can have some time to reconsider how you participate on Wikipedia. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I'd pay good money to see what happens if you actually file that one! SPECIFICO talk 23:06, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

1RR violation[edit]

Come to think of it, your revert was a revert of my addition here. I suggest you self-revert. Étienne Dolet (talk) 03:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as a revert, but sure, I self-reverted. But since, as discussed on talk, that photo shouldn't be in the article, I removed it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jeffrey Carr[edit]

The more recent article on Carr from Miami Herald has particular relevance since it follows and cites the recent discrediting of CrowdStrike by IISS. Both Carr and IISS are highly credible sources commenting on matters relevant to the section. Can you succinctly describe why you honestly believe this information should not be included in the article? You also appear to be misstating or misunderstanding consensus -- from Talk it appears the vast majority of editors have been in favour of including mention of Carr (even before the most recent article and the discrediting of CrowdStrike), but approximately two disruptive editors continue removing the content. It would appear there is at least borderline consensus for inclusion, but that is not even the relevant issue; well-sourced and highly relevant material included in an article cannot just be arbitrarily removed by several disruptive editors who combine to thwart the efforts of most contributors by stating their removals indicate lack of consensus. Adlerschloß (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Adlerschloß (talk) 12:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.. Khirurg (talk) 07:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Always great to have independent eyes on these articles to see the hijinks you guys get up to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:22, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Appealing my sanction[edit]

Hi - just wanted to give you a heads up that I'm appealing my sanction that I received for casting aspersions against you a while back. I hope that my behavior didn't have too negative an impact on you, and just wanted to let you know that I'm sorry for that. I want you to know that I appreciate your commitment to the project and am thankful that you're able to be so productive in some very difficult topic areas. The appeal can be found on Sandstein's talk page if you want to read it. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Removal of units listed by al-Masdar and Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi[edit]

Hello Marek. I just wanted to ask you to please look what you remove before you remove it. Yes, Antonopoulos is, to put it mildly, a disgusting being. But several of the sources you removed were simply listed units or commanders, whose presence in these battles were often confirmed by pro-opposition twitter sources; to use Twitter here on Wikipedia is, however, not a good idea. Furthermore one source you removed on Palestine Liberation Army was written by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi - and he is one one of the most reliable experts on this conflict, who is also very neutral. Please look him up. Meanwhile, I will try to find non-Masdar sources for the discussed units & commanders. Applodion (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

If you can find non-Masdar sources then problem solved. Also, in several instances, I did not actually remove the text, just the source, since there were other, better, sources already present.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
As far as Al-Tamimi goes, isn't he associated with the Middle East Forum? That'd sorta disqualify him from being "very neutral", for starters.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Oop. AND Gatestone. So, no.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
He has also worked for the British government once, I did not mean that he is "very neutral" because of his association. Instead I meant that his writing is not biased: He has written articles about Syrian and Iraqi rebel groups, Syrian pro-government militias (both "we love Assad" ones and the ones who actually dislike Assad, but hate the rebels even more), Shiite jihadists and ISIL, and all of these are fair and largely non-judging (even though he does regularly display his dislike of ISIL). Applodion (talk) 07:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I put Tamimi back in but put in a "better source" tag instead - I'm still wary of using his stuff, especially when it's published on a blog. It might be fine simply because the info is relatively non-controversial.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I wanted to say sorry for accusing you of vandalism, when I reverted these edits I had not yet noticed that you were removing stuff written by Antonopoulos. Furthermore, I want to note that the blog you mentioned belongs to Joshua Landis; isn't he a respected expert? Applodion (talk) 07:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
True. Mmmmm... still not sure about this. Anyway - if you can't find better sources, I guess it's fine if you remove the 'better source' tags (and that won't count as a revert).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
I can understand your distrust in regard to blogs - I simply have read Tamimi's articles for a long time, and have come to believe that he is reliable expert. Anyways, I also added new sources to Palmyra offensive (2017). Applodion (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]


This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the WP:DRN regarding dispute resolution. 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:Pizzagate conspiracy_theory#Spirit_cooking_and_leaked_FBI_document".The discussion is about the topic Pizzagate. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Terrorist96 (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer[edit]

Olive branch drawing.svg

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. Yashovardhan (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


You stepped back from, what I thought, we agreed to as part of a potential and eventual compromise solution. You said that when citing units involved in battle or territorial changes which are uncontroversial issues it would be justifiable to use Masdar and you said these could remain. With this edit [15] you removed Masdar as a source not just for territorial changes (non-controversial issues), but you also removed Masdar reports that were not even written by the neo-Nazi. I would kindly ask that you revert yourself and we continue discussing the controversial claims. EkoGraf (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

In that edit I removed several pieces of controversial text cited to al-Masdar (in one instance leaving the text but adding a cn tag), per WP:REDFLAG and, well, WP:RS. I also removed a couple instances where the use of al-Masdar was not necessary as there were other sources which were being used for the same text.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

3 reverts in a row[edit]

@BU Rob13: Is this guy exempt from the rules or something? Three reverts in a row:[16], [17], [18].Terrorist96 (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

@Terrorist96: I haven't been at my computer since the edits were made, so cut me a bit of slack on enforcement. In any event, WP:3RR states "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert". This is a series of consecutive edits and therefore counts as a single revert. ~ Rob13Talk 00:01, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
So reverting multiple edits in a single edit counts as a single revert? Good to know.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Greg Gianforte, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Ark (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) 11:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

AFP story further attempt at compromise[edit]

I linked you at the talk page the AFP story. I am willing to further attempt to compromise regarding that paragraph, although most are in agreement the story on the soldier's bodies should be kept. I would cut out the soldier's bodies text and leave only the AFP story - State media claimed the Army had found the bodies of 21 executed civilians in rebel prisons, citing the head of Aleppo's forensic unit Zaher Hajjo. The Russian defence ministry also reported the execution of dozens of people by the rebels. The pro-opposition activist group the SOHR confirmed bodies had been found in the streets but could not specify how they were killed.[19] EkoGraf (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


I wasn't sure where to start a discussion about the US repesentative articles so I started it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics#Does one consequence of a bill belong in the article of every politician that voted for the bill? ~ GB fan 14:34, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


Hi Volunteer Marek. Is it possible to get your help in maintaining this small section? It is supported by many reliable sources, but sadly that's not enough for one editor. --Orient Bengal (talk) 04:11, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Southern Poverty Law Center[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Southern Poverty Law Center. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 12:43, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Illegal immigration[edit]

Yes, that does look to me as someone making ridiculous changes, only to report you to 3RRNB when you revert. And not only on this page. BTW, I only recently noticed that funny video about Iguana and snakes on your user page. It might be a good idea to stop editing any pages where more than one participant "bites" you. I visited this Iguana place, Galápagos Islands a couple of years ago. This is a wonderful place, a kind of Eden where animals are not afraid of humans; sea lions move to people who snorkel and play with them in water. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 19:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)


Salvageable or delete? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There could be a Crime in Medieval Poland article in there, but this ain't it. I'd scrap it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_May_17#Chasing_criminals_in_Poland_in_the_Middle_Ages. Bad translation of a Polish wiki article of dubious notability. Unless you think I am too harsh? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

ANI and AE[edit]

FYI, I have mentioned some editing of yours at ANI, but subsequently withdrew the matter from ANI because it is more a matter for Arbitration Enforcement. This regards the article Dismissal of James Comey. For more information about discretionary sanctions, please see the notice above at your user talk page.[20]Discretionary sanctions require compliance with all applicable policies and guidelines, including WP:Preserve which says: "Preserve appropriate content. As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia". Content was completely deleted from the BLP by you, with this edit summary: "belongs in response section not lede - lede too long anyway".[21] You made no effort to move the content or preserve it, and instead made it disappear with no further discussion. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:53, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your apology. I was a bit confused at first with all the action on my talk page, but I saw it in the history. -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:44, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

1RR violations[edit]


I also warned you about two reverts today here and here. You declined to self-undo and you asserted consensus after initial editor comments were mixed (3 to include – including you – and 3 to exclude, at the time you wrote this). Per WP:BRD, new contested material should be left out while the discussion and survey are ongoing, especially on controversial articles under DS regime. Methinks you should slow down a bit sometimes… — JFG talk 20:18, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Dude those are two consecutive edits hence they're not two separate reverts. Read WP:REVERT. Thought you already knew that. And there sure was consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:11, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Reverting edits in two unrelated sections of the article counts as two reverts in my book. It's not like technically splitting one conceptual revert into two technical edits. Also, consensus was not there when you counter-reverted me; it may be developing as we speak but that was not a slam-dunk. I just said you should be a bit more patient (and civil) when somebody challenges the inclusion of your material. — JFG talk 21:51, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow, you really didn't know this? Two consecutive edits cannot count as two reverts (cuz they could always be done in one edit). If it was someone else but you I'd suspect they were trying to play a game here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
But I provided the wrong link. Here: WP:EDITWAR - " A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.". Otherwise, I'm sure you would've violated the sanction many times in the past.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. Nice gaming tactic: check a bunch of things you disagree with in various sections, revert them all within a few minutes, call it a single revert. If those are the rules, you are indeed playing by the rules, congratulations. — JFG talk 23:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Gamey indeed. I agree, JFG must've forgot all the times Admins have had to explain the meaning of "revert" to him at AE and elsewhere. E/G [22] It reminds me of the Sharon Stone flick, Implausible Denial. SPECIFICO talk 23:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: Nice to see you jump in! You have perhaps forgotten that every time admins discussed your accusations of revert violations on my part, they always found that my interpretation was the correct one. Selective memory? Drop the morning cappuccino and pour yourself some orange juice instead; it works wonders for me… Face-smile.svgJFG talk 00:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's not a gaming tactic. It's been that way pretty much since the dawn of wikipedia (or at least the 3RR rule). If you make consecutive edits, then you could've made them as one edit, so they don't count as multiple reverts. Common sense. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:12, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
It's a picnic!! May as well @NeilN:. JFG it doesn't seem as if you followed the link I provided. That had nothing to do with any statement of mine. It just seemed like the easiest way to remind you that you've made this same erroneous accusation against VM previously. SPECIFICO talk 01:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
"the easiest way to remind you that you've made this same erroneous accusation against VM previously" Heh. Speaking of WP:GAME..... Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I have about five different things to get to before I even look at this so please don't expect any immediate input. --NeilN talk to me 02:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN, don't waste your time - JFG just thought that two consecutive edits counted as two reverts. That's all.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Agree. Half facetious. Just FYI that it's at least the third time it's been explained to him. SPECIFICO talk 02:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Honest mistake, it was. Drama avoid, we should. — JFG talk 07:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Consecutive edits count as one revert. Not gaming. Common sense. I'm going to grab a bite to eat and then tackle User_talk:NeilN#AE_Question --NeilN talk to me 02:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, didn't seem very logical to me, but that's clear now, thanks. — JFG talk 07:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)


Didn't think rewording a text per the source is considered a partial revert, unless you were referring to the removal of Russia and Iran specifically then fine, I will cancel my edit for now. Although I would suggest that you stick to the source. It said the Syrian government and its allies, no mention of Russia and Iran by name and Syria has many allies. I don't have objections that you insert a sentence like that in the lead, but it needs to be properly sourced, up-to-date and according to the source. EkoGraf (talk) 22:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

PS No need for comments like If I was the kind of jerk that.... I myself had no need to even warn you, let alone report you when you violated 1RR at Sednaya Prison with these full two reverts [23][24], because I thought compromise, discussion and rewording of disputed text was the more proper course of action then going to a noticeboard. EkoGraf (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Reverted myself. But somebody else reverted my selfrevert. Guess he also thought it was worth to be in the lead but needed rewording. It would be good if you could find at least one or two more sources that can be cited so that kind of sentence (lead material) isn't cited by only one source. EkoGraf (talk) 23:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I've struggled whether to issue a block or go with a warning. You knew the article was subject to 1RR even before I added the templates to that effect—so what happened? I realise and am taking into account your strong view regarding that source. Is there consensus about its un/reliability now? Still, it is a 1RR violation, there's no escaping that. I, however, am going to go with a warning this time, taking into account also the heated (pun not intended) nature of the topic. Thanks. El_C 04:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

An honest discussion about "honest loyalty"[edit]

Hi VM. I see that restored "honest loyalty" to the lead of Dismissal of James Comey. We have been discussing whether that is worthy of mention in the lead, on the talk page. Would you mind reviewing the arguments and see if that might change your mind? Thanks!- MrX 18:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Continued from AE[edit]

AE is not the forum for this, but I wanted to take up the point you make. Verifiability is, at the very least, not a sufficient reason for inclusion. The recent discussion at WT:V has made clear that verifiability is necessary for inclusion, and that some editors consider it a reason for inclusion while others don't, but it is very clearly not the case that just because something is verifiable, it should be included. I don't think the concerns about WP:UNDUE can be dismissed as "vague". Inserting the text, "That version of the American Health Care Act would allow insurers to charge people significantly more if they have pre-existing conditions, and allows insurers to charge the elderly up to five times as much as the young," into the articles on representatives who voted for it seems to me so clear a violation of policy that I can't believe we're discussing it. It might not be a violation of WP:V — the text might be perfectly verifiable — but it is a violation of WP:UNDUE, a section of one of our core policies (WP:NPOV).

WP:V doesn't somehow trump WP:NPOV so that if something is verifiable we don't have to worry about neutrality of the article. There is no need to rewrite policy here. GoldenRing (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:GoldenRing, yes, you're right, verifiability is a necessary not a sufficient condition for inclusion. But that doesn't mean that we sanction people who make edits based on verifiability. If an editor makes an edit based on reliable sources, then someone comes along and says "UNDUE" then you take it to the talk page. It's a content dispute. If consensus on talk is against including it per UNDUE then that editor should stop adding the material. IF they don't THEN you can talk about sanctions. But if they do, or if there's no specific discussion on talk to that effect, then you can't, because they haven't violated any policies. And that's what's going on here.
And as I already mention - WP:UNDUE is always a judgement call. What one editor thinks is undue another one is going to think due. Again, it's a content dispute. You can't sanction someone because your judgement is different from theirs. Likewise, in cases where we're talking about content which is based on reliable sources you can't unequivocally assert that someone is violating NPOV.
Finally, if you actually read WP:UNDUE, rather than just throwing it around, then you'll note that most of the text in that policy is about fringe and minority views. The purpose of WP:UNDUE is to prevent fringe and minority views which do have some notable adherents from getting too much space in an article. But that's not what's going on here. So you need to stop misapplying this policy or rewrite it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I've read UNDUE. It's true that most of the text in that policy is about fringe and minority views, but that doesn't let you dismiss the subsection on Balancing aspects which squarely addresses the report at AE and of which the example I cited above is a clear violation.
I don't buy the second paragraph you wrote. If that's the case, editors could never be sanctioned for violations of UNDUE/PROPORTION (and, more generally, NPOV). That's not how things work. UNDUE (and NPOV) is not judged by individuals but by the consensus of the community and an individual editor's judgement is subject to the judgement of the consensus of the community. If an editor repeatedly gets that wrong then they may be sanctioned for it (though I'd hope always with the view to them eventually 'getting it' and editing neutrally without sanctions/restrictions). I suggest you read the AE thread again; there seems to me a pretty clear consensus among the commenting administrators there that Snoogums' edits do amount to a violation of policy and the question is what to do about it.
I'd normally agree with you that editors in this situation should be asked to revert and, if they do, we should all move on. However, when it's the fifth time it's come up and there's no apparent improvement in the user's editing, it has become disruptive and it's time to do something about it. If only someone had some good ideas what. GoldenRing (talk) 06:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I'd also appreciate if you could either point to where I said a user should be sanctioned for making verifiable edits or strike the claim. GoldenRing (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually I DON'T think editors should be sanctioned merely for violating "UNDUE". It's too amorphous and ill-defined to go banning editors on. Especially with long run t-bans like you're proposing. For inserting crappy sources? Yes. For misrepresenting sources? Yes. For inserting pov text not based on sources? Yes. For not respecting policy based consensus on talk page? Yes. But UNDUE... no, it's a judgement call and whether or not something is UNDUE can't be decided without a full talk page discussion. And no, that example is NOT a "clear violation". Depending on an article it may be quite pertinent and very much DUE! So you're actually proving the opposite of what you claim.
And you say "UNDUE (and NPOV) is not judged by individuals but by the consensus of the community " - sort of. If by "the community" (oh man, why you got to drag "the community" into this? I mean, aside from it being a fallacious argumentum ad verecundiam, I always cringe when editors claim to speak for "the community", it's just so... presumptuous and arrogant) uh... where was I... ah yes, ... if by "the community" you mean "outcome of discussion on talk page", then yes. But that means it's a content dispute. What you need to show is that such a discussion took place on some talk pages and Snoogans did not respect it. I have seen no evidence of that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I also wouldn't put too much weight on the number of times "it came up" especially when it's mostly the same editor, TParis, "bringing it up" again and again (maybe some additional opportunistic editor too trying to get their kicks in). And in fact, despite the claims he makes, in those past instances of "bringing it up" discussion was pretty split on whether there was anything wrong with these edits or not. Just like here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"I'd also appreciate if you could either point to where I said a user should be sanctioned for making verifiable edits or strike the claim."

Here is the thing. Your two comments at WP:AE say that:

  • You think there's agreement that the editing is problematic. Actually there is no such agreement as I pointed out, with the plurality of admins saying it's not an WP:AE matter
  • You make the point that this has been brought up before. Ok, but so what? "Brought up before" is not a valid justification for sanctions (just like "verifiability is not a sufficient condition for inclusion") especially when it's the same person "bringing it up " again and again.
  • Then you jump straight to a consideration of what kind of sanction you think would be appropriate... WITHOUT having established ANY reason for why a sanction should even be considered.
  • Then finally, you actually make a relevant, but fallacious, argument for why a sanction is justified - that "verifiability is not a sufficient condition for inclusion".

So, since you actually fail to provide any other actual reason for why a sanction is warranted EXCEPT for "we can sanction because verifiability is not a sufficient condition for inclusion" I reasonably took that as your argument for imposing a sanction. If you don't want me to interpret your comments there that way then add actual reasons for sanctions other than that "we can do it if we want to".Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

To respond to your points in turn:
  • That the plurality of admins think it's not an AE matter is not the same as saying they don't think the editing is problematic. Lord Roem is the only admin (of those who have commented) who hasn't commented that there is some problem shown by the diffs provided - and even they thought that a full case was probably warranted.
  • My point is not just that it's been brought up before, but that it's been brought up and Snoogums has said he recognises the problem and it won't happen again. Repeatedly. The first time a problem happens and someone says, "I get it, it won't happen again," I'm the first to say, "Great!" When it's the third or fourth time, it's wearing pretty thin.
  • So when someone is repeatedly taken to task for violating the same policy and each time assures us that it won't happen again... but it does... then yes, that is ground for sanctions and the question here is what sanction will be best for the project.
  • As for the quote that you repeatedly attribute to me above ("verifiability is not a sufficient condition for inclusion") I can't find anywhere I wrote that, either. If you're referring to the last paragraph I wrote at AE, which contains similar wording, I suggest you read it again. That paragraph nowhere mentions sanctions - or even Snoogums. It's referring to editors who've commented on the AE case who think that, because the edits are verifiable, there can be nothing wrong with them. So quite how you jump from that to inferring that I see making verifiable edits as justification for sanctions remains a mystery to me. GoldenRing (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)