User talk:Volunteer Marek
|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)|
- 1 AE discussion
- 2 Don't get carried away
- 3 John McCain
- 4 Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
- 5 Watts family
- 6 Discretionary Sanctions - Kavenaugh
- 7 DS violations
- 8 "Restore"?
- 9 Alfa server
- 10 DYK for Unhinged (book)
- 11 Blue Amry
- 12 Alfa-Bank 2016
- 13 I'd like an apology
- 14 "not sure what you're referring to"
- 15 thanks marek Reply
- 16 Matt Shea
- 17 Not a retraction?
- 18 Matthew Witaker - World Patent Marketing
- 19 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 20 Brześć Ghetto
- 21 Note
- 22 Your user name
- 23 Regarding your contributions
Please see this. 15:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Don't get carried away
Hi VM, you are usually precise in your prose, so I was quite surprised to see you as the author of this over-the-top misrepresentation of facts. I fixed it. Please be more careful next time. — JFG talk 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Re this edit summary, I wondered myself: how come we don't have an article on this crime? So I created one: Death of the Watts family. Surprisingly, there were no demands to immediately change the name to the "Murder of..."; no heated discussions about it, in five parts; etc. </sarcasm>.
I think you would appreciate this addition: . It literally says that it's "white dudes" who commit these types of crimes. I was looking for the material on "family annihilation"; I was not fishing for ethnic makeup of these killers. Pretty chilling... --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yup. And what's particularly glaring is that there's actually a TON of weird ass editors on Wikipedia who SPECIALIZE in sensationalist murders. Yet, no one had created this one. 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Discretionary Sanctions - Kavenaugh
My edits to Kavanaugh have been made in good faith to provide facts per RS and NPOV. I understand your strong feelings here, but the article’s integrity is the first priori. I have been envolved in so many heated discussions over the years, as you have. For everyone’s benefit, please take a breath. Remember what we’ve been taught—direct comments to the contribution, not the contributor. Hang in there Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your edits were not perfect (you may have added some original research or cited wrong sources), but VM's edit summary in this edit was really uncalled for. VM removed well-sourced material
"registered Democrat"that was reported in The Washington Post (the cited source), so it's absurd to imply that the party affiliation is some kind of horrible smear. In Kavanaugh's bio VM removed two citations to heavy.com saying "not RS" and in the nomination article VM edit warred the second heavy.com source to that article.
- And what the heck is this obfuscation: "committed by Kavanaugh"? Politrukki (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
You recently violated discretionary sanctions (consensus required provision or 1RR) on several pages:
Too late to self-revert your violation now, but this was really egregious violation as you very well knew I was removing unsourced material per BLP.
- 16:02, 18 September – First revert
- 16:05, 18 September – Second revert and violation of both 1RR and "consensus required" page restriction. Challenges (where I challenged some edits in full or partially):
You also removed helpful inline maintenance tags without fixing or addressing any of the obvious problems, which is not in violation of DS per se, but is unconstructive. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Those aren't two reverts. It's one reverts. And it's me challenging YOUR removal of long standing text. You got it backwards buddy. 13:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- (There might be one exception there in your edits in term of new material, hold on let me look at it again). 13:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is a challenge to your POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. 16:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Poppycock. Did you read my edit summary? I was very clear that I was removing original research. Try assuming good faith or prove me wrong citing a policy.
- What I don't like is that someone conducts original research to push their POV. Brennan's statement is in no way a reaction to the dossier, hence it does not belong to Trump–Russia dossier#Reactions. It is also not directly related to the dossier, hence it would be original research to use it in the dossier article. The connection must be made explicitly in the source. If you cannot answer a simple question "What does this source say about the Steele dossier?", the source should not be used in the article. Why something so obvious has to explained to you?
- Even if you were right that this is long-standing content, and you are not, you should not game the system to push non-policy compliant content to the article. Compare this to your reaction when someone else adds OR and invokes discretionary sanctions: #1, #2 Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- This is actually YOU violating the DS restriction by removing text even though the removal has been challenged. 16:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- I guess the only possible DS restriction violation by me would be this, since that was added recently, but even that's not clear, since it wasn't that recently. And even there, you not only removed that paragraph but you got sneaky and had previously removed another sentence (" with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit,") which had been in the article for quite awhile and which addressed the same topic. So it very much looked like you were removing long standing content, even though some of it was indeed more recent. Anyway, I restored the original version. 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your allegations are simply false.
"some of it was indeed more recent"can only mean a September 12 edit by BullRangifer, which adds original research (that you liked so much that you just had to knee-jerk revert the content back into the article when I removed it) and correctly removes unsourced content
"with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit"(what does this even mean?).
- By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions. And now you contact me with your vexatious accusations. Will nothing stop this disruption? Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- "By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions" - it's obvious you didn't even bother looking at the edits in question but instead ran over here to make false accusations. I didn't make any edits today to the article. In fact, I haven't made any edits to it for the past five days. Reinstate anything or whatever. So quit the bullshitting. Your edits were challenged twice and you've restored them. You're in violation of DS, despite all the fake threats you scream on other people's talk pages.
- And whether this is "original research" or "unsourced" (that's not true either) is beside the point. When your edits are challenged you need to get consensus. Not start edit warring. 18:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- And User:Politrukki, why are you citing an edit which has NOTHING to do with the text over which you violated DS? Are you trying to deflect and confuse? 18:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
- Your allegations are simply false.
- See above. It's confusing. 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Unhinged (book)
There is a discussion on the neutral point of view noticeboard  and article talk page  posted regarding the Blue Army and text neutrality — in reference to undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text). Perhaps it might be a good option to get editors familiar with the topic to voice their recommendations, to see how the text on anti-Jewish violence can be trimmed in a proper and correct way, as it is the longest by far, in proportion to the rest of the article. --E-960 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I have restored your 18 September 2018 deletion in light of Dexter Filkins. "Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign? A team of computer scientists sifted through records of unusual Web traffic in search of answers". NewYorker.com. article. X1\ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
I'd like an apology
"not sure what you're referring to"
thanks marek Reply
im sorry for tagging the article with the AFD tag, but i was patrolling recent changes when i came across an article with insufficient information, i tagged it with a deletion tag, but somehow it got redirected or something, causing the bombing attempt article to be tagged... im sorry for my mistake, i tried to undo it, but an edit conflict occured. Thanks again. B. N .D | ✉ 16:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think you were trying to tag the article on the suspect, right? 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason you reinstated the typo that I removed in the Matt Shea page while I was flagging the biased statements that you also removed the challenges to? —Dajagr (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct any actual typos.
16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I did: I removed a lingering "i" that someone had left at the end of the previous paragraph. I'm still not sure why you pulled the "citation needed" flag along with the other notations, but at this point the whole section has been reworked, so that particular ship has sailed. I still feel it's not particularly neutral, so I'm trying to work on that, but it's at least improved with sourcing. —Dajagr (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Not a retraction?
What would you call it when a a news outlet quickly takes down an article and documents? It's not quite a "correction", because the statement was only replaced with a statement of investigation, but making misinformation unavailable is the opposite of what fake news websites are supposed to do. But it is like the sort of thing other fallible and gullible but otherwise reliable outlets do, like Fox News, CNN and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, November 6, 2018 (UTC)
Matthew Witaker - World Patent Marketing
There is a discussion you might find interesting at the link below. -Critical Chris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)#World_Patent_Marketing_2
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
I have asked Malik to mediate (he isn't active however) and proposed to rename the page to Holocaust in Brześć to finish the reverts. Please beware the wolf. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
Your user name
- Hi VM. Is your user name inspired by The Good Soldier Švejk? I am re-reading it and it makes a passing reference to a Volunteer Marek at the point in the story where the 11th march company, of which Švejk is now orderly, begins it's journey to the front. Just curiosity. Simon Adler (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Regarding your contributions
Regarding your valuable contributions to Terrorism in the United States, it appears that a user is removing your edits in bad faith. They seem to have called you out in Talk:Terrorism in the United States, and in doing so, created sockpuppet accounts to support their bad faith arguments against your edits.
You might be interested in supporting this sockpuppet report, as it involves your edits.