User talk:Volunteer Marek

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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)

MSNBC videos - not a copyvio


I reverted your edit of the MSNBC videos because they were actually CC-licened BY MSNBC on YouTube. Many videos on the MSNBC youtube page are cc-licensed - Feel free to take a look here:

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, no problem, and thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just a sideline term, not substantive content

Sources say Arakan Muslims and Myanmar Muslims. But since it has now emerged that there are Hindus among them, I figured Arakan Indians would be better. I think it's fine for descriptive purposes.

But I maintain strict adherence to sources for the substantive content.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just found sources which use Arakan Indians.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started a section on talk. Volunteer Marek  15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Commons-emblem-hand.svg The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all edits and pages related to immigration in the United States for three months.

You have been sanctioned See Special:Diff/799047077.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As the sanctioning administrator, I am removing this; a review is not formally complete but I can see the writing on the wall and won't waste people's time by insisting on a formal closure. I've made some other comments at AN but doubt it would be productive to repeat them here, other than to echo MjolnirPants' sentiments below. This sanction is now void. GoldenRing (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Very disappointing, GoldenRing, to see that you've shown absolutely no awareness of the nature or depth of your misconduct and that you're saying basically that you conceded only that your stance is no longer viable, while tossing in another slap at VM on the AN page and by your reference to (presumably only part of) MPants's statement here. I suggest you voluntarily step away from any topic related to American Politics for a good long while so that you have time to reflect on this. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
lol Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
VM, It's bad enough you had to go through this mess and then have this harassment. I left a Harass-2 message on Saturnalia0 talk page. CBS527Talk 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now no longer subject to the arbitration enforcement sanction

As an uninvolved admin, per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions I remove this sanction which seems ill-advised, as the edits wrt AP2 are largely unproblematic. Criticism of an admin and/or his actions should not be used as a reason to place such sanctions, leaving very little substance to base this on. Fram (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, my sincere apologies, I misread policy here and am not allowed to overturn this sanction on my own. THE ABOVE SANCTION BY GOLDENRING REMAINS IN PLACE FOR NOW. I (and many others) don't agree with it and will see how I can get it overturned, but for the time being the sanction by GoldenRing is valid. Again, my apologies for any confusion this may have caused and false hope this may have given. Fram (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-schooling activism changes

Please excuse me if this isn't the correct way of contacting you, I am new to wikipedia. Your removal of my edits on the anti-schooling activism page are vast. Perhaps it would be better for you to contribute to an article on the positive aspects of schooling instead, as your edits don't seem to be very fair . For example this sentence had 4 references supporting it yet you deleted it: Academic pressure and rigorous schooling has been pointed to as a cause of the high rate of suicide among South Korean adolescents.

If you thought one or two of the references didn't support the statement or weren't good references then it makes sense delete those references or edit the statement, but all the articles support the statement. There is even a section on suicide because of school pressure here: Why don't you delete that section as well? Is an NY times article about south korean suicide better than an NPR article? This is just one example. In fact, most of the sentences you deleted have multiple references.

Edit: I now see the article has a talk page. I will copy my points there. Note someone else mentions agism in the talk section, which is something else you deleted. (Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Can you tell me which edits or article you're referring to?  Volunteer Marek  21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the deletion of the "Unfree child labour" and "School related stress and depression" paragraphs, though I haven't reviewed all the edits yet. I also mention a specific sentence deletion above.

(Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Well, the idea that compulsory education is a form of child slavery ("unfree labor" and "child labor") is original research. Also fringe. Volunteer Marek  22:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

possibly useful, probably unwanted advice

I just wanted to say two things re. the disagreement between you (and numerous other) and Samsara/GoldenRing.

First, I want to say I think it would help you a lot if you toned down the rhetoric a bit. There's a lot of all caps and repeated statements that make it look a bit rant-y.

Second, I want to say that I agree with you completely from what I've seen of it. This looks like a couple of bad calls by a couple of admins circling the wagons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know about the tone. I can't help it. I'm me. Volunteer Marek  22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel you. I know I can get a little grumpy myself. Sometimes, I have to respond, then carefully prune all the naturally-occurring insults, glowing recommendations for clinics still willing to perform lobotomies and poetic odes to the magnificence of the human capacity for stupidity from my comments before hitting post. Truth be told, I'd have been indeffed long ago if not for the preview button. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's barnstar time!

Barnstar of Diligence.png The Barnstar of Diligence
For your heroic efforts on the talkpage of List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Thanks, VM! Fluous (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Kinda curious.

Where exactly did all these guys come from in the List of monuments and memorials of the CSA article? I don't get how they even know about it. None of them except Carptrash ever contributed much of anything to the article, except reverts. Are they on some kind of mailing list to advance conservative/ libertarian causes? Who knows.

At any rate, I think the graph is important, but ultimately it's not a huge deal if it gets taken down. As long as the information in the graph remains in the article, that's okay with me. It's upsetting that we're being fought tooth-and-nail on this for something so well sourced and obivous. But that's wikipedia for you. Fluous (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a really good question right there. Anyway, if this graph doesn't work, a different graph can. Volunteer Marek  00:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I need a little help. Please take a look at the article Political positions of Cory Booker to see if you can figure out the recent decision to delete and move the information to the main article, though I can't actually find the discussion. In my experience it is quite the norm to use separate political position pages and certainly appropriate for Cory Booker. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your silence has answered my ask for help, though not helpful and not ever experienced in my previous experiences in asking for help. Oh well, I am only grateful that all editors do not have the same outlook. Some of us like to work together and have a little fun too. I do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Look, sorry, didn't get a chance to look at it. By the time I had some time it seemed to late. Please don't let that discourage you. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


I'm sorry, Marek, for falsely accusing you of some kind of hypocrisy at AN. I've left a note there and struck my comment. Best, -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's all good, looks like honest mistake. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Vilnius University

I would appreciate if you kept an eye on Vilnius University page as that hoax, which I removed today has been restored by the user who originally inserted it. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. That user has made other sketchy edits elsewhere and I've notified an administrator. Volunteer Marek  15:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. He reported me for "vandalism", but it is clear that he does not know the definition of vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph

You and DC need to stop edit warring over that graph. I'm tempted to go to AN3 now, but figured I should be polite and give you both a talk page message. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - sure, the edit warring needs to stop. However, D.Creish (and this is a WP:SPA which somehow managed to cite obscure Wikipedia essay in their very first edit) refuses to actually discuss the issue on talk. For example, despite repeated inquiries they have not explained (in fact, they have not even tried to explain) why they are removing the graph but not the article text which says the exact same thing. That makes no sense. They just keep quoting that there's an RfC on ANOTHER article which is actually irrelevant.

Notice that now they've started a second edit war over other material in the article. Notice also, that this account stays dormant for days with no edits to Wikipedia but somehow immediately pops up if I make an edit to that article (or the related "List of..." article).

Yea, the edit warring needs to stop but removing well sourced material with no explanation is disruptive. Is this one of those times where I'm just suppose to accept that the way Wikipedia functions often fails and move on or something?  Volunteer Marek  11:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You reverted without giving any reason

Hi Marek,

If you revert, you have to give a reason. Otherwise your revert is without justification and should be undone.

In this case, you've reinstated an edit that contains statements that don't match the references. To make this clearer I'm going to add quotes to the references. Great floors (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's because this has already been extensively discussed, there's an RfC on the talk page etc. The reasons are there, you just need to pay attention to them. Volunteer Marek  11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
I need to ask then why you reverted my changes when it was discussed on the talk page and why you didn't pay attention to its edited Contentcreator (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
And I need to ask why you're posting in this section. Are you the same user as above or something? Volunteer Marek  05:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag at List of monuments

Per the guidance at Template:POV, I am putting this notice at your talk page, and a notice at WP:NPOVN

I am tagging the History section at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America for the ongoing POV concerns previously under repeated discussion from the diagram. Please provide any suggestions for addressing the voiced concerns and otherwise moving towards consensus at Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Neutrality_tag_on_Image. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:
Well, let's see.
First, they tried to pretend that the graph was "unsourced". Even though the source was given.
Then, they tried to pretend that the graph was "original research". Even though it exactly replicates the data from the source.
Then, they tried to pretend that the source was cherry picked and not reliable. Even though there's at least a dozen other sources which say the exact same damn thing.
Then, they tried to argue that these other dozen sources weren't legit because "real historians disagree". Even though over half of these dozen+ sources were from, you know, actual historians.
Then, they tried to dismiss these sources of actual historians because "these were just published in magazines and newspapers, not scholarly journals". Even though these actual historians were experts on the subject.
Then, they claimed that there were "several" or "multiple" or even "millions" (no, really) of sources out there which contradicted these actual historians. Even though they didn't bother providing a single freakin' one.
The RfC is here. You can read it yourself and contribute. The discussion is one of the sorriest and most dishonest instances I've seen on Wikipedia in a while (and I've seen a lot) of individuals willfully trying to violate Wikipedia policies while veiling themselves in a whole bunch of self righteous bullshit excuses to push their POV.
 Volunteer Marek  15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Good humor

Please note that TP headings should be neutral. See: WP:TALKNEW and WP:TPO. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a genuine question. Now please leave my comments alone. Volunteer Marek  06:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
While you have your concerns, "anchoring" the thread heading with "joke" is not a neutral statement. As per the guidance, the talk page heading is not "your" comment. So please leave it alone as a neutral statement of concern. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where you got the idea that you're some kind of TPG police but last I checked no one appointed you as such. It's a genuine question so leave it alone. If the nature of the section title bothers you, well, maybe it's because the nature of the discussion on the talk page IS a joke. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
You could at least try to be a collaborative editor, VM. Why do you always have to push your POV and be the only one who is right? Listen to what other editors are saying to you instead of being so defensive. S. Rich is one of the most neutral and accommodating editors I have ever had the opportunity to work with, and his ability to compromise is commendable. Atsme📞📧 20:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I *don't* push my POV so your question is already in bad faith. Why do you always have to be disruptive and why do you always use false and disingenuous claims to try and force your way through? Why do you always go running to admins to try and bully your way on articles? Etc. I'm perfectly collaborative and helpful as long as you come at me straight and quit it with the stupid games. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Well that response certainly opened the doors to communication. Atsme📞📧 20:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think those doors were already set when you started your message with "You could at least try..." and "Why do you always have to..." How do you expect me to respond? I have no idea why you think that you coming to my talk page and attacking me will somehow improve matters. Volunteer Marek  20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
(a day or two after you went running to a perceived-to-be-amiable-to-blocking-me admin over a false claim of a 1RR violation and tried to get me blocked. Yeah, that opened up doors)  Volunteer Marek  20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That isn't at all what happened...again, you continuously jump to conclusions, and I highly recommend another form of exercise. VM, I'm not and never have attempted to disparage you - the total opposite is true. Perhaps if you'd at least try to understand what others are saying, we'd have a much happier environment to work in. I'm not an advocate of any ONLY goal on WP is to contribute to the quality of this encyclopedia. I have worked to help promote GAs and FAs, and my editing patterns will support my claims. I don't give a big rat's behind what the topic is - I look only at the cited sources, the facts and how they are presented. I didn't fall of a pumpkin truck yesterday. I am a team player, unless a member of the team forces others to do things their way or the highway, and quite frankly, that is how you've treated me. I'm not some newbie who is going to go running with my tail tucked because the bully called me names - I will confront the situation, and do my best to defuse it. You've been editing WP for a very long time, you have done good work, and nobody is trying to take that away from you. I'm not the editor you've portrayed me to be, and WP would be a much happier place if you'd simply stop putting editors into categories they don't belong. Atsme📞📧 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously my perception of your edits is quite different than your own self-perception, though I'm sure there are topics where you are a good editor. But my experience interacting with you on this particular topic has shown the opposite. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milo Yiannopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer (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) 11:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Hi. This edit was a violation of active arbitration remedies. Please self-revert, or I will report you to AE. You need to get consensus before re-adding this content. I'm happy to continue discussing on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

opinion piece in Breitbart by former editor name-checks you

In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Breitbart, go do something better with your lives, like, report actual news? Jdcomix (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
"(Disclosure: the author of this article has had disputes with several of the parties involved.)" Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A 2nd opinion?

Hey Marek,

"Attack Helicopter" [1] showed up again today. I think it's suspicious, especially as the page it showed up at (Bill Nye Saves the World) was just recently semiprotected due to IP vandalism. Could I get a second opinion? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Morty, Wikipedians are not supposed to call in reinforcements. Are you aware of WP:Canvassing? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this is canvassing since that account looks like an obvious sock puppet and there's some history here. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Was asking for a 2nd opinion to see if my suspicions were justified, but it's damn interesting that Anythingyouwant followed me to your talk page, Marek! Morty C-137 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Do you think the return of "Attack Helicopter" is worth trying to make a report? Morty C-137 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Tossing/Distributing Paper Towels in the Hurricane Maria article

Just a FYI. I am a different person than the editor at IP address Thanks. (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

np. Volunteer Marek  23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

President of USVI

I'm wondering if this really belongs in the article? It's obviously V RS and consistent with criticisms that Trump is clueless about USVI and much else, but how directly does it bear upon the WH response to Maria or criticism thereof...? My concern is that we not water down the humanitarian crisis with gaffes and wars of words. For example, I'm not 100% sure I should've added this either... but, like your addition, it probably does help contextualize the train wreck as it unfolds. --I A Huasca (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump Endorsements

How come the additions that I made to [[2]] were removed? Each addition that I made has a citation that supports what the position of the person involved listed for the actors and comedians section. -- (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (ET)

@D.Creish: Previous Accounts

Hi, You've made some variation of this comment a number of times on various talk pages. There may be something to it, but article talk is not the proper place to discuss. You've been here a while and you know better than I do how to address it correctly so please do so. Thanks –dlthewave 02:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried raising the matter elsewhere but they have evaded the question every single time. The fact that D.Creish continues to make controversial edits which violate Wikipedia policies in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way in a controversial topic area rife with sock puppets of banned users, establishes that this is matter of long term disruption. Volunteer Marek  02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Where did you bring it up? I couldn't find the sockpuppet investigation. –dlthewave 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi. Just letting you know I've put a short semi-protection on your talk page due to the vandalism - hope that's OK with you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well he vandalized my intelligent discussion on the Richard Spencer page. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you try to censor discussion because of your left wing bias?

You might even get one of these.

Maybe you should leave wikipedia if you are here to be biased and force your left wing agenda down people's throats. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Marek, We are forming a "Communist Party of Wikipedia" for all editors who have been thus named. Want to join? You'd be 002. Carptrash (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
If it is a Jewish Cosmopolitan Communist Party, then I guess that I will be forced to join, just to keep trolls at bay momentarily. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Are you members of Antifa? Do you attack women and children over the head with bikelocks? LiberatorLX (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
It's interdenominational. Still interested? Antifa is mostly made up of undercover local and federal agents. So they are not members and visa versa. Carptrash (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Raise the Red Banner for Rainbow Stalin's Communist Party. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Do they have a disabled black lesbian faction dedicated to defending transgender illegal immigrants? If so, sign me up. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

These are PA's and should stop before those making them are reported. I think these are bad faith enough to get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

LiberatorLX is already blocked, and the rest is clearly just humour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Given the tone on certain other threads I am not sure some of it is just humour. So I am taking this opportunity to remind certain editors that making comments about other users perceived political bias are PA's and thus actionable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, the only one I see making comments here about other users' perceived political bias is LiberatorLX. As for the responses, I presume you haven't seen the torrent of abuse to which Volunteer Marek has been subjected recently? I can understand if you missed it, as it's all been reverted and suppressed quite quickly, but you can see evidence of some of it in this talk page history. In the light of that, I see this interchange as clearly just a light-hearted way of dismissing the troll and offering Volunteer Marek a bit of moral support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Then I think we will have to agree to disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I give my permission for you guys to have your fun here. At least I personally don't perceive any of these as personal attacks. It's pretty funny. Volunteer Marek  13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well my only wikiblock (a one day topic block) happened when I suggested that all the brand new red link editors were probably communists, so it nice to see Marek's okay with it. God-Emperor Aaron the Great is a pretty good example of that. Carptrash (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Rouge admins are also communists. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, they are more like Trotskyites. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Tongo Tongo ambush DYK nomination

Hello - I want to make sure you are aware of a comment I left at Template:Did you know nominations/Tongo Tongo ambush. Thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia a valuable resource. KConWiki (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


Just letting you know you're on 3RR on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Antifa apocalypse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antifa apocalypse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antifa apocalypse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I opened a section on the Antifa TP to include a sub-section on the fake Antifa news. Perhaps move it there as I'm sure this will not be the last one.[3]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tongo Tongo ambush

Updated DYK query.svg On 8 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tongo Tongo ambush, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frederica Wilson suggested that President Donald Trump's response to the deaths of four American soldiers in the Tongo Tongo ambush in Niger might become his Benghazi incident? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tongo Tongo ambush. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tongo Tongo ambush), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)


You must be kidding? SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC) p.s. don't reply -- it will attract "visitors" 😨

Even though nobody will gimme credit, I *do* actually try to assume good faith to the extent that is possible. But yeah, here on Wikipedia, very often it very quickly becomes impossible. Visitors, shmizitorz. Volunteer Marek  17:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Good attitude. I like it. Ignore the ants and think of it as cute squirrels at the picnic. That's what separates you men from the boys. SPECIFICO talk 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Come to think of it, makes sense. Most of what appeals to them is nuts. SPECIFICO talk 17:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

VM, you know full well and have been told before: A talk page is not the place to accuse people of DS violations. If you think you have a case, take it to AE, or to an uninvolved admin who handles that kind of thing. Making public accusations in the wrong venue is just casting aspersions which is a personal attack. Don't do it again. --MelanieN (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


Hello, Volunteer Marek. Sorry for dropping by, this is about Hidden Tempo. Although you have indicated that the comment here can be removed freely, I would still like to confirm with you before removing them (since it's being requested). I was wondering if there are any evidence to substantiate the claims (it's not needed now; just in case if I need to request them at some point). Regards, Alex Shih (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes you can remove it and yes there is evidence. Volunteer Marek  18:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The other white meat

You missed this one. The one where he claims it would have been reversed on appeal except for that it wasn't reversed on appeal. [5]. SPECIFICO talk 02:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What talk pages are not

Article talk pages are for disusing the article and how to improve it, not other edds, please stop.Slatersteven (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

What are you referring to? You sure you got the right editor?  Volunteer Marek  18:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
[6], the page is not about him or his actions.Slatersteven (talk) 18:42, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Well, seeing as this is EXACTLY what User:Thucydides411 got topic banned from the article for (as well as edit warring on the talk page) I think it's relevant. I'm actually doing him a favor by bringing it up on article talk - in the hope he gets a clue and quits before he gets blocked - rather than running to WP:ANI, WP:AE or some administrators, though I'm sure he doesn't realize it nor appreciate it. Volunteer Marek  18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
No it is not as that is not what article talk pages are for.Slatersteven (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
I think what Slatersteven is trying to say is that you should have made those comments on the other editor's talk page. It is quite reasonable to bring up your concerns with other editors' actions, just away from the article or it's pages. I believe that was the point raised. You do some great work on tough, controversial subjects; thanks for all you do. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 19:09, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Bedtime reading

1 and 2. Have a good evening. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Legnica

Hi, most of my books I left at my parents home. About battle of Legnica, I only have in my home a book "Legnica 1241" by Jerzy Maroń. If you want, I can quote a fragment of a book referring to the size of the Polish dukes army.Kcdlp (talk) 18:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

Per this section at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, you are now subject to the following restrictions:

  • You are banned from all edits and articles related to Donald Trump for one month. This is subject to the usual exceptions.
  • You are banned from interacting with James J. Lambden and TheTimesAreAChanging for three months. This is subject to the usual exceptions plus you may report violations of this IBAN to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You are counselled to not use the exceptions for vandalism and BLP violations except in the most obvious of obvious cases.
  • You are warned to edit collegially.

GoldenRing (talk) 10:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You finally got your way, didn't you?  Volunteer Marek  14:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed.MarkBernstein (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I find it odd to find myself writing this but in many cases Marek is positively civil compared to others. The whole American politics environment is horrible. -Darouet (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I could not agree more on both points! C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
New here, that's the first AE I snooped, wanted to take a look at the process, and if that's how it normally goes holy crap! Schizophrenic! Very much good luck in the future! Gabriel syme (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

By consensus of administrators at WP:AE, your appeal is granted and your interaction ban with respect to TheTimesAreAChanging is lifted. The other sanctions have not been appealed and therefore remain in force.  Sandstein  15:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Template on my talk page

I'm not sure what the template you placed on my talk page is supposed to be about other than some kind of threat; you don't appear to be an administrator, and based on the contents of your own talk page, it looks like you have a track record of getting sanctioned over political issues. However, I'm interested in hearing what your actual reason for putting the template on my page is in case there was a legitimate reason for it. I'm not interested in white-washing the article; I'm interested in addressing the active neutrality challenge in a way that is agreeable by all involved parties without removing legitimate content. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 20:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@PCHS-NJROTC: The template is a standard notification for editors editing in controversial areas. As it says, it does not imply any wrong doing and is not a threat. That's the legitimate reason for it. Volunteer Marek  21:43, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I see what you are saying now. I put the template back in place. I'm sorry if I came across as condescending; I misread the template at first. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages)Have a blessed day. 21:55, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
It's alright, and you don't have to keep it on your talk page. Basically you can do whatever you want with your talk page. Volunteer Marek  22:37, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

I recently edited this wikipedia article which is blantantly biased. Volunteer Marek reversed (nullified) them. Dotyacd (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes I did. You removed text which was based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek  15:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The article does not support assertions which claim that MS's and his orhanization's writings are false. It is a biased article. I would like to correct the bias. Am I prevented from doing so? Dotyacd (talk) 16:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You can't remove text based on reliable sources. You can add text based on reliable sources yourself. Volunteer Marek  18:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I added text. You removed it. Dotyacd (talk) 20:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because the text was not encyclopedic. Volunteer Marek  20:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. Is there a Wikipedia ombudsman? Dotyacd (talk) 21:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

You can ask for input on the article's talk page. Volunteer Marek  23:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Re poll

Hello, there seems to be some concern about the methodology of this poll, it has been removed from the article a few times, starting with this edit. 331dot (talk) 23:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

@331dot: Can you explain to what this "some concern" is or where it's been discussed?  Volunteer Marek  23:49, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

In all honesty I was more interested in stopping the reversions by the other user reverting- but looking at the edit summaries there seems to be concern that the outfit offered as the source of the poll merely publishes them and does not conduct them themselves, and doesn't guarantee that the polls are conducted in a certain way. Mélencron seems to know more about it. 331dot (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Ok, yeah the other user is up to some hi-jinks. I'm neutral on this one. It seems to be conducted by CB Polling. Know anything about them? If you want, feel free to remove it for now. Volunteer Marek  23:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not know anything about that polling outfit but it seems that LisaMcCarthy has gone to the talk page so I'm content to discuss it there. Thanks 331dot (talk) 00:00, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
NP. Volunteer Marek  00:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)