User talk:Volunteer Marek

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

Genetics for ethnic groups RfC[edit]

Given that you expressed a desperate interest in such an RfC, Hebel has posted it here. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that, should you be interested, you still have a chance to !vote at the Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? RfC. After your edit on Slavs, I suspect that you have a strong opinion on the matter worthy of voicing. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:35, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your rude manners[edit]

@Volunteer Marek: Those statistics are government reports compiled by a Bengali judge. And keep in mind your language is being reported. Wait to get a permanent block due to your manners. Pro Tip: I am about to commence work on a page dealing with rape of Chakma women by Bangladeshi Army, please do not interfere.Towns_Hill 04:52, 15 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Towns Hill (talkcontribs)

My manners are fine. And those "statistics" are crap.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Hello. these your edits [1] are unconsensused and even unexplained at talk while the page is under 1rr. The rules on secondary sources just say "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible" (WP:SCHOLARSHIP). It doesn't mean we should delete primary sources everywhere in Wikipedia (especially in the articles dedicated to recent events). Thank you. OptimusView (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to guess that "unconsensused" is a clumsy way of saying "no consensus!". But then the text needs to be removed. It's those who want to *add* text that need to get consensus.
And why is it that whenever someone quotes the policy on primary sources, they're always invoking the possible exception? As if every single use of primary sources fell under that one exception? It doesn't. We don't use primary sources for controversial stuff. And if you do want to use them for controversial stuff, then again, the burden to obtain consensus is on you.
And the discussion here does seem to support removing this section.
Finally, this section is based mostly on crap sources like Marek (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2016 (UTC)


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 Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts, 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 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.

OptimusView (talk) 06:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Your removal of talk page reply and section[edit]

You did not explain your reasons justifying this revert. Could you do so now? --Ranze (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT's disruptive editing[edit]

There is a case pending regarding EllenCT's disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. (talk)

EllenCT failed to listen and is back to disruptive edits to Economic stagnation. Is there any way we can have her banned from this topic?Phmoreno (talk) 02:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Enforcement[edit]

As promised: [2]. --Dorpater (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

First, please don't follow my edits to perform silly "revenge reverts" [3]. You had never edited this page before, so you have now obviously taken to stalking my edits. As far as the issue is concerned, it is standard knowledge in political science that Endecja represented the extreme-right camp during the interwar period, it is absurd to deny it.

Finally, could you now stop with the baseless and very offensive insinuations that I'm someone's sock puppet, ok? The allegations are wrong and I thought we had covered the issue already. Dorpater (talk) 20:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You have helped Wikipedia appear messy and bizarre[edit]

Keep up the good work! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:04, May 31, 2016 (UTC)

I need a Cracked barnstar.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


Because you said please I'll stop. Please play nicer with other editors. Reply so I know you got this and I'll stop immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC01:3E00:A904:E52A:78D5:FE0D (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to reply and finish this or are we still playing games? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC01:3E00:311E:85EF:7AD1:44DE (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Some observations[edit]

Dear Marek, I've had a little talk with EllenCT about her editing style, and to keep it balanced, I should leave some unsolicited advice for you as well.

I've been reading the Economic Growth talk page, and a few things occurred to me that I should mention to you. I think it would be helpful if were be a little less sure in your statements, and be a little bit more willing to listen and compromise – it would come off as less abrasive. To be frank, I think you've overstated your level of certainty about some economic issues. To identify a couple, I don't think it's settled that demand issues cannot affect growth. Summers, De Long etc make the argument that there is hysteresis in economic growth, and that long periods of economic stagnation can depress growth afterwards. Also, I think the literature is still out about whether inequality is bad for growth, but it's leaning heavily that way. I'ld say that empirically, most studies support the contention that higher inequality is associated with lower growth.

I notice that you and Ellen have disagreements about what are secondary sources. I think what Ellen wants to see are closer to tertiary sources in our conception. A good source would be the New Palgrave, and the various field handbooks (e.g. the Handbook of Economic Growth). The articles in those frequently survey the literature, and reflect the current consensus in the field. I think when there is disagreement about what the consensus in the field is, it's more helpful to quote from the articles in the field handbooks, rather than individual papers.

Lastly, you need to relax and tone down a little bit. For instance, this statement was not polite. At the end of the day, thinks will only be settled if you get others to agree with you (or at least, not actively disagree with you). Negativity doesn't help that. The way to do that is by bringing in good quality sources, no matter how much of a pain it is to google up stuff that you already know. (Actually, it's not a complete waste of time to do that. A few times, after being forced to look up the literature, I found out that my understanding of the literature was wrong.)

Let me end by saying that I've always found you to be an excellent contributor, and that I really appreciate how you have cleaned up many economics pages. I know it's hard editing with people who are unfamiliar with the literature, but that's the Wikipedia way. At the end of the day, we can only get stuff to stick if we convince non-experts that what we write accurately reflects consensus in the literature – and the only way to do that is to bring in the best sources available. LK (talk) 10:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your comment. But please realize that the latest tone of my comments to EllenCT is a result of months, even years, long discussion with that editor - and it's well deserved. The discussion has reached a point - actually, quite some time ago - where constructive dialogue is not possible. EllenCT just insists on repeating the same thing and accusing anyone who doesn't agree with her of having a "supply side agenda" (whatever that is). And it's not like I'm unique in my frustration. I mean, she even got banned from Jimbo's talk page for this stuff. At the end of the day, unless SHE makes a dramatic change to her editing approach, there's really nothing to discuss here.
As to the substance of the issues. First, I'm quite sympathetic to the view that greater inequality creates a drag on growth. And I do agree with you that the literature is finding some evidence for this view. However, the argument is actually NOT about whether inequality matters for growth. EllenCT's POV is that inequality is the MAIN and possibly ONLY determinant of growth. And there's absolutely no support for that in the literature. Yes, we do have an obligation to try to explain the literature to non-specialists on Wikipedia, but the other side of that coin is that they have to be willing to listen. We don't have that here.
As to the primary vs. secondary source issue, if you read carefully read through all the past discussions you'll notice that EllenCT's definition of what is a "literature review" and what is a "secondary source" tends to change according to whether a source supports her POV or not. Regardless, both papers which include original research and literature reviews (like from JEL or JEP) are acceptable on Wikipedia so this is actually moot, and I don't see why I should even devote any more time to arguing about what constitutes a "secondary source".
And oh yeah, hysterisis. There might be a reason to put something about it in the article. But even in the whole Blanchard etc. at best the presence of hysterisis would only have a LEVEL effect (higher steady state unemployment rate) not a growth effect, no? So even there the connection to economic growth as a topic is tenuous and it should not be overemphasized in the article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I understand and sympathize with what you are saying. However, it behooves us as academics to be polite and generous in our interactions. I know, I'm the pot preaching to the kettle here, but still, it doesn't help to be negative. Calm neutral statements are best. Warm regards, LK (talk) 04:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

{sigh} You were right, and I was wrong. Sorry, LK (talk) 07:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Lawrencekhoo: On the contrary, you are still correct above, including in your characterization of what is and is not a reliable secondary source. That you are willing to capitulate your voice of conscience merely because I have decided to remain opposed to systemic bias is an excllelent illustration of your part in perpetuating that bias. EllenCT (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
EllenCT, continuing to comment on this matter, here or elsewhere, could constitute a violation of your topic ban. The point of that ban is for you to walk away from the issue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Amanda Marcotte[edit]

My two cents, if you want to move this to the talk section of the page as well, that is fine. The material that I removed is all primary sourced material. It comes off as POV pushing without having secondary sources to back up its inclusion. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 23:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

It's just a list of some of the things she's published recently. How is that POV? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Writers publish lots of things, thats what they do. Unless its gains recognition elsewhere and has a conversation around it, its inclusion seems more promotional than informational. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 00:42, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
You know what? I think I actually agree. So I'll let it be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Would you please justify this? Have you checked the sources of the content you remove?-- (talk) 08:29, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT administrators' notice board[edit]

Hello Volunteer Marek:

I reported EllenCT for disruptive editing of Economic stagnation


She also reinserted a section on inequality in Economic growth.Phmoreno (talk) 14:14, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

You don't need to actually notify me of these things - those articles are on my watchlist and I'll be sure to catch it myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Adding evidence piecemeal is also not going to be very helpful. You need a concise statement that demonstrates the problem with evidence, not diffs scattered over a long thread that no-one is going to bother reading. GoldenRing (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
You may be right but you know, I got other time constraints, and doing it piecemeal is really all I got time for now.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I see you've changed your tune.[edit]

From unfairly dismissing complaints about EllenCT's conduct as "opportunistic assholery" [5] last year to describing her in the new ANI almost word for word the same way I and others did [6]. Extended experience with her can do that. Good. I understand that charges against her can seem incredible or exaggerated until one experiences her antics first hand for a prolonged period of time. I tried hard to find common ground and collaborate with her for a long time, but after dealing with her on multiple articles and topics over the years I reached the point a couple of years ago that you apparently did recently. I can and have worked with people who don't understand a topic but are willing to learn, I can and have worked with good faith editors with political views that differ strongly from mine, but I can't work with someone who lies about what a source says and then persists in the lie after being called on it. And then proceeds to lie to try and discredit other editors or get them baselessly sanctioned. Better late than never. Wikipedia is much better off today. VictorD7 (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the difference is that Phmoreno has changed their approach to editing a lot. For the better. Back then they had their own problems with pushing fringe-y theories and giving them undue weight but they've really learned a lot in the mean time. They're a very good editor now. On the other hand, the problems with EllenCT just got worse and worse. So yeah, people change, facts change, and when they do, I change my mind. It's what you're suppose to do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Given the context, I didn't realize your comment back then was directed at Phmoreno (the op). Phmoreno was relatively new at the time so I'm not surprised he's learned the ropes since then. But EllenCT was doing the same things then and before that she's been doing recently (as has been repeatedly documented). If anything she seems to have mellowed out a little in certain narrow regards, though the basic pattern of misconduct is the same. I appreciate your open mindedness. VictorD7 (talk) 00:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)


I have closed down the RFC's here and here as they are malformed messes which are not going to go anywhere. If you wish to re-open them, please rephrase them into a more appropriate RFC, otherwise standard discussion on the talkpage should suffice. I am also notifying the other likely contributors. Regards. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

3rr on Grand Duchy of Lithuania[edit]

Hello User:Volunteer Marek, on the matter concerning User:Craft27by I've submitted a report here. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi VM, just wanted to follow up on the Wołyń Massacre article, one of my thoughts is that perhaps in the Lead Section, we should avoid emphasizing individual historians. The lead is the most direct section of the article which should focus on the most basic facts of what happened, and when you have names of some random historian it places that personality on the level of the event. My suggestion would be to omit names of historian all together from the Lead. The article is about the Wołyń Massacre, not Snyder's views and commentary of it. In short, I would be against including a name of any historian in the Lead Section of an WP article.--E-960 (talk) 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

  • Apologies, I should not have removed the entire statement and source that was a wrong call, I went ahead and kept the statement, but took out reference to Snyder and co. As noted earlier, perhaps the Lead should only focus on the event and not side track itself with dropping names of various historians. --E-960 (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Debbie Wasserman Schultz[edit]

Hello. Do you have a close connection to Debbie Wasserman Schultz? You have been removing lots of referenced criticisms about her. Wikipedia articles are not supposed to be advertisements.Zigzig20s (talk) 10:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, she turned me on to Pokemon Go. Wikipedia articles are not suppose to be political hit pieces.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
No, they should be fair and balanced. That includes criticisms. Anyway, she is resigning...Zigzig20s (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"Fair and balanced" eh? You're sort of signaling your POV there. They should not be political hit pieces and the fact she's resigning is beside the point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Your edits on DNC member/officials pages[edit]

Please use the Talk feature before removing legitimate content on DNC member/officials' pages. Your edit history suggests an agenda; this is an editorial community and edits which are controversial need to be discussed. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

You continue to cite consensus needed when other editors add factual information supported by sources. You do not have authority to sanction. ConsciousCopyWriter (talk) 03:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see the discretionary sanctions notice on that page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Also, I'd appreciate it if you cut it out with the baseless accusations.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions[edit]

I wanted to let you know that only admins can place an article under discretionary sanctions, and it has to be logged. I mention this because this is the second time that I've seen you have done this. Perhaps you meant to use another template warning editors that an article may be placed under discretionary sanctions?- MrX 12:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Surely it is already under DS...? Being post-1932 political America  :) Muffled Pocketed 12:41, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
See WP:ARBAPDS. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people." In other words, any admin can place any article within the scope of this remedy under standard discretionary sanctions. Prior to this decision, Arbcom had to do it.- MrX 13:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, so they are in the scope of but not automatically under DS? Many thanks MrX. Muffled Pocketed 13:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Slightly confused[edit]

Do you have any idea why I got a notification from this that you had mentioned me in a comment? I can't see any reason why it would... maybe a glitch in the software? Anyhow, just curious if you knew of any reason that I can't see. Cheers! Crazynas t 09:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea. Wiki software has been really buggy lately.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh wait, I think I know. I initially used { these guys instead of [ these guys, which copied Doc's user page to the article talk page. If you were mentioned somewhere there, then you got mentioned there. I fixed it within seconds.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


I also have experience on Wikipedia and would like to work for the HRC campaign. Can you tell me how you started with them? Should I contact the campaign directly or the CTR pac? Thanks. (talk) 01:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Send exactly 47.52$ to this charity. In the "How did you hear about us" field enter this code: r3ddVM!44Wkpd. The HRC campaign will get back to you with sekrit instructions shortly. But don't tell anyone.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:49, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

American politics[edit]

Hi, I've noticed you seem to be editing articles on the current American political situation from a certain ideological point of view. That a no-no - see WP:ARBAPDS. I suggest that if you feel strongly about Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump you should stay far away from their articles or any associated with them or American politics. Kelly hi! 20:53, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah... no. I have not been "editing articles on the current American political situation from a certain ideological point of view". If you think otherwise, plenty of venues for you to raise the issue, bring the diffs and evidence etc. Watch for the WP:BOOMERANG though.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
You might also want to take a look at WP:ASPERSIONS. This is a user talk page (my talk page), so I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, but you really shouldn't make random accusations against long time editors.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
My apology for occasionally looking at your editing history. I will try to avoid it in a future [7]. No kidding about anything either. My very best wishes (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Your accusation of sockpuppetry is not appreciated[edit]

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Murder_of_Seth_Rich, you accused me of being a "sleeper sock account" because I've had an account since 2007 but only made 25 edits. Ever consider that I'm just a regular user, who mostly just reads Wikipedia, doesn't have time to make many edits, and just occasionally corrects small errors?

Your accusation is not appreciated, and I'd like to ask you to withdraw it. Have me checkusered if that's what it takes to convince you.

Also, why did you not sign the comment in which you made this accusation, as per WP:SIG? DestroyerofDreams (talk) 07:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Seth Rich debate: Why Did You Collapse My Comments w/ Your False Allegation?[edit]

Your action:

"collapse misstatements of fact falsely attributed to newspaper article

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. Comment. Do you agree that it adds to the notability that 1) Rich got 2 shots in the head and 2) this is the first (probably) instance of police locating a man shot with the (Washington DC) Shot-Spotter acoustic technology? The NY Daily News seems to regard this as notable."

The NY Daily News certainly did state that the police located Seth Rich using Shot-Spotter Accoustic technology. That fact is notable. Kindly undo your action. (PeacePeace (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC))
I think you have me confused with someone else.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Although your comment was in fact... strange.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump[edit]

I would like to change or 'alter' the current image shown on the Donald Trump page. I believe it's a better image, although I saw you removed it already I would like you to reconsider. Ititanthompson (talk) 04:12, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I've deleted the image already per our NFCC policy. --NeilN talk to me 04:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Armia Ludowa[edit]

The page was vandalised in 2014 and partial corrections don't solve the problem.Xx236 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Which edits from 2014 are you referring to? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
I have exaggerated, I meant the government fled, which was Soviet propaganda steretype. BTW many Soviet institutions (and Lenin's corpse) fled from Moscow.
The articles PPR, GL, AL are biased,they don't describe Soviet control.
Museums and monuments should be mentioned, eg. in Polichno.
Are the numbers correctly sourced? There are citation needed comments since 2014.Xx236 (talk) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discretionary Sanctions[edit]

Greetings, the discretionary sanctions currently in effect at Donald Trump require that "all editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of the article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Pls self-rv this edit which restored content that had been challenged with these edits. If you have concerns about formatting issues, you can address them in a separate edit. Thanks.CFredkin (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

CFredkin, I think you have it backwards (see WP:GAME). You added the phrase "until a screening process has been perfected", without consensus or discussion on talk, basically trying to sneak it in. *I* am the one challenging your addition. So *you* need to obtain "firm consensus" to reinstate it (and judging by other editors' comments on the talk page, you're unlikely to get it).Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:37, 17 August 2016 (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 Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. 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. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! -- AntiCompositeNumber (Leave a message) 16:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Jared Taylor[edit]

If you restore the removed content again without improved sourcing and talk page consensus to support it I will pursue sanctions against you. BLP Discretionary sanctions apply to this article, as well as all BLPs. D.Creish (talk) 04:46, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

And I will pursue them against you if you continue to remove sourced content that has been present for over a year. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Watergate scandal[edit]

Why? Do you believe Watergate to be among the 100 or so most important United States-related topics? pbp 17:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that was just an accidental hit of the rollback link. You know how when you load your watchlist it does a little jump? And if you click to quick you click the wrong thing. That's all that happened.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
Ah. Anyway, I'm glad you self-reverted. pbp 17:28, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
No problem, and sorry about that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

A note that I've raised an issue at ANI in which you are involved.[edit]

See [8]. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2016 (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 Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy[edit]

I suggest you not try to blank this article, even on BLP grounds, particularly now that other editors have reverted you and now that I have nominated it for deletion. Although there are indeed some BLP concerns it is not a slam dunk case. In the event there are behavioral issues arising from editors trying to add POV content to politics article, it is best to remain several steps more cautious than those editors lest you be subject to counter-accusations. You probably ought to disclaim any further effort at reverting things, let discussion take its course. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. The relevant policy, WP:POVFORK, does suggest redirecting or merging the fork to the main article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
Also, as far as behavioral issues go, I'm afraid you're dealing with a classic case of WP:CPUSH which Wikipedia still hasn't figured out how to deal with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
The POVFORK redirect suggestion could make a defense against reflexive counteraccusations accusations of POV / disruptive editing. However, having been warned or scolded or whatever myself by a dysfunctional Arbcom about 8 years ago for trying to deal manage birthers flooding the Obama article, and facing an interaction ban in the process in calling out one of the most persistently vituperative editors I've ever met, I would say it is better to stay above the fray particularly in contentious situations that Wikipedia has not figured out how to deal with. - Wikidemon (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
You do know that that AfD is completely pointless, right? It's trivially easy to railroad one to make it "no consensus" and "editors" vote preferences not policy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 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/Clinton Foundation-State Department controversy 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.}

I think you should redact your comments "fringe far right conspiracy theory book," which is not an accurate description. Nug took me to AE for a similar remark and you commented.[9] TFD (talk) 19:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

It's a comment about a source (an accurate one), not an editor, which is what you got taken to AE for.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


I have raised the issue of your editing of articles related to the 2016 election at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Volunteer Marek. You may reply there. TFD (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion input sought[edit]

Given your contributions to articles about white nationalism and white nationalists, there is a discussion currently at the talk page on the Nationalism template which may interest you. Thank you. Rockypedia (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:10, 8 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi Volunteer Marek. What did you mean here where you stated "removed with misleading edit summaries"? Background: User_talk:NeilN#Violation_of_discretionary_sanctions. --NeilN talk to me 17:52, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Hey VM, I came across that same edit myself and it seems to be in violation of the discretionary sanctions that "All editors must obtain firm consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". The content you restored had been added, then removed by CFredkin (technically a revert), and restored by you, all within the space of several hours without talk page consensus. When you get back online I highly recommend you self-revert to avoid trouble. ~Awilley (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
There's like five editors on that talk page that want to see the material included. He's just removing it because he thinks discretionary sanctions give him veto power over consensus.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not really seeing a clear consensus. People are saying there should be something but not how much. It doesn't help your case when you're the one breaking the rules, and you can't rely on admins to see if/when others are gaming the system. ~Awilley (talk) 02:43, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, but all the commentators *except* CFredkin believe it should be in there, while he simply removed it. Against consensus. Sure, how much of it should be in there can be subject to discussion. But his edit was clearly against consensus and it was part of a pattern where he tries to use the cloak of discretionary sanctions to implement his own very POV edits. This is what several other editors have pointed out over at NeilN's page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
All the commentators? You know that's not true. Anythingyouwant is clearly against your revert, and said as much here. I can see the problem with CFredkin, and it bugs me too, but that's not a good excuse for you. You are the one who restored contested material to a high-profile BLP, and this is what the talk page looked like when you did it. Please don't tell me you see a consensus there. ~Awilley (talk) 03:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Anythingyouwant's precise statement was: "That seems like plenty for now, and it ought to be more concise in view of WP:Summary style". "Plenty for now" suggests that he does think it should be in the article although he thinks purely stylistic (i.e. non-substantive) copy editing should be made. Yes, you're right, ATW did in fact later back tracked when his buddy started trying to stir up trouble, in order to support him. BUT, when I undid CFredkin's revert how I was suppose to know that ATW would flop and change his opinion later on (opportunistically)? At the time of my edit, there was consensus for it. User:Buster7 as well as User:Muboshgu and User:Somedifferentstuff all believed that the material belonged in the article. You add me in, and ATW, whether they like it or not, and that's five editors against one tendetious battleground warrior.
I do appreciate your input but I think you're incorrect in your analysis of the situation. Likewise, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of a whole bunch of people saying "yes, CFredkin is obviously behaving disruptively, but we need to be nice and assume good faith and well, basically not do anything about it". In the meantime he goes around creating POVFORKS, fillibustering consensus, edit warring and POV pushing while wrapping himself in the mantle of "discretionary sanctions". And probably laughing his ass off at the naivete and ineffectiveness of Wikipedia editors. It's just WP:CPUSH which Wikipedia is always horrible at dealing with.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It's easier for admins to do something about CPUSH when the editors resisting it aren't giving them fodder to take to AE. There's no emergency, and no reason the article needs to have the material you re-added this very moment. If there's truly consensus for the material it will be added in a day or two, even if a few people try to filibuster. And as soon as you self-revert I'm going to go have a chat with CFredkin about gaming the DS system. ~Awilley (talk) 04:05, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
WP:Summary style doesn't require merely stylistic edits, and the only one suggesting it does is you, VM. I edited the section in question to put it into an acceptable form before your huge revert, and you can see that it was much shorter than what you wanted.[10] As for the opening paragraph of the lead, it's extremely obvious from the comments at the talk page that you had no consensus to put Trump U in that paragraph. Please revert to spare all of us a tedious day at AE.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
The version you link to above is not the version you agreed to on talk. That version was:
"In September 2016, the Washington Post reported that the foundation had to pay a $2,500 fine for violating IRS rules regarding political contributions by charitable organizations when it made a donation in support of Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's election campaign.[510] The $25,000 contribution received widespread scrutiny, because Bondi's office was at the time reviewing fraud allegations regarding Trump University but later dropped the investigation.[513]"
Your comment said "it ought to be more concise". "More concise" DOES NOT mean "let's remove the mention of Bondi and the "contribution" for POV reasons or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Come on, are you really going to pretend that you don't understand that the issue is about Bondi and the "contribution", but rather these are just "stylistic edits"? Are you trying to insult someone's intelligence here?
Yes, you are backtracking on it now - precisely to CREATE a "tedious day at AE".
My revert wasn't "huge" either. Not unless you think that CFredkin's edit was "huge" too. It simply undid his against-consensus removal of well sourced info.' So spare me the hyperbolic rhetoric as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:07, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I appreciate your willingness to talk about this, because I don't want the AE hassle any more than you do. First and foremost, I want to emphasize that whatever anyone thinks about the section on the Trump Foundation, your reversion of Trump University into the opening paragraph of the lead was clearly, obviously, manifestly, plainly (etc.) done without consensus, and talking about the later stuff regarding the Trump Foundation does not obscure your edit to the lead. As to what I did or did not support for the section on the Trump Foundation, it's very clear that I did not support the non-concise version that you reverted back into the article. Regarding what I did support, that doesn't seem very relevant here, but you can see from the edit history that I supported this version and then this one, neither of which is what you subsequently reverted back into the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

On Trump University issue, see my comment on talk. Yes, I can agree that it shouldn't be in the first paragraph. I would self-revert that part but it has already been reverted. However, it does merit a mention in the lede itself.
As to Trump Foundation I am going/was going simply by what you said and referred to on talk page. Of course you're perfectly free to change your mind or whatever. But at the time I made an edit, there were 3 other editors who supported keeping the material, plus yourself who appeared (whether you expressed yourself incorrectly or changed your mind later) to also supported keeping it, although edited "for conciseness" (again, editing for conciseness means that the substance of the material is left unchanged - which means leaving Bondi and the "contribution" in).Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Okay, I now see that Trump U was recently removed from the lead at 23:37 on 14 September, more than six hours after the complaint against you at User talk:NeilN; you had that whole six hours to remove it, and someone else finally did it instead (using up their one revert for the day under 1RR). I have no idea how AE might treat your inaction for those six hours while you were available online, but good luck explaining it. As for the Trump Foundation stuff, even if we stipulate for argument's sake that I wanted the substance of the material unchanged, you put back a version that was not conciser in any way, so please stop counting me as supporting your revert. Thanks. I can only add one more thing: when you reverted all this material back into the Trump Foundation section, you deleted an entire sentence that I wrote:


  1. ^ "Foundation Center". Accessed September 14, 2016.

I don't think it's at all credible for you to argue that I supported deletion of that sentence that I had just written.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:03, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

"you had that whole six hours to remove it" ..."I have no idea how AE might treat your inaction for those six hours while you were available online, but good luck explaining it." - Seriously? You talk as if all I had to do in my life is sit in front of a computer, ten tabs of Wikipedia articles open and constantly updated just to see if someone somewhere mentions me. I don't know about you but I got other, real life, work to do and that is just not the case. It's pretty ridiculous to demand that I respond to some request within six hours. (And you can check that I wasn't active on Wikipedia in the intervening period). So sorry, but I don't think I have to explain anything to you here, or at WP:AE. I simply didn't see the trouble you and your friend were trying to cause.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
And how the hell do you know I was "available online"??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:23, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You made six edits spanning 21:59 to 22:46 including this refusal to revert Trump U from the lead.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:31, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
You really need to get over this. And 22:46-21:59 does not equal six hours. Please just drop it because you're really starting to annoy me with this kind of inanity that borders on badgering.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
Good night, VM.Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of discussion at AE[edit]

Please note that there is a discussion in which you are an involved party at WP:AE.CFredkin (talk) 00:06, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Jeesus christ, this is like, what the fourth time this month you guys try this???? Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 15 September 2016 (UTC)


I don't mind, in fact I think it is funny, but I am wondering if you un-hatted this on purpose [11]? In any case, if it becomes an issue, it can be hatted again. I am also restoring the section title to this,. so the "Cough" (hack! hack!) discussion can smoothly continue. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

A Barnstar[edit]

Staphylococcus aureus, 50,000x, USDA, ARS, EMU.jpg The Protects the Editor from Attack Barnstar. This image is of Bacterial cells of Staphylococcus aureus, which is one of the causal agents of mastitis in dairy cows. Its large capsule protects the organism from attack. I know I should comment at the places of attack but it is so exhausting to deal with prevaricators. Keep up the great work with the awareness that your collaboration is appreciated by most editors...even those that may disagree. Buster Seven Talk 14:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Actually I'm more than a little confused by all the 'ins and outs' and 'comings and goings' of all the needless chatter about the university and the generals. I'm lucky I remember what I did let alone what other editors do. I think some editors just mis-read or mis-interpreted what others do or say. My favorite rejoinder in moments like these is: "I KNOW YOU THINK YOU KNOW WHAT YOU THOUGHT I SAID (or WROTE) BUT I'M NOT SURE YOU REALIZE THAT WHAT YOU HEARD (or READ) IS NOT WHAT I MEANT". I usually don't shout it. But I'd like to! Buster Seven Talk 18:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)==

Another barnstar[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar.gif The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For tireless service manning the front lines by contributing to and protecting Wikipedia articles in total agreement with policies and guidelines. More like you are needed. Steve Quinn (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
'For real!! --Steve Quinn (talk) 20:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The "Age...continued" thread[edit]

At Donald Trump. Another editor gave a new suggestion with a little different wording (Suggestion 2). Are you OK with either? Buster Seven Talk 17:22, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Unknown acronym in edit summary[edit]

Re [12], what does "FO" mean, please? ―Mandruss  00:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Trump audit stuff[edit]

There is no need to repeat all the Trump audit stuff twice in the BLP. Much of it relates to the 2016 campaign, so that stuff has been moved down to the corresponding section of the article. See this talk page discussion. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Uh... that's not a "discussion". That's two comments by you and a single comment by someone else. That's an extremely fragile hook to hang the removal on. Especially since in another section editors are discussing how to properly word the content you're trying to remove. Which you know of course, since you're participating in that discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon 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.Avaya1 (talk) 03:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Beat you to it, already commented.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)