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. Kekmon (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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

I'm in the process of adding ethnographic / regional descriptions as well, not just "haplogroup nonsense" as you called it. Please stay tuned until I finish and then you can revert or change whatever you want. I'm describing regional groups. Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alright.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I think I've finished. Maybe I will add more source references later (if necessary, for example if some of the info is controversial and needs to be supported by more sources). I fixed all links to disambiguation pages, but the notification hasn't disappeared yet. Can you remove it?: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles

Domen von Wielkopolska (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, you now have my admiration. Happy holidays to you and yours! -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 13:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of us are warm and fuzzy, but we all deserve civility and consideration. Hoping this new year will bring a bit more of that for all of us. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected your talk page again, if you want it removed/altered, just ping me and I'll deal with it as soon as I can. Nick (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit, after what I just saw in the page history, I think this should be EC protected for the remainder of Christmas.—CYBERPOWER (Merry Christmas) 19:21, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Activist (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding your reckless edit warring. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Origins of_the_Cold_War#13,000_byte_massacre_by_Volunteer_Marek".The discussion is about the topic Origins of the Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding your challenging or misinterpreting sources. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Cold War#Secret_treaties,_#Russian_revolution_section".The discussion is about the topic Cold War. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --GPRamirez5 (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Volunteer Marek. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,664 pending submissions Purge to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:49, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After new years. Volunteer Marek 05:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Years Volunteer Marek !!!

Much admiration for your editing over the years (even when things have got tricky) and keep the good work up !!! Volunteer Marek, as your edits have related to some extent of Russia related topics, have you come across something scholarly on Russia and its influence (negative, other or positive) on the Balkans ? I want to add some content on Albania-Russia relations which could have more on the modern era. Best.Resnjari (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. With regard to the Balkans and Russia, it's a little outside my area, particularly with regard to Albania. But if you wanna improve that article, I'll take a look.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated and many thanks. Best. :) Resnjari (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -GPRamirez5 (talk) 04:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Volunteer Marek, I was trying to improve a Wikipedia entry and I was going about it the wrong way by trying to disprove the facts in an article that was cited. You came in and pointed out I didn't have to disprove the facts because it was an unreliable website in the first place, so it couldn't be used as a citation anyway. I'm still learning, and it helps to hear from people with more experience. Thank you for all your efforts, I can see now that you've been doing this for a long time. You're appreciated! Plantlady223 (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This series of edits is a revert, and you already previously reverted at that article today. Please undo your 1RR violation. I’d be glad to consider any objections you wish to make at the talk page, but I don’t think that discretionary sanctions apply to me and not to you. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmm, that series of edits is indeed a (partial) revert (and a challenge to your non-discussed, unilateral, POV changes), but my last edit to the article before that was in... July.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:57, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You made two distinct groups of reverts today, and they were not continuous. Go look. I do not want to bring this to AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:59, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. I did not make "two distinct groups of reverts today" (or any other day). I was going through your unilateral, undiscussed, POV changes one by one, rather than just wholesale reverting you (which I guess is what I should have done so as not to provide you with this bullshit excuse to falsely accuse me of breaking 1RR) I see now that you managed to jump in and make a quick edit in between my edits, so that you can now come here and claim I made "two distinct groups of reverts". Nonsense. This is incredibly bad faithed, even by your usual standards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When I made the intervening edit, I was not even aware that you had edited the article at all today, I was simply focused on removing extraneous material from a bloated paragraph. Look, you can make a series of continuous edits and call it a single revert. You can’t call non-continuous edits a single revert. This is very simple. And this is your final warning before AE. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. I made one edit at 6:43. Then another at 6:44. In between you managed to jump in and make an edit at 6:44 (which I didn't even notice until you showed up here with this nonsense), split seconds before I made mine. And now you come here and claim that the edits up to 6:43 comprise a "distinct group of reverts" from the edit made at 6:44 and consequently. Are you fucking serious? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:09, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m very serious, see you at AE. This is a blatant 1RR violation. It’s irrelevant whether I was “jumping in” and I already told you I wasn’t. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:13, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not, but knock yourself out. And you did, so watch out for that boomerang.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And what really pisses me off about this cynical attempt by you to WP:GAME policy, is that I could've just reverted all your edits wholesale since there was obviously a ton of POV in there. Instead I wanted to do you the courtesy of going through them carefully one by one and only removing the bad parts while keeping improvements. Once again, I learn that trying to do the right thing only comes back to bite you on Wikipedia when folks like you are around.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to think about this: the time between my "non-continuous" edits is less than a minute. The time between your last edit before I started my review of your edits and before you jumped in is ... 9 minutes. So, yes, you did "jump in" to make it seem like I was breaking 1RR. Again, WP:GAME and bad faith.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(which also makes this a 1RR violation by YOU, User:Anythingyouwant).Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a 1RR violation. You can't, by virtue of sticking an edit in the middle of his obvious continuous ones, turn his (now-broken) series of edits into an extra revert. El_C 07:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:El_C the rules say "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." It does not say "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert, except for Volunteer Marek who can make as many nonconsecutive saved revert edits as he wants and count them as one revert." I stopped editing as soon as I realized he had jumped in, you think I should have made a bunch more edits just for emphasis? That's nuts. Anyway, you can comment at AE in a little while. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now seriously pretending that *I* "jumped in", even though my edits were less than a minute apart while yours were 9 minutes apart? Your capacity for lying is actually surprising, even though it shouldn't be at this point.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All I meant is that I was in the middle of making a long series of edits, and you suddenly showed up (i.e. "jumped in"). Care to attack me some more? Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is/will be No violation. He could have made a single edit comprising all of these changes in one go. You sticking an edit in the middle of his series, does not change that. It almost looks like you were trying to trick him by doing this. El_C 08:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think that you'd be the kind of user to revert my edits based on your editing history. How did the previous version of the article adhere more closely to the sources? Wingwraith (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to revert the article back to my version soon but with the modification that keeps the extant material on Ukraine (esp. the reactions to his views) as I think that its abridgment in my version of the article is what you objected to. I will make the changes if I don't get a response from you within the next 24 hours. Wingwraith (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Diplomacy
	I appreciate your contributions regarding my topic ban as well as your thoughts on Arbitration Enforcement. --MONGO 13:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Marek. I noticed you undid several of my edits. After you accused me of coatracking I initiated a talk page discussion but it looks like you haven't taken part. What is your objection to including Jackie Robinson's comment? Also, there is a separate article on reverse discrimination which is why I edited the article on reverse racism the way I did. Isn't it improper to have two articles on the same subject? Reverse discrimination appears to be a broader topic. FloridaArmy (talk) 20:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello VM, I was just reading through the Donald Trump racial views AfD and noticed you call NY Daily News "a definition of not a reliable source" in your reply to Rusf10. This is very troubling to me because I know that I've used it in writing some WP articles. This also seems to run counter to the article New York Daily News, which says the newspaper got 11 Pulitzer Prizes, one as recently as last year. However, it appears that you have more experience on Wikipedia than me, so I'd like to hear your reasoning. ^Falling_Gravity 01:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you're right - I confused the News with the New York Post.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay, that makes more sense. ^Falling_Gravity 02:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have a theory on why Volunteer Marek considers the Daily News unreliable, but I'll let him answer. As for whether you can use it or not, the consensus is you can as per [1] & [2]. If Volunteer Marek feels strongly about it, he can start a new thread at the reliable source notice board.--Rusf10 (talk) 01:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...If only for your blood pressure, I wouldn't bother continuing to respond at the DT Racial AFD. Its clearly never going to be deleted, and frankly we are going in circles with the editors posting the same invalid arguments. I've taken it off my watchlist. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was out, but sadly rampant stupidity has dragged me back in. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You should build up your stupidity tolerance. Try listening to Infowars for about an hour, every week. It'll numb you right up*.

^*

If you don't kill yourself, that is.

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:23, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might be familiar with the matter as the user Imonoz linked you on his talk page. One of my articles which is currently a FAC is about a Polish singer Margaret (singer) and most of the sources used there are in Polish. I was wondering if you could review them as the lack of sources review stands in the way of the article getting promoted. Do you think you’d be able to do that? I do understand that this is not a topic you contribute to on Wikipedia, however I would greatly appreciate your help. Regards. ArturSik (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look suggests you got a mix of reliable and questionable sources there. Anything from Onet.pl is potentially sketchy (though not all). I'll look through it in more detail later.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Fake News Awards—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 23:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to restructure the lead. The moving of the far-right text was consistent with the previously agreed consensus, which stated that the far-right label could be used in 'certain circumstances'. It did not state where. I cannot put it back as the page is on 1RR. I am deeply unhappy with contentious opinions (even when they are in rekliable sources) being stated as facts. By this logic we could call Donald Trump a racist in the first line of his article - this does not occur as it is not neutral. I tried to initiate a discussion, but the editors seemed to agree that far right could be used. In agreement with this, I could still move the far-right label further down in the lead. Perhaps it is not fair that the far-right label keeps getting removed entirely - but it indicates that a large proportion of Wikipedians strongly disagree with the text. KU2018 (talk) 13:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know you have helped me before and I hope it's okay if I ask you for help. If you're busy I completely understand. I created a page, A’shanti Gholar, which was proposed for deletion. I thought I fixed the problems, and removed the tag, and started a discussion on the talk page. But the original user came back and put the tag back up, but didn't say why or add a comment to the talk page discussion. I tried messaging on their User talk page but I got no response. Is there anything I can do to prevent the page from being deleted? This is a notable person who was a top director at the DNC and, is currently a director of a national organization and regularly appears in places like Rolling Stone, NBC News, etc. on its behalf. I believe she should at least have a stub. What do you think, and is there anything I can do? Plantlady223 (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove a PROD tag but you can't remove the AfD tag. The only thing you can do to prevent it from being deleted is to make your case at the article's entry at AfD. In my opinion the article now has good sources so it should survive the AfD.

Btw, you've probably just had the experience running into one of Wikipedia's deletionists. Also, because this is a biography of a living person, some people (rightly) insist on higher standard for notability for those article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that rollback, went to hit diff and hit rollback. Dang thing should have a confirmation. PackMecEng (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, has happened to me a few times.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We are currently having an RfC on whether the AfD is considered right-wing to far-right or simply far-right. Your opinion would be valued greatly. You can see the discussion here. Thank you! -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 22:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have one. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One more. Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly reminder that edit summaries like this one, could be seen as violating the new civility restrictions in effect. Please make sure no one has "good cause" to block or otherwise sanction you. Don't worry about having to handle removal of such WP:SOAPBOX type comments yourself either... if you want to avoid being looked at as part of the problem (which in this case I know you weren't) just hit me up and tell me about the offending edit, or report it to WP:AE so we can handle it appropriately. Thanks VM! — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 13:21, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Coffee, wait--did I miss something? New restrictions? But that comment of Marek's, I really see nothing wrong with it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 03:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Drmies: It's just specifically the "idiotic comments" part. Not an incredibly big deal, which is why this is in no way a warning. And yes, you can see {{American politics AE}} for the up-to-date remedies. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 04:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Donald J. Trump Protection of America Award
	For your courageous, brave, and valiant efforts in reverting terrible, terrible vandalism on Devin Nunes, probably caused by liberal agents from Antifa. Without brave Americans like you, this country might as well turn into a complete shithole--that I can tell you, folks. Drmies (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind reverts on current events where we both edit. Your revert on Erica Garner [3] though is your only edit to an event that is not a current event. You're well aware of WP:BLPCRIME and the requirements for accusing a living person of a crime. It's not the first time you've just reverted me under specious reasoning on an article you have no prior involvement. There is no reason to follow me and I have no desire to create conflict with you. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 23:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The text is literally from the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop following me. --DHeyward (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DHeyward, how about you quit treating Wikipedia as a battleground, you know, like this: [4]? Thanks.- MrX 🖋 01:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm....ownership? Editors are allowed to make proper edits, including reverts, of other editors, even if they may have had dealings with them before. Such "following" is allowed. If the follower made edits and comments which were truly specious, it would be a different matter.

This one was based on a RS. Other editors then supported the edit, and yet others found other sources which brought more clarity to the situation. There is simply no evidence of bad faith with the first edit by Volunteer Marek. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:41, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Am I mistaken, or did you revert Peter Strzok twice tonight? Xerton (talk) 01:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're mistaken.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [5] and this [6] look like you. Are you being impersonated? Xerton (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It can be confusing, but policy says A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. Thus the edits in your diffs count as a single revert. A look at the article history gives the impression that it would benefit from a brief period of protection. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have the feeling this comment was placed in the wrong place and ment for Atsme above not Specifico. Just a heads up. PackMecEng (talk) 16:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thank you! Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool beans have a good one! PackMecEng (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to this you do, which I find surprising given your other comments in the discussion.- MrX 🖋 14:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I was referring to this edit where VM disclaims the false dichotomy of excluding the "well sourced text" (which as far as I can tell could only refer to the quote) or including the SYNTH, which only comes into play when the opening of the section is included.

VM, you are free to correct me on this, of course, but your comment seemed rather clear to me. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the question is "do I support removing the paragraph entirely from where it's at right now" then the answer is yes.

If the question is "do I support retaining the 'racially and ethnically divisive campaigns'" in the article then the answer is yes, but not where it is right now.

Apologies for the confusion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That tracks exactly with my opinion, and you have nothing to apologize for. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pants, given the problems with that comment of yours yesterday perhaps you'll consider striking it and taking another approach to have all your concerns addressed. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:29, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, I have no idea what you're talking about, and second, given your claim about open heart surgery, I'm not sure you should be complaining about problematic comments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now now. You are all reasonable people here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we are all talking about different aspects of the three part dispute. I was specifically referring to this sub-proposal from JFG:

During his inauguration address on January 20, 2017, Trump stated: "Through our loyalty to our country, we will rediscover our loyalty to each other. When you open your heart to patriotism, there is no room for prejudice. […] Whether we are black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots."
— [7]

VM. Do you support including this?- MrX 🖋 15:42, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I misunderstood you then. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see this reflected in your talk page post. Also, the following didn't post earlier due to an edit conflict. I really think you strike your recent posts, which are going to derail this zombie talk page thread and prolong it for another 18 inches. SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Pants, did you see my further explanation of my objection to this on the article talk page? It's not confirmed noteworthy by widespread secondary citation or comment, and frankly it's amateur speechwriter Miller's attempt to create a memorable quote with a garbled and meaningless string of what must sound to him like the great speeches of Churchill, FDR, and JFK. What is the metaphor? Blood? Are you able to paraphrase wtf this means in plain english? What about terrorists' blood? What color is that? green? SPECIFICO talk 16:32, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See my response in this edit. We've already gotten VM's answer, so please take this back to talk. Start a subsection if the thread is too long there. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:36, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked on talk you still had VM with Atsme and JFG supporting the cherrypicked blood. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well whose fault do you think that might be? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you get a handle on whatever is angering you because it seems to be affecting your judgment as well as your conduct.- MrX 🖋 16:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not very angry, though I'll happily admit that your own behavior is more than a bit annoying. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, the misinformation that Marek is counted as a "support" is still on the article talk page, further confusing visitors there. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, we're done here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

VM, you are usually the one who is quick to warn others & drag them over to AE when you believe they violated DS - what about what you did per the following edits and how do you propose to correct it?

1. Feb 18, 2018 16:57 (this is indeed a pretty clear cut case of WP:SYNTH - and why are you restoring challenged material?)
2. Feb 18, 2018 16:59 (restore text that accurately reflects source - "racially charged", which is what source says, is not the same as "racially insensitive" (which is whitewashing))
3. Feb 18, 2018 17:10 (challanging this removal - this has been in the article since it was published in Jan, and is most definitely NOT "gossip")
4. Feb 19, 2018 21:35 - (→‎Charlottesville rally: if you want to include this you also need to include the part about Trump "stoking racial divisions" to accurately reflect the source)

While the last edit cleared the 24 hr restriction, (not by that much), it still demonstrates tendentious editing when combined with your overall behavior, which is actually quite obvious at all the Trump articles you have participated in...and yes, it will be easy to demonstrate noncompliance with NPOV. It is not my desire for anyone to be blocked or topic banned - we need the different views at these articles for BALANCE, but when one side is pushing as heavily as you have, well it just isn't conducive to productive NPOV editing. We all have our individual perspectives on how an article should be weighted and that is why it is so important to strictly adhere to NPOV which tells us not even editor consensus can override that policy. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, once again you put your complete disregard and/or misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy on display. None of these edits violate discretionary sanctions. None of these edits are "tendentious". None of these edits violate NPOV - indeed, they do just the opposite. Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, this post by you here appears to be a preemptive attack to defend JFG (who's the one that actually violated discretionary sanctions) because it's reasonable to expect that his behavior might very well wind up at WP:AE soon (undiscussed changes, violations of sanctions, making controversial changes without consensus). As such this comment of yours itself is a violation of WP:GAME and WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're throwing stones from inside a glass house, VM. You bully others with allegations that they violated AE when in fact you are the one who violated DS. It appears your warning to JFG is an attempt to put him on the defensive to divert attention away from your own violations of DS which occured prior to his edit. What makes you immune, pray tell? ^{Atsme📞📧} 03:40, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, save that kind of stuff for the AE and see how it flies. SPECIFICO talk 13:44, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm actually going out of my way NOT to have to take JFG to AE, since he clearly violated a sanction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly new so didn't know who else to ask, but can you tell me why when I sign my posts with the tildes it doesn't take and says it was unsigned? Thanks. Persistent Corvid 01:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PersistantCorvid (talk • contribs)

Nevermind, I figured it out lol, thanks anyway. Persistent Corvid (talk) 03:35, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is an RfC at Talk:Daily Mail#Request for comment: Other criticisms section. Your input would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:30, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesse Jackson stuff was added after a long discussion here, it was against concensus to remove it. PackMecEng (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed that.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it is reopened now anyhow. PackMecEng (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There wasn't actually consensus for what was put in. Against JFG but not against consensus to remove it. SPECIFICO talk 01:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your comment at Racial Views. That line seems to be the marker for SPAs and other suspicious newcomers lately. Must be a page in the recruitment/training manual: "How to make yourself credible..." SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is, but in MjolnirPants' case I think he was being genuine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:31, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Although it's easier to edit for folks like you and me who have no ideology. SPECIFICO talk 00:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

-Or if you have strong views (like mine on Scottish Independence), you are self aware enough to stay away from issues that can raise your blood and cloud your judgement. But back to the point at hand, there are people on both sides of the political spectrum that have come to all things Trump and become SPA, this comes to mind [8] among others. C. W. Gilmore (talk) 01:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

folks like you and me who have no ideology - April 1st is still a few days off :) However I do think you all still do a great job here. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think SPECIFICO meant to distinguish between beliefs and positions (which are subject to revision as new information becomes available) and "ideologies" (which are pretty fixed and resistant to facts). My "ideology" is that of Militant Moderation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the little girls' book "Millicent's Millinery"[9]. But Marek's distinction gets to the point -- and tellingly it's an obvious point that POV editors repeatedly overlook. We all evaluate sources and assess their central tendency -- that's the mainstream view we edit. But then the editors who arrived with their own fixed opinion -- who-knows-where they got it -- they get all upset when they can't google a citation to put in the article. Then they dress up their frustration with lots of nonsense to turn a harmless prank into the Tenth Crusade. NPOV edits are very easy to cite because there are so many sources. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Saw your comment at Racial Views. That line seems to be the marker for SPAs and other suspicious newcomers lately. Weren't you just whining about people casting aspersions at you a few minutes ago, SPEC? The rest of this thread is fucking hilarious, by the way. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mr. Pants. I see you now come to the picnic with your own grains of salt. We'll use them every time you bluster at us. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About three months ago, you reverted my edits on the DPR page. That was a big hassle and you could've just tried to do a partial reversion, but you didn't. You simply reverted every single change I had made--and only restored UN breakline change. I don't know if it's that ridiculous that you reverted over 3000 characters of shortening to the article, really, but please, notify me next time so I can at least try to make a compromise edit or something. Nuke (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just reverted your last two changes. On the other hand, it's not like you notified me when you made your changes.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a user named HerkusMonte that is adding words to Polish village pages that I do not think is correct. Please see this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mostki,_Lubusz_Voivodeship&diff=prev&oldid=829903888

and also this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wicko,_West_Pomeranian_Voivodeship&diff=prev&oldid=829906494

can you help? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amsgearing (talk • contribs) 21:59, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... still mentions Jewish. Re: [10]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:26, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This - revert - was not a revenge revert, it was mistake - I was intending to revert to one version prior to that - which I corrected in the immediately subsequent edit less than a minute later. Note that this edit stating "including children" is not "just ordinary copy edits" - it is quite POVish, and inaccurate even at that (even per the IPN - it one one ten year old child, and three women - the majority being killed were men and teenagers suspected of belonging to the "self defense unit"). In any event - this will be an interesting RS/n discussion - where I suspect we shall be heading.Icewhiz (talk) 13:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" the majority being killed were men and teenagers" - oh, in that case it's all okay. What "massacre"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No - it does not make it OK. However killing members of an opposing militant group is a somewhat different situation than killing children.Icewhiz (talk) 14:04, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Except... they did kill children. (And a bunch of farmers with rifles who are sick of being attacked and killed is a big stretch for "opposing militant group". Please stop it with this obnoxious whitewashing and deeply problematic excuse making).Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:06, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per what I read in the Polish sources - the claim is one child and three women. A bunch of farmers who formed a "self defense unit" (with German approval) and were associated involved with the Home Army aren't exactly farmers. There is also a context - for instance events during 1941 in the town in which the locals took part (taking lives and material). The Soviet (or Soviet partisan) view is different from the Polish view in a number of respects.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to put "the Soviet view" on the same footing with the "Polish view" (sic) then I expect the discussion is pointless. And again, you're making false and unsubstantiated claims, with the purpose of excusing a brutal murder of more than a hundred people. You should be ashamed of yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Marek, accidentally reverted you with TW. Damn thing should have an "Are you sure?" button already. Étienne Dolet (talk) 05:35, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Facebook, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wired (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not doubting you, but why, exactly, is T. J. Coles Trump, Inc. not an RS? Just curious. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's a conspiracy theorist: [11], Chemtrail conspiracy theory (also other wacky conspiracy theories).Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken:

Got it, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder that, when you fork or otherwise copy-paste on Wikipedia, the Wikipedia license requires attribution to the original authors/editors: see WP:PATT. I've added {{copied}} to Talk:Stormy Daniels and Talk:Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal to do this. --Closeapple (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2018 (UTC) @Closeapple: Thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33Icewhiz (talk) 14:51, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]