User talk:Volunteer Marek

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		"happy that we finally got a 'self-described neutral observer'" - that made me laugh. That was a positive add. Rockypedia (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

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

Huzzah

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

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)

Semi

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)

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)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Dispute Resolution Notice

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)

Dispute

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)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Volunteer Marek. AfC submissions Random submission ~8 weeks 1,819 pending submissions 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)

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

Happy New Years !!!

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)

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)

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

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

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)

Thanks for your help

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)

1RR

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

---

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Stephen F Cohen

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)

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)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Undos

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)

NY Daily News an unreliable source?

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)

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

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

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)

A tip...

...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)

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)

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)

FAC

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)

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)

Merger discussion for Fake News Awards

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)

Breitbart News

I was trying to restructure the page. 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)