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)[reply]

AE discussion

Please see this. 15:00, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Don't get carried away

Hi VM, you are usually precise in your prose, so I was quite surprised to see you as the author of this over-the-top misrepresentation of facts. I fixed it.[1] Please be more careful next time. — JFG ^talk 00:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John McCain

I just left you a message on Talk:John_McCain. If you decide to reply, please reply there. --Mox La Push (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Mox La Push (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Watts family

Re this edit summary, I wondered myself: how come we don't have an article on this crime? So I created one: Death of the Watts family. Surprisingly, there were no demands to immediately change the name to the "Murder of..."; no heated discussions about it, in five parts; etc. </sarcasm>.

I think you would appreciate this addition: [2]. It literally says that it's "white dudes" who commit these types of crimes. I was looking for the material on "family annihilation"; I was not fishing for ethnic makeup of these killers. Pretty chilling... --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. And what's particularly glaring is that there's actually a TON of weird ass editors on Wikipedia who SPECIALIZE in sensationalist murders. Yet, no one had created this one. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary Sanctions - Kavenaugh

My edits to Kavanaugh have been made in good faith to provide facts per RS and NPOV. I understand your strong feelings here, but the article’s integrity is the first priori. I have been envolved in so many heated discussions over the years, as you have. For everyone’s benefit, please take a breath. Remember what we’ve been taught—direct comments to the contribution, not the contributor. Hang in there Pal. Hoppyh (talk) 01:47, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits were not perfect (you may have added some original research or cited wrong sources), but VM's edit summary in this edit was really uncalled for. VM removed well-sourced material "registered Democrat" that was reported in The Washington Post (the cited source), so it's absurd to imply that the party affiliation is some kind of horrible smear. In Kavanaugh's bio VM removed two citations to heavy.com saying "not RS" and in the nomination article VM edit warred the second heavy.com source to that article.

And what the heck is this obfuscation: "committed by Kavanaugh"? Politrukki (talk) 09:49, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DS violations

You recently violated discretionary sanctions (consensus required provision or 1RR) on several pages:

16:07, 18 September – challenge

Too late to self-revert your violation now, but this was really egregious violation as you very well knew I was removing unsourced material per BLP.

16:02, 18 September – First revert
16:05, 18 September – Second revert and violation of both 1RR and "consensus required" page restriction. Challenges (where I challenged some edits in full or partially):
- [3] (and this is the second time you edit war same or similar edit into the article, in violation of DS)
- [4]
- [5], and
- [6]

Please self-revert.

You also removed helpful inline maintenance tags without fixing or addressing any of the obvious problems, which is not in violation of DS per se, but is unconstructive. Politrukki (talk) 09:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those aren't two reverts. It's one reverts. And it's me challenging YOUR removal of long standing text. You got it backwards buddy. Volunteer Marek 13:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(There might be one exception there in your edits in term of new material, hold on let me look at it again). Volunteer Marek 13:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a challenge to your POV WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal. Volunteer Marek 16:07, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poppycock. Did you read my edit summary? I was very clear that I was removing original research. Try assuming good faith or prove me wrong citing a policy.

What I don't like is that someone conducts original research to push their POV. Brennan's statement is in no way a reaction to the dossier, hence it does not belong to Trump–Russia dossier#Reactions. It is also not directly related to the dossier, hence it would be original research to use it in the dossier article. The connection must be made explicitly in the source. If you cannot answer a simple question "What does this source say about the Steele dossier?", the source should not be used in the article. Why something so obvious has to explained to you?

Even if you were right that this is long-standing content, and you are not, you should not game the system to push non-policy compliant content to the article. Compare this to your reaction when someone else adds OR and invokes discretionary sanctions: #1, #2 Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually YOU violating the DS restriction by removing text even though the removal has been challenged. Volunteer Marek 16:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice distraction. There was never consensus to include this material. You did not even to bother to participate the conversation when this was discussed. Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the only possible DS restriction violation by me would be this, since that was added recently, but even that's not clear, since it wasn't that recently. And even there, you not only removed that paragraph but you got sneaky and had previously removed another sentence (" with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit,") which had been in the article for quite awhile and which addressed the same topic. So it very much looked like you were removing long standing content, even though some of it was indeed more recent. Anyway, I restored the original version. Volunteer Marek 16:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your allegations are simply false. "some of it was indeed more recent" can only mean a September 12 edit by BullRangifer, which adds original research (that you liked so much that you just had to knee-jerk revert the content back into the article when I removed it) and correctly removes unsourced content "with the notable exception of Putin's answer at the July 2018 Helsinki summit" (what does this even mean?).

By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions. And now you contact me with your vexatious accusations. Will nothing stop this disruption? Politrukki (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"By reinstating the content BullRangifer challenged, you just committed another violation of the page restrictions" - it's obvious you didn't even bother looking at the edits in question but instead ran over here to make false accusations. I didn't make any edits today to the article. In fact, I haven't made any edits to it for the past five days. Reinstate anything or whatever. So quit the bullshitting. Your edits were challenged twice and you've restored them. You're in violation of DS, despite all the fake threats you scream on other people's talk pages.

And whether this is "original research" or "unsourced" (that's not true either) is beside the point. When your edits are challenged you need to get consensus. Not start edit warring. Volunteer Marek 18:38, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And User:Politrukki, why are you citing an edit which has NOTHING to do with the text over which you violated DS? Are you trying to deflect and confuse? Volunteer Marek 18:48, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Restore"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/860283558

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:33, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See above. It's confusing. Volunteer Marek 17:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see now. So what's the end of this going to be? We should at least keep the sources. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa server

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/860142150

Not minor. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 17:40, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Unhinged (book)

On 25 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Unhinged (book), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Trump presidential campaign filed for arbitration against the publication of Unhinged: An Insider's Account of the Trump White House by Omarosa Manigault Newman? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Unhinged (book). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Unhinged (book)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:03, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Amry

There is a discussion on the neutral point of view noticeboard [7] and article talk page [8] posted regarding the Blue Army and text neutrality — in reference to undue weight (depth of detail, quantity of text). Perhaps it might be a good option to get editors familiar with the topic to voice their recommendations, to see how the text on anti-Jewish violence can be trimmed in a proper and correct way, as it is the longest by far, in proportion to the rest of the article. --E-960 (talk) 13:21, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alfa-Bank 2016

I have restored your 18 September 2018 deletion in light of Dexter Filkins. "Was There a Connection Between a Russian Bank and the Trump Campaign? A team of computer scientists sifted through records of unusual Web traffic in search of answers". NewYorker.com. article. X1\ (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like an apology

Hi, I believe that you have violated the "no personal comments" sanction with this edit. D.Creish (talk) 05:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"not sure what you're referring to"

To respond to your comment in this edit summary, my edit summary linked to a talk page section whose title was changed by another editor. Here's the new title Talk:Proud_Boys#Poltical_violence. You may join discussion there and now that my objection's clear, revert. D.Creish (talk) 05:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

thanks marek Reply

im sorry for tagging the article with the AFD tag, but i was patrolling recent changes when i came across an article with insufficient information, i tagged it with a deletion tag, but somehow it got redirected or something, causing the bombing attempt article to be tagged... im sorry for my mistake, i tried to undo it, but an edit conflict occured. Thanks again. B. N .D | ✉ 16:44, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you were trying to tag the article on the suspect, right? Volunteer Marek 16:45, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right. B. N .D | ✉ 16:48, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Shea

Is there any particular reason you reinstated the typo that I removed in the Matt Shea page while I was flagging the biased statements that you also removed the challenges to? —Dajagr (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to correct any actual typos. Volunteer Marek 16:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did: I removed a lingering "i" that someone had left at the end of the previous paragraph. I'm still not sure why you pulled the "citation needed" flag along with the other notations, but at this point the whole section has been reworked, so that particular ship has sailed. I still feel it's not particularly neutral, so I'm trying to work on that, but it's at least improved with sourcing. —Dajagr (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not a retraction?

What would you call it when a a news outlet quickly takes down an article and documents? It's not quite a "correction", because the statement was only replaced with a statement of investigation, but making misinformation unavailable is the opposite of what fake news websites are supposed to do. But it is like the sort of thing other fallible and gullible but otherwise reliable outlets do, like Fox News, CNN and the rest. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:31, November 6, 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Witaker - World Patent Marketing

There is a discussion you might find interesting at the link below. -Critical Chris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Matthew_Whitaker_(attorney)#World_Patent_Marketing_2

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Volunteer Marek. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Brześć Ghetto

I have asked Malik to mediate (he isn't active however) and proposed to rename the page to Holocaust in Brześć to finish the reverts. Please beware the wolf. Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 wumbolo ^^^ 15:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your user name

Hi VM. Is your user name inspired by The Good Soldier Švejk? I am re-reading it and it makes a passing reference to a Volunteer Marek at the point in the story where the 11th march company, of which Švejk is now orderly, begins it's journey to the front. Just curiosity. Simon Adler (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon Adler: Yes it is. My favorite book of all time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Simon Adler (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your contributions

Regarding your valuable contributions to Terrorism in the United States, it appears that a user is removing your edits in bad faith. They seem to have called you out in Talk:Terrorism in the United States, and in doing so, created sockpuppet accounts to support their bad faith arguments against your edits.

You might be interested in supporting this sockpuppet report, as it involves your edits.

@Objective3000: and @Grayfell: might be interested, as well.

Cheers! TronBaby (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Racial Views of Donald Trump POV Violations

You immediately removed everything I edited without any warrant of reason. I read the entire talk page and all the issues presented nothing was satisfactory in address in the numerous issues with the page. You placed the Birther issue back in the article and that blatantly has nothing to do with the article, as it has absolutely nothing to do with race. Please DO explain why you rashly dismiss my well vouched concerns of neutrality of the said article? It’s clearly not neutral. I am willing to wager big money you know that too. Thanks for your explanation in advance. Sirsentence (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the issue was discussed at length, look in the archives.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:51, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I already did. The issue on the talk page was not discussed other than a brief mention in other context, as well as did not conclude anything with the issues as you allude and claim. Instead it was the same minimal interaction and lack of any detail or verification of why that issue even warranted a place on this particular page and was instead a controversial sling fest of non-neutrality and obvious bias from the involved editors. Absolutely nothing was resolved. I am willing to wager you already are aware of that given the lack luster response to my challenge and the indifferent dismissive approach you take when referring me to “archives” that I clearly already read. It would be nice if you could even explain why you believe the said issue even warrants a mention on that particular page before you decided to revert with no reason other than “see archives”, which conveniently, contrary to your claim, do not address or resolve the Birther issue at hand. If I’ve somehow made a mistake and missed the conclusion in two read throughs, please DO give me any excerpt that “concludes” the Birther issue. Awaiting your kind response. Thanks Sirsentence (talk) 23:35, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Dove Christmas

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Violation of WP:POVC Procedure

Reading back into WP:POVC it has come to my attention you disregarded the POV process by removing the POV tag I placed on that article prematurely before any concensus was reached. When an editor places a POV tag for cleanup, you are to leave it until the issue has been corrected, addressed and resolved by the community. You deleted it within minutes from Racial views of Donald Trump. Should you not have left it to resolve itself instead of rashly coming to your own conclusion it was closed? A WP:POVC tag issue was never presented on that page before, so no conclusions were reached on it. Is this what years on Wikipedia allows you? I respectfully ask you reinstate the WP:POVC tag back, as the page does need a consensus on its neutrality. Thank You Sirsentence (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]