Taxus Baccata

		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]

I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gandy orders a second round. Cheers to one of our best! Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*hic* here's another :) sláinte! ——SerialNumber54129 15:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Fellow Wikipedian

I would like to invite you to my RFC request on  the page One America News Networks. I am reaching out to you to include your expert opinion and your solution to this problem in the RFC request. Please also invite more editors so that we can have a fair discussion that will improve the page.

Kind Regards

Saad Ahmed2983 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons discussed here, the topic ban imposed here is reduced to one month in duration, starting now. Sandstein 11:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per the clear consensus of admins commenting on your appeal, this sanction is overturned in its entirety. GoldenRing (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Gab (social network)#Gab Dissenter merge. Hi Marek. As you were one of the main participants on the page, this RfC may be of your interest. Cheers. Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 23:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

I have been quietly asking T. Canens to undo their sanction of me which has been active for 750+ days now. You lobbied for this sanction because I'd commented on one of the many cases Cirt brought to AE as Sagecandor. I had noticed that they were, as you say, making things up, by accusing Tlroche of "falsifying their signature". I had also, as you know, like many others, noticed that Sage was a long-term user hiding in a new account. So, given your own minor worries about AE, I wondered if you wanted to pop over to T.Canens page and withdraw your claim that I was "casting aspersions" or involved in a "battleground" mentality. Rather, I was helping AE administrators by drawing attention to problems with the diffs provided and providing evidence of Cirt calling people he didn't know Russian agents.

This is more in regards to SashiRolls' comments here. The relevant policies are WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND. There's no reason for them to show up here and based on some flimsy excuse use this as a forum to attack another editor whom they happen to dislike. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 15 December 2016 (UTC) source

I don't see any diffs in that statement, Mr. Marek. Would you be willing to undo the damage you've done? You can comment here. I imagine you'll be out of "jail" by the end of the evening, so I'd appreciate if you could take the time to clean up this old bit of dirty laundry. SashiRolls ^{t · c} 18:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the merits of your appeal, if you're going to ask people to speak on your behalf, it's probably a good idea NOT to talk smack about them behind their back on off-Wiki forums.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a true statement. Thanks for speaking up. To answer your question (why in the world would you want to be allowed to speak at AE?!), sometimes there are {{{appealing users}}} I might like to say something nice about. That's what made me first think about the sanction in fact. I've been distracted by that ban and the facts surrounding its imposition ever since. I haven't been creating as much content while I work through this "meta" issue. If you have any suggestions for things to add to my evolving guide on wp perplexity and plussitude let me know, it remains incomplete. With regard to speaking ow and smack, always remember: the opposite of irony is wrinkly. ^ᵕ^ SashiRolls ^{t · c} 08:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know that the University of Michigan only admits students into a Doctoral program, so anyone saying they are a Masters Candidate at the University of Michigan is not a political science student? Hipocrite (talk) 20:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear as to what this is suppose to relate to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Purple Barnstar
		You know why. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] --Shrike (talk) 06:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Volunteer Marek. Thank you. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to avoid noticeboards but you're at 4RR on the Tucker Carlson page. While I don't doubt the material will end up there eventually we need to agree on the wording. I think the version you originally added could be improved, especially with regard to NPOV by adding some context (what little there may be). Mr Ernie (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually not. And two revers were of the anon IP throw away account. You want to suggest wording on talk? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’ll make an attempt tomorrow. I would like to see how some other reliable sources report it. Thank you. PS your friend is back. Really sad and sick. Sorry you have to put up with that - it really rubs me the wrong way. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:08, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see, you're counting the earlier edit. I forgot about that. My bad.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was not appropriate: [2]: "preconceived extremist narratives"; etc. You don't think that your overly aggressive comments "derail discussions and sabotage productive dialogue"? --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@K.e.coffman:, I think comparing Poland to Iran and North Korea qualifies as extremist. And provocative. My comments are not aggressive although they are critical, because what they are responding to is deserving of criticism. I would very much appreciate if other editors in the discussion engaged in constructive conversation - and some, like User:Ealdgyth do - but instead we get BLP violating attacks on authors and ridiculous comparisons to dictatorships. Do you think that comparison to Iran and North Korea was appropriate? You don't think that the only reason for an experienced editor to make such a absurd comparison would be to upset other editors and... "derail discussions and sabotage productive dialogue"? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say: if you believe that some unnamed editors are holding "consensus" hostage, then start an AE request. Railing on article Talk pages about the same editors trying to "taunt and provoke" you is not making your case stronger. It's only driving away other editors who you apparently not including in the group of "extremist" editors. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that you're not actually answering my questions. Which does lead me to ask - and I am assuming good faith, believe me - why are you coming to my talk page and querying me, rather than going to the talk page of the editor who made the provocative comparison and asking HIM why he's doing what he's doing? Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I found your behaviour to be overly aggressive and badgering, including towards myself, and because I already had a similar discussion with you: Call for decorum. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, noted. Also noted that you don't seem to find the remark that prompted "my behavior" to be at all problematic or offensive and that you are not actually even entertaining the possibility that my comment was right on the mark. I will add that it was not my intent to "badger" you, nor do I think that I actually did that. I did find your stated reason for your revert to be substance-free. Along the same lines as above I can ask why you never make "has been challenged, get consensus!" kind of reverts of other editors, such as one under discussion. Putting the first and the second together does suggest unintended bias.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And re-reading my comments at the link you provide Call for decorum, I also wonder if you ever replied to these comments? I stand by most of what I wrote there, the last sentence in particular appears to be very applicable to this situation as well.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because you do not consider your behaviour badgering, does not make it not so. Here's your own advice that you might want to follow: Here are things you should try: rather than attacking editors, try to get consensus. Start an RfC. Inquite about sources at RSN. Bring it up on NPOVN. Ask for dispute resolution. What you shouldn't do is auto-revert any changes made by editors simply because of who made the changes. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are still evading the question. Do you think the comparison to Iran and North Korea was valid? What do you think the purpose of such a comment was? (and I do indeed follow that advice) Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you are still badgering. Again, start an AE request, if you have behavioural concerns. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you perceive that way, but, you know, you came to MY talk page. I'm asking a question, you're refusing to answer it. And this is still MY talk page, so if there's any "badgering" going on, I think you got it backwards.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking part in my discussion with Icewhiz: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz#Controversies

I tried to add information about criticism of a book, of controversial authors Jan Grabowski (historian) and Barbara Engelking (psychologists). There is a critical opinion of Piotr Gontarczyk (historian) who point directly mystification in this book - here is English source: https://afaae.com/poland/yes-ladies-and-gentlemen-this-is-a-new-school-but-not-the-research-but-the-deception-of-the-holocaust/

So first time when I added new content, moderator said that the sources were incorrect/insufficient (the new content removed), second time the form of the info was not right(the new content removed). It seems that moderators are simply biased and try to censor everything what does not fit into their point of view - because their arguments are simply not logical. If you look ant my talk page you will see what Icewhiz wrote (bottom of the page) - for me it is a bit like saying "shut up and go away": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bluffer8

Do you have any suggestions what should I do next with this problem? Could you please help me with this?

PS. I gave Icewhiz some arguments and have asked him again what to do - please find it at the bottom of his page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Icewhiz

Bluffer8 (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does not concerns you directly but you might be interested:

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Bluffer8 (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Mayor Pete. Since you had some involvement with the Mayor Pete redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The DS Remedy applicable to Linda Gottfredson states specifically (my bold) Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended) 5.2) Both experienced and new editors contributing to articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed) are reminded that this is a highly contentious subject and are cautioned that to avoid disruption they must adhere strictly to fundamental Wikipedia policies, including but not limited to: maintaining a neutral point of view; avoiding undue weight; carefully citing disputed statements to reliable sources; and avoiding edit-warring and incivility. I gave you an opportunity to self-revert the challenged material you restored here and here after local consensus in January 2019 determined it to be WP:UNDUE. Unfortunately, you chose to revert my edit instead, so you not only violated UNDUE, you violated the caution to avoid disruption. You have been amply notified of the DS applicable to that BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:18, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Didn't you just get off a barely-made-it appeal User:Atsme? Do you really think it wise to jump in both feet into a new controversy? Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, a case of pot trashing kettle? Friendly suggestion - traverse the DS spectrum carefully as I have done. You should also familiarize yourself with the recent discussion on the TP of that BLP as it is relative to your style of editing there. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you want Atsme.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

I've just posted the paragraph below as I respectfully disagree with your action in removing the category from First Liberty Institute.

"== civil liberties advocacy group ==

An editor has removed the category Category:Civil liberties advocacy groups in the United States from this group - I reverted and have been reverted back. My point is that even if you don't like the consequences of them advocating for religious liberty - such as it means they take positions that contradict those who advocate in favour of LGBT rights - there is no doubt that religious liberty is a civil liberty and, therefore, First Liberty Institute is a civil liberty advocacy group. Birtig (talk) 09:05, 5 April 2019 (UTC)"[reply]

Birtig (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did to Candace Owens, especially if it involves living persons. Thank you. wumbolo ^^^ 22:48, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stop making ridiculous false accusations against other editors? Are you making a legal threat? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was just giving advice, also read WP:BLPBALANCE. I can stay away from your talk page if you don't want my advice. wumbolo ^^^ 09:36, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: WP:LEGAL says "a discussion as to whether material is libelous is not a legal threat." Just because aspects of the WP:LIBEL policy have legal considerations, it does not mean that referring somebody to the policy constitutes a legal threat. A legal threat would be wumbolo declaring that they intend to take legal action against you, or that they will take legal action against you if you don't meet a demand. I hope this improves your understanding. 84percent (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as a legal threat. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue, even if that is not your intention. ". If you make that claim once, fine. If you keep repeating it, it starts sounding like a legal threat. And you never answered the question as to whether you have any prior alternative accounts you need to disclose.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're misinterpreting that; a key article that may help with your understanding is reasonable person (i.e. could a "reasonable person" construe wumbolo's words to be a threat of legal proceedings?") I did answer your question earlier at my talk page. I have no accounts to disclose; thank you for asking! I appreciate you taking an interest. :-) 84percent (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Wumbolo, what was the BLP violation? Drmies (talk) 01:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies [3], but you commented on BLPN where I brought it up? wumbolo ^^^ 09:46, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There were a lot of edits, and I thought you were pointing at a more recent edit. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I see now that the warning was indeed from that date--my attention was drawn to the most recent edit on VM's talk page, yesterday, and I didn't check the date on the templated warning. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An attempt is being made to ban Polish-language sources concerning Polish-Jewish relations and concerning the Holocaust:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Amendment_request:_Eastern_Europe

I thought this might interest you.

Nihil novi (talk) 07:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit on Matt Taibi had some claims I couldn't verify.

You said Taibbi's assertion was broadly criticized. Which assertion, and the Bloomberg article doesn't say anything was broadly criticized so what's the source for that?

Next you said the Mueller investigation didn't exonerate Trump citing the same Bloomberg article. Not only could I not find it in the article, I see it was published April 1, before the report was even released!

It also occurs to me that broad criticism and didn't exonerate are factual claims and your source is an opinion article. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-01/no-russiagate-isn-t-this-generation-s-wmd Isn't that not allowed?

If you want to respond on the talk page you can copy this there but the unsourced text should be removed as soon as possible. Cestlavieleir (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer those questions, as soon as you explain how an account which started only in March 25, and which has less than 40 edits to their credit knows how to 1) properly use citation templates [4] (first edit ever) 2) knows how to properly hat discussions [5] 3) knows how to lecture others about the intricacies of WP:UNDUE policy [6] 4) knows how to lecture others about the intricacies of WP:OR policy [7] 5) knows how to lecture others about the intricacies of WP:BLP policy and sourcing [8].

Less. Than. Forty. Edits.

Please disclose your prior accounts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the citation I copied from an earlier revision and the HAT I also copied from an earlier revision? Stop insisting I had an earlier account. If you can't work together without asking pointless and aggressive questions I'm done responding. Cestlavieleir (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, be done responding.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Over the past month or so you have edited multiple articles, for the first time, after I have edited them and without (or prior to) them being publicized in a public fora. Examples include: [9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. Please stop. Icewhiz (talk) 06:51, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]