User talk:Volunteer Marek

Leaving an alert

Hello VM. You left an alert for ARBR&I at User talk:Jbtvt, but it doesn't have a signature or date. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it was on 02:20, 23 June 2017‎ - do I need to add that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:55, 23 July 2017 (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.Hidden Tempo (talk) 07:39, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Hidden Tempo (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sean Hannity

Hi, VM! If you're wondering what became of your post on the Hannity talk page: I deleted the post you were responding to, which was a sockpuppet of a blocked user, so I deleted your reply as well. (Too bad - I thought you and I both did an excellent job of refuting their nonsense - but WP:RBI and all that.) --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No problem.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Your 2 reverts

Rachel Maddow - you should not have reverted twice. There's not even time to pre-warn you as you should already know about AE at Maddow. ^{Atsme📞📧} 06:32, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

No, I should have reverted your BLP violating material as needed. And are you and HiddenTempo communicating on this or something? Because both of you just made the same false accusation about 1RR.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

False accusation? You are aware there are Discretionary Sanctions in play because it is a BLP, right? Do I need to post the notice for you, or have you already been advised? I scanned for other sanctions/editing restrictions, including anything against you. I didn't see any. I did see where there's a discussion taking place now about political articles which I'll join tomorrow. In the interim, the 2 reverts and your behavior aren't going anywhere. I'll figure out the best way to handle your disruption tomorrow, or whenever I find time. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I have no idea what you are talking about. BLP is one thing, DS is another. And of course BLP applies - which is EXACTLY why I reverted your BLP violating edits. Please stop referring to my edits - which, unlike yours, followed policy - as "disruption". Didn't we already cover this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Go read Sean Hannity and tell me why you think there is no BLP violation there. ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Is there some specific edit of mine there you are concerned with or are you just flailing around? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And you do realize that you just implicitly admitted that your edit on the Maddow article was a tendentious WP:POINT violation, right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You need to read the policy: WP:PUBLICFIGURE If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I cited to RS, there are multiple others, and your reverts were disruptive. Consider this a formal warning for you to stop the disruptive editing. You might also want to read Sean Hannity as there are no BLP violations there, either - to prove there is nothing about POINT there, either. Do I need to repeat it yet again? ^{Atsme📞📧} 07:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

You can make all the "formal" warnings you want. Your edit was a straight up BLP violation and you know it. Please! Take it to some drama board! Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, You need to reign in your political bias before you get your administrator rights revoked. You are in the wrong here. If Hannity is a conspiracy theorist, Maddow is a conspiracy theorist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 602:304:cda0:c1a0:c9fa:eb56:3ff5:b989 (talk • contribs) 03:05, July 26, 2017 (UTC)

Uh, ok.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please see the clarification on this point at my talk page. VM, when did you become an administrator?? 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

During the last solar eclipse, in a super sekrit ceremony with hoods and candles in an underground tunnel complex with lots of chanting and a little bit of humming and whistling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Some admins have all the fun. :-( --MelanieN (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

(Ok, seriously, not an admin).Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And it's highly unlikely that you ever will be...but many consider that to be a good thing based on what admins have to endure. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:53, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment: Declaratory Judgments

Hello Volunteer Marek -- The original Slate article was weak. I admit that. The Daily Signal article says, " 'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'” I think that supports my assertion that the impeachment-minded members of House and Senate are looking to a declaratory judgment as a basis for moving forward in the House. This whole topic is so fraught. I don't want to upset anyone. I do think the reasoning is clear and reference sufficient. I'd ask you to reconsider your position and put the Signal reference back and retract the . All the best. Rhadow (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring and tag teaming

Trump campaign–Russian meeting, Fusion GPS, and Donald Trump–Russia dossier - your behavior is disruptive and I've grown weary of it. Stop the tendentious editing. You do not have consensus to revert my edits based on WP:DONTLIKEIT. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not reverting your edits based on "I don't like it", I'm reverting them because 1) They are POV, 2) They are UNDUE and 3) You have no consensus for any of them as is clear from talk page discussion.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

POV?!!! WTH?? Where did you get that? Exactly what part of my paragraph are you calling POV? ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:56, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The part that is undue.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Alternative facts

Thanks for this revert. I had to laugh at the person's invention of the word "truthhood" (to replace "falsehood"). Are we going to have an alternative English language now, as well as alternative facts? --MelanieN (talk) 14:57, 4 August 2017 (UTC)