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)

MSNBC videos - not a copyvio

Hi!

I reverted your edit of the MSNBC videos because they were actually CC-licened BY MSNBC on YouTube. Many videos on the MSNBC youtube page are cc-licensed - Feel free to take a look here: https://www.youtube.com/results?q=MSNBC&sp=EgIwAVAU

Victor Grigas (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, no problem, and thanks! Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

It's just a sideline term, not substantive content

Sources say Arakan Muslims and Myanmar Muslims. But since it has now emerged that there are Hindus among them, I figured Arakan Indians would be better. I think it's fine for descriptive purposes.

But I maintain strict adherence to sources for the substantive content.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:44, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I just found sources which use Arakan Indians.--Fez Cap 12 (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

I've started a section on talk. Volunteer Marek  15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are banned from all edits and pages related to immigration in the United States for three months.

You have been sanctioned See Special:Diff/799047077.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at [[{{{decision}}}#Final decision]] and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. GoldenRing (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

As the sanctioning administrator, I am removing this; a review is not formally complete but I can see the writing on the wall and won't waste people's time by insisting on a formal closure. I've made some other comments at AN but doubt it would be productive to repeat them here, other than to echo MjolnirPants' sentiments below. This sanction is now void. GoldenRing (talk) 11:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Very disappointing, GoldenRing, to see that you've shown absolutely no awareness of the nature or depth of your misconduct and that you're saying basically that you conceded only that your stance is no longer viable, while tossing in another slap at VM on the AN page and by your reference to (presumably only part of) MPants's statement here. I suggest you voluntarily step away from any topic related to American Politics for a good long while so that you have time to reflect on this. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

lol Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

VM, It's bad enough you had to go through this mess and then have this harassment. I left a Harass-2 message on Saturnalia0 talk page. CBS527^Talk 00:28, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Notice that you are now no longer subject to the arbitration enforcement sanction

As an uninvolved admin, per Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions I remove this sanction which seems ill-advised, as the edits wrt AP2 are largely unproblematic. Criticism of an admin and/or his actions should not be used as a reason to place such sanctions, leaving very little substance to base this on. Fram (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, my sincere apologies, I misread policy here and am not allowed to overturn this sanction on my own. THE ABOVE SANCTION BY GOLDENRING REMAINS IN PLACE FOR NOW. I (and many others) don't agree with it and will see how I can get it overturned, but for the time being the sanction by GoldenRing is valid. Again, my apologies for any confusion this may have caused and false hope this may have given. Fram (talk) 12:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Anti-schooling activism changes

Please excuse me if this isn't the correct way of contacting you, I am new to wikipedia. Your removal of my edits on the anti-schooling activism page are vast. Perhaps it would be better for you to contribute to an article on the positive aspects of schooling instead, as your edits don't seem to be very fair . For example this sentence had 4 references supporting it yet you deleted it: Academic pressure and rigorous schooling has been pointed to as a cause of the high rate of suicide among South Korean adolescents.

If you thought one or two of the references didn't support the statement or weren't good references then it makes sense delete those references or edit the statement, but all the articles support the statement. There is even a section on suicide because of school pressure here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_South_Korea Why don't you delete that section as well? Is an NY times article about south korean suicide better than an NPR article? This is just one example. In fact, most of the sentences you deleted have multiple references.

Edit: I now see the article has a talk page. I will copy my points there. Note someone else mentions agism in the talk section, which is something else you deleted. (Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Can you tell me which edits or article you're referring to?  Volunteer Marek  21:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I am referring to the deletion of the "Unfree child labour" and "School related stress and depression" paragraphs, though I haven't reviewed all the edits yet. I also mention a specific sentence deletion above.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anti-schooling_activism&type=revision&diff=790490946&oldid=790490881

(Editor182971 (talk) 21:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC))

Well, the idea that compulsory education is a form of child slavery ("unfree labor" and "child labor") is original research. Also fringe. Volunteer Marek  22:08, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

possibly useful, probably unwanted advice

I just wanted to say two things re. the disagreement between you (and numerous other) and Samsara/GoldenRing.

First, I want to say I think it would help you a lot if you toned down the rhetoric a bit. There's a lot of all caps and repeated statements that make it look a bit rant-y.

Second, I want to say that I agree with you completely from what I've seen of it. This looks like a couple of bad calls by a couple of admins circling the wagons. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:10, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I know about the tone. I can't help it. I'm me. Volunteer Marek  22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I feel you. I know I can get a little grumpy myself. Sometimes, I have to respond, then carefully prune all the naturally-occurring insults, glowing recommendations for clinics still willing to perform lobotomies and poetic odes to the magnificence of the human capacity for stupidity from my comments before hitting post. Truth be told, I'd have been indeffed long ago if not for the preview button. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:37, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It's barnstar time!

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your heroic efforts on the talkpage of List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America. Thanks, VM! Fluous (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Kinda curious.

Where exactly did all these guys come from in the List of monuments and memorials of the CSA article? I don't get how they even know about it. None of them except Carptrash ever contributed much of anything to the article, except reverts. Are they on some kind of mailing list to advance conservative/ libertarian causes? Who knows.

At any rate, I think the graph is important, but ultimately it's not a huge deal if it gets taken down. As long as the information in the graph remains in the article, that's okay with me. It's upsetting that we're being fought tooth-and-nail on this for something so well sourced and obivous. But that's wikipedia for you. Fluous (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

That's a really good question right there. Anyway, if this graph doesn't work, a different graph can. Volunteer Marek  00:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Help please

Hi there, I need a little help. Please take a look at the article Political positions of Cory Booker to see if you can figure out the recent decision to delete and move the information to the main article, though I can't actually find the discussion. In my experience it is quite the norm to use separate political position pages and certainly appropriate for Cory Booker. Thanks. Gandydancer (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Your silence has answered my ask for help, though not helpful and not ever experienced in my previous experiences in asking for help. Oh well, I am only grateful that all editors do not have the same outlook. Some of us like to work together and have a little fun too. I do. Gandydancer (talk) 17:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Look, sorry, didn't get a chance to look at it. By the time I had some time it seemed to late. Please don't let that discourage you. Volunteer Marek  19:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Apologies

I'm sorry, Marek, for falsely accusing you of some kind of hypocrisy at AN. I've left a note there and struck my comment. Best, -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

It's all good, looks like honest mistake. Volunteer Marek  22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Breitbart News

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Vilnius University

I would appreciate if you kept an eye on Vilnius University page as that hoax, which I removed today has been restored by the user who originally inserted it. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that. That user has made other sketchy edits elsewhere and I've notified an administrator. Volunteer Marek  15:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. He reported me for "vandalism", but it is clear that he does not know the definition of vandalism. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The graph

You and DC need to stop edit warring over that graph. I'm tempted to go to AN3 now, but figured I should be polite and give you both a talk page message. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: - sure, the edit warring needs to stop. However, D.Creish (and this is a WP:SPA which somehow managed to cite obscure Wikipedia essay in their very first edit) refuses to actually discuss the issue on talk. For example, despite repeated inquiries they have not explained (in fact, they have not even tried to explain) why they are removing the graph but not the article text which says the exact same thing. That makes no sense. They just keep quoting that there's an RfC on ANOTHER article which is actually irrelevant.

Notice that now they've started a second edit war over other material in the article. Notice also, that this account stays dormant for days with no edits to Wikipedia but somehow immediately pops up if I make an edit to that article (or the related "List of..." article).

Yea, the edit warring needs to stop but removing well sourced material with no explanation is disruptive. Is this one of those times where I'm just suppose to accept that the way Wikipedia functions often fails and move on or something?  Volunteer Marek  11:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

You reverted without giving any reason

Hi Marek,

If you revert, you have to give a reason. Otherwise your revert is without justification and should be undone.

In this case, you've reinstated an edit that contains statements that don't match the references. To make this clearer I'm going to add quotes to the references. Great floors (talk) 08:40, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

That's because this has already been extensively discussed, there's an RfC on the talk page etc. The reasons are there, you just need to pay attention to them. Volunteer Marek  11:07, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

I need to ask then why you reverted my changes when it was discussed on the talk page and why you didn't pay attention to its edited Contentcreator (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

And I need to ask why you're posting in this section. Are you the same user as above or something? Volunteer Marek  05:37, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV tag at List of monuments

Per the guidance at Template:POV, I am putting this notice at your talk page, and a notice at WP:NPOVN

I am tagging the History section at List of monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America for the ongoing POV concerns previously under repeated discussion from the diagram. Please provide any suggestions for addressing the voiced concerns and otherwise moving towards consensus at Talk:List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America#Neutrality_tag_on_Image. Thank you. Markbassett (talk) 04:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)What's the crux of the NPOV complaints about this graph? I fail to see how graphs can be NPOV internally, and I fail to see how the addition of this graph pushes a POV one way or the other. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@MPants at work:

Well, let's see.

First, they tried to pretend that the graph was "unsourced". Even though the source was given.

Then, they tried to pretend that the graph was "original research". Even though it exactly replicates the data from the source.

Then, they tried to pretend that the source was cherry picked and not reliable. Even though there's at least a dozen other sources which say the exact same damn thing.

Then, they tried to argue that these other dozen sources weren't legit because "real historians disagree". Even though over half of these dozen+ sources were from, you know, actual historians.

Then, they tried to dismiss these sources of actual historians because "these were just published in magazines and newspapers, not scholarly journals". Even though these actual historians were experts on the subject.

Then, they claimed that there were "several" or "multiple" or even "millions" (no, really) of sources out there which contradicted these actual historians. Even though they didn't bother providing a single freakin' one.

The RfC is here. You can read it yourself and contribute. The discussion is one of the sorriest and most dishonest instances I've seen on Wikipedia in a while (and I've seen a lot) of individuals willfully trying to violate Wikipedia policies while veiling themselves in a whole bunch of self righteous bullshit excuses to push their POV.

 Volunteer Marek  15:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Move review

An editor has asked for a Move review of Grand Duchy of Kraków. Because you participated in the requested move, you might want to participate in the move review. Academicoffee71 (talk) 05:09, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Good humor

Please note that TP headings should be neutral. See: WP:TALKNEW and WP:TPO. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

It's a genuine question. Now please leave my comments alone. Volunteer Marek  06:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

While you have your concerns, "anchoring" the thread heading with "joke" is not a neutral statement. As per the guidance, the talk page heading is not "your" comment. So please leave it alone as a neutral statement of concern. – S. Rich (talk) 06:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that you're some kind of TPG police but last I checked no one appointed you as such. It's a genuine question so leave it alone. If the nature of the section title bothers you, well, maybe it's because the nature of the discussion on the talk page IS a joke. Volunteer Marek  06:49, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You could at least try to be a collaborative editor, VM. Why do you always have to push your POV and be the only one who is right? Listen to what other editors are saying to you instead of being so defensive. S. Rich is one of the most neutral and accommodating editors I have ever had the opportunity to work with, and his ability to compromise is commendable. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I *don't* push my POV so your question is already in bad faith. Why do you always have to be disruptive and why do you always use false and disingenuous claims to try and force your way through? Why do you always go running to admins to try and bully your way on articles? Etc. I'm perfectly collaborative and helpful as long as you come at me straight and quit it with the stupid games. Volunteer Marek  20:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well that response certainly opened the doors to communication. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I think those doors were already set when you started your message with "You could at least try..." and "Why do you always have to..." How do you expect me to respond? I have no idea why you think that you coming to my talk page and attacking me will somehow improve matters. Volunteer Marek  20:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(a day or two after you went running to a perceived-to-be-amiable-to-blocking-me admin over a false claim of a 1RR violation and tried to get me blocked. Yeah, that opened up doors)  Volunteer Marek  20:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

That isn't at all what happened...again, you continuously jump to conclusions, and I highly recommend another form of exercise. VM, I'm not and never have attempted to disparage you - the total opposite is true. Perhaps if you'd at least try to understand what others are saying, we'd have a much happier environment to work in. I'm not an advocate of any kind...my ONLY goal on WP is to contribute to the quality of this encyclopedia. I have worked to help promote GAs and FAs, and my editing patterns will support my claims. I don't give a big rat's behind what the topic is - I look only at the cited sources, the facts and how they are presented. I didn't fall of a pumpkin truck yesterday. I am a team player, unless a member of the team forces others to do things their way or the highway, and quite frankly, that is how you've treated me. I'm not some newbie who is going to go running with my tail tucked because the bully called me names - I will confront the situation, and do my best to defuse it. You've been editing WP for a very long time, you have done good work, and nobody is trying to take that away from you. I'm not the editor you've portrayed me to be, and WP would be a much happier place if you'd simply stop putting editors into categories they don't belong. ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, obviously my perception of your edits is quite different than your own self-perception, though I'm sure there are topics where you are a good editor. But my experience interacting with you on this particular topic has shown the opposite. Volunteer Marek  21:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Milo Yiannopoulos, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Richard Spencer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Breitbart News

Hi. This edit was a violation of active arbitration remedies. Please self-revert, or I will report you to AE. You need to get consensus before re-adding this content. I'm happy to continue discussing on the article talk page. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

opinion piece in Breitbart by former editor name-checks you

In case you weren't already aware of this, thought you'd find this article informative. Or at least amusing. Rockypedia (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Lol, Breitbart, go do something better with your lives, like, report actual news? Jdcomix (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

"(Disclosure: the author of this article has had disputes with several of the parties involved.)" Just......lol... Jdcomix (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

A 2nd opinion?

Hey Marek,

"Attack Helicopter" [1] showed up again today. I think it's suspicious, especially as the page it showed up at (Bill Nye Saves the World) was just recently semiprotected due to IP vandalism. Could I get a second opinion? Morty C-137 (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Morty, Wikipedians are not supposed to call in reinforcements. Are you aware of WP:Canvassing? Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:39, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think this is canvassing since that account looks like an obvious sock puppet and there's some history here. Volunteer Marek  04:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Was asking for a 2nd opinion to see if my suspicions were justified, but it's damn interesting that Anythingyouwant followed me to your talk page, Marek! Morty C-137 (talk) 04:32, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Do you think the return of "Attack Helicopter" is worth trying to make a report? Morty C-137 (talk) 06:02, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Tossing/Distributing Paper Towels in the Hurricane Maria article

Just a FYI. I am a different person than the editor at IP address 212.92.121.87. Thanks. 132.198.151.86 (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

np. Volunteer Marek  23:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

President of USVI

I'm wondering if this really belongs in the article? It's obviously V RS and consistent with criticisms that Trump is clueless about USVI and much else, but how directly does it bear upon the WH response to Maria or criticism thereof...? My concern is that we not water down the humanitarian crisis with gaffes and wars of words. For example, I'm not 100% sure I should've added this either... but, like your addition, it probably does help contextualize the train wreck as it unfolds. --I A Huasca (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Trump Endorsements

How come the additions that I made to [[2]] were removed? Each addition that I made has a citation that supports what the position of the person involved listed for the actors and comedians section. --45.52.236.187 (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (ET)

@D.Creish: Previous Accounts

Hi, You've made some variation of this comment a number of times on various talk pages. There may be something to it, but article talk is not the proper place to discuss. You've been here a while and you know better than I do how to address it correctly so please do so. Thanks –dlthewave ☎ 02:14, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I've tried raising the matter elsewhere but they have evaded the question every single time. The fact that D.Creish continues to make controversial edits which violate Wikipedia policies in a WP:TENDENTIOUS way in a controversial topic area rife with sock puppets of banned users, establishes that this is matter of long term disruption. Volunteer Marek  02:17, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Where did you bring it up? I couldn't find the sockpuppet investigation. –dlthewave ☎ 02:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi. Just letting you know I've put a short semi-protection on your talk page due to the vandalism - hope that's OK with you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Well he vandalized my intelligent discussion on the Richard Spencer page. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Why did you try to censor discussion because of your left wing bias?

You might even get one of these.

Maybe you should leave wikipedia if you are here to be biased and force your left wing agenda down people's throats. LiberatorLX (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Marek, We are forming a "Communist Party of Wikipedia" for all editors who have been thus named. Want to join? You'd be 002. Carptrash (talk) 03:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If it is a Jewish Cosmopolitan Communist Party, then I guess that I will be forced to join, just to keep trolls at bay momentarily. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:54, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you members of Antifa? Do you attack women and children over the head with bikelocks? LiberatorLX (talk) 03:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It's interdenominational. Still interested? Antifa is mostly made up of undercover local and federal agents. So they are not members and visa versa. Carptrash (talk) 04:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Raise the Red Banner for Rainbow Stalin's Communist Party. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Do they have a disabled black lesbian faction dedicated to defending transgender illegal immigrants? If so, sign me up. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

These are PA's and should stop before those making them are reported. I think these are bad faith enough to get a block.Slatersteven (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

LiberatorLX is already blocked, and the rest is clearly just humour. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:43, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Given the tone on certain other threads I am not sure some of it is just humour. So I am taking this opportunity to remind certain editors that making comments about other users perceived political bias are PA's and thus actionable.Slatersteven (talk) 09:59, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, the only one I see making comments here about other users' perceived political bias is LiberatorLX. As for the responses, I presume you haven't seen the torrent of abuse to which Volunteer Marek has been subjected recently? I can understand if you missed it, as it's all been reverted and suppressed quite quickly, but you can see evidence of some of it in this talk page history. In the light of that, I see this interchange as clearly just a light-hearted way of dismissing the troll and offering Volunteer Marek a bit of moral support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then I think we will have to agree to disagree.Slatersteven (talk) 10:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I give my permission for you guys to have your fun here. At least I personally don't perceive any of these as personal attacks. It's pretty funny. Volunteer Marek  13:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Well my only wikiblock (a one day topic block) happened when I suggested that all the brand new red link editors were probably communists, so it nice to see Marek's okay with it. God-Emperor Aaron the Great is a pretty good example of that. Carptrash (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Rouge admins are also communists. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, they are more like Trotskyites. Carptrash (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment on Tongo Tongo ambush DYK nomination

Hello - I want to make sure you are aware of a comment I left at Template:Did you know nominations/Tongo Tongo ambush. Thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia a valuable resource. KConWiki (talk) 02:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Geller

Just letting you know you're on 3RR on the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Antifa apocalypse for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Antifa apocalypse is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antifa apocalypse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I opened a section on the Antifa TP to include a sub-section on the fake Antifa news. Perhaps move it there as I'm sure this will not be the last one.[3]C. W. Gilmore (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Tongo Tongo ambush

On 8 November 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Tongo Tongo ambush, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Frederica Wilson suggested that President Donald Trump's response to the deaths of four American soldiers in the Tongo Tongo ambush in Niger might become his Benghazi incident? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Tongo Tongo ambush. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Tongo Tongo ambush), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Russia

Way to revert without even reading the edit. You had what - all of 15 seconds to actually read my edit? -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Thucydides411 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's the same crap you were edit warring over several months ago. So yeah, 15 seconds was enough. In fact, this is what you got topic banned from the article for, wasn't it?  Volunteer Marek  06:05, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty clear you didn't even know what you were reverting when you pressed the button. You had to see my edit in the history, read through it (it wasn't just a revert - I edited the wording to be more neutral as well), and then write your lengthy edit summary, all in about 15 seconds. I understand you and I have bad blood, but you do have some standards, right?

By the way, I wasn't topic banned. I got a discretionary sanction for the now-defunct "reinstated material challenged by reversion" rule, the rule that was thrown out because no two people could agree on what it meant. I challenged the DS, and during the process, a majority of admins expressed opposition to the sanction, with one calling it a miscarriage of justice. The only reason the sanction wasn't overturned was because it ran out while the challenge was ongoing.

Since you didn't have any time to read the material you deleted from the article, I'll let you know what it is. It's criticism of the Crowdstrike analysis by a notable cybersecurity analyst, which has received coverage in reliable secondary sources. It was recently removed with no more than a comment that it's old (as if that's a reason to delete relevant material from an article) and undue (which is highly questionable, given the secondary RS coverage, the direct relevance to the subject, and the extremely limited amount of criticism of the cybersecurity analysis that has been allowed to remain in the article). -Thucydides411 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC) Thucydides411 (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to tell me what I did or didn't do, seeing as how you really have no way of knowing. It's the same Carr stuff that you edit warred over months ago. There was even an RfC on it as Geogene noted.

And I guess you're sort of right - your topic ban lasted about a day and was reduced to a warning [4]. Volunteer Marek  06:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)