Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.110.129.100 (talk) at 19:35, 31 August 2014 (→Ukrainian Coup: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Agreement to mediation

Would you be able to signify your agreement (or not) to the Schiller Institute mediation in the Parties agreement to mediation section on the mediation page? Sunray (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Wiatrowicz

http://dzieje.pl/aktualnosci/prof-pisulinski-o-zbrodni-wolynskiej-prawda-oczyszcza-nawet-ta-najbolesniejsza

Wiatrowicz ma władzę na Ukrainie i IPN musi z nim współpracować, czy jest historykiem czy propagandzistą to zupełnie inna sprawa.Xx236 (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

UPA

Artykuł jest naiwny, literatura jednostronna, usuwanie odnośników do literatury to wandalizm.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a good bit of hagiography in the article. It's one of those article that it would take a lot of time and effort to make it encyclopedic. This would involve removing or rewording nonsense from both the UPA-fans and the knee-jerk superficial purely negative descriptions of UPA which are also forced into it. In an alternative universe where I have an infinite amount of time I could make it work. But unfortunately I don't have an infinite amount of time. So for now I'm gonna pass, although I'll note my interest in the article and declare the fact that it's on my watchtlist and if anyone gets too crazy with the POV I'll speak up and revert their ass. One thing thought - the editors who are disagreeing with you on the talk page are good people, although their point of view is different. Rather than just throwing out this "this is all wrong!" kind of stuff, try and approach them in a respectful manner - it's not that you haven't, it's just that your comments are sort of "very assertive". Unlike some other areas of Misplaced Pages's Eastern European topics this subject can actually be discussed in a reasonable manner (just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're out to get you). I hope it stays that way.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Nie będę cytował wyzwisk pod moim adresem, sam je przeczytaj.

Przed laty błędnie podałeś liczby wysiedlonych. Dopóki liczby były wygodne dla Ukraińców nikt ich nie weryfikował. Ja znalazłem ten błąd. Teraz edytorzy zamiast mi dziękować, ewentualnie sprawdzić w literaturze, zarzucają mi korzystanie z ukraińskiego bloga i wstawiają sprawdzić. Żenada.

Co znaczy "trzy okupacyjne potęgi"? Czy okupowana Polska była "okupacyjną potęgą"?

Jak pisze Hrycak - wielu Ukraińców nie jest w stanie znieść prawdy historycznej, więc ją sobie poprawiają.. Ale to jest Misplaced Pages, której celem nie jest "pokrzepianie serc".

Nie forsuję poglądów polskich nacjonalistów. Wymagam tylko szacunku dla ofiar.

UPA i SB mordowały Ukraińców. Jakoś zabrakło miejsca dla tych niesłusznych ofiar. Xx236 (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Interested in a little challenge?

Hi VM: "Something Like Elvis" have a pl:Something Like Elvis article and their 2002 album Cigarette Smoke Phantom (soon to be speedy deleted, if not already) gets G-Hits a plenty. Worth looking into, maybe? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 13:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Grammar correction Campaign of Grodno

Hey there, Marek. Some time ago I created the article about 1705/1706 campaigns in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, namely the Campaign of Grodno. I tried to make the article meet the "good article criteria" but failed in the grammar section (some confusing elements here and there). I know you have corrected many of my article grammars before, and wonder if you'll just have a quick look. The article is 28,981 bytes, and the review is over at the talk page, if you're interested and willing to help out with the grammars I would be really happy. Regards, Imonoz (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I'll take a look. Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:40, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I've started copy editing it. Sometimes when the initial wording is somewhat odd and the meaning unclear, copy edits can change the substance of text - so please look over it and make sure that the essence of the text remains as it should be. I might however make some minor alterations and additions (for example I think it might be worth to note that Patkul ended up executed partly as a result of the failure of the campaign).Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:29, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I will look it through in detail, only thing I've noticed thus far is the siege of Warsaw in 1704, here's the German article about the siege, only there's no article for the siege in English Misplaced Pages, yet. I think the translating have gone really good and I really appreciate your help, Marek. You should definitely make additions if you like, there might be many smaller details I've missed. Imonoz (talk) 18:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm a little confused on the siege of Warsaw. From what I understand Swedes took it without fighting in early 1704 and then declare Leszczynski king. Then in September 1704 the Saxons took it. But somehow, by July 1705, it was back in Swedish hands . Is that right? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

The Swedes took it in 1702 I believe, just before the battle of Kliszów. When Charles and the main army went to attack Lviv in 1704, Agustus quickly attempted to seize Warsaw. However, if I remember correctly, the Swedes were still able to hold the castle in Warsaw. Augustus retreated with his army when Charles were approaching him from Lviv. Later the Battle of Poniec happened as Charles tried to catch the retreating forces. The battle of Warsaw in 1705 was probably not a serious siege attempt as the allies consisted of only cavalry, instead they tried to overwhelm Nieroth and then quickly interrupt the coronation, but I'm not completely sure. Anyways, I'll try to expand the 'lead' or do you want to do it? Imonoz (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I did some minor adjusting in the article, to check if everything was still accordingly to the sources, as you suggested. I got to say you've done an incredible work with copy editing. On two occasions I changed the grammars a bit:

• Having secured two quick and decisive victories over his opponents which greatly increased his reputation, in early 1701 Charles marched against the Saxon forces. I put "in early 1701" in the end of the sentence instead.
• While they disagreed among themselves about their course of action, on January 24 Charles' army appeared before the fortifications of Grodno after its quick march. I put "on January 24" after "fortifications of Grodno".

Now, I don't know if these minor edits I did were grammatically correct, as you're far more superior in English I thought it'd be good telling you, if they're not, you can just re-edit them if you like. Seeing there's some issue with the casualty reference, as per talk, I'm not sure I understand the solution jrcrin001 is suggesting. Will it not work just adding each source from the battle casualties into the article? Like in Gemauerthof 1,900 Swedish and 5,000 Russian, Warsaw 300 Swedish and 1,800 allied, Praga 150 Swedish-Polish and 250 allies, Grodno 100+ Swedish and 17,000 Russian, Fraustadt 1,500 Swedish and 15,000 Saxon, Nesvizh 50 Swedish and 700 Cossack, Lyakhavichy 1,400 Cossack and Kletsk 30 Swedish and 4,000 Cossack-Russian. In all about 4,000 Swedish and 45,000 Russian? I got sources for each of these battles. I don't however, have exact figures for Mitau, Olita or Olkieniki, but shouldn't it be allowed to have a "at least" figure in front of each number? Apart from that I once again want to thank you for helping me out, without your copy editing there's no way on earth this article would ever reach the good criteria. Imonoz (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the suggestion is to have a separate section for "footnotes", where the additional casualty info would go, and a separate one for "References". An alternative solution would be to grab all the references from the relevant articles and put them in one combined citation.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I am the reviewer of the Campaign of Grodno article. Some time ago, Piotr brought up that Misplaced Pages had been cited for the number of casualties during the campaign. You replied about 13

days ago that you would fix this. It has not been fixed yet. The article's review started on June 1, and it should have been done on June 7. I apologize if I seem impatient, but if it not done soon,

I may have to fail the article. Thank you for your work on this article. Feitlebaum (talk) 01:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I have been quite busy lately (plus there's some sporting event on or something), but I'll try to get to fixing the issue tonight or tomorrow.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Schiller Institute, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, Sunray (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Could you fix

This ref which I believe you added? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus:  Done OccultZone (Talk) 06:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Młynarki

I've expanded for DYK, can you provide the req cite for the one sentence I couldn't verify? Also, could you expand Feliks Młynarski for DYK? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:46, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I guess there are about 2 sources for that information, I have added one to the article. I am not that sure but there is some resemblance.

I'm pretty sure this is also in Korboński, with more details, but I don't have the book handy.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Feliks Młynarski was also a social thinker. He had written about 29 books, all of them should be added. Wladyslaw Lachert, headed the Bank of Poland, later it was renamed to Bank of Issue GG and chaired by Feliks Mlynarski... There's a lot. I can help. OccultZone (Talk) 11:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

On Mlynarski I'm going to need a bit more time. Busy with other stuff.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I was able to expand, mostly - still can use more, and I couldn't find a source for his UJ job. Also, I started Template:Did you know nominations/Feliks Młynarski, and we could get some nice DYK view hits (and a triple new article DYK) if we can finish Operation Góral - I think I found out most sources for you (didn't look for English mentions in Google Books). I am going to be mostly AFK for a day or two, however... Ping User:Poeticbent. Cheers, --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I did not find the mention of "Młynarki" in the text of "Siekiera, motyka". Please read it yourself and double-check the source listed as http://books.google.com/books?id=HuvWAAAAMAAJ Thanks, Poeticbent talk 19:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

"Mlynarki" aren't mentioned by name, the "Goral" is, which is what the article says. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Go check it out. No mention of "Goral" either. Poeticbent talk 20:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Those lyrics are incomplete: 1:18.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Do you have Korbonski's book? Mine's at home and I'm travelling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Karl Marx: is it possible to put USSR and socialism in the same sentence?

I've read your posts at Talk:Karl Marx with interest. I think The Four Deuces gave a perfect off-ramp from the attempt to persuade Zozs on how Misplaced Pages works, how a controversial article is edited, or what the USSR was at some point in its history. I suggest just giving Zozs the last word in the talk thread, while maintaining the current wording in the sentence that evidently offends that one editor. Dogmatists do not respond well to facts. And whack-a-mole is not a very interesting game. - Neonorange (talk) 00:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Please participate in the Conversation on Germany

Hi, Thank you for your participation in the image review on discussion on the Germany talk page. The Image has now been reverted for the third time and ruins of Berlin photo is back. I would really appreciate your participation in this discussion and hopefully reaching a consensus. Thanks again.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ueckermünde, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Friedrich Wilhelm I (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) 08:53, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Autonome Nationalisten

Hi Marek, regarding your reversion of a paragraph with an image from Autonome Nationalisten - with a short note: "None of this is in the source!" Could you please explain, what was not in the source since there were several ideas and several sources? Thank you! --Nabak (talk) 12:33, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek writes: "No. Stop putting in text supposedly cited to sources which do not discuss the topic at all. You're misrepresenting sources and using them as a cover for POV pushing". (See here) User Nabak replies: "POV pushing? Wow! These are pretty loaded words and serious allegations! Thanks, but where’s the beef? --Nabak (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You are using this as a source. It doesn't even mention AN.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Finally! You made me worry, Marek! Responding to your query, indeed I am using the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014", as an authoritative source on May 2 Riot on Odessa casualties. You know, the press differs on that. Any other questions?--Nabak (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask a question. I pointed out that you are using a source which doesn't even discuss the topic of the article. In a way that misrepresents the source and which looks like POV pushing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Come on, Marek, give me a break, did you actually read what I wrote above?

I am using the "Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Report on the human rights situation in Ukraine, 15 June 2014", as an authoritative source on May 2 Riot on Odessa casualties. You know, the press differs on that.

O.K., now could you please kindly answer two more questions:

• How come that you don't like the United Nations so much?
• Is there a rule that does not allow to use a source that does not contain the name of the given article inside?

Anxiously waiting for your reply. Sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 02:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know what source you are using. The problem is that you are misrepresenting it - it doesn't support the text you're adding.

As to your questions. I take the first one to be either rhetorical, or posed in bad faithed. The answer to the second one is straight forward and common sense: the source has to actually support the text being added, not just be vaguely related in some editor's mind. Misrepresenting sources can get you sanctioned fairly quick.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a quick answer, Marek, I really appreciate that! You know, at the beginning I just thought that all this is some kind of a practical joke... you know, an experienced user provides organizational socialization for a newbie, but after you started threatening me with "sanctions" instead of discussing and resolving the dispute in a spirit of friendship and cooperation, I have to ask you one more time: "What exactly do I misrepresent in the article by using a United Nation's document?" Sincerely, --Nabak (talk) 12:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear Marek, while you are building you argument to answer my previous question I might as well formulate a second one regarding your claim that my Autonome Nationalisten edit throws the article off of its neutrality point. Since you accused me in "POV pushing", Could you please kindly explain how exactly my edit does it? With best regards, --Nabak (talk) 16:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Shock Doctrine

Hello Marek. I don't think it does us any good to debate the extent of the sanctions on the article talk page. (Such a discussion is off topic from article improvement.) And when I answered your comment, I was really trying to tell the other editors to behave. Hopefully this has had the intended effect. In any event, I would not want someone to misbehave, whether or not Arbcom enforcement was warranted, and then have them come back to say "you can't sanction me because this article really doesn't come under DS." Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Understood. And I appreciate your efforts.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

File:European cities real wages.png

Dear Marek,

which table has you used? I can't find an appropriate table in http://www.nuffield.ox.ac.uk/users/allen/greatdiv.pdf. There are only Nominal Wages, Consumer Price Index and Welfare Ratios--Kopiersperre (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Kopierspierre, the welfare ratios in the paper are really real wages, just indexed to a poverty threshold consumption basket. Also, I can't remember exactly but it might be the case that for the graph I used the data that came with the paper rather than duplicating any of the graphs from the paper itself. Bob used to have it available on his website. Some of the same data may also be available here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is Bob's page with the data under "Data: Wage and Price History" . You can get real wages by dividing nominal wages by the price index.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

My name is Tristessa de St Ange (talk · contribs), and I'll be your mediator for this case. It's good to meet you! I'm currently in the process of researching the content issue regarding this article (and the wider dispute) in some detail, and I hope I'll be able to assist in bringing some consensus to this editing dispute. I would like to ask all parties to bear with me while I complete this research, and am extremely grateful for your patience whilst I get things underway. I will let you know as soon as things are underway.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 21:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Germany, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Servicemen (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) 09:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Germany

Another user has asked that I request you not to personalise things on article talk as you recently did there. Do you think you could comply with this? --John (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Petro Poroshenko may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• s father is ] and had been murdered.<ref name=PpofileSO/>|group=nb}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Feliks Młynarski

On 2 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Feliks Młynarski, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Polish resistance stole over a million US dollars in młynarki, a currency named after Polish economist Feliks Młynarski? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Feliks Młynarski. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Młynarki

On 2 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Młynarki, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Polish resistance stole over a million US dollars in młynarki, a currency named after Polish economist Feliks Młynarski? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Góral

On 2 July 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Operation Góral, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Polish resistance stole over a million US dollars in młynarki, a currency named after Polish economist Feliks Młynarski? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

MedCom case update: Schiller Institute

Dear Volunteer Marek: Hello. I'm writing to you regarding a Mediation Committee case that you are involved in, or have some connection with, Schiller Institute.

I have written an initial analysis, and requested contribution from all mediation parties. Please read what I've written and participate at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Schiller Institute. Thank you.

If you have any questions or concerns relating to the case, please do let me know. Thank you very much. Tristessa (talk) 00:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look

At 2014 France train crash. Thanks.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Will do. Are you asking for help in expanding the article or just to keep an eye on it? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Please stop stalking my edits

You have repeatedly followed me on wikipedia pages where I have edited to revert me and post unproductive comments not contributing anything to the quality of either discussion and the article.I kindly request that you stop this behavior. Thank you. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I do sincerely hope that you have enough self awareness to realize how absurd you sound above, and that you're just playing the Misplaced Pages game when you write stuff like that with a straight face.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:43, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that you are unwilling to engage in productive discussion to engage in valuable contributions to Misplaced Pages project. I warmly suggest you reconsider. That is all. Have a good day.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I warmly appreciate your warm suggestion and will warmly think on it in the near future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

I feel saddened by your reaction, I remember engaging with you in many productive edits and improvement of the articles on Wikipiedia. It seem with time, improvement of the content stopped being your main reason for being here.Anyway, like I said, have a good day, and hopefully you will think it over.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 23:52, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

And of course, I am saddened that you are saddened. Deeply.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

A year and a half after you opposed my RfA

I am inviting you to leave me some feedback, 18 months after you opposed my RfA. Do you still believe I am not fit to be an admin? Do you believe I have been able to improve past the concerns you have brought up? Do not be afraid of being too harsh, I am specifically welcoming criticism as I believe it is the best way to improve and I am always looking to learn from my mistakes. I am particularly looking for feedback as to whether you have objections to myself lifting the self-imposed 1RR restriction I had agreed to towards the end of my RfA. If you don't have time to comment, don't fret it either, this is nothing I'll lose sleep over. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't remember this. Why did I oppose last time? The 1RR restriction or reverting in general is not something I'd normally loose (much) sleep over. It must've been something else. Is there a link to the old RfA? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

D'oh! Maybe I should've included a link to the RfA in the invitation to comment; there's one on the admin review page itself. Here you go. Thanks for whatever time you take for this. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Marek! Where are you, my buddy?

@Volunteer Marek:Did you forget that we've got some unfinished business with Autonome Nationalisten? So, it would be nice if you could kindly stop stalking innocent wikipedians for a moment and instead answer the questions that I have asked above regarding the war of edits that you tried to provoke. Thanks! Yours, --Nabak (talk) 21:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? First that business was finished - sources you're trying to use don't even discuss the topic. Second, don't accuse me of "stalking innocent wikipedians" or I'm not going to appreciate you posting on my talk page.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Hi Marek! Hope this message finds you in good health! I am talking about my questions that I asked you exactly a month ago! It looks like you purposely evade answering them despite all your eloquence in defending yourself against the charge of "stalking" other wikipedians, as they claim it on your talk page (see above). But back to our Autonome Nationalisten business. Please DO answer these questions and if you fail to do that again, please be informed that I will revert your edits. So:

What exactly do I misrepresent in the article by using a United Nation's document?

Could you please kindly explain how exactly my edit threw the article off of its neutrality point?

Sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 19:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

"Sources you're trying to use don't even discuss the topic".Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek:Hi Marek! There is an oblivious failure on your part to provide a direct answer for two clearly formulated questions highlighted in bold above. Does it mean that there is nothing to say? O-kay, could you please explain what you mean by "Sources you're trying to use don't even discuss the topic"? Please note that if you fail to respond I will be forced to most regrettably revert you deletions as unfounded, made in bad faith and also biased against the United Nations. Sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

There's no failure on my part to explain. There is a failure on your part to understand. I don't know how I can make this any simpler. This source, which you are trying to use does NOT even mention AN, and it does NOT support the text you are trying to insert. That is why the text has been removed. To say that my edits are "biased against the United Nations" is a classic example of bad faith. Don't play daft.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Good Internet day, dear Marek! Thank you very much for your kind response. Since you are using personalization as an argument ("Don't play daft"), would you allow me to reply by saying: "Don't play stupid"? I have quoted the United Nations' document to illustrate the number of casualties during the so-called "Odessa May Massacre". And I already told you that, but looks like you are not listening, choosing instead to go round in circles. O-kay, as a courtesy, I will give you a couple more days to prove me wrong. Do please finally read my questions before answering:

What exactly do I misrepresent in the article by using a United Nation's document?

Could you please kindly explain how exactly my edit threw the article off of its neutrality point as you claimed?

And finally, why I cannot use the United Nations document as a source?

Always sincerely yours, --Nabak (talk) 03:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no need to bold your comments. I've already told you - you misrepresent it because the United Nation's document does not actually discuss the topic of the article. I've said this about eight times now (if not more). I'm not going to repeat it again.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

what are you doing?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:14, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.158.243 (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This is kind of spooky: you've been editing articles on the Russian military intervention in Ukraine. Then on, July 13, you edited the article on the Buk missile system . Four days later the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 is shot down by a Buk and you commence with editing that article.

Anyway, I believe you're topic banned from this subject.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Threats of madness

"Because of your evil edits and true comments I boast and pretend to be an authority:

The "Arbitration Committee," which might not exist as pretended, but is certainly under Polish influence, has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. All actions by Vol. Marek must be countered, because he is a Polish nationalist. The Committee's decision is utter rubbish here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)"

There might be no independent arbitrary committee authorized by the English Misplaced Pages. Nationalistic misconduct from "Volunteer Marek" who is not an individual, but a nationalist Polish organization, involving many unregistered Polish users, will be sued according to Misplaced Pages guidelines. Discordion (talk) 20:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you nuts, or something? RGloucester — ☎ 20:51, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@RGloucester: You must be kidding. Vol. Marek´s "refercences" are all completely incomprehensible, because he NEVER EVER translates the Polish to English, or can you understand them? Then, it is extremely strange that Vol. Marek reacts within less than 3-5 minutes to any edit that concerns the articles, which he considers Polish property. Such actions can only be explained by an organization, involving constant watching by certainly more than one person. Nevertheless, there is a Polish nationalist force at work and you do not want to see it. Discordion (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Polish, no. I'm very poorly with Slavic languages. However, a cursory glance with Google Translate is usually enough to verify what the sourced article or book says, and English-language sources are not required. What type of nationalist are you? I've just been working on an article on pan-Germanism... RGloucester — ☎ 21:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a cursory glance with Google translator will do for the superficial feeling that everything is OK in the naive Angloamerican world. Some months ago I asked Vol. Marek to translate some of the Polish references, but of course he or they did NOTHING, which tells me that there is a good reason not to have them in comprehensible English. Clearly, he manipulates all the topics related to disputed German-Polish areas in favour of Poland. It is all in line with the general anti-German attitude of the British and many Americans. Discordion (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Before you said he's not an individual, but now you refer to him in the singular? Which is it? I was just getting used to the idea of him being some sort of hive mind. Anyway, phrases like "All actions by Vol. Marek must be countered, because he is a Polish nationalist" are indicative of an approach not compatible with working together with others on an encyclopedia.

Some of your other comments are indicative of watching too much Fawlty Towers.

Incidentally, following the Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany, there are no "disputed areas". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatsoever I have written before, I think that "Volunteer Marek" is not a single individual, but rather a hive mind as suggested. In particular the times of reaction to my admittedly nasty attacks, were extremely short (less than 5 minutes, sometimes only seconds), although I edited different articles. I do not believe that a single person would react to several such edits at a random time late Thursday night with such immediate and precise countermeasures. Therefore, my interpretation is simple: Volunter Marek is most likely a group user function with constantly watching Polish, who want to protect their articles from foreign (i.e. German) influence. Discordion (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, the Poles stole Stettin from Germany against all treaties with the Western allies and Russia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Discordion (talk • contribs) 00:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And we Brits took the SMS Stettin, a fine ship in her day. As for the city, give it back to the Swedes, I reckon. btw, what's special about Thursdays? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not disputed by any historian that Danzig was a free Republic. The Polish kings or dictators or whatever you want to call them "protected" them. The fact is: Poland was NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO CONQUER DANZIG. Danzig was a GERMAN city, which Poles like Marek cannot accept, because it contradicts their sowjet-fascist like history nation building. Discordion (talk) 00:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am looking into my crystal ball, and I am seeing one of those arbitration enforcement thingummies in your very near future. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes master of unreferenced gizmo, doodad, thingamajig, thingamabob, whatnot, whatsit, doohickey, your undoing will come soon. And I do not have to look into the emptiness of your mind. Willingful participation of forcepercepted transfer comes rapidly to excarvate your body and mind soonful. Discordion (talk) 01:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Truly, I feel sorry for the Germans that were expelled from East Prussia, Bohemia, and wherever else. I truly do. I also feel sorry for the Poles that got expelled from Galicia, and for the Jews that were systematically exterminated. No one won. No one ever wins in war. Sadly, this matter is closed. The borders are now drawn, and accepted by everyone. What's done is done. Those vibrant Jewish communities won't come back to life, nor will Konigsberg ever again be the city of Kant, nor will Lemberg/Lwow/Lviv ever again be a centre for Poles in the Kresy. Accept it for what it is, and remember that time heals all wounds. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I should probably just leave this alone and let other have their fun, but just as a point of fact, Discordion says (among many ridiculous things) "Some months ago I asked Vol. Marek to translate some of the Polish references, but of course he or they did NOTHING, which tells me that there is a good reason not to have them in comprehensible English". This is in reference to this discussion . Scroll down to the end of the "Recent edits" section. There, right there, I'm providing the requested translation.

And Demiurge1000 is right. You're ripe for WP:AE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

He's probably ripe for an indefblock right now without the need for AE, but I'll settle for a warning to Discordian that future personal attacks on this or any editor, including but not limited to bizarre allegations such as that he is an "organization" or references to "excarvat your body and mind", will not be tolerated. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And I feel so sorry for you English-Polish guys, especially you liar and impostor Demiurge1000, "who is right". You are so fucking demiurge1000 primitive and regrettable that even marek cannot describe it. Marek is a Polish propaganda machine, which is revealed to the European public very soon. You are the disgrace of Poland for centuries, Ha Ha Ha! Discordion (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)

Honk honk, here comes the you-know-what mobile. I hope it delivers sushi.

Congratulations, Discordion! This comment has won the prestigious "This user drives a Toyota Corolla userbox variant" award for loopiness, and will appear on my userpage until some random time when I decide to change it.--Shirt58 (talk) 09:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Discordian is now blocked (by another admin). Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Exeunt stage left, pursued by an entire hive mind of Winged Hussars --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:08, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teutonic takeover of Danzig (Gdańsk), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Peace of Toruń. 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) 09:10, 6 August 2014 (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 Misplaced Pages: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 find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! HerkusMonte (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

German language names

Hi Marek, what's your problem exactly with having the German language names in the lede of Wroclaw and Szczecin? They were largely German in most of their history and it's common sense that their German (and often also English-used) name is mentioned in the lede in any Wiki language. You've got to be blatantly ignorant to claim it's somehow irrelevant for the articles' introduction. All the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

There are dedicated sections to historical names in both articles and the German names are used throughout the article. As I've explained several times, the applicable Misplaced Pages guideline is WP:NAME, which stays:

If there are at least three alternative names, or there is something notable about the names themselves, a separate name section is recommended (see Lead section). These may include alternative spellings, longer or shorter forms, historical names, significant names in other languages, etc

Insisting that the names must be in the lede looks like "territory marking". Also, I don't appreciate being called "ignorant".Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:55, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

You're right about the name section. While it also doesn't say it shouldn't be in the lede. Check the article of e.g. Lviv. Poles pushed through with the mention of the Polish name for the intro. Of course there are sentiments, there always will be. But so what? It's legit to have both and to accept that history takes its course and various names should be right up there. Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Poverty in Cyprus

Hello! Your submission of Poverty in Cyprus at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Edwardx (talk) 21:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Disruptie editing at Teutonic Takeover

There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Mendelsohn House

Please stop edit warring. The info is certainly relevant to understand the background of the building's history and the role of Borussia. HerkusMonte (talk) 17:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not really. It's sufficient to note that the political status of the territory changed. You're just trying to over link that article in every possible way (and that article has its own problems). And don't accuse others of edit warring when you're making blanket blind reverts yourself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Devin Bush AfD

Hey, Marek. I just !voted in the Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Devin Bush discussion. While I sincerely appreciate the BLP concerns you expressed in your AfD (unsourced BLPs drive me crazy, too, especially when the creator leaves the reliable source clean-up for others), those issues have now been resolved with multiple in-line footnotes, and the subject convincingly satisfies the NGRIDIRON specific notability guideline. May I suggest that call this one a win for BLP sourcing, and withdraw the nomination now that the BLP issues are resolved? Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Dantzic

Hi Marek - I see you reverted my statment on Gdansk spelling previously 'Dantzic' in English - any particular reason or you were feeling flush? Truth regards not who is the speaker, nor in what manner it is spoken, but that the thing be true; and she does not despise the jewel which she has rescued from the mud, but adds it to her former treasures 12:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide a link to what you are referring to.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

User Nenniu (talk · contribs) (629 edits since: 2011-09-04) must have meant this edit (!) His precious little "Dantzic" was used in the 19th century by some obscure British croniclers:here in 1852 and here in 1814 and here in 1807. Go figure! Poeticbent talk 23:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks for googling that for me - i sometimes forget that any sort of meaningful reality exists outside of google searches - very handy.

Please refrain from reverting without participating in the discussion

You're reverting things which nobody has spoken against yet and which you refuse to discuss in the talk page. Please stop this behavior. If somebody really cared about it, then it'll be discussed in the talk page. If it has no opponents, then the change should just walk through. It's not good behavior to continually revert without debating on the talk page at all, especially when no one else is against it. You're just stopping progress. You're asking to get "consensus" when you're aware that nobody else will discuss the change, because nobody cares enough to dislike or like it too much (therefore it's not controversial). You say that the change is controversial, but it was like that for about a month and nobody complained. Zozs (talk) 07:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zozs: Yes, people have spoken against these changes. Several times. In previous discussions. All you've done is try to push through your preferred version, ignoring previous discussions, acting with an extreme case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. In particular with regard to the issue of whether certain states can be described as socialist or not. There's already several pages of discussion on this on the article talk page and elsewhere.

All you've done, is just waited a month till old discussion were archived and tried to do the same damn thing over again. I believe this is like the third or fourth time you've tried to pull this off. Until you convince people of your views, you should really cease this kind of tendentious behavior.

I'm not going to waste my time repeating the same damn thing over and over again, especially when it's been said by other people. It's up to YOU to present novel arguments, not badger and bore people into submission.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the links to the relevant topics within these archives and explain on exactly what change of mine that old consensus disagrees with. Until then, your words are worthless. Zozs (talk) 07:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

, , , and probably several other places. Warned here and here. You've just taken your crusade to a different article.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You may have noticed that reliable sources are backing in notability to the notion that Soviet-style states were not socialist... such as , which not only concludes that the Soviet Union is not genuinely socialist, but also gives proof to the notability of the debate between whether it is socialist or not. Misplaced Pages is written based on reliable sources and editors don't have the right to veto information based on a "consensus" which was apparently (according to you - I doubt it) achieved (5?) years ago, especially when the only person questioning it now refuses to discuss in talk pages. Additionally, I am still waiting for you to provide the links to the archives with the relevant topics. I will not be impressed if the discussion is not even based on reliable sources. Zozs (talk) 07:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You've *removed* sources which state that the Soviet Union was socialist. And you've either not actually read or are purposefully misrepresenting the source you link to: "Thus the state capitalist hypothesis is unpersuasive, in either its ‘internalist’ or ‘externalist’ form." Regardless, one single cherry picked source does not a case make. All this has been pointed out to you before. You're playing at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Please stop. Stop wasting my and other people's time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Although the article states that although the notion that the Soviet Union is state capitalist is "unpersuasive", it also concludes that the Soviet Union is not genuinely socialist. Additionally, it gives notability to the notion that the Soviet Union is state capitalist. You've cited , in which none of the changes I've made now were being challenged; that was about another topic. is completely unrelated. In , certain users were saying that the Soviet Union should not be named as "socialist", and then my bringing in of more reliable sources which argued in favor of another definition resulted in consensus being achieved and the definition of the Soviet Union being changed. In , it was just you and another guy blocking progress for no reason, being unable to bring reliable sources. Then you link to 2 random messages I've received in my talk page about how certain users don't like my edits; do I need to talk to you about how many warnings you've received, concerning especially your edit-stalking and obsessive edit warring? Zozs (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time, or at the very least, waste it at the appropriate talk page, where you try to gain consensus for your edits.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You are unable to produce evidence and refuse to discuss at the article's talk page (despite continual revertions); the little, low-value "evidence" you brought in was soundly and thoroughly defeated, with you being unable to produce any counter-arguments. Therefore, I am going to have to ask you to stop continually reverting and edit warring. Zozs (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, you are crossing the barrier on personal attacks with some of your interactions. The only one wasting time and blocking progress is you. Zozs (talk) 08:21, 25 August 2014

Ok, please stop now. This is getting quite tedious.Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to stop reverting without arguments and without engaging in talk page discussion. The case about North Korea was already explained at . In which I backed myself up with various reliable sources. At the very least, the sources contradict each other and it can't be written as an absolute truth - the reality is that reliable sources as weight conclude that North Korea is not "communist". Additionally, it makes no sense to place North Korea in that sentence considering the lesser context, and even less sense considering the greater context of the Communism article. It's talking about states run by a communist party and North Korea's party stopped being communist (both by what it says itself and by what reliable sources say) years ago. Stop blocking progress. All the reliable sources are given at the linked talk page. Zozs (talk) 03:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've told you before. Please stop wasting my time. Yes I know you "explained". You keep on "explaining" to people yet somehow not convincing anyone, you just keep talking and talking and talking until you wear people out with your badgering and persistence. Like I said WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Luhansk refugee convoy attack

This is one article I think should exist, as it demonstrates the plight of refugees in Donbass. This is a civilian attack, not just another battle, and is useful to illustrate the humanitarian concerns about this war. Regardless, it is not mentioned in the text because it has an article. As you're aware, our war article is long. It makes senses to use sub-articles for instances like this, which are not directly about the fighting, but have some notable significance. RGloucester — ☎ 15:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC) @Template:RGloucester Sure. Although I think it would be better to have a sentence in the text which mentions it and links to it directly rather than a "see also" at the top of the section. Those tend to suggest to the reader that the linked article is "where the topic of the section is discussed in more detail", which isn't the case here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian soldiers killed

I already know what's your personal take on the whole invasion vs not invasion thing from the discussion on the deletion of that article. But please keep your personal POV aside. The source is Russian as you say, but the number is not officially confirmed by the Russian government and the Russian government in fact denies the presence of any combat-engaged Russian soldiers in Ukraine. Also, the number was firstly reported/claimed by that non-governmental organisation which has always had an anti-Kremlin policy since the Chechen war and today even claims the number of dead in that war is double compared to the official figure. Besides, there is an editor who wants to fully remove the number and its source and I had to revert him twice today because of it. The word alleged was put there as compromise wording because of him. Also, you removing the word alleged makes it to seem as the figures are official and fact, which they are not. All of the figures that have been presented in the infobox on the unrest come from official sources of each of the combatants. While in this case, its a non-official source which is also in opposition to the combatant in question. So you see the conandrum. If you have some other word to put instead of alleged than go ahead and propose, but removing it entirely won't work. Regards! EkoGraf (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Look, I can say the same thing to you; "keep your personal POV aside, your take is obvious". Now that we've gotten the mutual recriminations out of the way, let's talk about the actual matter. Here's the essence of it: *it doesn't matter* whether the Russian government confirms it or not. We are not a press agency of the Russian government. *It doesn't matter* whether the Russian government denies it or not. We are not a PR company for the Russian government. We're an encyclopedia. *It doesn't matter* whether the NGO that reported the number - in your personal opinion - is anti-Kremlin or not. Finally, if some editor wants to completely remove the - reliably sourced - number, then the thing to do is not to try and accommodate their disruptive behavior but simply to revert him/her. If they continue, report them.

What *does matter* is what reliable secondary sources say. Is the source for the number reliable? Yes it is. Does the source say this number is "alleged"? No it doesn't. As long as we stick to reliable sources, we won't go wrong and in this case that means removing this WP:WEASEL "alleged".Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

First, I was not making recriminations, but stating facts. Second, I have never propagated my personal POV over a neutral POV. Third, the source, which is an anti-Russian government one, may be reliable in your personal POV but fact is again its an anti-Russian government one, thus not making it neutral. It can not be more clearer than that. You may choose to ignore what Russia says, but that is not a neutral stance which is required of us by Misplaced Pages. EkoGraf (talk) 19:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

"Alleged" certainly should not be used, and for good reason. Read WP:ALLEGED, for instance. Keep in mind that as long as you put in and in-line citation for the numbers, they have attribution to the source. Anyone can see the source and judge it based on its merits. One could also do something like (such and such estimates). There are many options, but "alleged" is the worst of them. "Alleged" as a word is legal jargon that isn't appropriate, which the Manual of Style explains. RGloucester — ☎ 05:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@EkoGraf - You keep confusing primary with secondary sources. What matters is whether the secondary source is reliable and whether or not it actually uses the word "alleged". Volunteer Marek  20:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable in your personal POV, but its anti-Kremlin stance makes them non-neutral and that is undeniable. The fact the figure was relayed by the reliable Reuters does not make the claim itself reliable because Reuters simply did just that, they relayed what the anti-Kremlin source said. They did not present it as fact, unlike what you are trying to accomplish. If it was a Reuters journalist who said I have been able to confirm the deaths of 100 soldiers that would be another matter entirely. EkoGraf (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And I will repeat again. That non-governmental organisation may be reliable... - Ughhhhhh! You. Are. Not. Listening. It. Doesn't. Matter. Who or what. The. Organization. Was. It matters only if the *secondary* source is reliable. You are way into WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT territory, which, honestly, I expected better from you. *You*, nor I, don't get to interpret primary sources. We don't get to second guess reliable secondary sources. That job is for someone else, however tempting it may be to engage in it, on a highly visible internet project. There is room for editorial discretion, but this isn't a case of it. Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

No. That's not how an encyclopedia works. This is getting tiresome. We describe what secondary sources say. We do NOT throw about our own interpretations of primary sources *("How about describe the reports and their content"?). It's really, really, not that hard to understand. Also, how did you find this page?  Volunteer Marek  00:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

And you, person who left the comment below, since I'm pretty sure you're a disruptive sock of some banned user, I'm removing your comment and please don't post here again. <comment below removed per WP:DFTT>  Volunteer Marek  01:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Re: You're not...

I dont like your insinuations on me, if you have any proof of what it seems to be a sock puppetry accusation on me just go on, but if not, just shut up!.--HCPUNXKID 14:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I was asking a question because obviously the wording was the same. Volunteer Marek  17:42, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Ukrainian Coup

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but your recent edits appear to be intentional disruptions designed to illustrate a point. Edits designed for the deliberate purpose of drawing opposition, including making edits you do not agree with or enforcing a rule in a generally unpopular way, are highly disruptive and can lead to a block or ban. If you feel that a policy is problematic, the policy's talk page is the proper place to raise your concerns. If you simply disagree with someone's actions in an article, discuss it on the article talk page or, if direct discussion fails, through dispute resolution. If consensus strongly disagrees with you even after you have made proper efforts, then respect the consensus, rather than trying to sway it with disruptive tactics. Thank you.--71.110.129.100 (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)