![]() |
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) |
[1]. 😍Doug Weller talk 12:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
I was wondering why I saw you clearing your talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC) |
![]() |
A Resilient Barnstar |
I’m very sorry to see the harassment you have faced. Stay strong Volunteer Marek! starship.paint (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |
A kitten in the hopes that it improves you evening.
HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:23, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Regular.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
Please note that I (favorably) mentioned one of your contributions here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
hi there, I left a complaint about you for continuously falsely attributing me as sock and calling my account as SPA such attitudes discourages new editors to join wikipedia
link to complaint
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1104659258 Mrboondocks (talk) 05:52, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi! I just want to point out that you seem to have lost your cool in recent editing on Talk:Aleksandr_Dugin [[2]]. You forgot to sign several comments, were very negative about other editors, and seemed unable to read what other editors have written. Perhaps you need a break? Best wishes,♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 00:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fascism&type=revision&diff=1106116140&oldid=1106115388 In this edit you reinstated text claiming that "sources are right there". There is no valid source for this text you reinstated -- According to Alexander J. Motyl, an American historian and political scientist, Russian fascism has the following characteristics:[1]
Please explain your actions.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ♥ Talk ♥ 07:58, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
References
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.. Slatersteven (talk) 09:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add unsourced or poorly sourced content, as you did at Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, you may be blocked from editing. WikiHannibal (talk) 16:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
and welcome to Wikipedia. Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the page Timeline of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine has an edit summary that appears to be inadequate, inaccurate, or inappropriate. The summaries are helpful to people browsing an article's history, so it is important that you use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did. Feel free to use the sandbox to make test edits. "lol" isn't an appropriate edit summary. Also the total amount of summaries you fill in is very low. Thank you. AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2022 (UTC); edited template AdrianHObradors (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi Volunteer Marek, please try not to add references as WP:BAREURLS, as you did here, as it can lead to WP:LINKROT. Thanks — AdrianHObradors (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
[3]. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of NAFO (group) 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Pbritti (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC) ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Marvoir (talk) 18:01, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Turbo nerd lmfao, edit war to see who’s more factual and smart 🤓 Senor0001 (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
Why you delete all information of Kherson oblest Russia? Anon-ymousTrecen (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The information was sourced and is highly notable and you still deny it. I will report you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Thank you. Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 13:05, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Beshogur (talk) 13:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. RadomirZinovyev 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Belarussian guest on Russian state TV learns who is next. Skip to 5:25 if you cant stomach the obvious rubbish before that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Russia has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Xx236 (talk) 08:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of Russian torture chambers in Ukraine 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) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Gwillhickers (talk) 17:13, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
On 21 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Russian torture chambers in Ukraine, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the liberation of towns in Ukraine during the Ukrainian Kharkiv counteroffensive, authorities found evidence of numerous Russian torture chambers? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Russian torture chambers in Ukraine. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Russian torture chambers in Ukraine), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Hook update | |
Your hook reached 7,911 views (659.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work! |
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:53, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
On 27 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article NAFO (group), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Shiba Inu memes of NAFO have been called "an actual tactical event against a nation state"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/NAFO (group). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, NAFO (group)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.
Vanamonde 00:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar |
For recent scrutiny. Thanks for standing up to Twitter POV brigading efforts. Nutez (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC) |
((unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~))
. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:39, 6 November 2022 (UTC)Note also:
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in the Syrian Civil War and ISIL. Due to past disruption in this topic area, the community has authorised uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions—such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks—on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, expected standards of behaviour, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. For additional information, please see the guidance on these sanctions. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 04:40, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Request reason:
I know unblock request are where you beg for forgiveness and all but I'm sorry, this is a 100% ridiculous block. Not just of myself but also of other users involved in the article, specifically User:Poyani and User:Hobomok. None of us broke 1RR on the article after the restriction was imposed. Yes, all three of us made edits to the article within 48 hours but the restriction is 1 revert per day, not 1 revert per week or whatever. If Tamzin wanted to impose a 1RR per week restriction on the article they should've done that. If they wanted to impose a "any further edits will result in a block" restriction they should've done that (well, tried, though that's really not in admin's powers I don't think). What they CAN'T do is impose one kind of restriction than start blocking people for NOT violating it, but for violating some other rule they just made up post-fact. The fact that THREE users (two of them long term users) got caught up in this mess shows that this was a set of bad blocks. You have three people making edits which they didn't anticipate would get them in any trouble (because none of these edits broke any rules or restrictions) yet they all end up being blocked out of nowhere. If nothing else this is a profound failure by Temzin to communicate what they actually wanted to enforce. You can't make one rule, then block people for breaking some other which you just made up after the fact. Nota bene - the discretionary sanctions alert was added AFTER the block notice, so you can't even invoke DS here as a defense. In regard to my own specific edit. I made it THIRTY ONE hours after my previous edit. I have no idea how much time has to pass before some trigger happy admin decides to start waving their block button gun in my face and claiming that's "too close" to the 24 hour restriction - is it 6 hours? 10 hours? 20 hours? Am I allowed to edit the article again at all? If you make up arbitrary rules AFTER THE FACT there's no way to know. Which is this is a really bad block. And look at my edit. I restored well sourced info that was removed under false pretenses previously and with a false edit summary ([10] the source is very clearly the Guardian not LinkedIn and the user even left the source in place!) After the user in question, Kmccook, removed the text, I left a talk page message asking them about it [11]. This was on November 3rd. They hadn't responded. They haven't responded even by now. My revert was on November 6th. So I actually waited THREE DAYS before undoing their edit. Three days should be plenty of time to respond to a talk page request and if they don't it should be safe to assume the user doesn't object to their edit being undone. I don't see how you expect anyone to edit this article when these ridiculously arbitrary blocks are being thrown around for what is actually standard editing practice on Wikipedia. Finally, all through this time - since Temzin put 1RR in place - all three of us that got blocked have been discussing the issues on the talk page. It's heated but aside from Poyani I don't see any incivility there. So. Nobody broke any rules. Everyone was discussing. No one even imagined that these edits would lead to a freakin' one week block (which is also ridiculously long). That tells you right there these are very bad, arbitrary blocks. Temzin, I would appreciate it if you undid all three blocks. Volunteer Marek 18:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC) Add: It seems that Temzin DID increase the restriction to 72 hours [12]. But they did so AFTER I made my edit! Am I suppose to be able to read their mind? See the future? If that is the policy they want to enforce then that is the policy they should've put in the first place. You can't block people under a rule you haven't made up yet and expect them to have freakin' psychic powers! I'm sorry but this is 100% ridiculous.
Accept reason:
And this isn't part of the block appeal, but just as a piece of advice to User:Tamzin, if you want to go around blocking people for thrills, then (block people) (added by VM) do it in a useful way and block some of the fly-by-night throwaway accounts that popped up on the article after being canvassed off wiki (I'm the editor who asked for the page to be protected [13]). THAT would actually be doing an admin's job. Volunteer Marek 18:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
And just to be 100% clear, I'm not just appealing my own block, but all three of the related blocks made by Temzin. Myself, User:Hobomok, and yes, even User:Poyani (despite my disagreement with them, they didn't break any restrictions either. Well, maybe civility, but that's a separate matter). All three blocks were bad. Volunteer Marek 18:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Details: 72 hours increased notice given--> - 05:35 on November 6
User blocked times:
GizzyCatBella🍁 18:59, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
A comment from another uninvolved admin (who never heard of Aaron Maté). Edit-warring is not restricted to violations of nRR restrictions, and Tamzin is entitled to make a good faith judgement that edit-warring is happening even when 1RR is not broken. I haven't studied the page history so I cannot say whether I would have made the same judgement. I just wish that the jargon "gaming the 1RR rule" would disappear from our lexicon. There is no such thing: someone who intentionally waits for more than the compulsory 24 hours is not gaming the rule but rather obeying it. The question is whether the new edit is a good one, for example whether the new edit has a value greater than merely continuing an edit war. Matters like thoughtful edit summaries and talk page engagement are relevant. It should be possible to say why the new edits are block-worthy without recourse to the "gaming" catch-all terminology. Finally, let me repeat that I have no opinion on whether this block was a good one. Zerotalk 03:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Continuation of my thoughts from here:
In this edit Tamzin writes:
..actively reverting comments that object to one's unblock request is a classic form of disruptive editing
This is not true, especially after what Tamzin wrote here --> (see Diff)
That's all I have to say here unless pinged by a reviewing admin. Please don't ping me again in this thread.
Tamzin was not pinged by anyone, yet kept posting to the talk page after they said they would stop.
Conclusion:
If Tamzim believes that VM made personal attacks on them, then they should have let a reviewing administrator (Newyorkbrad) determine that. Unfortunately now, this looks like a revenge block for talking back to an administrator. - GizzyCatBella🍁 07:38, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
apparently it’s not actually a 1RR/day restriction but rather a “1RR/whateverTamzindecidesonaspurofthemoment” restriction
Us lowly editors cannot be expected to mind read what you awesome all wise administrators actually want
You basically just yelled “respect mah authoritah!” and refused to even consider the possibility that your block was out of line
how are users suppose to know what you have in mind when you impose a restriction, if you are just going to make up arbitrary standards for what constitutes supposedly “gaming that restriction”? Sorry but, in all good faith, this looks a lot like “block hammer them first and then come up with excuses for the blocks later” approach to administrating
you also think YOU can read MY mind
you made it clear that your objection to an unblock is not on the merits of your original block but simply because you're annoyed by some non-admin user having the temerity to question your actions. Got to put the little people in their place, huh?
The reason of the conflict may be
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Self-requested review: Tamzin's blocks of Volunteer Marek. Thank you. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 12:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I apologize for overreacting and escalating the situation. Your behavior was not appropriate, but I should have brought it to AN/I rather than take matters into my own hands. From the AN thread so far, it's clear there will be no consensus to maintain the siteblock, so I've reverted to the previous p-block. I'll leave it to someone else at AN to decide whether the p-block should stay.
Happy editing. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 14:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Tamzin: Now that all the drama has died down and all, I just wanted to say that I think that this is a really good article you did excellent work on. Volunteer Marek 04:57, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Repeatedly deleting an article [21] [22] after a failed AfD [23] may be considered disruption. Please stop it. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Torture in the United States includes documented and alleged cases of torture both inside and outside the United States by members of the government, the military, law enforcement agencies...; see Torture in the State of Palestine:
Torture in the State of Palestine refers to the use of torture and systematic degrading practices on civilians detained by Palestinian forces in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. I think this war has made everybody go crazy, if you think that an article on "Torture in Ukraine" must be an article about the war with Russia and about Russia torturing Ukrainians. Why don't we write an article "Torture in Russia" instead? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:51, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you read while you edit? The edition that you just reversed already stated that it is an extreme right movement (in a better section, that is the political position), in addition to specifically saying that it is a National Bolshevik movement.
If you want to add more sources, go ahead, but do it respecting the contributions of others and reach consensus before. Armando AZ (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM))
to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:28, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Re Mellk I see much of what has been said about this user and have viewed his log and all of his contributions are biased although not blatantly so and lean towards Putins views, hence I believe he is a paid (or other) editor for the current Russian state (or other). Examples include but nowhere near limited to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada They and also other users in same the above vein and or the direct opposite, heavily involved in the pushing of the right-wing type of divisionist approach, all of which is a proven tactic of Rus Fed to potential weaken democracy and I think both sides need to be addressed urgently, they and other users are blanking, strike-through or other removing relevant comments and deleting questions without answering, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mellk&diff=prev&oldid=1124718163 or https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Nazi_monuments_in_Canada&diff=prev&oldid=1124716417 which I feel was a totally reasonable comment or question, on topic, relevant etc. or so I can target my next edit to co-opt sources to meet his specific objections, however this does not "fit" their mission. So as I no longer use my account and only edit on IP and my "inputs" are negated I reach out to yourself. I have bookmarked your (this) page and will re-visit periodically under another brand new automatically IP (which I have no control over)2404:4408:638C:5E00:9180:E43:9970:A5D4 (talk) 12:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi again, firstly I 100% stand by my views above. I think the best solution at this time is to rename the article to Nazi monuments in Canada and treat as a normal article, e.g. not a list article, the lead can include analysis from this article the first I can find that was published https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/ukrainian-canadian-community-urged-to-confront-past-amid-controversy-over-monuments-to-nazi-collaborators and this deeper analyses on one of the subjects of the current version https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/08/13/shukhevych-monument-canada-oun-upa/ both of which reference this tweet from Russia https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassyC/status/919329715407736834?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fnationalpost.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Frussia-tweets-about-nazi-monuments-in-canada-amid-ongoing-concerns-over-political-interference and both determine it is Russian propaganda re Crimea and JT's opposition to their illegal act in 2014, both determine it is deliberate and diversionary, add some background, then list the statues involved in this deceptive and misleading style of undue weight on the Nazi activities of these persons, however for completeness and truth it must be mentioned.
FYI Mellk issued a couched threat to my editing privileges again, 2nd time, to an IP that I will 99.99% never see again, unless I am checking up on what he is interfering with recently. Which leads me to, recent obfuscations include https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia&diff=prev&oldid=1124914237, the only defence could be if this was country specific and a Russian Federation article existed, (as per USSR) and we list all of Putins and the corrupt states crimes there, and leave Russia as the migrating spot some of the Kievan Rus moved to in around 800bc (and extol and where needed castigate its real history, not this propaganda) and have specifically noted that both Ukraine and Kiev predates this i.e. and Specifically, they existed before Russia, it is where the moved from.2404:4408:638C:5E00:59:1B5B:5ADB:6C25 (talk) 12:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi, why do you think that openDemocracy and Neues Deutschland are not reliable sources? In addition, it has been repeatedly described that Arestovich has been spreading propaganda and lies since 2014, which he himself admitted. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Please stop rewriting history Gmw112252 (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Before you revert a proper edit get a source or a citation Gmw112252 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Wertwert55 (talk) 00:56, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
I link a podcast hosted by a Ukrainian Government official, but since it’s on YouTube, you remove it. I link a website that posts said podcast on it, with a summary translated into English. You remove it. One of the sources as a press talk hosted by the Defence Minister of Ukraine. You remove it. I see a lot of TASS sourced on that page. Are they somehow a more reliable than an advisor to the Ukrainian President, or the Defence Minister of Ukraine? I specifically kept them out of the info box and just mentioned them as a record, which is what I said, twice, but that seems to have gone past you. Tomissonneil (talk) 03:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
They’re not just rumors, they’re official comments by people pretty high up in the Ukrainian Government. While I do agree that they’re probably not accurate (that’s why I included the links from independent sources criticizing Ukrainian claims), I still think it’s important to at least keep a record of it, even more so if it’s not true, to juxtapose it to the more official figures. Kind of like many of the Wikipedia pages for World War II, where they have Soviet/German claims, as well as the actual numbers. Would adding a note be more preferable to you, rather than a whole paragraph in the casualties section? Tomissonneil (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I hear you, I’ll put in a note instead. Reznikov’s claim is definitely official, as he gave it while briefing a former U.S. ambassador, as well as a the Atlantic Council. Arestovych’s are mostly aimed at Russian speakers, probably for propaganda purposes, but I think it’s at least worth mentioning, just to keep a record of Ukrainian propaganda claims. For the record, I feel the same way about Russian propaganda too, if nothing else to contrast the two. Tomissonneil (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() |
Happy Holidays | |
Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
![]() |
Happy New Year! | |
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC) |
I noticed you got into a dispute at Operation Mongoose with an editor Cambial Yellowing over POV and source misrepresentation, so I thought you might be interested that they copied the same material with the same problems on Cuban Missile Crisis. I might try to discuss it on talk but they have spammed so many cherrypicked sources in the edits. They write that significant numbers of civilians were killed and that Eisenhower recruited operatives specifically to kill civilians but none of the quotes in the sources even support this. 2A02:C7D:69B6:4300:491B:7A18:32F3:49A0 (talk) 14:12, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
[24] maybe you want to take it out of the box? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 05:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 05:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edits? Be neutral, please. No,see you at school (talk) 9:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC) No,see you at school (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Ostalgia (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The following sanction now applies to you:
On articles and article talk pages that relate to Eastern Europe, you may not make personal comments accusing editors or groups of editors of doing things like assuming bad faith, making personal attacks, casting aspersions, being biased, or being uncivil. In other words, you should basically just focus on article content instead of other users.
If another editor notifies you that you are in violation of this sanction you can remedy the problem by removing the comment, editing it with the appropriate
strikeand underline markup, or hatting the comment. If the comment was genuinely not intended as a personal comment you can explain how it was a miscommunication and apologise/refactor as necessary. Personal comments in edit summaries can also be resolved via apology. Be aware however that if you are subsequently reported to an administrator it will be the administrator who will judge whether the comment was personal or not and whether reparation attempts were adequate.While the above only applies to articles and article talk pages you are warned not to cast aspersions when participating in conduct-related dispute resolution and instead to provide or refer to evidence that supports any accusations you make.
You have been sanctioned for the reasons provided in this arbitration enforcement request.
This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 15 January 2023 (UTC)