User:Vejvančický/Archive 16

Vladimír Vondráček, Antonín Heveroch

Hi Vejvančický. I double nom'ed these 2 articles at dyk. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent Edits!!

Well my edits were deleted and I agree they did not comply with WP:BLP. I was very excited to learn how to make nav boxes and I went posting my nav box in all articles in the category 2013 presidential candidates here in Kenya even to those that were empty/lacking any wording. I will expand them and write them in due course. Thank you for coming in . Uwanja Talk to Me. Email Me. 07:02, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Finding my page? that you deleted

you deleted my "damil" page, where can I find it? its a school project — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatup0612 (talkcontribs) 14:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I can send it by e-mail, but please, don't re-insert it here, it was unverifiable medical information which has absolutely no place here on Wikipedia. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

of course I won't repost it and thanks I appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatup0612 (talkcontribs) 15:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Do you have your e-mail enabled? ... btw, the disease doesn't exist, why did you create the article? Was it a joke? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:11, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

you mean writing it here ? (alexvaldes0612@yahoo.com) , and it kinda does in a way but not really medically discovered but yeah I guess you can say it was a 'joke' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatup0612 (talkcontribs) 15:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, e-mail sent. Please, do not insert jokes of this kind to the Wikipedia main space. We are trying to build a serious encyclopedic project and it is harder and more time-consuming with people who take this project as a joke. Thanks for your understanding. Good luck at school. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Beminitiya Seya

I've only recently started doing speedy deletion tagging. I apparently incorrectly tagged the above page for G8 while I was working the Broken Redirects list. Thanks for correcting me. What process should I follow in order to notice as you did the speedy tagging was wrong? Is this as simple as always checking the page history? BusterD (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Your tagging was not incorrect, however, it is always better to check the article's history (I'm doing it quite often). This one was subject of some debate before redirecting, see the talk page. It looks like a valid historical information, I added another source. Please, check. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 15:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't sure about Talk:Mike Steel, since the disambiguation project instructions for the banner suggest that if no talk page exists (which it does but technically doesn't have any content) the banner not be applied. Thanks again for showing me the correct action. Trying to get better at this stuff. BusterD (talk) 16:16, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Those are minor issues ... I'm not enlightened :D and I'm not sure what action is the best. Usually I add the project tag, as I think it is common procedure, see for example Talk:John Smith. Maybe I did it just because I like blue links more than red :D But as I said, it is not so important, since the talk pages are usually abandoned forever, with the banners or without them ... You do great work Buster. Thank you for the clean up. Best regards. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nirupama Pathak

Dear Vejvančický, you deleted Nirupama Pathak page created by me. Reason cited was G8. Can you please tell me if the ENTIRE article was based on a dependent on a non-existent or deleted page?? If not then, may I request if you can highlight the real cause of deletion? Cheers AKS 08:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It was redirect to Nirupama Pathak death case. I deleted it as {{G8}}: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page. Nirupama Pathak death case is a red link as you can see. It means that it is a deleted or nonexistent page. You created the redirect in June 2012. That's all I can say. Hope it is clear, ask for more if not. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:46, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Btw, the article Nirupama Pathak death case, created by you on 5 June 2012, was deleted as a copyright violation. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Thewolfchild

After your recent experience I thought you might be interested to follow developments at User_talk:Thewolfchild Opbeith (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Noted. User:Anna Frodesiak showed far more patience and sense of diplomacy than me, her effort to help to resolve the conflict peacefully was exemplary, but it seems it's useless. I hope I'm mistaken ... A lot of keystrokes wasted over small stuff. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Sometimes the User page tells you all you need to know. Put that episode away in its box now. Opbeith (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Vejvančický seriously, you worry too much about being civil. What is more important is a general positive self-encouraging atmosphere and good faith that we are all here to accomplish the same goal. A great number of "civility" cases would be avoided if editors such as Fram were naturally not disposed to making rash deletions and stubborness when editors try to constructively work with them. Such people are nazguls which bring the atmosphere of the site down, and are generally far worse for the site than any odd retort somebody might utter in response to their intentional belligerence. I am generally very positive towards people and wikipedia in general and I tend to treat others as they'd treat me. Fram has been one of the worst offenders of anti friendly collaboration on wikipedia in its entire history, even if he has put in some OK work and starter articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Vladimír Vondráček

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Antonín Heveroch

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Rzhevskaya article

You're very welcome Antonin. It's a fascinating subject! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas419ca (talkcontribs) 09:27, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DUDE!

My article (List of plants in Runescape) was deleted by you. I didn't start yet! Can't you wait one hour? Then delete it if you find it unworthy. Okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talkcontribs) 12:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but the only content was "not finished", so it can hardly be called an 'article'. You can copy and paste the title and start from scratch easily. Do you want to write about plants in this video game? If so, I think that RuneScape Wiki would be better venue for this kind of contributions. But I'm not sure. I can ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the Havel award!

Glad to fill in information on Havel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrMajestico (talkcontribs) 20:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Fran Phipps

It is getting better, but is there any way to get birth date, and some other information. Its barely a stub of a stub. I could not turn up much with a quick Google search. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

for deleting my userpages. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for your contributions :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

User block

Hi! I'm sorry for asking, but where I can ask for global ban for this IP (I couldn't find any page for that)? --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 10:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, try Wikipedia:GlobalBlocking or meta:Steward requests/Global. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 11:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Asmir Suljić

Please consider that Mr. Suljić had already played for Sarajevo when this article was first brought to afd a year ago, and was deleted in spite of this fact, since playing in the Bosnian Premier League does not confer notability under WP:NSPORT. (See WP:FPL for sourcing that the Bosnian top flight is not fully pro.) Also, a virtually identical article was g4'd just three weeks ago. I will gladly take the matter to afd, if you still feel its not g4 eligible, but would prefer not to if I don't have to. Cheers. Sir Sputnik (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oy sorry, Sputnik, I've checked the WP:FPL using Ctrl+F function and failed to notice that Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is listed under top level leagues which are not fully professional. I apologize and will delete under your previous rationale ({{db-g4}}). --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Btw, the notability requirements of WP:FOOTBALL are sometimes really crazy. We delete articles about promising young players who are of public interest and retain others who appeared for 5 minutes in a fully-pro league :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:00, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Much appreciated. And I can only agree with you about the problems with NFOOTY, but changing it is close to impossible. I've tried to apply general notability and commonsense wherever possible. Mind you this case seems pretty clear cut. Thanks again. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:19, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
The Premier League of Bosnia and Herzegovina is the top football league in a country where football is reasonably popular and watched, and yet we cannot cover their players because of the fully-pro rule. I find it quite counter-productive. See this, Asmir Suljić has appeared in the news in many international media, he plays for a really notable club etc ... I don't understand. Anyway, thanks for your efforts :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 09:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This is a load of rubbish. I had a run-in with someone - ?Sir Sputnik - before over this. The identification of the BiH PL as a "not fully professional" league is suspect. It was based on a misrepresentation of a clause in the constitution allowing clubs to sign players on non-professional terms. The BiH PL was classed as "not fully professional" on that basis without discussion as to whether the simple presence of a player on a club's books characterises the club and any league of which it is a member as "not fully professional". This principle seems to be an arbitrary one, applied inconsistently. There seems to have been no consideration whether non-professional players are actually allowed to play in the league or whether one non-professional player's inclusion in a team playing in the league should categorise the league as not fully professional. No effort seems to have been made to establish a genuine criterion of "professionalism" across national leagues or ensure that it is applied consistently. For instance the claim to +fully professional standing of the Argentinian and the regional Brazilian leagues at Wikipedia is backed by no substantial evidence. The policing of articles about footballers on the basis of notability depending on the application of a mythological criterion is part of the inconsistency and erratic expediency of much of Wikipedia. Better if those concerned at the article concentrated on the defective principle instead of entertaining themsleves with the sport of picking off "non-compliant" articles. (subsequently revised to resolve initial irritated incoherence) Opbeith (talk) 13:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Deletion of this article is not a good service to our readers and shows the imperfection of the WP:FPL notability guideline. I'd like to copy this discussion to WT:FPL, if you don't mind. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Please, do feel free, I always felt irritated with myself because other concerns prevented me getting entangled in trying to help sort out this situation which some people acknowledged but felt powerless to deal with and others ignored, proceeding to destroy other people's hard work without legitimate cause. NB my comment about the professional status of the Argentinian and Sao Paulo and Rio leagues relates to the state of the article when I was bothered about it - I've been too disgusted to go anywhere near football and Bosnian football for a year or more.Opbeith (talk) 15:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just been rooting around in the dustbin of history (Wikipedia version). The issue of the unreliable principle arose on several occasions but I think the one where I raised the subject of its defectiveness in detail was over the deletion of Jasmin Čampara. There were a few others, including one prominent at Under-21 international level, but this was the article where I discussed the fundamental issue. The points I made were simply ignored (surprise). I raised the relevant points at Sir Sputnik's talk page but there was no indication of my having aroused any interest. At least I got a response at Postdlf's talk page, who'd confirmed the deletion, though he essentially told me to go and away and deal with the guideline myself. As you know I've got other more pressing concerns not just in life but also at Wikipedia. If the people who seem to have a core interest in the subject can't be bothered, well, life's too short as far as I'm concerned. I took away the lesson that a rigorous concern for Reliable Sources can sit quite happily at Wikipedia with a less than robust concern for Unreliable Principles. It was part of the learning process that at Wikipedia the only satisfactory solution is to warn oneself off an interest in the subject area by applying mental Wikihumbug tags.Opbeith (talk) 09:19, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
I remembered some discussion around the time at WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues (see under Albania). Sir Sputnik said that he disagreed that a source that simply referred to a league as professional was sufficient to include that league in the fully pro list, simply because it completely removes the distinction between professional and fully professional. But that seems to be about all that I could frind to substantiate the "fully professional" status of the Argentine, Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo leagues. Ultimately Sir Sputnik believed that the problem lay with the lack of a clear definition of "fully pro". He proposed that a league should be considered fully professional if all players in that league were paid to play football, and were paid well enough to not require a secondary source of income (i.e. a day job). He made no suggestion as to how this was to be established. Presumably if anyone was bothered enough at Wikipedia, rather than go around arbitrarily guessing at this they would set about the finite task of establishing what the constitution of the major leagues in each country said on the matter. Perhaps FIFA has some core principles or basic data. No way I'm going to waste my time on that, given the way that the football article policers interpret the rules at the moment, but one would have thought a consensus arrangement was not impossible among those more interested in the usefulness of basic principles than the opportunity to apply arbitrary rules. Opbeith (talk) 13:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation and for the links, Owen. I too "went" to the archives and from what I've seen i.e. here ... discussing it again would be probably hopeless. But I'm not sure. Anyway, tomorrow I'm going to vacation for one week so I won't be here much. I don't want to open a discussion and vanish :) Take care and be well. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:26, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity to get all that off my chest! Do have a good holiday. I hope the vintage is going to be OK. The vine on the balcony has smaller leaves than any other year and of course no grapes but at least the mildew has gone. All the best and good luck with the August sun. Opbeith (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mychele Trempetich

Hay! I am Mihaela from Croatia. I am glad to meet you.
Well, you ask me about articles about historical persons. Please, can you make me a list of historical articles created by me? I am not sure should we keep articles or not, because some users advised me not to write articles about minor noblemen. Maybe some nobles were not notable in history. I made article about Rawer. He was an Egyptian nobleman. There was a discussion about him and probable deletion of the article.--Miha (talk) 10:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mihaela. Nice to meet you too :) I've noticed that on 25 July you nominated some of your articles for deletion as {{db-author}}, Jaguar Bird Peccary among others. The article was short but correct, useful and possibly expandable. I just asked why did you want to delete it. I can create list of your (deleted and existing) articles if you want, just wait a moment. Btw, Rawer still exists. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
This is the list of all of your existing articles (uploading may be slower).
The following is the list of some of your articles deleted on 25 July 2012 (I can't find them all, it is quite a mess).
--Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for the list. I have some work now with Manoah, but I will answer you today (you can be sure :). See, please, Velasquita Ramírez's article. This article was created by me. She was a queen, but User:The Emperor's New Spy wanted to delete all my articles about Queens of Leon because they are very small and little information can be found about them.--Miha (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Velasquita Ramírez seems to be a perfectly valid topic with potential, see the Spanish version. User:The Emperor's New Spy added the {{expand}} tag to the article. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you convince me to keep that page. But what about prince Rawer? He was a great-grandson of famous pharaoh Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid at Giza. However, we don't know many about Rawer. Should we keep him? It seems he died as a child.
Could you fix the link pointing to the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston? There are more persons named Rawer on their website. Also Google Books refer to more individuals named Rawer (i.e. a priest). Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Can you, please, make me one little favor? Can you delete this redirect - Velasquita Ramirez? There is no need for it.--Miha (talk) 13:35, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
No need to delete it, it is a plausible redirect without the accent mark. It could be useful to people typing on standard English keyboard. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I understand now. Thanks :) I will soon write about new work on articles. It seems that Velasquita's article really can be expanded.-Miha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.139.113.47 (talk) 15:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I decided what to do with deleted articles and articles that I want to delete.

  • Sety-Ptah and Khaf-Khufu were brothers in ancient Egypt. They are not very notable persons.
  • Neferkau was a prince, but not very notable person.
  • Ruler 1 of Tonina was a Maya king. Everything about him is said on page about Tonina.
  • Jaguar Bird Peccary was another king of Tonina. He is not very notable, like Ruler 1.
  • For Rawer, see this. It seems that article about his brother can be removed, too.
  • Chuluk can be deleted, as well this redirect: Keʻoloʻewa-a-Kamauaua. Thank you, I know you will do the right thing.--Miha (talk) 15:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Teofila Ludwika Zasławska

Hi! Rather than blanket revert all of my edits, could you go back and re-read my changes (and take as look at my comments in the Delete discussion). If the article does stay, it needs so editing to get rid of peacock words and tighten up the language to be more encyclopedic and that was the intent of my changes. I'll let you take a crack at another edit, but I really think that my edits make for a better, more readable article. Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Apologies, a part of your edit was good and encyclopedic. I reverted after reading Poeticbent's comments at the AfD, and it was maybe too harsh. The article is now in good shape, different than it was when I reverted. I consider the information important, as it tells more about connections between noble families who ruled and retained wealth and power in a large European region hundreds of years ago. The information is important for Polish history and also for Wikipedia, and I'm glad that our editors decided to keep this interesting "piece of puzzle". --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

You beat me to adding that ComputerWorld source by literally a fraction of a second or two... xD I appreciate it.

Theopolisme TALK 15:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hildebert and Everwin

Hello, Vejvančický, I’ve put a reply on the Hildebert and Everwin Talk page.

1. On that question of “Does size matter?” here’s a tiny coincidence. A couple of days ago, I was looking for something concerning the Roman-Parthian wars when I came across an image in a Google Books preview. The book is The Great Empires of the Ancient World, by Thomas Harrison. The image shows a carved relief (circa 521 BC) of King Darius I accepting the surrender of several captured rebellious kings. He is depicted as being quite a lot bigger than his captives. It helps me remember that this size = importance business goes back long before Hildebert and Everwin. If you’re interested, the link is

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MDzbX7h3h-gC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Great+Empires+of+the+Ancient+World&source=bl&ots=z6aD-tlymS&sig=Hi_3HzGSslFOLZrMrMbfzdXuajE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Hc8pUNWRGYWc0QWgwYGYDg&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=The%20Great%20Empires%20of%20the%20Ancient%20World&f=false

It’s on page 108, about half way through the preview. (The page numbers are rather awkwardly positioned half way down the alternate left and right edges of the pages). There are several other pictures worth looking at on the way down to Darius.

2. It’s funny the way serendipity works on Wikipedia. This all started when I was looking for some Latin info and wound up on the Latin Wiki Project page where I saw your request concerning the mouse, which led me to your interesting page about Hildebert. At first, I didn’t entirely agree with the suggested translation and thought it was literally: “Most unkind mouse, you often provoke me to anger. If only God would lose/destroy you”, which sounded a bit old-womanish. Then I noticed I had misread saepius as saepe (hence, “…you so often provoke me…) I do agree with, and like, the touch of asperity in that “once too often”. To my mind, it definitely implies that Hildebert will shortly be reaching for a tool capable of inflicting ‘blunt force trauma’… :-)

 
Hildebert cursing a mouse: "Pessime mus, saepius me provocas ad iram. Ut te deus perdat" ("Most wicked mouse, you incite me to anger once too often. May God destroy you.").

It got me wondering just how a 12th century reader would have understood the text – whether the tone was meant to be amused (Christian) resignation or downright thundering anger (that raised fist). Nowadays, if we want to emphasise the latter possibility, we can add exclamation marks in a free translation: “Blasted mouse! You’re driving me mad, goddamn you!” although I might hesitate about adding exclamation marks to a Latin translation in Wikipedia. I know it’s illogical, but it just doesn’t seem quite right. And here’s me doing a free translation when I’m generally a bit suspicious of them, as I always wonder if the translator has been doing a little too much guessing. Wikipedia naturally prefers literal translations, so I think that what’s on the article page is just fine.

I sympathise with poor old Hildebert as I am currently dealing with a few of the little beasties in my own kitchen. The blesséd creatures have decided they like my old cat’s dry renal cat food. The cat, one of nature’s pacifists, seems to indulgently let them do what they want, in contrast to his recently-deceased sister, a keen mouser. Ho, hum. Freeman501 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

The size matter, undoubtedly, and the comparison with Darius is in place. When you look at the image, it is a matter of common sense to recognize that Hildebert is "the master" while Everwin is an apprentice. Anyway, I just repeated what my sources say.
Thanks for your detailed examination of possible translations of Hildebert's laments. I think what we have now is the first translation of this medieval story/joke into English and I'm glad the article received expert attention. The revelation of additional layers in the text is very important and reveals also a lot about the subtleties of the English language. I appreciate your interest. You are free to improve the translation if you feel your version is more correct.
As for the uninvited invaders in your kitchen, I would like to borrow you the best hunter I know (well ... I exaggerate a bit :)), my good old doggie Ťapka. Ťapka was an excellent mouser, but now, older and slower, she specialises in moles ... I have to say with regret that pacifism is the last resort of my good old dog. She will always fight the other creatures (smaller and slower, in direct proportion to her growing age), despite my desperate and repeated pleas for humanity. But I'm afraid we can't help here, since mole is not a frequent visitor in someone's kitchen. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Please excuse me interfering in the name of humanity - I scattered paprika around the most likely point of entry. Though I don't know whether it was this that worked or the activities of a family of local foxes. Opbeith (talk) 22:53, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm ... paprika. It is a new concept to me, but it seems it is not an entirely new thing under the sun: "the paprika is known to burn the rodents in the eyes", someone says on the Internet (can't add the link, it is blacklisted). Don't forget that mus uni non fidit antro, Owen :D --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:11, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't thinking of hurting the eyes, just the sensitivity reaction to sniffing it. I tried lavender airspray before which didn't work. Opbeith (talk) 10:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Category

Well, the three people you mentioned: the Saudeks were written as having a Jewish father (and presumably non-Jewish mother), so they are not automatically considered Jewish. I didn't remove the category from Milos Kopecky, but it was useful to know which of his parents was Jewish. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, was Rudolf Wels Jewish? He probably was, but it needs to be sourced in his article. Anyway, I am done with this category now so I don't know what else can be said. All Hallow's Wraith (talk)

nano-psi

Thank you for helping me. The pages you so rightfully deleted, I created them to link to the nano-PSI site. It seems to stay now. Papers closer to the device will be written as research on the device will start within months. The nano-PSI device is what I work on to earn my living, but as we are non-comercial as an institute funded by the goverment I suppose this doesn't count as comercial content.

But, what is copyright violation?

Richard — Preceding unsigned comment added by Al126 at wiki (talkcontribs) 12:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:Al126_at_wiki#nano-psi. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Gold star lesbian

You speedy-deleted Gold star lesbian, which another editor had tagged as vandalism. I do not think that the article was vandalism, as the term is confirmed at Urban Dictionary and this Google search. However, as a dictionary definition, it would be more appropriate at Wiktionary. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:02, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Oops, you are right. My decision was based on reviewing other cotributions of User:Queer Nerd. For example thick glasses are "Something that nerds like me wear to see. I am proud of having them now. They prove that my nerdy glasses are real." A lack of good faith on my part? I can restore without objections if you (or creator) want, as it is a valid term. Thanks for letting me know. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
It is actually quite interesting, I found more on Google News archives and Google Books and I've noticed that you've created the entry at Wiktionary. What about this? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 06:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
The entry has been deleted from Wiktionary, Eastmain. See 07:00, 4 September 2012 SemperBlotto (Talk | contribs) deleted page gold star lesbian (Creative invention or protologism: please see WT:CFI; use WT:LOP) [1]. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 07:27, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the redirect as {{g7}}. It is now useless. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Guillermo Zapata

Hi, Vejvančický! I think I can find reliable sources for Guillermo Zapata.--Miha (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Mychele. Well, then go and tell us why he is considered notable, aside from his relatives. Thanks. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 13:23, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, he is mentioned only in one reliable source. (You maybe saw it on the page - one book about unsolved crimes.) His daughter Laura is very famous, and his step-daughter (they are actresses). But he is notable himself as a boxer, model (even Mr. Mexico!) and a businessman. I do not know when he was born. (Maybe we should mention everything about Guillermo in Laura's article?)--Miha (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
But you started the article separately, so you should be able to explain why he is notable and back up your claims by reliable sources ... or merge the information elsewhere. It is not your first article, I guess :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:09, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for your assistance for The Wikipedia Library

Hi! You signed up to be a helper at the Highbeam project page. As The Wikipedia Library expands, I am seeking some assistants who can collaborate on project administration by spending a few hours now and then working on a variety of tasks.

Right now I am looking for help on the Questia round 1 signups, reviewing editors' applications to check for edit count (1000), account history (1 year), and current blocks. Note, there is no subjective judgment required, just a factual criteria-check. Here's what you can do:

  1. Sign up for a section of 50 applications at this page
  2. The first check involves using Popups (enabled in Special:Preferences -> click "Gadgets", check the box to enable Popups, then click save).
  3. By hovering over a username on the applications list, Popups will show the edit count, age of account, and whether the editor is blocked on English Wikipedia
  4. If an editor is blocked, list their name at this page
  5. If an editor does not meet the 1-year/1000 editor check using Popups, open their user talk page in a new tab in your browser.
  6. Then, you then need to check if the editor meets the criteria on another Wikipedia language project.
  7. To check global contributions use the Global Contributions surveyor] on toolserver.
  8. Toolserver is a bit slow so I find it helpful to have 3 tabs running simultaneously.
  9. Scroll down to the bottom of the toolserver results to see if 1000 edits or 1-year age of accounted are met at another project. You can also see if the editor is blocked on another project.
  10. If neither Popups nor the Global Contribution Surveyor met the criteria, then list their name at [less than 1000 edits, or less than 1 year old account|this page]
  11. Mark your section {{done}} at this page

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks so much! -- User:Ocaasi 19:50, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

I would like to help, but all the work was completed by others :) Btw, the idea of WP:TWL looks great! Thanks for letting me know, Ocaasi. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

List of cathedrals in Cambodia and Cathedral in Phnom Penh

Hello Laurentleap. When creating new articles, don't forget to cite reliable sources. Thanks for your contributions. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:00, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.--Laurentleap (talk) 11:33, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Imran Nazar Hosein

Why was the page Imran Nazar Hosein deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.55.65.166 (talk) 21:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Because it was a copyright violation of this website. Please, note the © 2001-2007 Araaf Technologies Sdn. Bhd. All Rights Reserved at the bottom of that page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:41, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

  1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
  2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
  3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
  4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
  • Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
  • Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Vejvančický. You have new messages at Yunshui's talk page.
Message added 12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Good call. Yunshui  12:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text retrieval

Hi Mr. Vejvančický

is it possible to retrieve deleted text about Jaroslav Prny I have created as BLATANT joke attempt?

thank you

Roman — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.64.195 (talk) 01:49, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Roman, yes I can send the text via email if you provide your address. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 05:36, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Civility

Vejvančický seriously, you worry too much about being civil. What is more important is a general positive self-encouraging atmosphere and good faith that we are all here to accomplish the same goal. A great number of "civility" cases would be avoided if editors such as Fram were naturally not disposed to making rash deletions and stubborness when editors try to constructively work with them. Such people are nazguls which bring the atmosphere of the site down, and are generally far worse for the site than any odd retort somebody might utter in response to their intentional belligerence. I am generally very positive towards people and wikipedia in general and I tend to treat others as they'd treat me. Fram has been one of the worst offenders of anti friendly collaboration on wikipedia in its entire history, even if he has put in some OK work and starter articles.

My comment largely said " The idea is to turn it into a decent article on the major roads of Gibraltar. The article would equally cover each road so UNDUE would hardly be the case. Have some common sense Fram". Your comment on the other hand entirely had nothing to do with the road but came down to nothing but civility policing in saying "Fram's comments are not very creative, Dr. Blofeld, but please realize that this is a public discussion about a road in Gibraltar that will be preserved in our archives. You should comment as a professional (I know you are one), not as a furious kid, and above all, you should focus on the topic of this article. Nobody is interested in your outbursts. " You mentioned nothing about the road.

You've come across as a civility policeman who obviously thinks "civility" is more important than actual constructive conversation between editors which Fram refuses, hence my expression of contempt for his refusal to discuss it "professionally". A wikitionary definition for asshole here means "an inappropriately or objectionably mean, inconsiderate, contemptible, obnoxious, intrusive, or rude person." I cannot think of a single wikipedian who meets "objectionably mean, inconsiderate and intrusive" more than Fram. Lot of editors have put in a great amount of work on Gibraltar articles and no consideration is being shown to them and everybody is being lumped in with the paid editor tourism promotion think and is inevitably going to cost us editors like User:ACP2011. Yes there are even more obnoxious and rude wikipedians on here, but if you know the way he generally operates on here it is highly intrusive and downright arrogant and far more damaging than anything anybody might say of him. I don't like honest, hard-working editors treated like it. It is a great shame as I had you down as a very constructive decent editor who should know not to start playing the civility stick, especially with editors like me as it leads to nothing but ill-feeling. You better watch it the next time you walk Charles Bridge sonny Jim, there may very well be a piranha swimming in the Vltava..♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:13, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not about being civil. Maybe it's my disgust over dragging petty personal disputes into general debates about encyclopedic topics. I can't help myself and I consider it foolish. And it is also sadness when I see good editors lose temper after their third comment in a discussion. I don't need definitions to recognize it. But I don't care too much. I think it's just you. Our perception (and temperament) differs from each other. We worked together and I'll gladly work with you again. No hard feelings. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
Btw, I'm not afraid of your piranhas. My girlfriend is angry with me tonight. The water is already boiling :/ --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:09, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
But our temperament and perception does not differ as much as you think. I hate petty disputes as much as you do, why do you think I generally ignore the hoo-haa and produce content?? If you know me you'll know I am actually generally of very friendly high-praising positive temperament with a wicked sense of humour who treats editors with the same respect they show me. I am a Taurus and if somebody strikes me as being intentionally difficult and indeed damaging to content and editorship (Anne is thinking of quitting wiki due to this Gibraltar over reaction instigated by the likes of Fram) then I am not afraid to make the odd "uncivil" comment to express my distaste, the bull will mostly happily graze but on occasion if he is shown a red cloth he will attack. That does not make me an angry fellow or an unprofessional one, it makes me a human one. Do I think it is good idea to go around calling people a-holes? No, and I would never do it unless an individual engages in a course of behaviour which is threatening to content, editors and not working together in good faith. That doesn't make it alright and I'm sorry you are offended, but I have my reasons for what I said. Anything "uncivil" I've said since I started on here has always been a direct response to an editor who is either a threat to content or just behaving unconstructively and unwilling to productively discuss content amicably, usually both. Basically coming across as an arrogant jerk. Such comments are usually directed at individuals who believe they are in an elevated position above all others and go about the site brandishing their policies and arrogantly refusing to listen to the suggestions of others. The site is plagued with them and every now and then the difference in opinion manifests in conflict. If you are somehow unaware of this then I advise you to stay well away of wikipedia discussions.. It happens dozens of times daily. You're a good, decent guy, probably too good for wikipedia.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:30, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, now I know more about the context of your reaction, but when I came to that AfD I was just an unconscious observer. There was an innocent (admittedly not very friendly) discussion resulting in you calling your opponent "an asshole", out of the blue. What was I supposed to think? I could have tolerate it but I felt it is degradation of the discussion and I told you to focus on the topic of the debate. My cultural background is different, I'm not familiar with all the meaning subtleties of the word in the English speaking countries, but when someone calls me an asshole in my native language, I usually respond with my fist. I was surprised why did you do that in the context of the discussion. Why should I and other unconscious observers in a debate about a road read that you think another editor is an asshole? I believe I can say what do I think and that's what I did. My status here has nothing to do with that and I have no intention to patronize you. My position is not elevated, I still feel like a newbie and I treat IPs, newbies, established editors and admins in a very similar way. The levels of importance in this nervous social environment where so many are "big bosses" hidden behind computer screens and nicknames are laughable to me. I know very little about social relations between the nicknames on Wikipedia, I focus on our content. I don't plan to start any civility trials, spend weeks contemplating over the meaning of a word and hinder the work of others to satisfy my idea of civility. I never did that. Now I know you are Taurus, you don't like User:Fram and I know also that you are good and decent editor and somewhat impulsive person. I think we can close the case :) --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Impulsive, not really, that's impulsive/angry. but if somebody really does something to offend me I can be one of the most unpleasant people quite the opposite from my normal demeanor, once or twice I've really lost my temper on here and the offending person really wished they'd kept quiet and it has shocked people. I exercise a lot of control generally on here and ignore a great deal of what goes on and what irritates me. But on occasion I'm happy to tell somebody I don't like them and the way they act. Maybe "asshole" translated is an extreme word in the Czech language or you are translating it too literally or are literally a priest or something and would get offended if somebody used the word "pratt" . I can think of far stronger seriously offensive comments...♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

P.S. The piranha can strip a man to the bone in 30 seconds!! They're deadly! And if they inhabited a river in the Czech Republic which is probably polluted flowing through the capital might even have frickin mutated laser beams for heads!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:15, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Only now I started to take your warning really seriously. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
  • See also The No Asshole Rule, whose author says that such language may be needed to make an impact in such cases. My view is that it should be used sparingly — see Allan Massie on this topic. Warden (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
Awesome. Robert I. Sutton deserves an FA for authoring that.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
In some places I speak like a priest. But in a pub with my friends, an average US teenager with ninety swear words a day is a looser when compared with my vocabulary. And I'm a looser when compared with my friends :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 21:05, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

My perspective: Dr. Blofeld created thousands of completely incorrect articles a few years ago. I found this, brought this to light, and this ended with people agreeing with my assessment and the deletion of a few thousand of his articles. Instead of cooperating and keeping an open mind, Dr. Blofeld did everything in his power to obstruct this process, attacking me, making incorrect claims time and time again, basically refusing to cast a critical eye on his own contributions but blaming everything on me; with loads of severe personal attacks. I don't believe we interacted since then, I don't think I nominated any of his articles since then, but apparently his resentment stayed and a normal process (nominating a few articles for deletion) is enough to make him erupt again and lash out. He believes this is a major road, I see this as a run-of-the-mill road, and this is apparently enough to receive personal attacks and to be called "asshole", "nazguls", "intentional belligerence", "one of the worst offenders of anti friendly collaboration on wikipedia in its entire history", "I cannot think of a single wikipedian who meets "objectionably mean, inconsiderate and intrusive" more than Fram".

Dr. Blofeld continues that "Lot of editors have put in a great amount of work on Gibraltar articles and no consideration is being shown to them and everybody is being lumped in with the paid editor tourism promotion think": what I actually did was look at what the Gibraltar fuss was all about, and conclude that of the articles I looked at, the only somewhat problematic ones were three created by Dr. Blofeld, of which I nominated two for deletion and corrected and tagged one other. I made not a single comment about any editor, nor about any project, nor about paid editing. There is not a shred of evidence to state things like "everybody is being lumped in" and "no consideration is being shown to them" when the only "offended" person is Dr. Blofeld, and the offense is that he apparently takes normal Wikipedia processes as an extreme personal insult, and that even years later he has trouble admitting that he made a serious mistake once, resulting in the deletion of a few thousand articles. When he asks for "mutual respect", like he did on my talk page, he just means that people should respect him. I'll continue to edit like I always do, I'ld urge Dr. Blofeld though to control his temper and to comment on edits, not on editors. I'll ignore his pointless rants from here on. Fram (talk) 08:51, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Fram, I'm not familiar with the situation that occured "a few years ago", so I don't know all the circumstances. However, I can tell you that I know Blofeld's work for years and I think he's a good and competent editor. It is worrying to me when you say that you and others succeeded in deleting a few thousand of his articles, as I remember that 99.9% of Blofeld's creations were valid encyclopedic topics. Of course, he created short stubs, machine translations etc, but as far as I can remember his work was almost always acceptable. I don't believe that deletion of a few thousand of his articles was a good solution for this project and I can understand his indignation. But as I have said, I don't know all the circumstances. It is sad to see that old grievances and personal hostility poison completely irrelevant discussions and show this project in a not too positive light. But on the other hand, this project is created by humans and problems of this kind are probably inevitable. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the vast majority of his creations are on notable topics. In that instance, he used a reliably-looking but actually rather poor source; not deliberately, of course. It was a geographic database which was for some countries allright, but for other next-to-worthless. Dr. Blofeld wasn't aware of this, and it took some time convincing him; but the deletion was widely advertised and discussed, and in general agreed upon. It was a mistake (the creation, not the deletion), but due to the rapid-fire creations a mistake that ran over a few thousand articles. The deletion was a one-off, it is not a if I nominated articles for deletion again and again: in fact, I don't recall having nominated any of his articles for deletion apart from that large one-off operation a few years ago, and the two nominations now under discussion, which is why his personal comments and vehemence surprised me. Fram (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

We're 2000 articles worse off on Afghanistan and Kazakhstan settlements yes because of it. The articles were sourced to a geo database which I thought was geonames and was apparently based on it originally but it grew out of date. Fram disputed that a lot of the settlements listed were actually villages. In all fairness quite a lot of even the verifiable ones would be difficult to fully expand at present and are probably best started one at a time trying to scrape info in google books. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:52, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

I disputed that most of them even existed. I gave examples in that AfD of placenames in the USA in that database which were completely fictitious. If even ones that are relatively easy to check are completely wrong, how much credit should be given to ones that are very hard to check? Fram (talk) 06:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Third opinion here. Lignovitae (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

  The Civility Barnstar
For displaying a high level of "civility" and having the cajones to challenge the evil doctor and emphasize his evils. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:11, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Some uncontroversial housekeeping requests

Howdy! Thanks for doing some speedies with me today. Came across two I can't tag, both related to users not with us anymore. Both are monobook.js pages, so I don't have rights to edit. User:EvanS/monobook.js and User:NThomas76207/monobook.js. Thanks again! BusterD (talk) 14:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Buster. I deleted both the pages as G8: Redirect to a deleted or nonexistent page. I hope it is OK. Take care and let me know if you need any more help. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Vladimir Mikhailovich Zakharov

Thank you for supporting retention of this article. — Robert Greer (talk) 13:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok

Ok with this. It just looked like a rather pointless article. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 14:45, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the article is not perfect, but the book seems to be notable (the author certainly is) and the article has some room for improvement. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:49, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Let's hope the article gets better. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


Message

  Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 07:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 
The "soft bunny" of happiness and tranquility.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:56, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

User:Cakeupboy1/Honorable C note

I think I remember this being AfD with result to delete. I'm not sure. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Yep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honorable cnote Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:14, 27 September 2012 (UTC)