User:Vejvančický/Archive 19

New articles
Hi Vejvančický. Good work creating the Broadway Theatre page, I was already working on something and was surprised to see you'd beaten me to it! Recently I have been working with WikiProject Czech Republic/Wanted articles to expand coverage of Czech-related articles; if any of the redlinks there take your interest, it would be good to have your input. Thanks, C 679 10:39, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cloudz, I've noticed your article creations, particularly Žena za pultem caught my attention - do you know the series? Long time ago I created my own list of redlinks, see User:Vejvančický/Missing articles. Most of the topics is Czech related and I think we can merge both the lists. Sometimes I read in the news that Wikipedia is "almost completed" and I have to laugh - there are thousands (maybe tens of thousands) of important Czech related topics missing here. Thanks for your help with the article and thanks for all your great contributions. Now I plan to work on Moravian wine regions. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:52, 1 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Btw, you can use Category:Lists of Czech people by occupation or List of castles in the Czech Republic as an inspiration :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 1
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michal David, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Wimbledon (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) 12:17, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Speedy Delete Tags
Hi. Please do not remove speedy delete or AfD tags. Removing tags does not affect the nomination. Once posted the case is automatically logged for review and discussion. If you wish to contest the deletion click on the appropriate link in the Speedy Delete Tag. Thanks. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ad Orientem. Please, read carefully the CSD criteria: anyone except the page creator may remove speedy delete tags. I have expained my edits in edit summaries, see the history of the article. Btw, try to think about how to improve (not delete) valid encyclopedic content. The article about the Háj observation tower may not be independently notable, but it can be merged to the article about Šumperk or elsewhere. Anyway, it surely isn't an db-a7 speedy deletion candidate, as it is not "about a real person, individual animal, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organized event". Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Vejvančický, you are of course right, and I reminded the other editor of this also.  DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Ad Orientem is a novice editor, but seems to have a good head on his shoulders, see Articles for deletion/Peretz P. Friedmann. We all make mistakes sometimes. Thanks for your additional explanation, DGG. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:30, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Marie Uchytilová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danmark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:31, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ITN credit
ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Front page - again
Hi there, following your, I see you have. You have a good eye for a developing story! Keep up the good work! C 679 14:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Cloudz. I started the article about floods, but it was developed by others :) It is now a very good and informative article. Thank you also for the barnstar, it is good to see that my contributions are useful for the project. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

MY PAGE DELETED
IT WAS A JOKE THAT I WANTED TO PULL OFF ON MY FRIEND WHY U DELETE IT! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleethan (talk • contribs) 07:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because Wikipedia is a serious encyclopedic project, not a place for your jokes. Thanks for your understanding. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK Ill add more relevant info then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleethan (talk • contribs) 07:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please, check the notability guidelines before creating any new articles. Wikipedia covers only notable subjects, and notability must be verifiable by reliable sources. Your article has been tagged again, by another editor. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

OK then sorry but if you can please edit it so it dosen't have to be deleted. 07:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleethan (talk • contribs)
 * I'm sorry Fleethan but I can't find anything suggesting that your article meets our notability requirements. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:08, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Filip Topol
Thank you for the quick update of Filip Topol article on that unfortunate event and for the good improvement of the article content. It's a pity we'll hear no more concert from them... --Tomaxer (talk) 12:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's very sad, he was one of our most original musicians ... I've seen his last concert in Brno, Mersey, in January 2013. It was wonderful, as always. I'm very very sad he's gone ... Thank you, Tomaxer. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 13:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Nečas
Good afternoon, this article is still very poor. I tried to amend it a little bit, but have no time to go on. The problem is that people come to write what they want, not what is needed for a good encyclopaedic article. And, unfortunately, they write in really poor English. By the way, I would say that the sentence you deleted was more or less correct, i.e. it depicted Nečas´ situation in a way which was not far from the truth. I hope you agree if I say that Czech press is terrible. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 16:12, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Zbrnajsem. I'm not sure which sentence do you have in mind, but I'm willing to reconsider and discuss it further. The Czech media may be terrible, but usually they describe various situations from various perspectives. Our task is to include the most important points and perspectives in a clear, balanced and neutral way. You are right, our article Petr Nečas is not perfect, but the recent additions were biased and POV, and that's why I removed it. The lead section still mentions that "... in 2013 the then Premier Necas was highly admired for his European leadership as he supported Israel on the occasion of the Czech Republic´s voting at the United Nations.[2] Due to an historical affinity, Nečas claimed, "We've got a special feeling for Israel's situation—that of a small nation surrounded by enemies."" The information may be relevant, but I don't think it is appropriate in the lede, as it is a marginal statement and position in the context of his career. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, this marginal statement should be somewhere else. So you are free to move it. I just found it in its previous form at this place - written in a very bad English - and amended it. However, the whole article is far from being good or even exhausting. E.g., Nečas´ contacts with Bavaria and even with the Sudeten Germans are not mentioned at all (neither here nor on the Czech and even German Wiki). They represent quite a good diplomacy by him, I would say, as Bavaria is a key Land in Germany. What you called biased was actually what I would support (I was not the author of this special statement, however), but never mind. I don´t intend to bring it back, and I don´t want to spend much more time with Nečas now. He is not really a bad guy, only the Czech politics as a whole is a mess. Good luck, kolego Vejvančický. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I moved this special statement on Israel to another place. Due to very bad English of a previous contribution I also amended another part of this article. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 20:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited La Lanterne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Macmillan (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) 10:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited À la lanterne, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chevalier (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) 10:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * This was intended, the disambig page gives a good information to the reader. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:13, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

About Alfred Owen Crozier
Hi Vejvančický Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think economics is boring.
 * Really, how simple can it be? Tax the people and corporations that can afford it enough to fund a decent universal health care system, a decent universal education system, necessary government services like emergency services, a justice system, a social welfare safely-net, basic infrastructure funding, and then let a moderately regulated private sector take care of the rest. Have regular elections so that the government can change from liberal to conservative to liberal and back again every five to ten years or so to trim down their respective + or - fiscal policy abberations, but make sure the dumb-ass politicians don't actually get anywhere near the real economic levers. And keep a budget surplus somewhere, so that when a Global Financial Crisis comes around, the government of the day can spend, spend, spend like a drunken sailor! Works OK here in Australia, and some other nearby nations.
 * Also, I think economics is boring.


 * Pete ... I consider many things boring but my personal subjective opinions have no place in Wikipedia articles.


 * It's good to hear that things work OK in Australia, especially for someone accustomed to watch political/economic development as a combat between irresponsible egomaniacs and greedy hogs. Welcome to the Central European sci-fi horror / reality show :D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Louis Bénigne François Berthier de Sauvigny (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Third Estate and Hôtel de Ville


 * Miloš Zeman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Civic Democratic Party

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hearts in Dixie
Thanks for the Hearts in Dixie redirect, Vejvančický. I've never managed to look up how to do that myself and I appreciate it. I'm still not sure why the other article was presented with a parenthetical "film" to begin but I'm guessing it's because there must be a song in the same picture also called "Hearts in Dixie." Anyway, nice encountering you in Wikipedia! Cinerama Comment (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Deddy Corbuzier, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magician (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

declined speedy deletion of 24Hr HomeCare
These contributors are confirmed Morning277 socks:

54.215.95.8, 54.215.63.130, 184.169.227.62, Greenmyfly77, Ftsmhtr, 54.251.8.252, and 12Feltozi

These are not:

Tikuko, Squids and Chips, Yobot, WOSlinker, Ottawahitech,  Niceguyedc, CommonsDelinker, FrescoBot, Rybec

I don't think the latter group of editors made substantial edits to the article. — rybec   13:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK Rybec, I expected you here. Is the sock puppetry apparent in the article? What is the benefit in deletion of this article to our readership? How will deleting valid content improve the encyclopedia? So many editors use multiple accounts/sock puppets that db-g5 becomes ridiculous. I'm fully aware that I speak here in contradiction to the CSD policy but I have to follow my common sense. The article is decent and I had to take its quality into consideration. If you have serious objections, we can take the issue to WT:CSD, where it has been discussed many times before, without clear consensus . --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I posted here because I thought you might not have recognized which edits were by the Morning277 organization. I notice that in your response, you don't indicate any particular changes by other editors you consider substantial.


 * Tikuko tagged this as an advertisement [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=24Hr_HomeCare&diff=554107971&oldid=554080856]. The next day, along came a Morning277 writer to delete the tag, with a misleading edit summary: . The article contains only praise for the company. I've already commented on the CSD talk page. If Wikipedia is to host advertising, it would only be fair to clearly identify it to the reader as such, and for Wikipedia to be paid to host it. Cheers. — rybec   14:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I only refused to speedily delete the article, which is entirely legitimate. Could you provide any specific examples of advertising in that page? I think it is rather informative. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * "In 2013, 24Hr HomeCare was a nominee for the Los Angeles Business Journal’s Corporate Citizenship Award" is cited to which carries the disclaimer "this special advertising supplement did not involve the reporting or editing staff of the Los Angeles Business Journal". I think it's reasonable to assume that that was a paid placement, not what I'd call "entirely legitimate."


 * "Its caregivers are trained, screened, bonded, and insured, and all hold California Association of Health Services at Home and American Board of Home Care certifications" reads like an assurance one might read in a brochure. I suspect that the sentence summarises the legal requirements for operators of nursing homes. It's cited to a Web site called Digital Journal and the article there reads like a brochure. — rybec   15:51, 6 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Removed. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Now deleted. Good way how to show to Morning277 how clever and sophisticated encyclopedists we are. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you! If you like saving articles, there are tens of thousands in Category:Declined_AfC_submissions that some people are trying to get rid of. — rybec   21:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Most of the pages in the Category:Declined_AfC_submissions is harmless and their deletion is not the most pressing problem Wikipedia has. Even if we delete those pages, their content still remain on Wikipedia servers. But that's irrelevant and I leave this to people who like to "get rid of" our articles. I like creativity and our work on the article 24Hr HomeCare before it was deleted was creative and collaborative. I wonder how many of our readers are interested in who is 12Feltozi or Morning277. I wonder how many people search for the information about 24Hr HomeCare here on Wikipedia. The deletion was bureaucratic and careless. Just my opinion. But I'll let it go, life's too short. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I've now started—rather general—discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Vejvančický, I got a note on my talk page from you.

Interesting. I remember this. I remember looking at the speedy deletion notice and the history of that article, then I got called away from my computer for a while. When I came back, it was still there on my monitor so I deleted the article without noticing that you had declined the speedy. Sorry if it appeared I overrode your decision. That isn't how it happened.

Generally, I feel the same way as you about G5. You can search the CSD talk archive for some rather strident comments I made against it. I often turn down G5 nominations. I believe that content trumps identity.

But... A few months ago I volunteered to do OTRS work, answering trouble tickets. I expected it to be mostly addressing copyright concerns and permissions for images. There was more. I couldn't help noticing the number of complaints from article subjects about "their" article being deleted or proposed for deletion, and demanding that such articles be restored for PR purposes, being angry that they spent good money to have a promotional article written that got deleted, and seeing blatant email from PR firms (the one behind Morning277 crops up often) accidentally copied to OTRS, etc. In light of that, my views have changed somewhat.

I still feel that content trumps identity. However, I now make a special exception for Morning277 socks. The PR firm behind Morning277 is the most prolific and disruptive sockmaster on Wikipedia right now. They deserve no mercy. They require every possible motivation to come out of the shadows, stop evading blocks, and work constructively with the community. One way to do that is diligently delete all articles they create. I'd have no problem if they went through AFC, as other COI editors with integrity do, but that's not their mode of operation.

We have paid editors who have integrity, who are up front and honest, and work well with the community. See the infobox at User:Cla68 for example. The Morning277 firm has an opportunity to stop behaving like criminals. Deleting their articles is the only tool we currently have to convince them to mend their ways. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you Amatulić, I'm now more familiar with the background and I have to agree with your explanation. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Vejvančický, are you going to continue making decisions about G5 deletions? — rybec   19:11, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Rybec, this is my sixth year of continuous editing on en:wiki and I've seen a lot, including spiteful remarks by editors who somewhat see counterarguments as an expression of hostility and collaborators as adversaries rather than co-creators. I don't have a patent for truth but I believe I can ask questions and discuss when I'm in doubt. I'm always more than willing to correct myself when I'm wrong and I will not change myself. Please, respect that. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You had remarked that "so many editors use multiple accounts/sock puppets that db-g5 becomes ridiculous" and that CSD G5 lacks consensus. You appear to feel that it's a bad policy. Am I mistaken? — rybec   18:46, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speaking for myself (pardon for butting in), I agree that G5 lacks consensus. But I don't see it as something one "agrees" with, anymore than one "agrees" with a screwdriver, a hammer, or any other tool. G5 is just a tool. It can be used properly although I often see instances of it being misused. Just last night I declined a handful of G5 nominations on Philippine military topics, of which only one was technically a valid G5, but I kept it because the content trumped the identity of the creator. Just because one can delete something as G5, doesn't mean one should. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion criteria should be as clear as possible. I see a lot of inconsistency in applying db-g5 - it's sometimes detrimental to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and that's why I think it's rather a bad policy. So no, you are not mistaken, Rybec. Btw, thank you for helping to resolve the situation around Morning277. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

@Amatulić Hear hear. It doesn't look like Rybec agrees with you on the use of that tool. He speculates, and then just deletes. Look at his edit history. The Morning277 SPI is now an amalgamation of multiple, unrelated paid editors, some unpaid, and some hapless editors who happened to edit Rybec's targeted pages.

I don't think the accounts you refer to are socks. The evidence says they look like meatpuppets at best, or on an actual inspection real editors with a COI. COI isn't a basis for deletion, but COI pages get deleted under G5 through Rybec. In response to the misapplication of G5, almost all paid editors go through other editors because of people like Rybec. If all editors took the rule-abiding approach and uploaded everything under one account, Rybec would find one upload, accuse the account, and then PROD everything. The check on the process is supposed to be the deleting admin. But historically, an admin comes along in a hurry, and just hits the delete button without ever reading the page or attempting to edit it. Again, check the history log.

Oftentimes, ironically, few other editors touch some of the pages because they are so well written--they are paid for, so someone spent some time on research and writing-- which pushes the better written ones to G5. Other pages get promotionalism added to them after they launch. The original editor gets blamed. Also ironic.

Rybec's approach is to G5 anything with a hint of COI or on his hunch about a page's history. Rybec doesn't follow the rules. So then the paid editors in turn don't follow the rules. And now you have a cycle with much consumed time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.128.194.180 (talk) 20:26, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I expressed my views about G5 on the CSD talk page:, and on JohnCD's talk page where I questioned his deletion of a Morning277 article . I do recognise that COI itself isn't a reason for deletion, as evidenced by my edits to Aaron Montz, Biosensors and Bioelectronics, AEON (electromagnetic), Electromagnetic entity, Articles for deletion/AEON (electromagnetic)‎, and Articles for deletion/Electromagnetic entity (I didn't request the blocking of ). These articles were created by, or had edits by, people with very obvious COI.


 * The Morning277 organization has been editing at least since August 2011 2010 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Limemine&oldid=379301636] and the Morning277 account has been blocked since July 2012--longer than I've been contributing. I filed my SPI request this 10 July. They were misbehaving long before I came on the scene: . If they have a specific example of my misbehaviour, I'm sure they're aware of how and where to present it. — rybec   03:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Socks' response to Amatulic
Amatulić you continue to make decisions based off of emotion and make assumptions that are not true. Destroying quality work is not noble and not useful. You should recuse yourself at least until you remove the emotion and the "exceptionalism" for Morning277. You do have other tools to handle promotionalism, including editing and flagging. People respect your work, and people respect creators. The people who are the named subjects of the pages you delete know who you are. They know exactly what is going on, and deleting their pages tarnishes their view of Wikipedia. Calling their representatives "criminals" and overstating the number of "complaints" doesn't get you what you want. Your only useful tool is WP:CommonSense. Thank you for restraining your contempt for paid editing going forward. Last, most of the pages you deleted were not paid editing jobs.96.250.187.200 (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * WTF are you? Another Morning277 sock? If so, you do know you're violating a ban, don't you? Which more or less proves my point.
 * And how would you know anything about someone else's emotions, assumptions, what is and is not true, and the number of complaints I have seen? The pages I have deleted under G5 were indeed paid editing jobs, that much was obvious to any but the most obtuse observer.
 * Sorry if your article got deleted and you didn't get paid, but if you can't play by the rules Wikipedia has established, that's what will happen. Comply with the rules and all should be fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Many pages you deleted were not paid editing jobs-- they were just articles put on Wikipedia. Are you against paid editing? If you are, then you're going after pages that are not applicable. Your writing and actions are full of emotion. At this point it looks like you are just randomly deleting articles. Just look at Rybec's edit history. He is out of control and off on the most random pages. One of the deleted subjects said s/he donated to Wikipedia, but that won't be happening again. It was a good article on a notable subject. You're enslaving yourself to rules that you're misapplying.96.250.189.105 (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Amatulić, for the few articles that are paid, all of which are long deleted now, the arrangement is hourly for consulting. Thus, the editor is indifferent to a deletion. The subject sees that you deleted their article and forms an opinion about Wikipedia and the editor who deletes the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.218.124 (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * 96.250.189.105: I delete articles for many reasons. WP:CSD is just one, and of those, most were obviously paid editing jobs. Now, I don't personally have anything against paid editing, if done up front, ethically, and honestly. Such is not the case with this company, however. There is no disclosure, no transparency. Instead, we have block evasion, promotion, violation of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and valuable time wasted by volunteers to clean up the mess, stealing resources that don't belong to them. There is a way to do paid editing properly, but this company with hundreds of COI sockpuppets isn't doing it, it has zero interest in complying with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that they deem inconvenient. That alone suggests the company is unethical. Their lack of integrity is further underscored by their misrepresentation to clients, based on what I see in private communication with these clients. I have not misapplied rules; WP:CSD exists exactly for the purpose to which it is being applied. If you have a problem with that, then propose a change at the Village Pump.


 * 75.15.218.124: It doesn't matter how indifferent the editor is to deletion, or what opinion the subject has about Wikipedia. Their goal is to violate WP:NOTPROMOTION, a core policy. Therefore, the community is unconcerned with their feelings, because their goals do not align with Wikipedia's anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There's no way for you (IP's around Morning277) other than honesty and transparency. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I used to try to preserve G5s, but nowadays I almost always delete them, especially if they look like coming from this sock farm. I think this is pretty much a necessity for self-dense of the encyclopedia--we would be useless if we became just a vehicle for advertising. G5 does not actually require deletion in every case, and there are sometimes reasons for exceptions when the content is particularly good, and the subject particularly important. But what's most important now is removing all the promotion, both new and longstanding. (this doesn't just apply to paid  editing; people zealous fans of an organization can do just as poorly.) &#39;DGG (at NYPL) (talk) 15:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't familiar with the context and - as always - I thought about how to improve an article. I've changed my opinion after User:Amatulić explained the situation. It's better to let it go and wait until someone responsible and honest start it again. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations/Admirenepal
Hi. You filed the AN3 report about Blackhu20. If you notice any further socks of Admirenepal, this SPI report would be a place where you could document them. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks for letting me know. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Socks in sandals for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Socks in sandals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 18:22, 15 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I commented in the discussion page, thanks for letting me know, Michaelzeng7. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library
Hey! I've done a major redesign of The Wikipedia Library portal. As one of our original volunteers, I'd love you to check it out, pick a role, create a profile to share your story and skills, sign up for the newsletter, and see how you can get involved. I'd also be interested in having a skype chats with you in the next few weeks to see how we can best put your energy to use (or email if that's better for you). Hope you're doing well, Ocaasit &#124; c 13:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Ocaasi, thanks for letting me know, but I'm afraid I'm too busy at the moment. I'm too tired even to edit now. But I'll be back. I wish your laudable efforts the success they deserve. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks
I have had limited encounters outside of the writing articles on Wikipedia, mostly because everyone assumes the wost about me every time I do, no matter the lack of supporting evidence. Thanks for not. Cześć, -AfadsBad (talk) 05:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Don't let discourage yourself, AfadsBad. Working here is usually thankless unless you work with a group of friends. I know it very well. Your contributions are invaluable. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:58, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Now I'm more familiar with your previous experience here on Wikipedia. I'm sad that suspicion, paranoia and hasty decisions win over good faith. Shit. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for your support. I do regret the request, and, as it is making editing unpleasant, I am no longer interested. I do appreciate your assumption of good faith, though. Thanks, --AfadsBad (talk) 15:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest Afads, If I were you, I wouldn't care. In September 2009, an editor changed my group membership to autopatrolled without my request and I had no idea what WP:UNPATROL means. I lived happily before that and I still live after that. Nothing changed :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't care that much, but it seemed pretty straight-forward, then I just got irritated at the bureaucracy of the whole thing and the way it seems that it is so easy to come up with reasons to just dismiss editors. I won't be collecting any more hats, though, as annoying as this experience was. Thank you! for making it not a complete waste of my time, and that is not because of the rights, but because of your nice attitude. --AfadsBad (talk) 16:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Take care and be happy ... and don't forget to tell us more about trees and flowers, it is a nice hobby :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 16:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:AUTOPATROLLED?
Hello Garyvines, you've created a lot of valid and good articles and I don't think it is necessary to 'patrol' your page creations. Would you mind if I change your user rights to autopatrolled? Thanks for your great contributions :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:33, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * thanks Vejvančický, I am happy for you to change your user rights to autopatrolled. I had some trouble with some earlier articles from too close paraphrasing of sources, but now seem to have sorted this in my sandbox first. Thanks again for the encouragementGaryvines (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I didn't notice the copyvio issue previously, sorry. You can't copy and paste copyrighted content to the main space but you can't do that also in your userspace (sandbox), as you did with this edit, on 4 September 2013. The copyrighted text still remains in the history of your sandbox, even if you alter the text and blank the page later. Technically, it is still copyright violation, and Wikipedia cannot host such a content, as it may be considered illegal. See also WP:NOCOPYRIGHT. I'm sorry that no one explained this to you before. I'm afraid I can't assign the user right to you under these circumstances. I'm sorry. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I think that the best option for you is to develop your articles outside of Wikipedia, make sure that there's no close paraphrasing or copyvio and only after that upload your article drafts to Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:57, 7 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize this and didn't pick it up when I started using the Sandbox- I will certainly do edits outside Wikipedia from now on.Garyvines (talk) 12:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A request for help with Czech
Vejvančický, how are you. I'm in a bit of a bind; I need to post a message to the Czech wikipedians about VisualEditor, and I'm having trouble finding someone. Do you have time to do a bit of translation? It's not long. Anyways, best regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * No problem. Where's the text? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 18:01, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * PetrB got it finished for me last night. Thanks for the reply, though.  If I've got you all excited about translating, this page still needs some love from a native speaker ;) Best regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Kriegel and Gertruda Sekaninová-Čakrtová
Thanks for pointing me in the direction of the Gertruda Sekaninová-Čakrtová. I have to admit, I had never heard of her before, and she led quite an interesting life. The article is very good. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 14:25, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Interesting life full of suffering, yes. But it looks that she did not lose her optimism and above all, her honesty. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:38, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Re Henry Ughtred
Thank you for your kind words! --Madame Bonheur (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for starting the article :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Precision Tunes
Hello, could you please move User:Launchballer/Precision Tunes to Precision Tunes? Thank you.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. You should explain that it was basically a theft, I think. Weinstein's project is known because of this shameful practice. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That I am doing on the pre-release cover version article currently located at User:Launchballer/Pre-release cover version. Believe it or not, it's not technically illegal, it's operating in a grey area.-- Laun  chba  ller  08:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Aha, thanks for explaining. Don't you think the redirect is better, Launchballer? Weinstein was tracked down by The Sunday Telegraph as the person responsible for releasing the cover. It is in fact the only thing he (or his project) is known for. Mention at Payphone_(song) should be enough. At least in my opinion. What do you think about it? --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:03, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Your draft of Pre-release cover version is very interesting, btw. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:06, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think that the only reason pre-release cover artists don't have articles is because not a lot of information is known about them; they do technically pass WP:MUSICBIO criterion #2. With Weinstein at least his name is known, which is more than can be said for most of them and for me it just clinches it. If you look at some of the other articles in Category:Cover artists, you will see that (with most of them at least) there is something else there besides charting; Venus Palermo is a vlogger, Big Hits 2012, Hit Masters and Select Hits had more than one hit with more than one pre-release cover version (thus a redirect is inappropriate) and if I'm honest I don't actually know what Airi L is there for.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right ... does it mean that those fakers managed to outwit not only charts and real artists but also WP notability guidelines? :D --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * If they have done enough beyond their charting such that a redirect is inappropriate (/) then in my opinion, yes.-- Laun  chba  ller  09:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, do you think Pre-release cover version would make a good DYK?-- Laun  chba  ller  10:14, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it meets the criteria. It's a good page with interesting and well referenced information, at least in my opinion. Go for it. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:46, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Send me the link to your nom if you'll do that, please. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 10:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Right here.-- Laun  chba  ller  11:08, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gertruda Sekaninová-Čakrtová, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sachsenhausen (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:George Zidek
Hello - since you last commented at this RM, I reported some input from the subject himself:. Please feel free to consider that input in the context of the overall discussion. Dohn joe (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Autopatrolled
I did a complete rewrite of the page. Sourced it, of course. :-) Although, I still am waiting for one to be whitelisted . &mdash; Will  scrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta )  23:27, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Have a great week. &mdash; Will  scrlt ( Talk | com | b:en | meta )  07:07, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You too! --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Laun chba  ller  07:19, 30 September 2013 (UTC)