User talk:Vojtaruzek

Těma tvejma pizzovinama si rozesral všechny fotky u voleb. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Já jsem tam dal nové, to ti hlupáci mě je smazali, přestože to splňovalo všechny náležitosti a public domain licenci

To bylo hned jasný. Bylo opravdu strašně potřebné dávat každej rok jinou fotku. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Fotky mají být ze stejné doby jako volby, u dalších článků to bylo, takže jdi někam, třeba nadávat těm, co to smazali, licence byla v pohodě.

New Zealand gun licenses
Although the law says 'shall' and 'shall not' one of the 'shall nots' is: "who, in the opinion of a commissioned officer of Police, is not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a firearm or airgun.". So it's down to some guy's opinion.

So in the sense of Wikipedia's it's a 'may issue'.

Legal text is here;

Arms Act 1983 GliderMaven (talk) 20:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Senate of the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ANO ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Senate_of_the_Czech_Republic check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Senate_of_the_Czech_Republic?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Independence Party of the Czech Republic moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Independence Party of the Czech Republic, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 12:29, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Yes, I came here to say the same thing as Melanie. (And thanks for your "thanks" to me 🙂.) Another time, if you see something like that, it may be worth checking the last edit on the page. If the edit is all vandalism, you can revert the whole of it by clicking the "undo" button. Bishonen &#124; talk 20:22, 14 October 2018 (UTC).

AfC notification: Draft:Independence Party of the Czech Republic has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Independence Party of the Czech Republic. Thanks! Bkissin (talk) 13:45, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

DS Alert

 * --Jorm (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

About your complaint on Talk:Gab (social network) and your [user talk page comment: Try contributing constructive suggestions instead of just engaging in hypocrisy and complaining. The editors there welcome suggestions to change things with reliable sources cited. Try doing that and you'd get more traction. ~[[User:Anachronist|Anachronist]] (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You didn't bother to check the reliable sources already cited then.
 * You mentioned section 230. It's ironic that Donald Trump and other Republicans want to repeal section 230. Can't have it both ways.
 * You mentioned hijacking. Gab has encouraged its supporters to hijack the article. Nobody else has tried to hijack it.

Reply (don't know if this is the correct way, but whatever):
 * The sources that are themselves biased if they just blatantly make accusations and discredit Gab/Parler like that, the media generally don't like people opposing censorship, at least most of the mainstream ones in USA.
 * If they censor as they like, then they should at least be legally responsible for what they keep there, yes. The best solution would be to give them a choice about that, be publishers, who can "edit" the content, but are legally responsible, or platforms, who can't just erase what they don't like, but can report it to the police to take action if the content is illegal. That would be better for everyone. Real criminals would be held responsible while corps would not be able to censor as they like, and unjustly banned people would be able to actually defend themselves.
 * Wow, imagine my shock that they don't like being falsely accused and discredited by crude smears and parodies (referring to the rule of propaganda).

I don't think trying to be constructive would work, editing that article and removing that slander would definitely just result in me getting accused of "trying to hijack the article" or even accused with strawmany about "defending antisemitism" (i noticed that is a common tactic when you criticize censorship). But it would definitely be reverted with a single click with little to no explanation. Pretty trick to discourage editing politicized pages like this. Although the article is locked out to prevent people from even trying. It's not hypocrisy to point out hypocrisy.


 * Your reply was fine. You can't edit the article because it's protected. The only way to get it changed is to propose a change on the article's talk page. If you do so in a dispassionate and civil manner with adequate sources included, your proposal will be taken seriously. Trying to be constructive is the only thing that works on Wikipedia, especially for contentious topics.
 * I'll add that in your comment you advocated changing the style from "Gab is antisemitic" to "Gab is often accused of antisemitism". I thought you made a good suggestion there, so I looked through the article and it already appears to be that way. Gab isn't accused of being antisemitic, instead, the article says Gab provides a forum for antisemitic users who contribute a lot of antisemitic content. That's a pretty objective fact, even acknowledged by Gab's CEO. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: I don't think it would be taken seriously, considering the condition it is now. Gab is accused of supporting antisemitism by things like " Antisemitism is prominent among the site's content," to imply that antisemitism is the primary thing you can find there, and also the fact that the article is literally a part of series on Antisemitism, plus the emphasis on some of the (antisemitic) people who use it. And all just because its founder doesn't want censorship (the antisemitism is used to villify that). The point I made about the rule 5 of propaganda was pointing out on the constant repetition of the accusations throughout the article. Normally, there would be a separate chapter in the article about "Accusations of antisemitism". But even the first part of the article, which is usually reserved for brief summarry of what the topic of the article is about, is filled with antisemitism. That really makes people think they are reading an article about a criminal, rather than social network. Same with Parler. Little point in trying to open discussion about that now, as I was instadeleted for saying that the article looks like propaganda. And it's the same with Parler.

January 2021
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at Project Veritas, you may be blocked from editing. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant noticeboards.
 * If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
 * Additionally, if you're going to try to push stuff like that into the article, you'll need to participate on the Talk Page for the article and get consensus, or provide ACTUAL reliable sources. IHateAccounts (talk) 02:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Disruptive editing? You mean posting information about its leaks, albeit ones you do not agree with, because they contradict the "official" things that Dorsey said. This bias is disgusting. Also, how can I reach consensus if those editors, including you, obviously don't agree with publishing of that event? Namely the video of Twitter CEO talking about how there will be more censorship. I am sure you watched it, so you just want to cover it up. And about the talk page, they just censor everything there, so why bother.
 * Given that you have not participated at the talk page, and indicate no intent to do so, your editing is indeed disruptive. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I tried to participate in talk page of other editors, as per the "procedure" you linked here, both reverted it without answer, one later accused me of "violating conduct" for asking him to just go watch the video.
 * Use the article talk page. And I'm sorry, but you may wish to try other encyclopedia projects, such as Conservapedia or Metapedia if you wish to engage in conspiracy-mongering nonsense. You just aren't going to have any luck here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Project Veritas shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
 * So now posting a video from Dorsey is "conspiracy", just because you don't like what he said there.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Tried that, the guy who keeps reverting it didn't even respond and just reverted it there as well.
 * You have crossed the 3RR line, and your comment on my Talk page was a blatant violation of Wikipedia conduct policy. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, such as at Talk:Project Veritas, (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button OOUI_JS_signature_icon_LTR.svg located above the edit window.

Thank you. —  Newslinger  talk   06:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Thank you. IHateAccounts (talk) 03:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit warring at Project Veritas
 You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Per a complaint at the edit warring noticeboard. EdJohnston (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

What a surprise, well, I knew that trying to oppose using wikipedia as progressive propaganda and criticizing discrediting people and webs by crude smears and parodies will get me a ban.


 * Actually, it should come as no surprise at all. You came here convinced that only you know The Truth About Everything, and that anyone who disagrees is biased by ulterior motives. That attitude doesn't fly at most workplaces, in most social settings, and it certainly doesn't work here. What a surprise. It's too bad you don't see that you were behaving like a WP:FANATIC. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 01:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oh, would you look at that, now the policy of false accusations was extended to cover me as well :D, along with a nice big cut of condescension. I never said anything like that and I tried playing by the rules, provided sources which literally only provided the video and full or partial transcript (no faking included or possible) only to be struck down, based on arbitrary list of handpicked "reliable" media (who are reliable because they themselves said so, while the others are unreliable because the "reliable ones said so, of course). Please stop calling me names and cease provoking me, I presume you are waiting for me to slip so you can have me banned again, because that's what your kind does when confronted with dissent. To think that I got a defender barnstar for reverting an article from a form which is now standard for articles about "persona non grata" or "webia non grata". Vojtaruzek (talk) 02:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Also, I expected that, that first remark was in irony, I hope that isn't against the rules as well. And I apologize for not having that cited with a "reliable" source to prove that it was really an irony.

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Vojtaruzek. Thank you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

April 2021
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for persistently making disruptive edits. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)