User talk:Pavel Vozenilek/Archive1

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay! If you ever need editing help visit Wikipedia:How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at The Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help and Wikipedia:FAQ, plus if you can't find your answer there, check The Village pump or The Reference Desk. Wikipedia:Utilities is also very useful.

One little tip: Use the ~ (tilde) feature to sign your name to talk pages. If you type ~~~ (three tilde), it will translate to [[User:username|nickname]] when you save the page. If you type ~~~~ (four tilde), it will translate to [[User:username|nickname]] Date when you save the page.

Also, Don't forget to edit your User Preferences to enhance your experience

Good luck,
Dmn / Դմն 19:56, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New version of Aesthetic Realism article

This still makes no sense to me. You wrote:

Copying article is as easy as it only could be - selecting all text in one window, copy to clipboard, delete all text in another window, paste what is in clipboard.

What window? Like I said, I don't see any place where one can select all the text, including the formatting codes, for the entire article. All I see is Edit links for each individual section, which would require that I tediously copy the text for each individual section one at a time. If you do indeed know how to copy an entire article, please enlighten me, and please be specific.

I noticed quite lot of traffic on AR article recetly (I have watch on it). Perhaps you should first make your point on Talk page. Editing of whole article is possible by using "Edit this page" button on the top of the screen. Pavel Vozenilek 03:50, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all to me:

If no one cares or objects store current version (or link to it) somewhere on talk page, replace the article with your version, and explain the change on Talk page.

If you are suggesting at some point that I replace the live AR article with my own if there are no objections, then I have no idea how to do that given that the live article is locked. Even assuming I could, I do not know how to copy an entire article. I could copy section by section, which is tedious, but I assume there is a better way. Even if there's not, it would be good if I knew for sure that there was not.

Thank you for your help, Michaelbluejay 10:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article is ~~locked for limited period~~ already unlocked. It is supposed to resolve the issues on Talk page in the meantime. Just put link to your version on Talk page for AR, explain your position and wait for response.

Copying article is as easy as it only could be - selecting all text in one window, copy to clipboard, delete all text in another window, paste what is in clipboard. Pavel Vozenilek 17:07, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your help in trying to get this article updated properly. I have edited it to address all of your concerns. Here is a link to the new article. I'm a former librarian and I think I have provided the most relevant information, all properly sourced.

I'm afraid I'm still very unclear about the process for getting this article installed. For example, I don't know how to get it into the Aesthetic Realism section for review by the community. I created the article by following the link you provided, but that doesn't appear to make it a part of the Aesthetic Realism section. I don't see any way to copy the whole article besides tediously copying the text for each section and pasting that into a new comment on the Discussion page for Aesthetic Realism. Is that the way to do it?

Also, for the moment let us assume that the Aesthetic Realism Foundation people will not go in and erase my new article, for they surely will. Let's just assume they don't for a moment. So once the community has reviewed and edited the article, how exactly do I go about getting it installed as the new article?

To answer your question, yes, AR does have a relationship to traditional art. Its founder, Eli Siegel was a poet, and the group operates the Terrain Gallery where it showcases traditional art and music. (I added a link to the Terrain Gallery in the article.) AR considers itself to be a broad philosophy which encompases art, science, philosophy, psychology, etc.

Thank you again for your help. Michaelbluejay 11:02, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The subpage isn't part of main article. The article uses intendated paragraphs, it looks rather funny when rendered.

I would recommend to announce your version on Talk page for the article, wait for response (vandalising your version should lead to block). Wait some time. If no one cares or objects store current version (or link to it) somewhere on talk page, replace the article with your version, and explain the change on Talk page.

In case of objections try to reach some neutral point. Last option is to create completely new page like "Criticism of AR" and link it (with short explanation) from AR page. But I think one page is more than enough. Pavel Vozenilek 17:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to leave this message but I could not find any other way to message you on this system. I requested that the "Aesthetic realism" article be locked and you did lock it, but unfortunately locked it to a vandalized version. The members of this group kept excising my addition that many former members consider it to be a cult, and the link to my site about it, [1]. I think it's important to tell both sides of the story, of course. I've never removed any of their ridiculous gushing praise about their philosophy and their leader, I've just added my own very short comment. But they routinely go in there and delete it, since they want no public criticism. Actually, unless this changes, they don't have to do so any more, because their sabatoged version is now locked into place. I hope you will be able to add the other side back in. I added it to the External Links section but I expect they'll take that out any minute, if they haven't already. Oh, my username is MichaelBluejay. You can contact me directly at AR(at)michaelbluejay.com if you need to. Thank you very much for your help.

It was not locked by me, I do not have such rights (but maybe I asked admins to lock it). I remember I reverted someone who vandalised the page with text "Aesthetic realism is a cult", giving any futher explanation. I know nothing about the topic, I only do clean up after vandalism.

If you can contribute, please formulate it first on the Talk page, trying to reach some consensus (just one link or shout is almost guaranteed to get reverted). Usual practice is to have section like "Criticism of ...". Quite often this process works.

If that fails the article may be put under request for coordination (but this is slow, bureaucratic process with long waiting lines). Common procedure is described in [2],

I also noted that the narrative quality of the article isn't the highest. You may rewrite it and put your version on e.g. Talk:Aesthetic_Realism/Version_from_michaelbluejay or on your Talk page. This version may serve as starting point for possible disputes.

I am distressed that you characterize my contribution as "vandalism". I'm the one trying to protect the integrity of the article, not the other way around. I simply added the comment to the article, "Many former students consider the group promoting its study to be a cult," with a link to the Aesthetic Realism is a Cult website. I didn't elaborate because, as a critic of the Aesthetic Realism group, I wanted to be fair and didn't want to be seen as using the Wikipedia article as a platform for me to criticize the group. I thought adding just one sentence and pointing readers to a dissenting opinion was adding to the scope of the article. But apparently that's considered vandalism.

In my mind, the real vandalism is that the Aesthetic Realism people routinely excise any reference to criticism from the article, or mention of the fact that their founder and leader killed himself. And now that the article is locked to that state all that remains is their obviously biased cheerleading for their cause.

In any event, I have taken your advice and have written a new article from scratch. I have taken pains to make it as objective as I can, and to produce ample sources for my claims. I extensively quoted Aesthetic Realists themselves, including from their own websites.

What is the next step in submitting this article for review?

Thank you very much for your help, Michaelbluejay 06:25, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Maybe I was too quick in "removing vandalism", I do that routinely and may overshoot. I somehow vaguely remember there were fights over article name months ago and this adds to one's suspicions. I apologize if I was too hasty.

(Question: is there any relation between Aesthetic Realism and traditional art? It was the first association I got from article name.)

I looked on your version (please beware I know nothing about the topic and am fairly uninterested about it) and it looks clean and readable. I would recommend to add facts like estimate how many people "studied" or "followed" it, whether and how did it evolved, ISBNs and as many references as possible, especially for people quotes (highly opinioned un-attributed quotes w/o atribution do not belong to encyclopedy, IMO).

An external link may have few words what it is about. I noticed that the link(s) to http://perey-anthropology.net/ are missing. If they are of relation with the topic they should be listed. The links may be divided into two subsections - supporters and those opposing (this quite worked in Turko-Kurdish wars).

Wikipedia articles/talks/wars should not serve as reference. Especially referring to edits wars on Wikipedia brings no useful information.

The way how to deal with disputes is described here. If consesus gets reached on your article (or its updated version) then it should overwrite current article. If not then you need to suffer the ordeal in trying to present neutral view, trying to reach common point before some kind of arbitration is taken. Wikipedia is not well prepared to deal with conflicting views - its up to people to settle somehow and this sometimes doesn't happen, sometimes it takes long time. Pavel Vozenilek 15:56, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cribbswh

Cribbswh Dear Pavel, The sites that I listed were relevent to the topics and are not commercial. They all contain valuable, pertinent data for the state or topic. I apologize for misunderstanding the rules. Sincerely, cribbswh

You might be interested in participating in a discussion at Talk:New York#External links where we are debating the merits of the links removed and then put back by Cribbswh. Thanks.--BaronLarf 15:35, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Rolodex.jpg

Is this image really public domain? It doesn't look like a photo you took, and if you found it on the internet it's copyrighted unless explicitly released into the public domain. Andre (talk) 00:54, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

sparklelight1

Greetings to you, I am keeping updated regarding one of my article up for deleting. I also see you did vote for deletion... If I may asked what is it really wrong with the article? and if there is something you don't understand about my article am sure you can always contact me. I will see how to work with your program in order where people can discuss. Unfortunately my time is limited on this realm and keep moving on and if there is further problems I will take down all my articles as this is very spiritual and deep level of consciousness and I am not up to dabates where the unseen is hard for mankind eyes to see in these changing times.

Thanks sparkle*

Images

Please stop marking images as public domain when they clearly are not. Such behaviour in considered vandalism. - SimonP 05:41, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Proposal to expand CSD

Zdravím, rád bych se vás zeptal na důvody pro hlasování pro návrh III a proti návrhu XI. Samozřejmě důvody hlasování vysvětlovat nemusíte, jen mě to zaujalo jako dost zvláštní kombinace hlasů. --Wikimol 23:00, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Proto ze III je silnejsi (coz asi melo implikovat XI).

Ano, ale protoze je silnejsi, je mensi sance ze projde. Hlasovani funguje tak, ze hlas pro XI v zadnem pripade nezmensi sance prijeti III. Ale pokud III neprojde, je XI sance prijmout alespon neco. --Wikimol 09:40, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vizo

You marked Vizo for speedy deletion. It doesn't seem to fall under any of the criteria for speedy deletion; could you please explain? --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 21:35, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Mistaken tag, I should had used {{delete}} or so. But the article seems bogus to me anyway. Pavel Vozenilek 21:44, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might, but which of the criteria does it meet? Seems a VFD would be more appropriate. --jpgordon ∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

VFD, yes - being unverifiable. I tried now to find appropriate tag but failed. If you know, please mark the article. Pavel Vozenilek 22:52, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

FYI: This IP 128.187.0.164 is a public computer

HAOS.MULTIMEDIA

Hi, you marked HAOS.MULTIMEDIA as a CSD. I am afraid it doesn't currently fall under any of the reasons there. Incidentally, there is currently a poll going on about expanding CSD. For the moment, articles like this fall under WP:VfD. If you follow the procedure at the bottom of that page, you can't go far wrong. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Thanks - Smoddy | Talk 19:17, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Toilet paper holder article

I've got it on a user subpage, and of course earlier versions are in the History of the redirect, too. Why do you ask?--Bishonen | Talk 20:28, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

About Vargas LLosa

Pavel, I think you should read UK's newspaper "The Guardian" to see a more extensive biography of Mario Vargas LLosa, since they have more details about his life than wikipedia does, including the fact that he speaks Spanish, French and English (accented of course). Maybe you can check it out: http://books.guardian.co.uk/departments/generalfiction/story/0,6000,668155,00.html

I reverted it because it was inconsistent with the whole sentence. Since he lived in France it may not be such big news at all but YMMV. Pavel Vozenilek 01:37, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Vargas LLosa

Well, maybe you could have included such facts in another sentence to make the article better. As a Peruvian, I think his readers might be interested in such details of his life.

What's wrong with Salwar Kameez?

You put a cleanup notice on salwar kameez. Why? I wrote the current version, and I don't see what's wrong with it. It could perhaps use some more wikifying, but otherwise ... Now I may have missed something -- I'm not a goddess of good prose -- but I'd sure like to know if I have. Zora 01:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Using uppercase or lowercase letters in the name is inconsistent. Some links can pro probably fixed. The text should be more structured to sections. Mostly minor edits. Pavel Vozenilek 01:25, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Instead of expecting other people to read your mind, and see the same faults that you do, how about fixing the faults instead of just slapping a cleanup notice on the article? I understand the cleanup notice in cases where the article is incoherent, but I don't think Salwar kameez is all that garbled. Nor is it so long that a cleanup would take more than ten minutes or so. Zora 01:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, its not topic I understand - I just saw few issues. Asking for cleanup is IMHO better than to make amateur mistakes. You may put the cleanup notice down any moment. Pavel Vozenilek 01:41, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

removed your speedy tag from Hamidian massacres

You marked it a speedy delete, but the reason you gave: "no sources, likely just copyright violation" is not a valid speedy criteria. Please read Criteria for speedy deletion. Shanes 02:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Salwar kameez again

I just realized that someone created the article with the title Salwar Kameez, which I gather is not the preferred Wikipedia style. It should be Salwar kameez. Does it require an admin to change the title? Zora 05:56, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No. You may move it to "Salwar kameez" easily. There's button on top, "Move". It requires new name. All links and talk page stay the same. Pavel Vozenilek 13:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

202.156.2.170

Pavel - many thanks for actions to date on this. I have spent a huge amount of time trying to get some consistency in airline articles. 202 ignores all attempts at consistency and is intent on adding in aircraft fleet details (instead of possible external links) and Flight numbers (instead of lists of routes or destinations), both of which are very difficult to keep up to date. Other edits are more benign but add little value. The remarks on Jetstar Asia Airways are indeed inappropriate. In Valuair, 202 replaced some of my edits with worse (inconsistent) content. I believe this in total amounts to vandalism, although I am unclear what can be done about it. Any actions or advice would be welcome. Ardfern 00:26, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I asked for ban on [3]. You may add comment, hopefully some admin will wake up and act. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pavel - coincidentally I have just been attacked by a vandal inserting a van picture over all my user talk. Could you advise how I get rid of this and revert to the previous entries. Thanks for any help. Ardfern 14:43, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vicksburg

I don't think that sentence about July 4th was meant to be vandalism. Hal Jespersen 21:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looks so. I reverted it back. Either I considered author as vandal then or made mistake. Apologies to both. Pavel Vozenilek 21:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for you support in my request for adminship. Your trust in me will not be disappointed. Now, I'm off to put these new powers to good use! -- Scott e^iπ 02:39, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support on WP:RFA. – AB CD 02:39, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank You!

Hi Pavel,

I would like to thank you for your vote of support and confidence for my adminship, it has been much appreciated. If you need anything in future that requires my attention, please do not hesitate to contact me. :)

- Cheers, Mailer Diablo 18:31, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Labyrinth

Dear Pavel.

You removed the link The Traditional Catholic View and Use of Labyrinths from the Labyrinth page, which may or may not be appropriate; I don't know. I have only looked briefly at the linked page.

However, in your edit summary, you describe it as a "spam link". That seems inappropriate to me; at worst, it's a link to a POV page. Would you like to reconsider the case? ----Niels Ø 20:49, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

I reverted my revert. It was too fast reaction from my side. Several links to this website (different pages) were added in the past and were later removed as spam. The user who added this link is vandal (or sits on the same IP as a vandal). Pavel Vozenilek 21:17, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

KOMBA

Hi there - you just reverted "vandalism" at user talk:KOMBA. Could you please explain why? violet/riga (t) 23:37, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erased text from other user. This could make problems in possible banning of vandal. Pavel Vozenilek 23:40, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite with you there. It was me that placed the warnings on there and they should serve of proof of him being warned to stop the vandalism. If he returns and continues vandalising other admins will be able to see that he has done it before and thus lengthen the ban if it were required. violet/riga (t) 23:42, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are right Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My adminship

Hi Pavel, Thank you so much for your support and kind words in my nomination. I look forward to helping out. - Banyan Tree 03:49, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

asked for temporary ban on you

For editing articles?!? I don't broke any wikipedia rules.--Schlesier 19:48, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You are new and made dozens of controversial edits within hours. That smells of someone with axe to grind.

You are (1) making changes w/o explanation or giving reference, (2) re-starting polls that took years to resolve.

I would recommend to cool down and argue your changes first. That's one usual practice here, another is to provide as much reference and sources as possible to keep Wiki encyclopedic. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I attributed point (2) to you by mistake. My appology. Pavel Vozenilek 20:09, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You mistook me for someone else

Hi Pavel, you sent me a message yesterday regarding my edits on the Spain page. You got your information backwards: I went on to that page to remove the references to the word "vagina" from the page, not add them on. I was just as disgusted that someone would make those changes as you were. Heath Johnson 16:55, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. It could be I mistook left and right side or so. Pavel Vozenilek 17:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for supporting my adminship — I vow to use my super powers for good not evil. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:24, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

William Gibson

Sorry for the mistake. I've read "Gibson was born in Conway, South Carolina, USA. In 1968", forgetting the point at the end of the sentence. So the whole trouble begun. :D Corposemorgaos 02:26, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for the vote at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Henrygb2. It has made my week. --Henrygb 01:58, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to thank you for your support of my nomination. I will try and be more diligent about edit summaries--nixie 02:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

another thanks

for supporting my RFA this week. Also, thank you for your edits to Kryštof Harant z Polžic a Bezdružic; really I'm impressed anyone else knew about this guy; he's pretty interesting (but really shouldn't have bombarded the imperial palace with the emperor inside! bad move!) Happy editing, Antandrus 03:10, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The name is rather know in Czech Republic, though not likely for being musician. His canoneer activity had probably made a little difference since the Emperor was on his way to exterminate all his opponents, no matter what. Pavel Vozenilek 03:17, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Time Cube

Pavel, I see you have reverted several Time Cube edits at the Greenwich Mean Time article. I rv'd the same edits and 211.28.*.* keeps putting them back. Any suggestions/help? Dave C. 03:08, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

One may complain on [4] and hope that somebody notices. Pavel Vozenilek 03:16, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you rv'd it already. I think 211.28.*.* is an anonymous proxy in Australia (although it may be a dial-up ISP). Dave C. 03:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good afternoon, Mr Pavel Vozenilek. I noticed that you have been conspiring with Dave Cohoe and others to suppress the Truth of Time Cube. You made the comment "If the Time Cube theory gets acknowledged by scientific community then it should get mentioned here"; while the Academic pedants in their ivory towers tend not to acknowledge this Ineffable Truth Cube, it is nonetheless an extremely famous theory, known among millions of internet users.

Did you know that just two days ago, Dr Gene Ray participated in a large event in which he lectured and debated Time Cube with students at Georgia Tech? Why do you suppose they would do that if Time Cube is an unknown and unrespected theory? Clearly it is encyclopaedic, and deserves inclusion in Greenwich Mean Time. Please cease your pedantic vandalism of the article, and allow Cubic Truth to be known.

Well, Wikipedia is website that promotes views of this "academic pedantry", by definition. You are absolutely free to create your own variant Wikipedia and put your opinions here. For example I noticed Time Cube is covered on uncyclopedia [5] already. You may have better luck there. Pavel Vozenilek 15:55, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a website that promotes a Neutral Point of View, by definition. That means it's perfectly justified for the GMT article to contain a short paragraph about criticisms of the concept (the opposing point of view), and a brief reference to a theory considered by GMT critics to be superior.

I'm not suggesting we replace the whole article with a statement that GMT is false and Time Cube is true; I'm merely suggesting we should allow a short paragraph that will convey to the reader a sense of NPOV. Therefore, I again request that you cease your POV vandalism and allow NPOV in the article.

I do not agree here - this is not politics but science. And this is (should) based on facts/verifiable theories. And unless something is proven (or at least supported by some reputable authorities) it is not fit for Wikipedia. I am engineer and trying to find out what works and what not is what I do all the time. Pavel Vozenilek 03:33, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

They are proven -- see Time Cube and Cubic Awareness Online for proof, as well as discussions on Talk:Time Cube and Talk:Gene Ray. And when you stipulate "supported by some reputable authorities", it IS in fact politics -- an expression of support of Academic institutions of Word-pedantry. Again, you need to allow NPOV in the GMT article.

Administratorship

Thanks for your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wilfried Derksen. Your comment made me aware of the necesity of filling in the Edit Summary line in case of non minor edits. It made ma also ware of careful labeling an edit as minor or non minor. I will change my way of editing pages by clearly selecting minor and non minor edits and to fill in an edit summary in the last case. With this comment I would like to ask you to reconsider your vote. Wilfried Derksen = Electionworld 16:27, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for nominating and supporting me for adminship, it was an experience to get a glimpse of how "it should be no big deal" policy has been twisted around. I appreciate that I had a 21/8 support on this even though it wasn't enough to suffice the minority rule system on Wikipedia. I am slightly bothered though that the vote was closed 12 hours too early but it probably doesn't matter. Cheers! --Bjarki 13:42, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Western Betrayal

Would you have a minute to look at Western Betrayal#Czechoslovakia and see if it could be improved ? Wojsyl 20:00, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you!=

Thank you for supporting my RfA! I shall be more conscientious about leaving talk page messages, and work at putting the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 02:32, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Administratorship?

Would you like to become admin? I think you fit the criteria (thanks _a lot_ for your vfd work). I can nominate you on [6]. Pavel Vozenilek 00:24, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the offer but I have no desire to be an admin. Megan1967 05:47, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)