Contents

User talk:Pavel Vozenilek

• Archive 1 (Aug 10 2004 - Apr 20 2005)
• Archive 2 (Apr 21 2005 - July 29 2005)

Thanks for your message. I've added some extra detail and provided a link to an ICRC report about the use of mustard gas. More to follow. FaulenzerUser_talk:Faulenzer 14:36, August 01, 2005 (MEZ)

Thanks for the support of my RFA and for your advice therein, I really appreciate it! --Canderson7 17:03, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message, I replied ;) Wyss 23:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pavel,

I'm sorry you think my web site about the World's Dictators in 2005 (http://www.arthuredelstein.org/worlddictators) is of low quality. Do you have suggestions on how I can improve it, and what would make it worthy of inclusion in the Wikipedia Dictator Page?

Arthur

Pavel, I understand and do agree with you. Although I did not write the part about the mafia, I will edit my peice on ownership of infrastructure. Thank you for your careful comments and corrections. -Igor

Ah yes, changed a bit on the Karlovy Vary page, I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say about the mafia in the city. If you could please explain more to me, or make the changes you feel should be there, I would appreciate it. Thank You Pavel--Igor 05:26, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[1] are mostly wiki mirrors, SqueakBox 03:23, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

See Mirror (computing), SqueakBox 18:14, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Basically if I have a site with very few links and I want to increase it's link popularity to get it higher up a google etc search and I put it at wikipedia's IP address 30 or more duplicates will soon appear, each linking to my site, + that's 30 sites from whicvh someone will potentially link through to my site. Which beats making masses of blogs, etc, as an easy way to gain good visibility for one's site. See Google bomb, SqueakBox 20:07, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support on my RfA! When I submitted it, I was unsure of how I'd do, but the support was great. I promise that I won't do anything too stupid with the trust you've given me. humblefool®^{Deletion Reform} 19:51, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Stop by Wikipedia:Deletion reform!

I believe that it is actually a village, though it is part of Lysa. In English a village does not always have a seperate political identity. Check out this page - It identifies it as both a village and part of Lysa:

Popis části obce Byšičky

http://www.senat.cz/volby/hledani/o_casti_obce.php?kod=89648

I think that it deserves its own page - even though politically it is Lysa. I rode my bike there from Kareny and it was surrounded by countryside, not obviously part of Lysa, but a seperate settlement. There should be a link on the Lysa page to Byšičky, though.

Elizabeth

The link to your most recent archive actually pointed to your first archive. I've fixed it. JesseW 00:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was browsing a forum in which a number of Wikipedians were discussing the failed edit problem. And I think that I have the solution.

From what I understand, the problem could result from human error. Many people, when editing, have a number of windows open on an article. They enter an edit to one window, and then, without refreshing their browser, edit that same page again, negating the original edit with their save....

Hope this helps, --jonasaurus 21:49, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. You're right actually about it's prevalence. It's quite ironic that it happened to me while I was posting about it. Don't you think? --jonasaurus 22:28, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel,

Thanks for the note. I meant no harm by posting the link to the TaxAlmanac.org site. Jimmy Wales, was kind enough, to spend time with our development team last April as we created this Wiki site. He even directed the Time magazine author of "It's a Wiki, Wiki World" to us and we were featured in Time's June 6th, 2005 edition.

TaxAlmanac is the only free online resource of its kind dedicated to tax research and is the only free site that contains an updated US Internal Revenue code (the IRS.gov site was last updated in 2002). I posted the link where I thought others that had interest in tax might find extremely useful.

I understand very deeply what Wikipedia is trying to do and again appreciate your guidance. I can assure you, I meant no harm.

Best regards,

BeTheBest 03:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor note: Dune was already linked before I corrected the quote (from my 20th anniversary edition of Dune), and it is important to link to Catholic if only so the reader can judge for himself why the OC Bible has the word 'catholic' in it. Now if only I could figure out the 'Orange' bit... --Maru 05:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thanks for voting on my RfA. Having been elected, I hope to justify your faith in me. Thanks again. --Ragib 05:41, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the description of TaxAlmanac can be considered spam. It is a genuine offering from Intuit, and therefore relevant to this page. IMO, your reversion should itself be reverted. - Rlw (Talk) 11:39, August 7, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Pavel Vozenilek, I would strongly suggest you to look at the link before calling it a SPAM. If you would have done it you would realise that they link to NON-COMMERCIAL web site which contains ARTICLES about the PROBLEMS IN CONTEXT (e.g. Advice on thesis writing), therefore Wiki readers would, if fact, benefit from reading these materials. Moreover, I have received WRITTEN PERMISSIONS from the AUTHORS of these articles to reprint them, therefore according to the rules of Wikipedia this material CAN NOT be published on Wikidepia as they are not PUBLIC DOMAIN RESOURCES. This is why I provided links for them. By deleting these links you have closed opportunities for many people to find the information they need. Is that the purpose of Wikipedia? And just to remind you once again: This is a non-commercial web site - I do not sell anything and neither I display advertising - I work to help people and I seriously do not like when someone calls it a SPAM.

Kind Regards Liya Wells

Pavel,

Again, I am deeply troubled by your assertion that a free, non-commercial link to the only free source which contains the only updated US Internal Revenue tax code would be considered spam and not useful for a variety of readers.

BeTheBest 17:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel:

In your note to BeTheBest, you state:

Vast majority of people who look into Tax article are quite unlikely to compile source code. It is even possible they are not interested in US taxation system but in more general information. Try to look for more convenient articles, e.g. such that list tax software for the US system. Please not in put TaxAlmanac.or in articles about competing products. (AFAICS Intuit has absolutely nothing in common with it.)

I'll address each of your comments:

• Vast majority of people who look into Tax article are quite unlikely to compile source code.

When BeTheBest was referring to tax code, he was not referring to computer compiled code, but instead to the tax law (referred to in the United States as the tax code).

• It is even possible they are not interested in US taxation system but in more general information.

TaxAlmanac.org contains primarily tax information and resources for tax professionals in the United States, but articles have been submitted for other countries as well, such as Canadian Tax and Australian Tax.

• Try to look for more convenient articles, e.g. such that list tax software for the US system.

This site is not a software product at all. It is a Wikipedia style resource for information about tax law, tax law interpretation, etc.

• Please not in put TaxAlmanac.or in articles about competing products. (AFAICS Intuit has absolutely nothing in common with it.)

On the contrary, Intuit has quite a bit in common with it - Intuit created this site. The Intuit logo can be easily seen at the bottom of every page on the site. Intuit has made it available to the tax community at no charge.

I don't see that there is anything wrong with providing a link to this valuable free resource to those interested in performing tax research or to those interested in one of Intuit's newest offerings.

I'll state up front that I am not an uninterested party as I am the 'moderator' on TaxAlmanac.

Tdoyle 21:55, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Melchizedek editor is also trying to add his content to the Melchizedek article. I'll help you open a RFC if he continues to go against consensus, and have all the articles I know he edits on my watchlist. I will revert his edits on sight. Samboy 22:06, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I, Halibutt, would like to thank you for knowing the difference between the Central and Eastern Europe, as well as for maintaining balance and NPOV between the East and us here.... Halibutt 01:27, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I believe he/she's right about changing the dates. I believe that the Presidents' and Vice Presidents' terms end at noon of March 4 (before the 20th Amendment was ratified) or January 20th (after it was ratified).

Also, even if it is wrong, the anon might have his/her facts wrong, but is editing to what he/she thinks to be the right thing. Do not bite those anons; do not scare them away. Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 21:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some categories, like Category:Modern artists are so all-embracing that their value is zero. For example Adolf Born ([2]) fits into relatively small category of Czech painters but adding supercategory "modern artist" is just noise, not improving quality of the article, IMHO. Thanks for understanding. Pavel Vozenilek 00:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand and I find the category useful. >>sparkit|TALK<< 03:17, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

You are very welcome. It seems you are doing a lot of the same work. Rl 06:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pavel, I would greatly appreciate if you look into the mess created in the article Rohingya. This is quite an interesting issue; a few months ago, I removed the copyvio and then organized the article into sections and cleaned up the links. For some reason, several anon editors in the block 212.138.47.* seem to take offence at my "touching" "their" article, and started vandalizing my user/talk pages. Some of these vandals were blocked by other admins.

Last week, these vandals created several sockpuppet accounts, including Antirajib (talk · contribs). You can see from the account name what its purpose was. The user vandalized my user/talk pages besides leaving abusive comments. The user was blocked immediately.

Yesterday and today, there has been a parade of sockpuppets all directed at either launching personal attacks, or avoiding 3RR. You can find several incoherent rants in Talk:Rohingya, my talk (User talk:Ragib and Mel's talk User talk:Mel Etitis. The language constructs and the irrational attitude ("how-dare-I-touch-their-article-being-a-Bengali" etc) points out a single user behind all these.

I find the following accounts as sockpuppets of the same vandal from the ip block 212.138.47.*

• Arakan (talk · contribs)
• Eddiewiki (talk · contribs)
• Yonglee (talk · contribs)
• Bobjack (talk · contribs)
• Antirajib (talk · contribs)

I urge everyone to take a look at the page history, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rohingya&curid=1918632&action=history . This is not even a dispute over content! I have not added or deleted any content other than the initial copyvio. I simply organized the article with sections, and cleaned up the external links. One of the links point to a blog, which the vandals ferociously object to as being termed a blog. I've gotten literally tired of the abuse these vandals launched on me. The level of racial and personal abuse is quite hard to take. Since it would be a conflict of interest in my part to take actions against these vandals, I would request you to look into this issue and decide.

Thanks a lot. --Ragib 13:14, 12 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That newspaper isn't a tabloid, it's a political newspaper with a strong anti-Putin bent. The publication was a letter the police officers sent to Kasparov in response to his demand for a criminal investigation, so Kasparov himself brought attention to the matter, forwarding the letter to that specific newspaper. I think the fact that Kasparov demanded an investigation over something as trivial and then decided to publish that letter illustrates his character, his overreaction is more newsworthy than the incident himself.

But, if that incident is deemed not significant enough for Wikipedia, then the mention of another incident when he was hit by the chessboard in Moscow in 2005 should be deleted as well. There's no significant difference between the two cases.

Brarabooh 03:26, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! My reasoning for using {{TOCright}}onABC was that it was a disambiguation page — a list of links, and therefore should be made as short as possible vertically (though without using multiple columns for the links). Also, being a list of links, it would not disturb the flow of the page. Therefore, in my humble opinion, there was reasonable grounds to use TOCright.

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) advises the use of TOCright on dab pages, though I admit it is still young and may not reflect everything with absolute perfection yet, but in my opinion TOCright should be used on dab pages. Rest assured I don't use TOCright whenever, wherever — I did have grounds to use it on ABC. I hope you'll consider the use of TOCright on that page. User talk:Neonumbers/Neonumbers 06:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages), it is quite clear that TOCright should be used on disambiguation pages, and there is no dispute about this. I don't know about other situations; I can think of few times where it would be useful except this — but please be aware that whatever discussions may be wherever, the disambiguation pages manual still likes TOCright.

I don't mean to make a big deal over one TOC on one page — though I do hope TOCright would be used on ABC, where I think it would be of good use — but I'm not trying to make a big fuss about it and I'm not bothered to change it until that manual's been in place for a while longer. Neonumbers 07:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pavel,

I have had many sources for the reason that Ethiopia had only 100,000 men. I read a book by an editor, an Encyclopedia on World War II, and then a website. I am most definately sure that Ethiopia only mobilized about 100,000 soldiers in that war, and I am considering only the appropriately equipped regular army soldiers, not the ones with spears. Refer below for my sources on this topic.

Sincerely,

Aaron Kinney aka "kinneyboy90"

OnWar, Online Military history

Nazdar Pavel - after a month of quiet NoPuzzleStranger is back to unilateral edits in both articles. It's the foreign name references again. For reasons that are completely unclear, he is deliberately singling out those two articles.

Either way, I'm not going to engage in a senseless edit war, something he seems to revel in and thrive on. My last request for mediation fizzed out with no effect. Do you think I could go straight for arbitration then?

Would you know an admin interested in Czech towns? Are you familiar with the Gdansk Vote? I posted there too and it seems that NoPuzzleStranger's grudge (or whatever it is) goes back to that edit war, but he seems to respect the results of the vote there. There might not be enough interest, but any chance we could get a vote on uniform German name reference for all towns of former Czechoslovakia? Ahoj Jbetak 18:37, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a remark: If NoPuzzleStranger is identical with the former user Wik (I hope I remember the name well), who had exactly the same behaviour (and could be recognized by his "antipathy" against the word Czechia and no communication with the users), I see a very low chance of any success, since he seems to outlive here anything like a loch ness...Juro 00:05, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your help! You might be intrigued to hear that NoPuzzleStranger has been permanently banned. I can empathize with Juro's assessment though: he'll surely be back. Jbetak 20:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page like Prague - Žižkov Television Tower cannot be referenced from outside (impossible to enter such name in address box). Such page was created in old times when UTF8 support was not available but someone tried to use non-Latin1 alphabet anyway. Redirects are cheap but such clearly wrong names are pretty annoying. I am trying to clean up Wikipedia from these mistakes and would welcome help in this. Pavel Vozenilek 02:06, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that page can be referenced from anywhere, just like any other page. To prove it, see [3], which I just put up. dbenbenn | talk 04:25, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, theoretically it may be referenced but no human will do it (and Google shows no links here). Even someone with a Central Europe ISO encoding of text will reach the page with correct dicritics, not the mangled one. I wonder whether cleanup of such clearly wrong page needs to be such complicated. Pavel Vozenilek 17:01, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page is not "clearly wrong". If you really want it deleted, you can always make a request at WP:RFD, though the redirect in question doesn't satisfy the conditions listed under "When should we delete a redirect?" (It actually satisfies 3 of the criteria listed there for keeping.) dbenbenn | talk 00:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Is this good enough?

http://www.wku.edu/~darlene.applegate/forensic/lab7/lab7.html

PiccoloNamek 04:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Pavel. Why did you remove some photos links (Milton Friedman, Vilfredo Pareto, ...)? It's not smpalinks! It is a good collection of photographies. Please look at them attentively.

VdgR 16:59, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. Just wanted to thank you for supporting my recent RfA. Cheers! --Ngb 18:48, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You are too kind. Yes, I'd be interested. Rl 07:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You were listed in the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Czech Republic page as living in or being associated with Czech Republic. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Czech Republic for instructions.Rmky87 08:48, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel, Although I appreciate your editing of various pages for content and spam, the external links I added were not a part of some scheme, and after reading through the list of what Wikipedia is not, I don't believe my additions are any sort of violation. The pages that I linked to are non-partisan and are purely non-profit research tools that I have found to be quite helpful when researching numerous topics. Please let me know what your specific problem with them was so that I can add to Wikipedia in the future. Thanks.