Jump to content

User talk:Vejvančický

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by T Cells (talk | contribs) at 11:55, 26 February 2015 (→‎Answer to your question: Re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Leave a new message

Vejvančický (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Please leave me new messages at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new section at the bottom.

Steadfast

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard&oldid=647205886#Resysop_request

Things like this make my day. Thank you. You need to be proud of what you did with this situation. All of it.
You have my respect, and that of many others. Sometimes the good guys can win, a little.
I'm sorry it took so long, and cost so much. That's wikipedia, unfortunately. Begoon talk 12:13, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back!

As a recently returned sysop, welcome back to the admin corps. We always need help at WP:ADMINBACKLOG if there are any areas you can help with that would be most welcomed. Happy mopping! — xaosflux Talk 14:59, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad that the recent case restored your faith in Wikipedia's ability to root out corruption. Jehochman Talk 15:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your evidence I became more familiar with the concept of reputation management, so thank you, Jehochman. I think that some of your comments and thoughts in the case were good. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 09:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the lead image! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to help, Gerda. I think that I can help more with the Bach cantatas, as I have access to the critical commentaries in the recent Bärenreiter Urtext, both in German and English, and I can also upload manuscripts from there - just ping me which one do you need and I'll take a look. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I go over them improving by the liturgical year. BWV 22 was for last Sunday. Now nothing until Oculi and Palm Sunday, followed by Easter. If you could also look up the next, that would be very helpful. Follow the link, find Church cantata (Bach)#Oculi, you get to BWV 54 and BWV 80a, followed by BWV 132 and BWV 1. - Different topic: "potentially misleading", - everything we add here is potentially misleading, but we don't stop editing because this is so, no? I don't believe that an infobox has more potential to mislead than other features. Parameters which might mislead should be omitted or phrased with special care, instead of not having that "peep in" - as Nihil novi called it - altogether. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I consider infoboxes oversimplifying and often unnecessary - and classical music is one of the areas where playing with "genres" and other similar "parameters" really could make confusion - the facts are often too complicated to be listed as isolated noncontextualized parameters in a table. But first of all, I really don't like imposing of any uniformed features to all articles, especially when they are imposed with little respect to editors who actually write the articles. But it's just my opinion. I don't like uniformity, imposed as a rule. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where you would find the attempt to "rule" that all articles uniformly have to have infoboxes. I never claimed that, nor did any other I know. (The view seems another oversimplification.) In articles I create, I usually also create an infobox. I leave articles of others alone, would do so even without restriction. In the actual case, however, I found that the diligent work of an IP, improved by several others, was simply reverted, without an explanation to the IP who really can't know that classical composers are topics to be handled differently from the rest of Wikipedia. In such cases, I am with the user who made good-faith efforts, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can accept both options, it's not a matter of life and death. I just said what I think. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 21:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bach cantatas

BWV 54 isn't there, Gerda. BWV 80a is lost, but there are autographs of BWV 80 or BWV 80b (Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott). Here is what I found and uploaded:

  • BWV 132, (Aria)
    BWV 132, (Aria)
  • BWV 1, violin part
    BWV 1, violin part

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! (Pinging works only with a "fresh" signature, but I am watching.) Will see what I can do, not "my " articles, and ownership is sooo important ;) - Did you know that if I start a Bach cantata from scratch or from a redirect, I may add an infobox, but not if there was already one sentence, - makes sooo much sense. I don't know how to explain that to our readers without a feeling of shame ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added both, lead image for BWV 1, next to the description for BWV 132 (one of the cases described above), - I wouldn't mind if you made it a lead image like the other. - Do you have images for St John and St Matthew? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked both scores and piano reductions (Bärenreiter Urtext) and there are no images, unfortunately. However, the complete St Matthew and St John autograph scores are at IMSLP, beautiful, and free to download/upload to Wikipedia. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for looking! The scores are included in the structure articles of John and Matthew --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Zlatá Praha

The writer Bohumil Hrabal was a member of the beer society Zlatá Praha

Hi, can you translate this further?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look at it. Initially I thought you are talking about this, as I associate the term Zlatá Praha with beer or beer societies. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Please check the grammar and flow, if you can. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:44, 20 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vin09

Vejančický, welcome back! Would you restore the autopatrolled right of Vin09? I know that Demiurge1000 had objected[1], who is now banned by WMF. Since 2014-08-02, Vin09 never had a single instance of copyvio. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hesitate to assign the user right to Vin09 because the copyvio issue was quite extensive, and it was not a long time ago. I suggest to you or Vin09 to ask for an independent review at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. Sanctions against another editor have nothing to do with this. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 14:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen the discussion. Thanks for User:OccultZone. I'll follow what User:Vejvančický has said.--Vin09 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Way Out (2014 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gypsy (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) 09:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer to your question

I removed the AfD notification from my talk page simply because I'd read it and I don't achieve my talk page. Many thanks for the permission. Cheers! . Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 21:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You've archived your talk page up to December 2014, since that time you remove messages manually. My personal impression is that you remove mainly messages you don't like but I may be mistaken and I want to assume good faith. In the edit history of your talk page I found multiple messages by others suggesting that your behavior in the recent past was problematic. I also found out that some of your article creations were deleted as copyright violations, i.e. Microbial growth monitoring techniques and Transcription activators in eukaryotes. I find this issue particularly problematic, as both the articles were well formatted and referenced, which increases the possibility that they might mislead editors patrolling new pages. I also noticed Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#New_editor... and Talk:Molecular_tools_for_gene_study#Original article was copyvio. I'm sorry for not noticing that previously. At WP:AUTOPATROLLED, I usually check article creations, block log and user talk pages for indications of possible problems. In this case, everything was OK, at first glance. I've removed the user right provisionally, as I think you are not perfectly familiar with the basic WP policies and you need more time to learn how to create valid articles. I apologize for the confusion, and please don't hesitate to ask me if you need any assistance. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I agree with this decision and commend you on being thorough. Swarm X 08:28, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you so much Vejvančický and Swarm, I respect your concern on copyvio and the competence issue I had in my first few weeks on wikipedia. I joined Wikipedia on June 2014, I wasn't in anyway familiar with policies then and I created copyvio articles (about 6 or 7 article) which was deleted between June and september 2014, the same period I had a competency issues at ANI which almost led to an indefinite block. Several experienced editors gave some useful advice which I followed and many thanks to DGG who mentored and changed my edit habit. After the case was closed at ANI in that September 2014 (about six months ago) my edit behavior had completely changed and having been familiar with basic Wikipedia's policies, I had created about 141 valid articles (well referenced) not including a redirect or disambiguation pages with no such concern, which clearly shows that am familiar with policies. I have no idea of what you mean by you need more time to learn how to create valid articles after about 141 valid articles had been created by the same editor.
    Yes! I achieved my talk page up to December 2014 and I removed the AfD notification from my talk page on January 2015 when I no longer achieve my talk page. Of what relevance is your concern about that and what is the correlation? Editors have the right to remove content from their talk page (the question of liking the content is irrelevant).
    I don't think your withdrawal of the tool is legitimate per your concerns and I see your action as abuse of administrators privilege. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 10:58, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd wait a bit more, but it's just my personal opinion, and I'm not the only administrator around here - your request is still open to assessment by others at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled. The WP:AUTOPATROLLED user right doesn't affect your editing in any way, so there's no urgent "need" for it. You have of course the right to remove content from your user talk page, so feel free to consider my remark as irrelevant. Thanks for all your good work. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 11:25, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Am aware that the user right doesn't affect my editing in any way and if you check Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Autopatrolled page history you will notice that I had suggested that to editor who applied without any familiarity with the tool and I was thanked for my suggestions and a request was also declined per my comment which clearly shows that I understood its usage. You are right, there is no urgent need for it but I've demonstrated an urgent need for it with my huge number of valid articles and am tired of receiving patrol notification days after my articles was created and some was still pending given much burden to NPP. My familiarity with the tool and Neutral point of view, Verifiability, Original Research, WP:What Wikipedia is not, Biographies of living persons and other policies and guidelines simply suggested that I can't submit inappropriate pages or inclusion of inappropriate content to valid articles. I can be trusted with the tool. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 11:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vejvančický&oldid=648926423"