User:Guy Peters/Talk:Ross Hedvicek

NPOV

Looks too much like a vanity page, by the way same problem as in Czech Wikipedia. wiki-vr 17:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Ross Hedvicek is a well known spammer. This is just a vanity page. Czech wiki is attacked similarly. Miraceti 22:44, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Miraceti is a well known glib and selfrighteous liar. He is probably a communist, too. Ferdinand30 16:22, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

"Ross Hedvicek" is a pseudonym, the real name is (probably) Rostislav Hedvíček. --Egg ✉ 13:04, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Ross Hedvicek is my real name - but the Egg does not have a decency to use his real name :-)

Both individuals are just conducting a personal attack against me, due to differences in opinions on political situation in Czech Republic. Ferdinand30 16:18, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Enough of notability to deal with it here?

Should it be upon me, I would delete this page. RH may be infamous enough to be included in Czech Wiki but I not sure whether anyone working here is willing to take the same pain that is associated with maintenance of Czech article.

The article is IMHO not worth of the likely escalation. Pavel Vozenilek 05:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Generaly I think what's notable for one language version is notable for all, so IMO it is necessary to take the pain with improving of the article.

At the same time I urge Ross to avoid editing article about himself. --Wikimol 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think. Generally, articles specific to language/country A have poor coverage in language B Wikipedias. With exceptions no one cares. Pavel Vozenilek 04:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so. Why should English speaking users be interested in, for instance, minor Czech politicians? Why should not minor Czech politicians be included in the Czech part of wiki? -- V. Z. 13:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes language specific article is quite long ... Reconcilee CHeesse

NPOV

Please stop reverting to vanity version of the article. The claim of Ross beeing widely known as a spammer and troll is factual and referenced. On the other hand "His writings are very popular among the Czech exile community and in the Czech Republic" is not true, his writings are absolutely marginal in Czech Republic. --Wikimol 17:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was reported to me by number of people that subject of this article, Ross Hedvicek, is currently being persecuted on Czech version of Wikipedia, due to his political opinions and articles. Ross Hedvicek is banned, blocked and harrassed by a group of local Czech vigilantes, including the above Wikimol - which, in my view, disqualifies Wikimol from being able to have NPoV - and I am politely asking him to refrain from any mudslinging and pushing his own PoV - including repeated reverting of originally NPoV article into PoV.

To "have NPOV" is inherently absurd. NPOV writing is not about having one specific POV, but about presenting relevant POVs correctly. My personal opinion on Ross is irrelevant. As the POV that Ross is mainly a troll and spammer is probably most widespread, it has to be presented in Wikipedia. As he is viewed as a fierce critic, it has to be presented.

Nobody provided any reference proving "His writings are very popular among the Czech exile community and in the Czech Republic". I wasn't able to find such reference myself - eg google knows about only 125 pages containing the phrase "jak paroubek kradl salámy" (tile of hedvicek's book) and look at the sites generally does not suggest the book is "very popular".

The "originaly NPOV" article is originally Ross Hedviceks vanity article about himself. The risk of creating vanitites is they may be turned into something NPOV unliked by the creator, but nothing can be done about it. No meatpuppets or socpuppets will change it. --Wikimol 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It was also brought to my attention that this user Wikimol and his fellow vigilantes attacked in the past in very similar fashion also Czech-born Harvard prof Lubos Motl [[1]] - so I guess that they have a history in doing that. YanYeoman 18:26, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

You'd do better not to trust your sources. For the record - I had never participated in that dispute, in fact never edited Luboš Motl's article, disscussion, VfD, User:Lumidek's talkpage, etc., as can be easily checked in the history.

--Wikimol 19:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

btw, please stay on topic. The discussion is about the article, not about Ross, and certainly not about me.

Well, on topic: Sadly obvious fact is that you have an agenda with this Ross Hedvicek article and it is far from being NPoV. I suggest that you take your vendetta business elsewhere. Stay away, please. YanYeoman 19:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to confirm that I am subject of severe harrassment on Czech Wikipedia (there is several more of such cases there) and that so-called Wikimol is among my tyrants. They posted various derogative statements in article about me in Czech Wikipedia and they are trying the same tactics here - as a sort of revenge for my newspaper articles, expressing opinions critical to their country and regime. I respectfully asking that he is stopped from attacking and terrorizing me even here. Ross.Hedvicek 15:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

RfC: non-noteable

Trying "Ross Hedvicek" in Google (which I know isn't the ultimate arbiter of relevance, but is a decent barometer) nets you: 1. his page, 2. a personal page of no particular note, and 3. this page. Trying to search "news" results in zero hits. None. Nada.

That is not a good sign for somebody who claims to have been quoted in major news outlets. And Newsmax is not a major outlet; one citation from a year ago does not notability make, or I'd have five flippin' pages on the Wikipedia. If somebody wanted to RfD, I'd support. For the record, since there seems to be some cross-Wiki conspiracy theorizing going on, I have no connection to anybody on the Czech wiki or on this page... I just came from the RfC and decided to investigate the front-page claims, which are in my opinion unwarranted in the English wiki. --MattShepherd 18:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My own search in Google for "Ross Hedvicek" gave me 69 600 hits, including his homepage, but also numerous links to various newspapers, incl. FortMyers NewsPress, K-W The record, St. Catharines Standard, etc.- if you do not like NewsMax :-) Thank you for your observation. Try again. YanYeoman 19:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

None of which, as shown below, are particularly noteable. And, as stated, NO "news" results, which means no reputable NEWS (which I believe is what's under question here) outlets of note are carrying his material. Thank you for attempting to defend, but I believe the onus is back on you to try to prove any sort of legitimate noteability. Which, one observes, is proving rather difficult. --MattShepherd 20:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Check the other version of the page. While I agree notability as journalist is problematic, the other - constantly reverted - claim of notability is Ross Hedvicek is notorious in Czech internet community as a spammer and troll (to the level of beeing used like "example.com" in mailserver howtos). Question would be, whether notable Czech spammers and trolls are Wikipedia-notable. I don't have strong opinion on that, genreally notable trolls may be Wikipedia-worthy - see GNAA. Given the fact such notoriety is hard to prove by reference (no opinion polls or "spammer hall of fame") the reference to the spammer fame is IMO quite credible. (Lupa.cz is in Czech internet as reputable as lets say Wired worldwide) --Wikimol 21:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Gee, what is your beef with that guy? Do you really hate him that much? YanYeoman 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, that's what it is. A white-hot hate. Definitely not NPoV. I believe that Wikimol's pursuing me here from Czech Wikipedia is qualifying as STALKING and I am asking for protection.Ross.Hedvicek 22:00, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

My Google search shows a little over 68,000 hits, although nearly all of them are in Czech, meaning I can't say whether they're meaningful or not. What are refered to as "articles" are actually entries on a personal blog. Best as I can tell, Hedvicek has been quoted in a couple of small Florida papers. I've been quoted in a couple of small Ohio papers, but that doesn't mean I deserve a WP article. This article is the third hit, which is never a good sign. If this was up for deletion I'd vote for it to go, but it's not and that's not the issue here.

The point of the RfC, which hasn't been addressed, is whether or not a number of anti-Hedvicek links should be cited as references. First off, there shouldn't be any links here that aren't in English. As this is an English-language encyclopedia, I'd think that should go without saying. However, even if they were in English they wouldn't be acceptable. They are personal pages, not reputable, verifiable sources. The tone of the accompanying notes shows that their inclusion is not without an agenda. If Wired calls Hedvicek a troll, we can include it here. Otherwise, it doesn't belong. Wikipedia is not a venue for flame wars.

To any user who may be Mr. Hedvicek, I don't see your edits as mailicious or unfactual. However, editing your own article gives the appearance of impropriety. I'll be watching this page, so be assured that any biased nonsense that gets added will be promptly removed. --djrobgordon 22:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am Ross Hedvicek and all I can say is "thank you"! I am not editing my own article. As you may noticed, Wikimol inserted his biased nonsense into my article again - these Czech guys simply would not listen to any reasoning. Please, please - remove that mud from my article (complete revert would be the best) and take some action against this harrassment. Thanks again. Ross.Hedvicek 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can try to shortly comment the first ten results of my Google on "Ross Hedvicek" Miraceti 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC):

Ross Hedvicek Home Page: no comment
RH Faktor: one of the articles on his server
DarkMaster * POOH.CZ * Ross Hedvicek a jeho větříček: Quite know Czech Internet person beginning by: Legendary Czech-American spammer Ross Hedvicek has sent me his message...
Fotogalerie Ross Hedvicek: Photogallery on one of Hedvicek's webs.
Ross Hedvicek: Národ po intelektuálním holocaustu?; Listárna www ...: One of Hedvicek's articles supporting his webs.
Ross Hedvíček - Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie: Article about Hedvicek at the Czech Wikipedia.
Diskuse:Ross Hedvíček - Wikipedie, otevřená encyklopedie: A talk page for the Czech article.
Re: Ross Hedvicek: A discussion at an email list ahoj of 2nd Faculty of Medicine of Charles University in Prague about Hedvicek's methods of spamming. Quote: I did already twice (unsubscription from Hedvicek's email list)!!! He even subscribed an entire ahoj list (may be you remember it)!
Blog - Ross Hedvicek (blog.sme.sk) A blog of Hedvicek.
Byvali prislu_nici StB a jejich aktivity dnes Mention about Hedvicek and his pages in an email correspondence of Petr Cibulka, a controversial "hunter" of communist secret agents. It's quite unclear what this page should actually say; unbelievably messy webpage.

Miraceti 23:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

And what does it prove, Miraceti? That I wrote more published articles than anybody else you know? That I pissed off more nationalist and communist zealots (like you)than anybody else you know? Well, thats'why I am famous and you are not! Thats'why your vendetta squad is after me and trying to mudsling me and discredit me as much as you can? Go back behind your Iron curtain please and stay there. I am an American, not Czech! Ross.Hedvicek 00:58, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

"Links" are not included as links, but as reference. However, do give foreign-language references where appropriate. If quoting from a foreign-language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it. (WP:CITE) The accompanying notes are not translations, but sumarize in English the point why the reference is included. Unfortunately I see the "agenda" note is quite catching, but please try to imagine yourself and presume - for the sake of discussion - someone is famous spammer, to the level of beeing used as example in howtos. How you would write and reference article about such - non-English - famous spammer and troll?

Regarding relevancy, Lupa.cz is in Czech language web maybe one of highest relevant sites about web, definitely comparable to Wired. Obviously hard to proove you anything about non-English web because lack of English reference. (but see google: link:lupa.cz 34,400 linking to www.lupa.cz. link:vlada.cz 1,440 linking to www.vlada.cz. - which is the offical site of Czech government link:www.seznam.cz 68,300 linking to www.seznam.cz - which is the biggest czech portal and #1 alexa ranking in Czech language - just the magnitude comparison shows somwthing)

If it was in English, nobody would seriously come with the idea of disputing Lupa's relevancy.

http://math.feld.cvut.cz is academic server on faculty of electrical engineering of Czech Technical University and the document is technical paper

Mentioned references are not crusades against Hedvicek, they just illustrate he is so famous as spammer he got to neutral articles about different topic and technical documentation as an example of spammer. --Wikimol 23:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand Czech perfectly and I never heard about Lupa.cz - so much for your boasting about your alleged proof. I cringe at your repeated claims that I am "so famous" in your country only for all the wrongs reasons. I do not want to have anything to do with your country - as I made perfectly and VERY LOUDLY clear numerous times - please take your vengeful nationalist agenda with you, terrorize somebody else on your Czech Wikipedia and leave me alone here. Ross.Hedvicek 00:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "proof" of your spamming. It's reference on usual opinion & fame on Czech language internet. "Proofs" are e.g. your spams archived in various newsgroup archives, but such research generaly doesn't belong to Wikipedia.

I wouldn't have created the article (as there are obviously more important and interesting subjects), but as the article has been created, it has to be NPOV and adhere to Wikipedia standard. (Expecially given its prominent position in Google.)

If you think no article would be better than NPOV article, you may want to try nominate it for deletion - it seems it would gain some support. --Wikimol 01:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My Google search turns up 14,900 hits, 370 of which are in English. They appear to be low quality. The article squeaks over the bar of notability. The conduct, however, is reprehensible. I'm surprised to see anyone over the age of twelve say, "Well, thats'why [sic] I am famous and you are not!" You're not so big, Mr. Hedvicek. Clean up your act. Durova 02:47, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken another look at the disputed references. The Lupa link is legit, and according to the admitedly rudimentary translator I used, does make reference to Mr. Hedvicek being a known spammer. I'd call this a notable, verifiable source.

The other two are more problematic. I'm not clear on whether the second reference is a published source or simply a self-published paper. Either way, all it proves is that one person is annoyed enough by Hedvicek's emails to block them.

The final source is a posting on a personal blogs. Blogs are not considered reliable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia.

I wouldn't be shocked if it turns out Hedvicek is sending out mass emails. However, I'd feel more comfortable having that point made here if he was the main subject of a story, or a section of a story, rather than just a passing reference. --djrobgordon 03:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment: Lupa is not Czech Wired, since it is not printed, but rather Czech Slashdot. It is true that Mr. Hedvíček is accused being a spammer by Czech postcommunists and bloggers. But this accusation is not true since Mr. Hedvíček does not send unsolicited commercial e-mails. Both US and Czech law don't consider unsolicited non-commercial e-mails as spam.

It is obvious that Mr. Hedvíček is wikistalked by postcommunists from personal reasons. -- V. Z. 14:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, Slashdot is popular technology-related website, updated many times daily with articles that are short summaries of stories on other websites with links to the stories The similarity with Lupa is its popular technology-related website, where disscussion is allowed under articles. That's the similarity. On the other hand Lupa is published magazine with editorial policy, although published on the web. Articles are several pages long and rarely consist of link to other story.

Words are not defined by the law, but by their usage in language. Non-commercial, political, religious,... e-mail spam is of course still a spam. Btw as a lawer you probably know word "spam" is never mentioned in Czech law, so your argument has even bad premise. --Wikimol 14:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to compare Wired to something Czech, Chip or former Softwarové noviny would be more appropriate. Lupa is merely a web site, with no employed journalist, just few editors. It publishes almost everything sent to it. Therefore Mr. Hedvíček can easily be accused being a spammer by his personal enemies. Authority of Lupa in this case is not more than ordinary blog. Or can you insist on CEO's articles? :-)

Legal terms are defined by law, or more exactly by legal usage. You can call what you do to Mr. Hedvíček on cs: as a murder. But there is no homicide and that's why it would be inappropriate. The same goes for spamming as law regulates it. Non-commercial, political, religious e-mails are not spam, since spamming is defined as offence. -- V. Z. 15:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Cyberstalking

I would like to bring your attention to article on cyberstalking [2] and state clearly that I feel to be a victim of the same in this specific case. I am calling for a protection and for an action against my Czech stalkers - namely Wikimol, Miraceti, Egg, Wiki-vr (I am sure that I will be able to identify the others if they will be called in). Thank you. Ross.Hedvicek 01:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

As it seems this ad hominem argumentation will repeat ad nauseam. My involvement with you apart from this article

I receive occasional spam
I witnessed several flamewars initited by you in various newsgroups

this holds for great number of internet users who remember mid 1990s Czech language internet and have public email

I had quoted you as an example of troll and/or spammer

quite usual

on cs: I had

moved and commented on your request for redefinition of spam, how is understood in CZ (Wikipedia village pump is not a place to request redefinition of general words. Spam in Czech means the same as in English)
made 3 edits to cs:Ross Hedvicek article (of several hundreds)
corrected article cs:Neokomunismus, founded by you, to include more usual meaning of the neologism
as a CheckUser, fullfilled one request to check identity of a wikipedian accussed of beeing your suckpoppet

and maybe made some minor comments or changes on cs: related to your activity which I don't know about and can't find by glimpse in my contributions . Its statistically impropable not to meet on cs:.

From what I can testify about myself, I generally don't care about what you do or say with exception of Wikipedia related things. Which is one reason why I started editing this article - I know number of people is involved in various conflicts with you, and thought it would be better if such flamable topic will be edited by someone uninvolved yet informed. --Wikimol 02:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I am on Czech Internet since 1995. I never received any spam from Mr. Hedvíček, although I published my e-mail address in many discussions, including Lupa. --- V. Z. 14:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting your deep-rooted interest in damaging my reputation and your long history following me = stalking me. I have no further comments - maybe except: Could you please publicly admit here how your squad is harrassing other Wikipedians on totalitarian Czech Wikipedia? People without ability to speak English like me and thus unable to let the world know what kind of Wikipedia gulag you have created on Czech Wikipedia? Maybe that's the real reason why you are trying to discredit me here - so when I will talk about it, so I would not be trusted? Well, you should try harder - word is getting out. [3] Ross.Hedvicek 14:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hedvicek, if there is any truth to your assertions then this is the wrong way of raising them. Stalking is a strong term. It also necessitates a simple set of actions. Either:

It's legitimate, in which the proper response is to avoid all response to the stalker and collect evidence to present to administrative authorities. Or...
It's not legitimate, in which case it's counterproductive to mention the word at all. Wikipedia:No angry mastodons

It's bad form to edit an article about yourself and worse form to insult people as you do so. I wouldn't be surprised if this leads to an RfC or RfA. Tone it down. Durova 00:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Durova, I am doing exactly that - trying to get attention to the case - and you can not complaint against the Czech Wikipedia at Czech Wikipedia. Get real. RfA would be ideal. Please stop patronizing and help me - I am not talking crap. I will be grateful for any help. And I am not editing page about myself - this is TALK page! Ross.Hedvicek 00:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

The conduct I see makes it very hard to take your complaints seriously. Durova 07:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, tell me about your prejudices. I will do my best to explain it. Ross.Hedvicek 14:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Hedvicek, when I stated that this was headed in direction of RfC and RfA I meant that someone is likely to initiate the dispute resolution process regarding your own individual conduct. The RfC on the article is a step in that direction. Your actions demonstrate consistent disregard for Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Civility. Case in point: "Okay, tell me about your prejudices." This implies rejection of all criticism against yourself. Based on that and on your other posts, I doubt you will read this feedback introspectively and improve your own conduct. Frankly I write these words more in anticipation that they will be cited in a formal proceeding as part of a list of prior attempts to resolve conflict. You seem to thrive on conflict and enjoy being the center of attention, so perhaps that prospect cannot deter you. Mr. Hedvicek, I know a few things about stalking. There are two types of people who make stalking claims. One is genuinely mystified and frightened by an extreme set of behaviors. Those people's first priority is to extract themselves and their loved ones from potential danger. You don't act like that kind of person, Mr. Hedvicek. You act like the other kind. And as such you deserve a strong reprimand because irresponsible claims mean that genuine stalking victims sometimes have more trouble getting help. If past performance is any indication of future behavior I expect you to follow with some misrepresentation of these words, another veiled insult, and an attempt to draw me into a dispute either as your supporter or as a sparring partner. It's a rather tiresome bag of tricks. I hope someday you feel as ashamed as you ought to be. Durova 18:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised at your quick assessment of me. I believe that you completely misread the whole situation with Czech Wikipedia and I would be grateful if you would avoid further comments on it. Thanks. Ross.Hedvicek 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV again

NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. This article doesn't satisfy the rule. Ross Hedvicek is probably the most famous Czech-speaking spammer (maybe with one competitor) and one of the most famous trolls. Current article version doesn't even mention it, apart from the proportionality. On the other hand the claims about his fame as a political commentator and popularity among czech emigrants comes from himself or his near friends. --Egg ✉ 11:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Compare: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

I am definitely impressed by your repeated proclamations of me being "most famous" in this and "most famous" in that, but I dare to suggest (apart from saying that you claims are false) that this is English Wikipedia and should not be flooded by unproved references in other languages. I suggest that one line sentence saying that "while there are no complaints against Ross Hedvicek in the whole stinking world, he is considered to be a spammer by several people in Czech republic (all of them present here)strictly because his political opinions, and those accusers can be counted on fingers of your LEFT hand." There is no reason why suspicious and baseless accusations in other languages should fill MOST article about person in English Wikipedia. Would this make you vengeful soul happy, Egg? Ross.Hedvicek 14:28, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I proppose another wording of the spammer part, which may (I hope) allow more factual disscussion: In the Czech internet community he is known as a fierce critic of contemporary Czech reality. He often spreads his message in the form of mass mailing (vague estimete by Petr Olšák speaks about tens of thousands messages ref1). Most recipients never requested such emails. Because of that, Ross Hedvicek is frequently called spammer (ref2) and sometimes even named as an example of spammer (ref3). Hedvicek and his supporters do not consider such mails are spam possibly with exception of partially commercial emails in which he promoted his book. (ref4)

He often spreads his message in the form of mass mailing

Is completely factual and I hope at least this is undisputed.

(vague estimete by Petr Olšák speaks about tens of thousands messages ref1)

This is really vague guess based on that "I blocked him" text in the mailserver description. On the other hand, Olšák (http://math.feld.cvut.cz/olsak/) is not some Mr. Smith, but very reputable expert in TeX and reputable expert in Linux. In fact Olšák would be probably more Wikipedia-worthy than Hedviciek.
Generally it would be nice to have also an estimate from Ross Hedvicek himself, if anybody is able to find it e.g. on his website. I found a text where he speaks about great number of emails.

Most recipients never requested such emails.

This is factual and undisputable, so I hope it will be also undisputed and can go without reference.

Ross Hedvicek is frequently called spammer

This is report of signifficant POV. It can be referenced, and blogs are IMO acceptable in this case. Personal pages can be used on Wikipedia as primary sources about opinions of their authours.

and has been even named as an example of spammer.

Report of POV, can be refenced by the Patrik Zandl article on Lupa. Or it can be directly atributed to Patrik Zandl, who is quite famous journalist and enterprenour on Czech internet .

Hedvicek and his supporters do not consider such mails are spam, with possible exception of partially commercial emails, in which he promoted his book.

This is report on POV, based on part of article in Czech Wikipedia. Refence to some text selfpublished by Ross Hedvicek would be great, unfortunately on cs: it is unreferenced. Maybe, can be included even unreferenced, if undisputed. --Wikimol 18:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

My comment is that a false accusation of being a spammer is just a sneaky way for those Czech vigilantes to get back at me and to divert attention from totalitarianism happenning on Czech Wiki. It is completely unfounded and untrue. My mailing list has several thousand names, most of them outside Czech Republic. There is not a single recipient on my list who is getting my articles againts their will. There was several complaints against my articles (less than 5) from Czech Republic, never any complaints from other countries. In all cases I was able to prove that complaining Czechs were receiving my articles from somebody else then me, i.e. it was forwarded to them by their own friends, who in fact were on my list. I also never heard about alleged "authorities" of Czech Internet like Patrik Zandl or Petr Olsak (I see those names for the very first time). I, in fact, asked several times that defamation article about me on Czech Wikipedia is removed and completely deleted. My request for deletion was denied by these very people (Wikimol, Miraceti) because they WANT article about me - but full of lies and derogative contents. Ross.Hedvicek 23:40, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, (vague estimate by Petr Olšák speaks about tens of thousands messages) should be probably changed to (According to Hedvicek, the list has several thousand names. Vague estimate by Petr Olšák speaks generally about tens of thousands messages.).

And Hedvicek and his supporters do not consider such mails are spam, with possible exception of partially commercial emails, in which he promoted his book. to According to Hedvicek, none of the recipient is getting the mails againts their will, and several complainers were getting the mails forwarded by their friends.

I think it's fine we are finally moving somewhere. I hope YanYeoman who was most active in removing the POV will also join.

As for the less relevant part - history shows both the article here and on Czech Wikipedia were created by you. On cs: Miraceti was the first who put it to VfD, in first edit after creation. [9]. I didn't participated in the votes. All I can say is I'm really not delighted by the existence of the articles.

Regarding your constant complains about my purported misbehaviour - please either get real and stop the accusations or use standard Wikipedia dispute resolution tools as RfC where you may ask for 3rd party comments on my behaviour, or request arbitration. My motivation here is the article and I'm generally uninterested in engaging in personal dispute with you. Unless your attacks agains me reach some extraordinary intensity or scope, I'm not likely to initiate RfC on your conduct myself. If you want to make some complains about Czech Wikipedia to international community, the reasonable place would be http://meta.wikimedia.org. Or you may write a letter to Wikimedia foundation or mailinglist or such places. As an arbitration request in your cs: case has been just opened in cs: by local cs: ArbCom, you may also focus on that and wait. This is just English language Wikipedia, not Headquarters of the World. --Wikimol 11:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

..on the names you see for the first time - Zandl was on tv last wednesday [10], giving opinion on this telco merge in czech tv public broadcaster's main annalytic news. I'm not going to search other reference, use google. I guess it would be in order of hundreds to thousands mentions in major media. Olsak is known to at least every other Czech Tex user, which I admit is fame limited to specific group rooted mainly in academia. Apart from that he is quite active in Czech Linux community and wrote some textbooks I did not said he is an "authority of Czech internet". --Wikimol 11:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie Comparison

I am taken aback by your fanatical insistence on assasinating the character of Ross Hedvicek - as I see, Wikimol AGAIN inserted his accusations.

This brings me to Salman Rushdie comparison: He is a decent author, just like Ross Hedvicek, and nobody in the Western world has any beef with him. Of course there is a bunch a religious nuts from the East, who hate him with a passion (just like you obviously hate Mr. Hedvicek). I do not know what is written about Salman Rushie in Iranian Wikipedia - but I bet it is not nice and I doubt it is NPoV. But in English Wikipedia (please check) he is not referred as BLASPHEMOUS AUTHOR (because we don't see it that way). The same way in English Wikipedia Mr. Hedvicek should not be referred as a spammer - because we do not see him that way. It is not relevant that some alleged authorities - is that Zandl guy something like Ayatolah Khomeini? Can he issue a fatwa for alleged spamming? - in your country disagree. They are not relevant for NPoV here. YanYeoman 17:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Programs

What is behind the uncertain statement about Hedvicek's autorship of computer programs? Which ones? Are they notable? --Egg ✉ 11:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they are notable, but I have no intention to disclose any new information (outside of the ones already publicly known)for a fear that those information will be twisted and abused by a vicious kind of Czech people like you. You proved in the past that you are not beyond of completely inventing information about me, including making up my personal data and posting a picture of my late friend in my article, with a false claim it is me. Why don't you admit to all present non-Czechs here that what you are doing to me (harrassment, stalking, cyber-terrorism) is quite common in Czech Wikipedia and that you're doing the same or worse to people like V. Z. or Jvano or others? Ross.Hedvicek 14:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Egg, none of my programs are secret, but you just have proved what your intentions are - that all you are interested in is to stalk and harrass me - little by little. It is just malicious. Ross.Hedvicek 20:00, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD (Article for Deletion)

To Wikimol and Miraceti: I know that you people from Czech Republic consider Americans slightly backwarded - but we REALLY do not have daily access to Czech TV, therefore nobody could watch here your famous expert Patrik Zandl or any authorities you admire. We are probably missing a lot, but no, there is no access to Czech TV here.

Second theme: Ross Hedvicek is writing me that he is not really interested to have any articles about him (especially in the light of your recent contributions)in either English Wiki or Czech Wiki. Would you vote for fast deletion of his article here and would you take care of deletion of his article in Czech Wikipedia? Fast? That would solve all unneccessary problems and arguing. Do we have a deal? YanYeoman 13:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Internet access would be enough. I'm slightly confused what's your point - either you and Ross have little knowledge of Czech internet, in which case I don't know how you can make claims he is not considered spammer, he is considered spammer only by few people here editing Wikipedia, and so on. Or you have decent knowledge of Czech internet, in which case it's strange Ross Hedvicek has seen Zandl's name here for the first time, seen lupa.cz here for the first time,...

If it's nominated, I won't vote against. I considered nominating it for deletion as it was suggested in RfC, but I have problem voting.

On one hand, in principle, I like to think about Wikipedia as about one project with different languge version. In an ideal utopic Wikipedia, every article would be in all langugaes. As Czech community allready voted 2 times (I did not participated in the votes), showing he is considered notable enough, I'd respect such decision in almost all cases. Other point is I believe Ross Hedvicek is Wikipedia notable. Not by wide margin, but notable, mainly because of spamming and trolling fame.
On the other hand, pragmatically, the effort connected to maintaince of the article, his constant attacks, etc ... make the "cost" of the article overwhelmingly improportional to its "value".

As a result, I would probably present this arguments and let others decide.

I can't "take care of deletion of his article" on Czech wiki, or "make a deal about it", no way. Czech community allready voted twice, and the article was kept. Only thing I could theoretically technically do would be to make fool of myself by nomitating it for the third time (and voting for deletion) - I suppose the vote would be keep just because of the annoyance of users by perpetual voting about same article. But I won't do that. IMO it would be very bad thing if Wikipedia content was dependant on such "deals" (we'll do this, and you'll push Wikipedia content that way). --Wikimol 14:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Czechs relies on authorities and personal connections too much. I know Patrick Zandl, because I live in the Czech Republic and because I watch Czech Internet. I do not know him very well, because I was not interested nor in Mobil.cz, nor in Marigold.cz. For me he is not a semigod as for you.

Lupa is famous only for people interested in Internet protocols, providers, and such stuff. Mr. Hedvíček is keen on politics and Lupa has nothing to do with it.

I agree that the Wikipedia as a whole is only one project. But be realistic. We cannot have in cs: an article about every minor US actor.

spamming and trolling fame. These character assassinating statements shall be attributed very carefully. Only in case of Wikipedia notable persons said them, they can be included, IMHO.

Czech community allready voted twice, and the article was kept. Yes, but you present no care of NPOV. You block everybody who would correct lies and false accusations, for example myself.

I agree with YanYeoman below very much. The problem is different attitude of US democrats and Czech postcommunists. -- V. Z. 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So, if I am reading you right, while you repeatedly recognize Hedvicek's notability, your only interest in English article about him is to insert derogative comments and accusation into the article? And on top of it derogative comments and accusations nobody in the rest of the whole world makes or agrees on, but a few Czechs? What about other solution? You back off and leave the English article about Ross Hedvicek without your accusations and leave those derogative comment only in Czech version of article? Czechs would be happy and Americans as well. What do you think? BTW - are you aware that Ross Hedvicek is (only in Czech Republic) a certified felon (sentenced in absence for variety of crimes only commies could consider crimes) and in the same moment in the U.S. those sentences and alleged crimes are completely disregarded? I am beginning to believe that we have some social and cultural differences in understanding various situations and acts. YanYeoman 15:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

YanYeoman, why are you trying to make a "deal" with us instead of trying to find some formulations for the article, that would satisfy Wikipedia:NPOV rule? We are not communist and Czechia is not a communist country as Hedvicek suggests. I resent neocommunists and I signed a petition called No talk with communists. I have no problem with Hedvicek's opinions, I respect them. The problem is that current article content doesn't satisfy the NPOV rule, see my reasoning above. There can be no "deals" about the NPOV rule. The only thing we can do is to find a way to satisfy it. --Egg ✉ 15:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The way I am reading Wikipedia:NPOV rules, there should no mentioning of Mr. Hedvicek's alleged spamming because the numbers are simply not justifying it (thousands of people on his list and only 3-4 complaining about spam? That ridiculous!). And your insistence on it smells badly as a vengeful agenda. I was just trying to be polite towards you with offering a deal. I apologize. Strictly by the MPoV rules, Ross Hedvicek is as clean as a whistle. YanYeoman 16:20, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikimol, is the Czech version of article nominated for deletion, too? It should be. Please post a link here from Czech Wiki. Thanks. YanYeoman 19:36, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Claims of notability

Basically, there are 3 main claims of notability

Notable author and journalist. This is view of Hedvicek and his freinds, and is disputed by several other editors.
In Czech language internet, he is notorious for spamming and trolling. He is probably the most known policical spammer and possibly most known non-corporate spammer. This is IMO most common reason of knowlede in Czech internet. This claim is disputed by Hedvicek and his friends, and was subject of RfC.
He published a book in Czech. This is relatively undisputed.

--Wikimol 19:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I have found that aside of the book, he also wrote a decent volume of articles in English and quite extraordinary amount of articles in Czech (but this is why you are after him, do ya?). All of that is verifiable on the internet - thus it is not "according to his own estimate" how you love to sneer at it. YanYeoman 21:57, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought you insists beeing verifiable on internet is not enough. The fact Hedvicek is a spammer and troll is also easily verifiable on the internet, it's enough to know Czech, use google and read. The spams pop out from various newsgroup archives, complains of recipients... the trolling is obvious in variousnewsgroups, in disscussion under news articles. Yet we are here disscussing how to reference the spamming from reports in published sources. --Wikimol 22:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Is article even the right word. They look like entries on a personal blog to me. Article gives the impression that they've been independently published. Sorry if this is splitting hairs. --djrobgordon 05:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Judgment by numbers – Czech this out.

I resent being unjustifiably, erroneously not to mention libelously called a spammer by my Czech communist enemies. Oh, they claim to not be full-fledged raging Stalinist communists? Well isn’t that special! I guess they take umbrage to their own actions and tactics when they’re used against them. Tough luck – they continue to do it to me so I will make a concerted effort to do it to them.

Let’s look at it from a statistics point of view. According to the Lenin-saluting communist Czech vendetta squad on this board, I am a spammer because several (3-6) people from the Czech Republic think so and called me that. Never mind the fact that they are no longer on my list! Based on the size of my mailing list (which numbers in the thousands) they are just a tiny fraction of a fraction of one percent. However, to some brainwashed Marx-idolizing Czechs it does justify this accusation and they insist on including this derogatory label in my articles.

I claim, here and now, that I and a number of other people hold with utmost conviction that Wikimol, Miraceti and Radouch (together with several of their friends on the Czech Wikipedia) are full-fledged communist Marxists and I respectfully request the right to call them as a such. If such permission is not given, I will call them that anyway – just like they have done to me. I reserve the right (and will exercise it) to include a note about their communist and Marxist allegiances in any articles written about them – even though I doubt any will be written about such impotent and completely irrelevant figures.

Justice for all. After all – we are not living behind the Iron Curtain. They may wish the Iron Curtain still remained and that the glorious Union of Soviet Social Republics was still a formidable power, however, they live a life of delusion. I, as an American citizen, have certain unalienable rights, one of them being the right to freedom of expression and freedom of speech. However, they live in the People’s Republic of China, err, sorry, the Czech Republic, and not in the United States and as such know nothing of personal freedoms, but that does not give them the right to publicly defame me with their libelous tripe. Ross.Hedvicek 18:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this the way how you always "win" discussions? Off topic pointless attacks ad hominem, invectives, paranoid conspiracy theories, and lies. OK, then you win. Such "discussion" is beneath my dignity. --Egg ✉ 20:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not a Lenin-saluter, nor a Czech, nor a Communist. I stopped by due to a RfC, did my own poking around, and came to the conclusion that you are as noteable as the guy down my street that writes angry letters to every newspaper in the country about flouride in the drinking water: not noteable at all. I wrote a quite level response to the RfC on my findings -- your non-noteability -- and got condescended to by one of your fans. I don't think anyone reading this page will come away with negative impressions of anyone but you: you are non-noteable in the English Wikipedia, and no amount of conspiracy theories will change that. Wikipedia is a group effort, and one lone shrieking voice does not noteability make. I'm nominating this article for deletion on principle alone. --MattShepherd 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)