This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 70

←

Archive 73

Archive 74

Archive 75

Archive 76

Archive 77

→

Archive 80

I'm looking at Draft:Plymouth Tube. It was declined in October 2018 by Bkissin, and not touched by a human until Lapablo tagged it for G13 earlier today. FloridaArmy (the author), then removed the tag and re-submitted it with no changes. Does this really reset the G13 clock? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• RoySmith I think an edit automatically resets the clock. But i don't think resubmitting without any changes count as it was declined in the first place and abandoned until being tagged for G13. I have seen cases where authors just add a "." then the G13 gets reverted. Lapablo (talk) 15:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
• Any human edit, no matter how trifling, should reset the clock. But that's only natural: the criterion is content-blind (it applies regardless of quality or potential of the draft), so it needs to be consistently content-blind (it stops applying once any edit is made, regardless of the quality of this edit). And submitting a draft for review is as major an edit as it can get. – Uanfala (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that submitting a draft could be a major event, if the submission was at the end of a series of edits. But, if the last that that happened to the article was to decline a previous submission, resubmitting it with no changes seems rather trifling to me. It's not even an edit to the content, just to the metadata guiding it through the AfC process. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a great fan of seeing drafts resubmitted without changes either, but my point is that any (re)submission is a major edit: fundamentally, it's a strong statement that the draft is believed to be mainspace worthy. As I see it, it has the same relative weight as a "keep" !vote in an AfD; you wouldn't normally speedy delete an article if it's at AfD and there have been valid "keep" !votes, would you? – Uanfala (talk) 16:09, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems more like an example of WP:OTHERPARENT to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Even if it is, the act of asking is a significant edit. If you think the draft should be deleted, nominate it for deletion. If you don't think it should be deleted then why are you discussing it here? Speedy deletion is explicitly only for uncontroversial cases where the letter and spirit of the criterion applies, if (as here) one or the other does not then speedy deletion is not appropriate. Thryduulf (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Adding to this, if an editor systematically tries to game the system by making minor edits to reset the clock, the editor can still be dealt with. Regards SoWhy 12:47, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

It seems like there should be some.time provided between notification of a G13 and deletion. I'm not a machine. As far as resubmitting Plymouth Tube, why isn't it notable? Take it to a.deletion discussion and let's get a consensus.FloridaArmy (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Assuming we're talking about drafts with meaningful content, I do wish this took into account the activity of the primary contributor (assuming there's a primary contributor, which is usually the case). If a user creates a draft and does nothing else or if a user hasn't been around in a year, then G13 may make sense. But if the person is still active, there's no benefit to a deletion being speedy. At minimum there should be a message with some lead time before the deletion happens (like a prod, although I seem to recall something like that being proposed and rejected in the past -- can't keep track of all the RfCs throughout the slow erosion of the draft namespace over the last 3-4 years). Eh. Most users don't work in drafts, but there's no good reason to antagonize those who do with pedantry concerning pages that aren't indexed and nobody ever sees other than people looking for maintenance jobs. This isn't a judgment for/against the current topic btw. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:21, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, this should reset the G13 clock. As long as we allow WP:REFUND/G13, removing the speedy tag/resubmitting without changes avoids going through a completely unnecessary deletion and undeletion, saving time for everyone. —Kusma (t·c) 09:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
• I genuinely don't understand why G13 isn't actually a PROD. If after six months someone is still around and editing and want to save a draft what's the harm? If it's bad content it can go to MfD but if it's just an imperfect article needing attention why are we acting like we have a deadline? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • A PROD system would make more sense, and it would realistically be no extra work, but I think it might not feel as emotionally satisfying to some editors. PROD feels more like "Eh, that's not really wanted", and CSD feels more like "Die, horrible scum!"
    Also, sending contested drafts to AFD (i.e., the place with the most people who are familiar with notability; the place against whose standards the AFC draft acceptance process is supposed to be measured against) would make more sense than sending it to MFD. We don't have an ideal system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    A PROD would just invite the same sort of nonsense. AfC has enough to do. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    I concur. AFC has very large backlog. Getting rid of the drafts that don't get improved, is one way to clean up Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a indefinite web hosting website. Of course, promising drafts should be G13 postponed. Masum Reza^📞 16:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

    User:Kudpung, what exactly is "the same sort of nonsense" that a PROD would invite, and how exactly would slapping {{draft-prod}} on a long-ignored draft, instead of slapping {{db-draft}} on it, increase Articles for Creation's workload? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, perhaps you need to get up to speed on what goes on at NPP and AfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Kudpung, pointing out that I don't (in your opinion) know the information that I asked you to provide does not technically constitute an answer to my questions. Let me repeat them:

1. What exactly is "the same sort of nonsense" that a PROD would invite?
2. How exactly would slapping {{draft-prod}} on a long-ignored draft, instead of slapping {{db-draft}} on it, increase Articles for Creation's workload? (NB: Not NPP's workload: AFC's. And actual "workload", not "pages existing without anyone working on them".)

If you can't provide concrete and specific answers to these questions, I'm going to be forced to conclude that the answers sound a lot like (1) "I guess that since changing anything in the draft resets the db-draft process anyway, someone resetting the clock by removing a prod template isn't very different in practice after all", and (2) "Upon proper reflection, since neither CSD nor PROD tags re-submit drafts to AFC, it probably won't affect AFC very much, after all". I'd be happy to discover that you have different answers to my questions, or even answers that are basically the same but expand upon it in detail, but so far, your non-answer is non-convincing with respect to convincing me that PROD is a worse process than CSD for this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

PROD is worse than CSD because PROD, unlike CSD, is not objective but instead relies on watchlisters. Draftspace doesn’t have watchlisters, and so draftprod amounts to a non-objective CSD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• • WhatamIdoing, after thinking about it for 5 seconds, discussing drafts at AFD actually sounds like not a bad idea. Has this been discussed and shot down before? —Kusma (t·c) 10:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

    • @Kusma: I don't know if this has been discussed before, but in general adding more things to AfD gets shot down because the venue is already too busy for everything currently nominated to get enough attention. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

      Thryduulf, indeed AFD is a bit understaffed, but I don't see why people interested in discussing drafts couldn't be drafted (haha) to go over there and help out, leaving MfD for stuff that really isn't an encyclopaedia article or intending to be one. —Kusma (t·c) 11:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

      I agree. Sending it to MFD doesn't save net effort (unless someone thinks the MFD regulars would invest less effort because they're sloppier, which is an insulting idea). "I spend one hour at AFD" or "I spend one hour at MFD" is ultimately the same amount of effort and the same opportunity cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

      AfD is much more work per page than MfD because MfD doesn’t examine questions of notability. MfD doesn’t consider notability of drafts because that is the whole point of the draft being in draftspace, the question of notability is uncertain. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

• Any edit resets the G13 clock. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

In the thread titled How strict is G13?, above, I was told by SmokeyJoe, Any edit resets the G13 clock, which I grudgingly went along with. But, surely there's some lower bound? Back in October 2018 (10 months ago), I restored and draftified Amarachi Orjinma at User:HandsomeBoy's request. At that time, a couple of substantial edits were made to the draft. In December, one more word was changed. That was 8 months ago, so this would be WP:G13-able, were it not for a single edit made in March, which deleted one character of whitespace. Are we really at the point where somebody can keep a draft alive forever just by making single-character whitespace changes every few months? -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that's a tricky one because it's been through AfD. In general if someone is working towards encyclopedic content with a reasonable claim of notability I take a pretty strong NODEADLINE view. However, for content already judged not-notable that does change the equation somewhat. For me, if someone cares enough to keep a draft alive every few months, that's more attention than some of our articles get, and so while the AfD is complicating issue for me not enough to suggest that it overrides the safeguards of a CSD. In the end of it doesn't on Wikipedia there's always MfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• How strict is G13? If anyone needs to ask, tell them "Any edit resets the G13 clock".

Does this include adding the template {{Db-g13}}? No. Does this include a bot removing a non-free image or mainspace category? Probably no. Does this include a failed MfD nomination? Yes, even if the MfD nomination is "keep, leave it for G13".

The driving purpose of G13 was to remove the tens of thousands of ancient forgotten abandoned draftspace pages (mostly authored by IPs), largely motivated by the presence amongst them of BLP and copyright violations. Few *needed* to be deleted, but sorting the offensive from the worthless was properly accepted as a much bigger cost than mass deleting the worthless.

There was supposed to be a bot warning authors of upcoming G13 eligibility, and then doing the G13 deletions, and notifying the author, with nicely wordsmithed language, of the deletion and of how they can freely and automatically get it back via WP:REFUND.

If you find an draft under six months since the last edit, but needing deletion promptly (eg BLP, copyright) then delete it for the reason it needs deletion (eg G10, G12).

Is it annoying you that someone is trying to keep alive a page in draftspace? That is their right, subject to WP:NOT. Advise them of WP:DUD, and the far superior option of using userspace.

Try to not use junk in draftspace as an excuse to create busywork. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

It annoys me that somebody asked me to expend the effort to undelete and draftify it for them, then never did anything with it. It annoys me that having it exist in draft space also caused User:PeeJay2K3 to do some pointless maintenance work updating the project templates on the talk page. And it annoys me that this then caused it to pop up on my watchlist, leading me to spend time again looking at it to figure out why it looked familiar. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:11, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

I see. You are the REFUNDer. Possibilities...

(a) Delete it now, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarachi Orjinma.

(b) Delete it now, as your personal prerogative to reverse your discretionary undeletion.

(c) Nominate it at MfD, citing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amarachi Orjinma, and arguing that it has no reasonable change of being fixed to overcome the reasons for deletion in that AfD.

(d) Offer the author the choice of userfication, with the instruction to keep it blanked during periods of inactivity.

The premise of G13 is that there is no one around who care about the page, no one at all. Keep G13 out of this. This is an issue of overgenerosity of userification or draftification, and what to do when you now consider that the REFUND request was not made in good faith, or if you think the author has given up hope of fixing the deletion reasons and is stubbornly and forlornly trying to preserve their work. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:50, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry about that. Didn't know I was doing anything really wrong. I actually wanted it in my sandbox, which would have lesser bar of existence than a draft article. The footballer in question is still active for Rivers Angels, and there is a chance she may get a call-up for the African Games or Olympics, I didn't want to write from scratch or disturb another admin if it gets deleted again. Please feel free to delete the draft article, as I already have it in my sandbox and apologies once again. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  If I am not mistaken, I must have used "userfy" when I made a request on your talkpage. Not so sure though. HandsomeBoy (talk) 15:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so this is a mess. What you've got in your sandbox is a copy-paste of the draft, which is something we don't want because it messes up the attribution history. Should your sandbox page ever get put back into mainspace, it won't have the right history as required by WP:COPYWITHIN. One fix would be to do a history merge of the draft with your sandbox, but I can't even do that because you've re-used your sandbox page for many different articles over the years. The history would be a total mess. What I'm going to do is delete the draft under WP:G7, per your request above. @HandsomeBoy: if your sandbox ever does get promoted back into mainspace, please make sure you find an admin to help you get the attribution history fixed. The best thing at this point would probably be to (re)-undelete the draft, copy-paste your sandbox onto that, and go from there. But please don't do any of that unless there's some real evidence that this person has become notable. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:04, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Noted with thanks.HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Does a page in the User: space, not associated with a registered user account, qualify for speedy deletion? If so, which criteria apply? If not, should it go to RfD process? (Suppose, for example, someone created User:ABC page for a non-existing account ABC.) --CiaPan (talk) 07:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@CiaPan: That would be Criteria U2 :) Sam Walton (talk) 07:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you for your help. Despite being an old Wikipedian I'm still not familiar with the criteria list. I've surfed across it but somehow managed to miss U2.
The page which concerns me is User:T2Bean-Public, which is a redirect to a legitimate page of User:T2Bean account, but User:T2Bean-Public is not registered.
I've added {{db-u2}} to it. --CiaPan (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I would like to mass-nominate 101 redirects for speedy deletion under WP:G14. Would a nomination here and now be acceptable, or is there another way to mass nominate, or should I tag each page individually?

The pages are "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" where N is every number from 600 to 700: ie Virginia State Route 600 (disambiguation) to Virginia State Route 700 (disambiguation). In every case "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" is a redirect that targets "Virginia State Route N", which in every case says "State Route N (SR N) in the U.S. state of Virginia is a secondary route designation applied to multiple discontinuous road segments ...". There is therefore no ambiguity and no requirement for a redirect "Virginia State Route N (disambiguation)" to target ""Virginia State Route N" since there is only one Virginia State Route N. These redirects may have had value before @Famartin:'s good work in expanding the target articles, but now they are not required and speedy deletable G14 (the targets are not disambiguation pages or pages that perform a disambiguation-like function). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll go along with this. – Fredddie™ 15:26, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I would think people who might want to contest such a thing would be watching those pages not these Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads also seems like a better venue than this for notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with deletion as long as someone checks to make sure any pages linking to them (there were a few) are corrected. Famartin (talk) 20:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I changed one of the submodules for {{Jct}} this morning to avoid the dab pages. I think that's where the handful of incoming links were coming from. I did a spot check just now; 600 and 700 were pointing to this discussion while the rest only point to User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/004 and User:RussBot/Non-disambiguation_redirects/005. –Fredddie™ 21:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I have just deleted … 700 … and "… 69? …". If nobody screams, I will delete the rest in a couple of days. Even with Special:PrefixIndex and Twinkle's batch delete tool, it is going to be slow work because I have to carefully pick out the (disambiguation) pages from lots of others. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

re: Draft:Gin Mare

Gin Mare is a brand of high-end gin. It's easily notable (if any modern brand of gin is notable, Gin Mare would meet the same standard). I don't know the state of the draft when it was deleted.

Should G11 "Unambiguous advertising or promotion" ever be used on a recent draft? Isn't this sort of "promotional writing on notable topics" what the Draft namespace is for? Otherwise why do we bother? (It's not as if anything else about Draft works). @Deb: Andy Dingley (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Personally, I think it should. Drafts are visible and advertising is meant to be excluded from the encyclopedia. COI concerns me equally. But if the guidelines change to allow POV editing, I'll stop enforcing it. Deb (talk) 11:10, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Quality third party independent coverage should make it G11-proof. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

But not if it's deleted first. I'm thinking of draft articles on good topics, where a current version is overly promotional, but not unfixable. If Draft: doesn't have a more lenient approach to this than mainspace, then what's the point in Draft:? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I think draft articles on good topics should have been written straight into mainspace. I think if anything, AfC reviewers are too cautious with G11. If the sources are all unsuitable, and it is promotion, it should go immediately G11. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

But they then run the risk of CSD, moments after creation. It's also very BITEy to new editors that way. But at present, new editors simply have no route to article creation 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If it is about a company or product selling now, and the only sources are external links to the company website, Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, anything short of G11 is wasting their time and your time when they come back again still not understanding. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• Of course G11 should be used on recent drafts. If a draft requires a fundamental rewrite to become non-promotional, the situation is improved by deleting the draft and waiting for a non-promotional version. If there is promo content plus a few reliable sources, improve the draft by removing all of the promo content, no matter how little is left over. If Draft space is currently broken, we should discuss why and how, but not here. —Kusma (t·c) 11:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. There is still a long distance between "a fundamental rewrite" and "there is nothing here worth saving or re-using". Andy Dingley (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

If the content has zero acceptable sources, it can’t be rewritten. Editing to hide bad sourcing is not helping anyone. The answer is at least WP:TNT. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just nuke all the ads if you ask me. If it's spammy now, it was probably done so deliberately and the author is WP:NOTHERE. Best, PrussianOwl (talk) 06:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

• No. Do some basic WP:BEFORE if there is anything to suggest that it might be notable, regardless of whether those sources are present in the article. If it needs a fundamental rewrite with better sources, then that's fine - it's in draft space not the mainspace. Just leave a note on the talk page with the sources you found and explain what needs to be done - or better still just improve it yourself. Remember to be cautious - especially if there is a likelihood of non-English and/or offline sources then don't just assume that a 2 minute google search is a reliable indication of its notability. If you think it is irredeemably spammy and no sources exist to improve it then take it to MfD if it can't wait for G13. Thryduulf (talk) 10:51, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• what I do is somewhere in between. I consider part of the reason for having G11 is that is is harmful to have advertisements in the encyclopedia, similar to the way it is harmful to have BLP violations or copyvio in the encycopedia, and the advertisements that can't be fixed should be removed. Tho they ae not searchable in google, they are searchable, and we do harm by letting people who reach them think are even provisionally apart of the encyclopedia. I list for G11 or delete if listed recently or even immediately submitted drafts

those that are written as advertisements without any disguise or adjustment to even pretend its an article.

those that have no non-advertising content worth saving.

those that besides being entirely promotional, are for things that also are utterly and hopelessly never possibly going to be notable, for no rewriting cn help them.

those that would need to be completely rewritten and were clearly written with promotional intent, especially if clearly by the subject themselves or an undeclared paid editor.

I do not use G11 for

those that are just "spammy" but not exclusively or almost exclusively promotional.

those that may not have been promotional in intent but good faith efforts at an article, even if they would need substantial rewriting to avoid being promotional

those that can be made less promotional by removing part of it, & are not otherwise obnoxious. I just remove that part.

And I think it very important that admins do not delete G11 singlehanded. It's almost always at least to some extent a matter of judgment. I know I can make errors; I know I have made errors, and I want my work to be confirmed. (That said, I have sometimes--not usually, but nowadays about once a month, gotten so exasperated that I have removed just by myself something really outrageous. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

In lieu of an en masse series of nominations at MfD concerning neglected/stillborn portals, I would like to see if there's a consensus for expanding CSD criteria to cover certain portals of this kind (specifically clear-cut failures of WP:POG).

My proposed qualification conditions would be the following:

• The portal must have less than twenty selected articles total (this includes the number of selected bios, if there are any). Of those, at least half must be B-class or lower.
• The last regular maintenance done on the portal must have been done at least five years ago. Additionally, said maintainer must have been inactive for at least one year. (The creator's statistics may be used if there were no other maintainers.) Bot edits, semi-automated edits (such as AWB), and addition and reversion of obvious vandalism do not count towards this condition.
• Average daily pageviews during the last semi-yearly period (in this case, it would be January 1 - June 30, 2019) must make up less than 5% of the corresponding article's average daily pageviews in the exact same time period.

All conditions above would have to be satisfied.

I don't have any strong expectations for how this will mull over, but I think this may be a worthwhile criterion to consider adding, especially considering how many nominations of this kind are at MFD right now. ToThAc (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• To be honest I think this is far too complicated, and the correct solution to the issue of mass nominations at MfD is simply not to nominate inactive portals for deletion unless they are actively harmful (and I don't recall seeing any evidence that any of them are). I've given up fighting for them though as I don't have the energy to deal with all the personal attacks and accusations of bad faith editing in the walls of text that inevitably follow from doing so. Thryduulf (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
• Fully agree with Thryduulf on all counts (I find arguing in portal MfDs a rather soul-destroying experience, and have let myself be bullied out of most portal-related discussions). Further, there is absolutely zero reason to make a comparison of article views and portal views a criterion for deletion. (My own portal, Portal:Germany, misses the 5% by a country mile or so 1 but is more popular than most of the articles I have created: 2 (note that these are all pages linked from my user page, including some that I have not created). So what? It doesn't give us any indication that the portal is more or less worthy than any of my substubs). —Kusma (t·c) 20:30, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:CREEP. The MfD process is handling these cases just fine, and Wikipedia benefits from the discussion there. There are less than 700 portals, and the narrow criteria mean this proposed reason would only ever apply to a tine fraction of them. (another problem: what is "regular maintenance"?) It does not make sense to add a new speedy reason that would apply to such a tiny number of pages. 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnitedStatesian (talk • contribs) 02:16, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose. The multiple RfCs on portals, including their deletions, have failed to develop a consensus. Portal deletion is therefore contentious. In practice, most are experiencing WP:SNOW deletions, but I don't think this is read for a new CSD. WP:POG remains a pariah guideline. WP:POG requires community support well before being reflected in WP:CSD policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Once again: stop beating a dead horse, or you'll be getting a block for general disruption. Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nyttend. Despite any differences in opinion, I believe that Andy Dingley should be able to express his views here without the threat of being blocked. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:18, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Disapprove of heavy handed threats and unilateral thread collapsing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion/Archive_75
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.

---