User talk:Cimmerian praetor

Yes, the original article was prank, but some media took it seriously and reported it as a fact. There are for example videos on youtube with the JOJ news with English subtitles. If it remained only as a prank, it would not be notable enough. However in this situation I believe it needs to be mentioned, and it needs to be mentioned in full context. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the unbelievably amateurish work and misinterpretation of TV JOJ contributes to another confusion of people on Internet. Okay, in that case we should provide relevant clarification (if we accept the article as a notable encyclopedic topic). I think this whole hullabaloo over a really unclear and unimportant event have been grossly inflated by the media from the very beginning. I consider the pen incident as a tabloid story unworthy of serious attention. Moreover, it serves to public and unjust disparaging of a living person. ...and I'm not a supporter or defender of

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I thought the same originally. But living abroad it came to my attention, that most foreigners know Klaus only for the pen incident, many know the incident but think it is connected with Havel, some know the incident but don't know what country the "perpetrator" is president of. It caught more attention than anything Klaus has ever done before. That said I guess it deserves its place in Wikipedia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmerian praetor, your explanation is not valid according to the rules of Wikipedia. You can´t make a bad article better through inserting pranks like this one about "cleptomania". You yourself admitted that it was only a prank, so in fact a vulgar lie and nothing else. Not even on the wiki:cz (which is of bad quality in respect to reporting about Mr. Klaus) this lie has been published in any way. I strongly disagree with you and your "tactics". Maybe you are of the same origin like myself, but I am sure to know much more about international politics and implications of such published "pranks" than you. The alleged incident in Chile, invented in this intensity by the Czech public television (really and very badly so), is possibly not to be directly connected with Mr. Havel, but certainly with some of his misled supporters. By the way, in our present times with all current political and economic problems, not many people outside the Czech Republic really remember Mr. Havel as a person of present-day interest and a significant political figure. And he was never an economist, or if having been a politician he sometimes was involved in economic matters, so he was a very bad economist, contrary to President Klaus. So please stop inserting this unbelievable prank into the article concerned, which certainly will be deleted as a whole in the near future, as it is completely irrelevant and totally incomprehensible with the rules of Wikipedia and conduct between civilized nations. -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zbrnajsem, you are totally missing the point. It is not there because the prank took place, but because some media took the prank seriously and because they reported it as a serious news. This has attracted some attention. If it is not covered in the article, it may lead some people, who inquire about the issue to the belief that it is a real state of matters.

The fact is that abroad even people who could not find Czech Republic on a map know that there is a president who pocketed a pen on TV. As regards Havel, he is THE known Czech politician: many even think, that Havel took the pen (Klaus is known only to few as regards the Lisbon Treaty issue). The latest incident in Australia has shown, that the pen incident will be in news whenever Klaus' name is mentioned, because it is simply what international audience knows him for. See reporting about Australian parliament visit: Vaclav Klaus, who gained notoriety for stealing a pen while holding a press conference, Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus, made famous in a viral internet clip showing him pocketing a ceremonial pen in Chile, HE is a renowned climate sceptic who became an internet sensation after being filmed stealing a pen., etc.

Klaus took the pen in a very dishonest way, and you cannot now blame his opposition for mocking him for it. The Czech public TV has not invented anything, they just reported on the issue. It was not the Czech TV who pocketed the pen, it was Klaus. The fact you don't like it is no reason for deleting it. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, the Czech television has definitely manipulated the sequences shown. I don´t know how to explain to you that you are simply wrong. It would be much better to delete the whole article about alleged Chilean incident or to write there something in a decent way, and not to add further pranks to it, especially in a way which can be totally misinterpreted. You personally probably don´t like Mr. Klaus, but this is no reason to make him worse than he is. We are no children anymore, neither you nor me, because we are sitting at Wikipedia on Monday noon. Please stop telling people that "Klaus took the pen in a very dishonest way". Again, neither you nor me can undo the damage done to the international reputation of the Czech Republic by the dishonest reporting of the Czech TV from Chile. It is simply a mess, and only really clever tactics could solve the problem. I must fear that you will be no companion in this effort. But at least, please think of the further development in our native country. There should be a good successor in 2013 to Mr. Klaus, who on the whole has been a good president up to now. Who has predicted (yes, he has in a certain sense a good qualification for predicting) the current euro crisis already at least 10 years ago? It was Mr. Klaus, and he did much more for the well-being of the country and of a majority of its inhabitants. There are, of course, many different aspects for a final judgment on him, as things are getting more and more complicated. Further discussion of this topic might be too much for this column, but be sure that there is already a fight behind the scenes for the succession. For today, just one reply please, and no more. And I should also stop this up to now fruitless discussion with you for the rest of this day, because there are some other tasks for me. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a debate about Klaus and what he has done for Czech nor any other nation. This is a simple issue of Klaus taking a pen, putting it under table, and finally pocketing it, while smiling like a little brat that has taken a forbidden apple. Even his entourage didn't claim, that the sequence was changed, where did you get that? Secondly, it is issue of some media reporting the kleptomania as a true story. If you think, that writing on wikipedia, that this was only a prank, and not a real deal (as there are still people who believe in it) is damaging to Mr. Klaus, well then I can't help you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, Cimmerian. I also commented on the issue on

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Cimmerian praetor, you can´t exactly know either, if Klaus´ entourage did or did not claim, whether the sequence was changed or not. The point is that everything about this issue has been extremely exaggerated by personal enemies of Klaus, if you believe it or not. We should be a little bit more diplomatic in our information policy. I don´t agree that diplomacy means to exaggerate rude exaggerations by citations about alleged kleptomania or things like this. Sometimes there are other means, my friend in exile, and so in fact I can´t help you. Besides this, you are not quite well informed about the standings of Klaus abroad and how positively he is perceived among Czech compatriots e.g. in the USA and Australia. He is without any doubt a firm friend of NATO, the US and of free enterprise and trade. If you prefer Havel´s dreams of a nebulous third way between "capitalism" and communism, so there are of course no limits to you to express your opinion, but please let Klaus´ privacy untouched. Up to now you did exactly the contrary. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend from Brno, this debate is getting to an absurd direction, but as I consider it polite, I will not leave it without an answer.

• Changing sequence - I was only surprised by this claim of yours, since it was the very first time I've heard such an accusation. As regards entourage - if the sequence would be changed, I very much believe that Klaus' people would very happily point that out.
• This is not an issue of diplomacy. Klaus simply gained the far largest notoriety abroad for taking the pen. I was hoping, that it will be forgotten soon, but as reporting from Australia shows, the issue is usually used by the newspapers to get the readers realize who the article is about.
• Klaus very well may be a friend of NATO and the US, too bad that the only people who have recently invited him for high state visits live in Kremlin. If he happened to be invited elsewhere, it was usually thanks to the acts of the Czech Government.
• The Wikipedia article is stating, unlike some serious reports, that the kleptomania thing is entirely based on a prank article and is entirely untrue. If this is beyond your understanding, I can't really help.
• Abroad, Klaus is simply laughing stock, for the better. For the worse, he is despised. I don't know compatriots in US nor in Australia, but I know some who live in Switzerland (left the country in 1968). I have just come back from visiting Switzerland, and there Klaus is seen as an illustration of the Czech Republic being still more of a banana republic rather than a developed country.
• I don't know how you got to the sentence about Havel. I only stated that he is the known Czech politician to the extent that some even today think that he is the one who took the pen.
• As regards privacy, when a person decides to enter a life of a public figure, being it a superstar or a politician, as is the case of Klaus, he or she immediately deprives him/her-self of a large portion of privacy rights. This is a rule well accepted in open societies, see decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court or of the US Supreme Court in these matters. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My dear friend Cimmerian praetor, of course I remain polite, as I am used to it. You are the same, so we can discuss openly and freely. I am very sorry not to have enough time now to explain to you my political standings and opinions at least briefly. There are much more complicated than you probably think. Later on, if ever. What you forget in my eyes all the time is that Klaus has been a dominating figure in "Czechia" for the last 22 years. Yes, he was this figure up to very recent days, more than Havel. And now he is beseiged by his foes. There will be a successor in 2013, and I hope he (or she???) won´t come from that part of the Czech political spectrum which really doesn´t have any idea about economic matters. I am very sorry to say that unfortunately President Havel had never any suitable idea about economic matters. Klaus is appreciated by the Friedrich-von Hayek-Society in Germany. They are possibly better witnesses than your friends in Switzerland. Have a nice day -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:22, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article "2011 Chilean Pen Incident" is still being discussed on a special page "Dubious Irony". A proposal was made there to delete this article, and it is already deleted. I had nothing to do with this decision. However, Cimmerian praetor, you can see what other users thought about this issue. -- Zbrnajsem (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update. I've seen the deletion. I don't agree with it, but I will respect the majority consensus.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pity that you didn't comment in the discussion. I would like to point out that my sympathies for Klaus are similar to the ones I have for

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

If you think the deletion was unjust you can bring the issue to the

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Dishwashing great. Klaus greater. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like your sense of humor :)

Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, I would like to ask you what do you consider to be an accurate English equivalent of Czech terms "městská část" and "městský obvod"? Because I really don't know, in my opinion term "city district" is bit confusing because we already have Brno-City District, Ostrava-City District and Plzeň-City District which are something significantly different. --Millenium187 (talk) 15:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. It would make more sense if "okres" would be translated as "county", and "obvod" as "district". However, I think you need to ask a native speaker to clarify that. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But "obvod" is not the same as "městská část", for example Prague is divided into parts called "obvod" but Brno is not. And as far as I know "obvod" consists of more parts called "městská část" and they consists of parts called "katastrání území". --Millenium187 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit backed only by your

You yourself use the map, which does not cover it. The division by the UN is (1) minority view and (2) in place only due to pertaining cold war approach to the region. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The map is a work of an editor, therefore it is not trustworthy. Also, if you look closely at the map you will find out that Finland is also included in Eastern Europe. The map is not reliable, sources like this are. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow how the sentense "Czech Republic, country located in central Europe." supports your thesis. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you click on the right link? Let me pick few lines from the website for you: "Czech agriculture is among the most advanced in eastern Europe, with better than average yields.", "The Czech iron and steel industries have traditionally been among the largest in eastern Europe but rely mainly on imported ores (especially from Ukraine). ", "The major Czech car manufacturer remains Škoda, eastern Europe’s oldest car manufacturer", etc. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Opening sentence reads "Czech Republic, country located in central Europe." I understand that some political/economical areas are within the article compared with countries from beyond the former iron curtain, that however does not change the opening sentence and its message "Czech Republic is in central Europe". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it is geographically not correct to say Czech Republic would be an Eastern European country. Prague is located much more to the West then Vienna. Czech Republic is located between Germany and Austria, etc. For some statistical purposes, European Statistical Office in Luxembourg counts the Czech Republic to Western Europe, whereas Slovakia belongs there to Eastern Europe. This might be more or less artificial, but Central Europe is definitely correct. Czech Republic, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Austria are certainly located in the middle of the continent. They do not possess any maritime coast. Slovakia and Hungary can be also counted to this category, but with somewhat lesser justification to Central Europe. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 15:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatra 77 coeficient is given 0.212 (Not for T77a) - the actual source I cannot find, can you let me know in which book this is stated as a fact. I give the comparison with T87 as an example, which for the 1:5 model was 0.24 as given by Mackerle. Real car is 0.36. Ir is logical that similar reading was for T77 which is very similar. It is nonsense to quote the figure of 0.212 for the real car, they did not test full size cars in tunnels before SWW... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatraplan (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in the article: Optimization and computational fluid dynamics, Gàbor Janiga, Springer, 2008, page 196 for one.

The sources which claim that it was for T77 at the same time write that it was 1938 model. Hence it must have been T77a. T77a was made with sole purpose of making it as streamlined as possible. On the other hand T87 was made with aim to solve shortcomings of T77a as regards handling etc.; with aerodynamics taking already second place. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes but does Janiga claim the figure is for a real car?? Surely you see the logic if T87 is 0.24 for 1:5 model and real car 0.36, it is impossible for T77a to have such a large difference in the reading for a real car! This misinformation has been on the internet and in some misinformed publications and it needs to be put right (we are hoping to arrange a tunnel test soon to put this to bed for good) in the meantime the figure 0.212 should be used with great caution and not given as a fact just because Janiga used it, Mackerle is much better informed source on this subject matter and this should be stated in the T77 article... (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Janiga's book, as the name suggests, is concerned with dynamics, and yes, it claims it is figure for the car.

As regards your claim that there were no pre-WW2 wind tunnel tests on cars, can you substantiate it? Because sources dealing with Paul Jaray suggest otherwise (that he used the tunnels made for tests of Zeppelins for car designs)

I understand that there are sources claiming 0.36 for T87 and that the difference with claimed for T77a is very large. However as long as there are reliable sources like Janiga, it will stay this way. Anything else would be

WP:Original research

, which is inadmissible on wiki.

I very much welcome retesting of T77a. I am especially looking forward to see the difference between the car with engine off and closed ventilation, and with engine on, open ventilation and warm air pushed through the rear ribs. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are looking for a sponsor for the tunnel testing, will let you know when that happens. Tatra only tested models. Kieselbach in 'Stromlinienautos in Europa und USA' book (1982) also clearly states for T87 1:5 model in 1941 0.244, real car tested in VW tunnel in 1979 0.36, he does not give any figures (quite rightly for T77 or T77a) see page 19. I am still looking where the figure of 0.212 originally came from and it must have been long before Janiga who must be simply repeating it without questioning it, is there a source where he is quoting from? Where did he get it from if you give him such confidence? There is nothing in Rosencranz as far as I know, as I say caution is necessary if Janiga cannot give a proper source... ( Tatraplan (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC) )[reply]

I don't know wher he got it from. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point, how can you put that information as a given fact in the wiki? That is not a properly sourced scientific fact if Janiga cannot confirm it - hence I ask you please to qualify this in the text of the T77 article as this has done enough damage already. Thanks for understanding. Tatraplan (talk) 12:50, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that he canno qualify it. I don't have the book on me. The fact is that it is a specialist in the field who claims this figure. What is the basis of his claim, I don't know. But in line with

If a specialist/academic gives a figure it has to have a scientific back up and be properly sourced as is required by the wiki, if it is not sourced, it is worthless and cannot be quoted. I provide the T87 figures for comparison only and because they are the only ones available which are properly quoted and sourced, none such figures exist for T77. Hence the figure 0.212 cannot be taken as a fact...Tatraplan (talk) 13:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of the sources which say the aerodynamic coefficient is 0.212 is this site which is disappeared from web but still can be found from a web archive. Another source (in Polish) says that 0.212 is a value given by the manufacturer but modern simulations show values something like 0.27...0.28. --Gwafton (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Last night I have been in touch with a colleague Tatra researcher and writer, he confirmed that years ago he copied the drag coefficient figures from the Tatra archives and all the figures up to T87 were given for 1:5 models only. I have asked him to obtain a copy of these documents (this may take some time) and will let you know once I have them. This mess needs to be put right as soon as possible. Tatraplan (talk) 10:01, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is great if he has got such documents but they cannot be used as sources itself. The reason is that such documents cannot be cited here in Wikipedia (original research) but it would be good if he could publish the information in such place which could be used as a source in Wikipedia. --Gwafton (talk) 22:48, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, but SURELY Tatra Works archive documents are the best and most reliable info, from 'the lion's den', than for example Janiga's who probably picked the information from many unreliable, un-sourced or unsupported internet sites???Tatraplan (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it is one of the most reliable sources. But in my knowledge information collected from archives cannot be used directly as a source for Wikipedia - this is regarded as original research. The information has to be published somewhere first. The practice might sound stupid but there is a reason for it. --Gwafton (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason? Archive data is published in the archive. By coping it into a book (and sometimes badly) it only gets distorted as the case above indicates - does not make sense, when someone submits a PhD which is original research is that all bunk according to Wiki? Tatraplan (talk) 13:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In archives you usually find raw data and to be able to use it in a text you have to make interpratation based on it, which is original research. Moreover, such archives are not such sources that are easy to access to verify the facts. When making the policies you have to think the whole extent of Wikipedia. There are for example historical disputes and other such things and if archives were allowed as sources, someone could add whatever he wants referring to an archive where only few people has an access. --Gwafton (talk) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, understand but still bit of a grey area here, any book published data should always have a source, citation, otherwise there is no proof that they are an invention by the writer, so it works really both ways, not everything published in books or articles is 'God' given, that is the problem...Tatraplan (talk) 08:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book can be detected by the ISBN code and you can borrow it from library and consider if the source is reliable. If you refer to a web site, a reader can again think whether the source is reliable or not. An article can never be more reliable than its sources. Yes, there is basically no source that is "fully reliable"; this is a fundamental philosophical question that applies on all information, not only on Wikipedia. --Gwafton (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, what do you mean unnecessary?? its facts that formed our country, if my language is poor why dont you correct it instead of deleting everything? thanks for reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jirka.h23 (talk • contribs) 12:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Firstly, if only the language would be the issue, I would gladly correct it. But the biggest problem is, that it is too detailed:

Czechoslovak Legions. The article "Czech Republic" should give a general overview, not detailed description of each segment. There are the designated articles for the details. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

This is the German text

Zu den etwa 100 000 unterzubringenden Slowakeideutschen kamen annähernd 1,6 Millionen Reichsdeutsche, fast ausschließlich aus den schlesischen Provinzen, deren Fluchtweg in die Sudetenländer führte7. Da seit Ende März/Anfang April auch das Ostsudetenland und Mähren Kampfgebiet wurden, ballte sich zur Zeit der Kapitulation die Masse der Flüchtlinge auf dem Weg nach Westen auf böhmischem Gebiet zusammen. Nur einem kleinen Teil war es damals schon gelungen, Bayern zu erreichen oder ins westliche Sachsen auszuweichen; etwa eine Million

18 erlebte den deutschen Zusammenbruch mit seinen bitteren Begleiterscheinungen im Sudetenland und Protektorat. Die zu diesem Zeitpunkt in Böhmen und Mähren-Schlesien anwesenden deutschen Zivilpersonen lassen sich mit mindestens 4,5 Millionen beziffern.

--Woogie10w (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrý den,jsem toho názoru, že Česká republika vznikla v roce 1969, například Československo, vzniklo v roce 1918, ale VZNIKLO, né se osamostanilo, jelikož předtím žádné nebylo, tedy i Česká (byť socialistická) republika vznikla 1.1.1969, předtím žádná neexistovala, byl zde unitární stát, já chápu, že může mít někdo k tomu výhrady z hlediska systému a událostí té doby, ale přeci proto nebudeme přepisovat dějiny. Poté byl pouze změněn název a přijata státní vlajka a státní znak. Po zániku ČSFR se tato existující republika osamostatnila. Zpochybňovat kontinuitu dnešní republiky s ČSR, by bylo trochu divné, copak někdo zpochybňoval kontinuitu Československa v roce 1991 ? Kolikrát tu byl změněn název ? ...Republika Československá, Česko-Slovenská republika, Československá republika, Československá socialistická republika, Československá federativní republika, Česká a Slovenská Federativní Republika, nemluvě o státním zřízení...ne, bylo to stále jedno Československo... Takže tedy i dnešní Česká republika má své počátky. Základy našeho státu, byly položeny v roce 1969, přesně tak, jak uvádí česká verze o ČR. Mělo by zde být uvedeno: vznik 1.1.1969 (v rámci federace), změna názvu 6.3.1990, 1.1.1993 (plná samostatnost).

If this relates to the present state-of-the-art of the page on the Czech Republic, so the anonymous author hat a point. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrý den, provedl jsem změny na stránce 'Doktor práv'. Právo udělovat tento titul má stále Fakulta právnická Západočeské univerzity. Fakulta právnická ZČU je oprávněna uskutečňovat studium v doktorském studijním programu "Teoretické právní vědě", v oborech:

Občanské právo (s akreditací do 5. května 2013), Obchodní právo (s akreditací do 30. dubna 2013), Trestní právo (s akreditací do 5. května 2013).

http://fpr.zcu.cz/study/doktorske_studium/

S pozdravem 147.228.209.182 (talk) 08:19, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rovněž jsem na stránce 'Právnická fakulta' opravil nepravdivé tvrzení o Fakultě právnické ZČU, neboť tato fakulta má magisterský studijní obor akreditována až do 31. 7. 2016 a na fakultě tento obor dosud studuje na 1500 studentů. Rovněž Ministerstvo školství dosud nevydalo žádné rozhodnutí, aby plzeňská právnická fakulta letos nepřijímala nové studenty.

S pozdravem 147.228.209.182 (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Co se týče doktorského studia, tak je to nepravdivá informace, k 29. únoru 2012 byla akreditace odňata. Pravděpodobně se jedná o důsledek neaktualizace stránek fakulty.

U magisterského studia máte pravdu. V současnosti ale škola má pouze akreditaci pro dokončení studia stávajících studentů, nikoliv pro přijímání nových (to bude předmětem dalšího rozhodnutí MŠMT). Proto nelze napsat, že na škole lze studovat magisterský studijní obor - je možné ho totiž pouze "dostudovat".

S pozdravem Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The details you mention are definitely relevant, just not in the LEAD. The LEAD summarizes the topic of the article, and the topic of the article is the 15 T. The text in question is certainly valid, but should be moved to a section on the development process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 00:53, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're invited to be a part of Wikipedia:WikiProject University of Belgrade, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to the University of Belgrade. To accept this invitation, click here! Articles related to other universities in Belgrade, Serbia and Southeast Europe may be discussed as well. This helps share information and foster knowledge about higher education in the region.

The reference you used was outdated and frankly questionable. It has since come out that he has not been charged with anything. Please refrain from adding unreliable information to wikipedia. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the largest mainstream online media in the Czech Republic, affiliated to 3rd largest mainstream printed newspaper, it is no bogus. And it has since come out that he has been charged and faces up to 5 to 10 years in prison. The reliability of the source is high, as it cites the police spokesperson. Who the hell else should be more reliable on the issue of whether the charges were brought than an official police spokeswoman?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, if you're going to be uncivil I'm simply going to cease direct communication with you and seek third party assistance. Secondly, the band's management has release a statement saying he has not been charged. Third, one of your sources is, by your own admission, a tabloid, which is not reliable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In what way am I uncivil? You just keep deleting the content (although, I agree that you were right on the tabloid). At what time has the management released the information? The police has had 48 hours to charge him or release him, apparently the situation has changed since the statement of the management was posted. Most probably he was charged after only after giving his testimony, which was probably delayed by the effort to find the best lawyer his money can pay (I only assume this and I am in no way trying to push this assumption into the article). I am trying to put there up to date information from reliable Czech sources, and I believe that the police spokeswoman knows the criminal process of the country a bit better than the management. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI [BTW this blog and 2010 comments on fansites regarding the 2010 concert are full of similar description. Not reliable source, I know. Well, it is in the prosecutors hands now to accuse or not to accuse him. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might know where the issue of "bringing charges" may stem from. In the Czech system, the police first "obviní", or brings charges. Thereafter, the prosecutor "obžaluje", or accuses. Maybe it was lost in translation. He got the first one by now, that is sure. And if the prosecutor will petition to remand in custody, then the second will be also coming. And then fair trial - innocent until proven otherwise. Regards. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the source for his management's statements, filled out the section with more from your source and cleaned up some of the wording. In the context of this article, it doesn't matter what actually happened, only time will tell there, but we do need to ensure only reliable, verifiable information appears here. When two reliable sources contradict one another, we publish both, saying 'according to' so the reader can come to their own conclusion. Finally, when you say "Who the hell else..." instead of asking why someone might not be reliable, you're being uncivil in my book. And FYI, I'm not the only one who found your sources to be unreliable. Take a look at the section now and let me know what you think.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Directly from your article:

Podle jednoho z účastníků tehdejšího koncertu došlo k napadení fanouška poté, co vylezl mezi skladbami na pódium. "Byl vržen po zádech směrem do davu, letěl obloukem a dopadl pozadu přímo na hlavu," popsal svědek pro Aktuálně.cz.

Does it not say that Blythe was attacked?--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, it says the contrary, that Blythe attacked the fan. Other sources go further and write about other fans who were attacked during the same concert when attempted to do the stagediving (jumping from the stage onto the hands of other fans, very popular in the Czech republic).

Notwithstanding what you cite above I deleted the "attack" because was only in the first news hours after the arrest and the correct translation for the most sources is "altercation". For the sources that use word that can be translated as attack, there is same number of those who claim that the fan was initial attacker and those who put Blythe as initial attacker. There are even US source that claimed that Blythe has bludgeoned the fan with microphone pole not only this one. I tried to pick the most reliable from many source, there was no bad faith on my side.

I see your point, however for the most part you were deleting much more than was necessary.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The link you just used doesn't mention anything about Randy hitting anyone with a microphone... further, a second source just told me that the translation I had was correct - "The {singer} was attacked after a fan climbed on stage." --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just CTRL Effed... are you talking about the comment, with someone saying he heard that Blythe hit the guy with a mic stand? Not only isn't that reliable in the context of WP, it isn't reliable in the context of a big fish story. Again, it seems the source that you added indicates Blythe was attacked. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, but please find a source backing up your statements or revert that last edit.--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, I just googled it again (I worked with some 25 sources) and I thought it is the one without checking it. Here it goes: After the 2010 incident, those who know the band heard the intruder may have been struck with a microphone before the security team forced him from the stage. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please go and find a couple of random Czech wikipedians to translate it for you if you have no trust in me.

Full translation: According to one of the participants (literal translation, i.e. fans) of the concert, the event of the attack on the fan occurred after the fan climbed on the stage between two songs. "He was thrown backwards into the crowd, he flew (literal translation, more correct is fell) in a curve and fell backwards directly onto his head".

As to your latest edit, the police will not continue keeping him, but the judge will decide whether he will remand him in custody, which is not police custody (i.e. 48 hours) but prosecutorial custody which may be up to either 1 or 2 years long (I am not sure which of the two applies in the given case, I might check it tomorrow, the time is late in the CR). I leave it to your judgment whether you want to make it more precise.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last note: Blythe was reportedly arrested by detectives of elite unit nicknamed "headhunters" who specialize in catching criminals on run, which is quite unusual in a case when no warrant was issued. IMHO they knew that the moment the warrant would be issued Blythe would not ever leave US again and USA does not extradite its own citizens (same as regards the Czech Republic) so they decided to wait. I think that it is a terrible bad judgment from the bands management to bring him back to Prague, if they knew about the deadly injury. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually removed your bit on Czech law because it was uncited and irrelevant. Again, the job of wikipedia is only to supply verifiable facts relevant to the articles in question. So too is what process the case could take, unless it's in direct relation to an official statement, like the the one I cited. I don't care about judgement or what's happening under the surface, I only care about what belongs in the article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to believe that you do care, since you have not put there that the newspapers allege that Blythe attacked the fan, after the original translation that the fan attacked Blythe proved to be incorrect.

Regarding the translation:

K napadení fanouška došlo... = the event of the attack on the fan took place (as in the article)

K napadení fanouškem došlo.. = the event of the fan's attack took place (as was the wrong translation).

As regards the length of the custody - it see it as relevant. As regards lack of citations, you could just point it out by adding the template. I would gladly add the reference §77. I don't see you deleting most of the content of the article just for the lack of references, somehow only my edits are being deleted.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I've translated via Google and had a friend do so - they both seem to agree with the translation I used. In terms of whatever law is being applied - you can't just cite that law - you need to cite reliable articles covering the events at hand. Otherwise you're just speculating. Lastly, concerning what all else is in the article in question, you're right, I'm not removing every uncited statement. Technically should statements like 'he was on ABC bands album' be cited? Of course. But that's one thing, and a developing current event involving criminal charges and homicide are quite another. Most of my edits do involve removing or citing more mundane information, but this particular issue necessitates a much heavier hand in enforcing the rules. Again, I don't care. If he's innocent I hope he gets out soon, if he's guilty I hope they lock him up. That said, every source I've come across and added has indicated the former, and the only reliable source I've seen you add describing the incident seems to have a questionable translation to me. If you have more sources/details, by all means, add them. Otherwise, they don't belong here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One other thing - regardless of the translation, I can tell you one thing for sure - it doesn't say Blythe attacked the fan. It doesn't mention his name once. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it says so. I understand that translating from Czech to English is very hard as Czech is one of the most complicated languages and automated translators simply can cope only with the basics. That is why I brought the Czech sources to the article with my non-automated translation.

Důvodem stíhání je podle médií incident z května 2010, kdy se zpěvák v pražském klubu Abaton popral s jedním z fanoušků, který za ním vylezl na pódium. Muž, který později zemřel, nebyl podle deníku Mladá fronta Dnes opilý ani pod vlivem drog. Podle jednoho z účastníků tehdejšího koncertu došlo k napadení fanouška poté, co vylezl mezi skladbami na pódium. "Byl vržen po zádech směrem do davu, letěl obloukem a dopadl pozadu přímo na hlavu," popsal svědek pro Aktuálně.cz. Na pódium přitom muž údajně vylezl na vyzvání zpěváka, který do publika volal "Come on up", což doslovně znamená "Pojďte nahoru". Při koncertech tuto větu hudebníci používají pro vyvolání potlesku a řevu. "Kamarád nebyl pod vlivem ani alkoholu ani drog a v nemocnici velmi dlouho čekal na ošetření. Zdravotníci nám nechtěli věřit, že vůbec nepil," uvedl svědek. Muž byl několik měsíců v komatu. Měl silné krvácení do mozku, na jehož následky zemřel.

The reason behind the charges is according to other media an incident from May 2010, when the singer (Andy Blythe is used at the beginning of the article, later it is only "the singer") in Prague Abaton club got into an altercation with one of the fans, who climbed to him onto the podium. The man, who had later died, according to

drugs are essentially legal in the country). According to one of the participants (literal translation, i.e. fans) of the concert, the event of the attack on the fan occurred after the fan climbed on the stage between two songs. "He was thrown backwards into the crowd, he flew (literal translation, more correct is fell) in a curve and fell backwards directly onto his head". Reportedly he climbed the podium following the invitation of the singer, who was chanting towards the crowd "Come on up", which literally means "Come on up". During concerts, musicians often use this sentence to raise applause and roar. "My friend was not under the influence of alcohol neither drugs and he had to wait in the hospital for treatment for quite some time, as the medical staff did not believe he hadn't been drinking (literal translation, better is they initially thought he was just drunk)" said an eyewitness. The man was for months in coma (other sources claim weeks). He had a strong intracranial hemorrhage, due to which he died.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi, I've looked at the article and while it's very interesting it's not a 5x expansion [3]. It needs a bit more. I know it's difficult to expand already-sizeable articles five times but that's the DYK rules.VolunteerMarek 16:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Czechoslovakia doesn't inform how many Soviet soldiers died liberating Czechoslovakia. Why do you insist that Poland should contain such information but you don't inform how many Polish soldiers died at this time.
• There are many opinions what was "Poland" 1944/1945 so informations about it are generally POV. One of the POVs is that Poland wasn't liberated but was occupied by the Red Army and NKVD, compare Augustów roundup (600 victims) and Lidice.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • It is an essential historical information. Should I have a time during the weekend, I will tend to add it to the Czech article too (also including the number of US soldiers, as those liberated area up to Pilsen, and of the Czech and Slovak resistance). Of course you may change it from "liberating" to something more neutral, and you are welcome to add the figures of Polish soldiers and civilians who died for anti-nazi activities (four members of my family were executed for taking part in them in Zaolzie area).
  • Considering that the Nazis are responsible for death of 15% of Polish population, even when seeing the Soviet forces as invaders and occupiers, they still compare better to the previous Hitler's regime, don't you think?

Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Do you know any former slaves who praize their less cruel masters? If Czech people consider German rules to be an occupation, we can consider comparable Soviet rules as an occupation, too. Current Russian government continues Soviet politics and refuses to cooperate with families of murdered people.
    • Any number of dead Soviet soldiers includes NKVD and Smersh officers who committed crimes in Poland, Soviet victims of Soviet crimes and Soviet "management" of Lyudyey u nas mnogo type.
    • The Soviets were Nazi allies 1939-1941, manipulated Warsaw Uprising, incited some German crimes. Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you define the area of liberated Poland? Should you also count in the Polish area east from Curzon line which Soviet Union liberated for themselves? How about the German territory which was only later annexed to Poland? I think it is impossible to give an objective figure. --Gwafton (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. There are many opinions what was "Poland" 1944/1945 so informations about it are generally POV.Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a misunderstanding. My argument does not go to the label, be it "liberation" or "fight against Nazi army on Polish soil" or "fight between Nazis and Soviets within the area of Poland", but I think it inappropriate to delete the mention of the fallen soldiers completely.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain's quote at the top of the article is a good addition. Pelarmian (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am just reading Prague Winter and when getting to this part I realized this needs to be on Wiki. I might add more later as I get through the book, hopefully next weekend. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom of speech by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk (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) 11:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Institute of technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collegium Nobilium (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) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--Jayron32 17:36, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kunovice (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) 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Randy Blythe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chris Adler

Unincorporated area (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Proving Ground

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cimmerian praetor, you know the stage quite well. I just deleted something which was not necessary, not really enriching the article - which is quite problematic anyway. What is the impact of some "world records" to the situation in the Czech Republic after the amnesty? And be sure, any moves against Klaus in this case will be juridically turned down. He had a constitutional right to release an amnesty. So petitions are really only typical Czech activism. There is too much of it, since 1990. The situation is not good, and will not get better. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 10:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Zbrnajsem. It is not so much about the record itself, but about the fact how this record reflects the mood of the population. Surely, legally the amnesty is OK, but that does not make it legitimate. The very fact that impeachment process is being attempted at the end of Klaus' office term, when not only it has little to no chance to succeed but it also cannot have any impact (unlike in case of a midterm impeachment, for, lets say, unconstitutionally delaying signing of the Lisbon treaty) has a lot to say about the legacy he is taking with him.

Moreover, I don't only think that this paragraph should remain there, I believe that it should be enlarged by list of the most notorious cases that were stopped by Klaus, as well as by the people who were killed by released prisoners (at least two of them within 1 month). This step will leave a real stain on the Republic for the next at least half-a-decade, with top cops and prosecutors resigning to do the best they can out of fear that it may anyway lead to nothing. Best regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cimmerian praetor, I firmly oppose any enlargement of this case on English Wikipedia. It is not so important. We should rather work on other topics, like continuous obstruction by the opposition against any measures for consolidation of the state budget, continuous naiveté of 90 p.c. of the population on economic and other questions, or the coming of a new President. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should try taking a step back from your political views. This is encyclopedia. It's purpose is to provide information, not to shape opinions.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. But your insisting on edits on a random problem (yes, the amnesty is in fact only a random problem) depicts also your political views. There are much more important features of Klaus´s long-term career and of his political legacy than this amnesty, which was perhaps not the best measure, but maybe he had some reasons for it. Prosecutors resigning to do the best they can? What can they do after they have resigned? I always try to stay neutral, and well informed. For this, I am quite well equipped. The situation in the Czech Republic is, of course, not encouraging at all. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Blythe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encore (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) 10:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cimmerian praetor,

It's not the lack of sourcing that is the problem with the sentence in "Bail". It's that the sentence (i) is nothing to do with England and Wales, (ii) appears to have nothing to do with bail at all (are you thinking it's something to do with the etymology?) (iii) is as far as I can see quite wrong (the authoritative Latin dictionary by Lewis and Short mentions bajulus meaning a porter, a day-labourer, a bearer at a funeral and a letter-carrier, with no meaning in a legal context at all; A H M Jones' magisterial History of the Later Roman Empire, very strong on administrative history, does not mention the term). I really don't think it should stay.

Deipnosophista

OK, given the sources you mention don't support the paragraph, I agree with its deletion. And yes, it seemed etymologically meaningful before. It seemed like there used to be a history section, which was then moved into the UK part also with the Roman paragraph. Anyway, thank you for giving it some more thought. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Škoda Popular, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cc (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) 19:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this, I think you're pretty well okay. Just a few points. One, was the backbone chassis used for the entire Škoda size range? If so, I'd add that (rather than the displacements, which seem more apt for the individual pages). Two, what was the source of the issue over lack of tortional stiffness? What model/model range/year? I'd add it. "Škoda's second highest type" Is that in price or size? Both? (My understanding is, bigger meant costlier at that time, but I'm not completely sure.) Clarifying would be helpful. "similar to its contemporary pricing policy" Contemporary to what? Then, or now? Strictly speaking, contemporary would be at that time, so this is a bit unclear. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 21:33, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

• Yes, the backbone chassis was used throughout the new range. I've added the displacement to emphasize the model's role, from a small car to the large one.
• The torsional stiffness issue was connected with use of wooden bodywork on ladder frame. (if you are a car guy, see video Tatra vs Zetros on youtube) Latter metal bodywork on the ladder frame holds ok, but wood didn't fare that well at the time. So it was a more general issue of ladder frame+wooden bodywork, not an exact model.
• The 650 was outgoing model, which was sold alongside Superb for some time. Its price was a bit higher and the number of sold cars was lower, so I suppose it was also more luxurious (the size seems about the same) - although on the other hand 650 was depression model, while Superb came already after the depression.
• contemporary pricing policy - today the Superb prices start also roughly at about the double of Rapid, it was the same before WW2. Sorry for confusion, I meant today's pricing policy.

Thank you for your help, much appreciated! Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

♠Glad to do it. I learned something about Škodas in the process, so we both win. :)

♠If you're a car guy, let me invite you to look at this, this, & especially this, which could use more eyes; the Merc could use some clarification & sourcing, too. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 00:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a ping saying you answered; is that the old reply notice? If so, feel free to delete this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it was the old one :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (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) 10:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cimmerian praetor, I'm contacting you because we need some Czech translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on cs.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Czech Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Pearly,

please let me know what you need translated and I will be glad to help. As regards the message, I should be able to get to that during the weekend, as regards the Editor, I will see what I can do. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.p., great to hear! The two pages that are really important are the User Guide and the FAQ page. The translation extension makes things quite easy. I'll email you the message before the weekend. Thanks for helping! PEarley (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll post the message here, as you don't have email enabled. Thank you for helping. Message is:

""Hello Czech Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia Foundation. As some of you already know, the new VisualEditor (VE) is coming soon to all Wikipedias. The current date for Czech Wikipedia to have this feature enabled is in mid-August. The new editor will be offered alongside the old editing interface.

If you would like to try out the new editor before then, go to "Preferences", "Edit Page" and "Enable VisualEditor" at the bottom. Save your changes, and VE should be available. We are looking for problems and ideas for improvement. Please leave your feedback at my talk page [LINK] or at MediaWiki here here. We also need volunteers for translating VE documents, to help with this, go here. Thank you, (polite Czech goodbye?)" PEarley (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

C.p. - an update. We are finally going to roll out VE to Czech wiki for real. September 24th is the date. Could you do a translation for the official message? I don't trust the google. If you time, I'd be very happy ... Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I could get to that on Sep 22. Is that too late? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to give the cs.wiki users at least a week or more notice before the rollout. Any chance you could find time sooner? If not, no worries. There are a few others I could ask to do it. Best, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I have 9-22 working week and this weekend is also busy for me, so I can hardly do anything else other than guarding watchlist.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're working too hard! No problem, C.P., I'm sure I can find someone. Thanks for offering to help, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Názvy zrušených dekretú jsem zkopíroval přímo ze Sbírky zákonů, každý si může správnost ověřit, ve sbírce je pochopitelně uvedeno zda zákon platí nebo ne, vytvoření takového seznamu je čistě mechanická záležitost. Výjimkou je 245/1946 Sb. u kterého je vyznačeno, že není platný, ale není uvedeno datum ukončení platnosti. PB0305 (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gregor_Mendel&diff=566955504&oldid=566936911 that's what the book says]. Have you read it? 512bits (talk) 11:36, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but it makes no sense for the article to start with describing Mendel's primary education (which was prerequisite for gymnasium), secondary education at a high school (gymnasium) in Opava, University education in Olomouc, and concluding these by saying that he was "largely self-educated". Maybe the book puts this assertion in a certain context which was not taken over into the article? It is like saying that he was praying 5 times a day and then adding a sentence about him being an atheist. It may very well be true but it needs some explanation in order to make sense in the article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Brambleberry of RiverClan, GOCE copyeditor for this article. When I added the clarification tag, that was because I didn't understand what "taking a third one" meant. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 15:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my Czenglish. It means that two people were helping the other one to get out to get some fresh air. It may mean anything from accompanying him to carrying him out.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Randy Blythe manslaughter case at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! öBrambleberry of RiverClan 23:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Harok family murder. Since you contributed to the Harok family murder article,[4] I though that I would let you know about the BLPN discussion. Your efforts to develop the article are good, but I think there may be room for revision. -- Jreferee (talk) 05:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply

Thank you. Please let me know in case there is something I can do for the article. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Randy Blythe manslaughter case you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Randy Blythe manslaughter case for comments about the article. Well done!

Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might have an opinion on this: Talk:Ford Taunus P1

Regards Charles01 (talk) 09:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first time I read this I thought it was telling me that gun/weapon production accounts for a higher proportion of the manufacturing sector in Czechia than it does of the manufacturing sector in any other EU country. I was about to resequence the sentence accordingly. But then I looked more closely. I'm not sure it tells us anything - except by way of innuendo - about the relative weighting/importance of gun making / weapon making within the Czech manufacturing sector. I understand that gun manufacturing is or may be more important to the Czech economy than to other EU economies. And that might be true. But I don't think that is what the source says. And unless a source can be found that DOES say that, I'm not sure this point belongs here. Though yes, it COULD be a powerful point if (1) true and (2) sourced.

Or is the point simply that manufacturing is very important to the Czech economy? In which case, yes indeed. But is that sufficiently relevant to Gun politics to belong in the introduction/summary here?

Or am I being tiresomely picky? Charles01 (talk) 09:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, maybe the whole paragraph is redundant. Also the etymology has probably little to do with the current politics. I somehow wanted to put together this etymology trivia, long history of the arms industry into the intro and maybe lost the underline. Please feel free to erase the whole paragraph. Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is. Hopefully we can reach an agreement. --RevivesDarks (talk) 15:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

Hi, great to hear that. I may be a bit preoccupied in the next couple of weeks, so please be patient in case I don't answer fast enough. Should there be any issues with the article, I am ready to work them out! Thank you very much! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Congrats on the GA, great job! C679 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, much appreciated! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overview of gun laws by nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FMJ. 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) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Overview of gun laws by nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 'allocated'' to those in genuine need, but it's possible to acquire a gun, for example, for hunting) </ref>||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{maybe|02}}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Overview of gun laws by nation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "<>"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• 'allocated'' to those in genuine need, but it's possible to acquire a gun, for example, for hunting) </ref>||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{no}}||{{maybe|02}}
• http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/asia-pacific/gun-ownership-laws-trigger-indian-debate</ref> <http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/20/world/la-fg-india-guns-20120221</ref> <ref>http://www.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow

Thank you for your work on the Uherský Brod shooting. I have nominated it as an In the News item, crediting you as its best contributor. You can go there to add to the debate about whether it should be on the front page under In the News. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can only imagine that this event will lead to new developments for your excellent article on gun laws in your country. Good luck on updating it. '''tAD''' (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Velika Ivanča shooting — when I first heard of the Uhersky shooting I was reminded of this and I used it as justification for the In The News nomination. There are some similarities, as it was the worst in the country's peacetime history. According to the article, this Serbian shooter was not known to be mentally ill (despite a family history) so I'm not sure if it's as justified as a see also. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for pointing that out. Apart from the initial two (Czech arson and stabbing cases), I think we should keep there only shootings by mentally ill people. I think that in case of the Serbian, mental illness is in question, while here it was next to sure (see my latest update - police send him for psych eval). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to the above-referenced article. However, I was forced to remove sections of text in violation of

While the info is interesting, it appears to violate both

DR. Quis separabit? 12:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply

]

Thanks for the invitation, but I can not take part as I have limited proficiency and expertise in the subject matter. I believe that a good and fair judgement can be reached without my involvement. Thank you '''tAD''' (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have permission from the author to release the text under the
  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Legal clinic and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". Make sure you quote the exact page name, Legal clinic, in your email. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission
  for instructions.
• If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the
  GNU Free Documentation License, and note that you have done so on Talk:Legal clinic. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials
  for instructions.
• If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the
  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the material is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:Legal clinic
  with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Legal clinic saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.

Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! 203.45.10.187 (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. After closing out the listing for

Based on these two articles, I am worried that you may not realize or at least may not have realized that content cannot be taken directly from most sources and added to Wikipedia, but must be properly summarized to avoid copyright infringement. The only content we may copy from most sources are brief and clearly marked quotations. Only if content is verifiably

As regards Academic Degree, I believe that this should be public domain, I will look into it during the weekend. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please steer me towards particular rules on use of translated content? I suppose that taking 500 pages Czech book and making out of it 20.000 bytes in an English article should not be an issue in general? Thank you,

Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a full listing of your edits, so I can see your major ones, but it's helpful if you can think of any that might have been a particular concern. In terms of translation, the rules for translation are the same as they are for direct copying. English copyright law does not have a specific byte size or word count; at one extreme, 300 words out of a 500 page book were found to be a copyright infringement. The rules on Wikipedia are pretty basic. If the source is copyrighted (as most sources published after 1923 are), you can only directly copy a small amount in specifically marked quotations. Otherwise, the content must be written in your own words and structure. A literal translation is a

WP:NOENG

. Any articles that have included close translations of non-English sources that do not follow this approach should be revised so that they do.

In terms of the Academic Degree article, it would be nice if this were public domain, but is there a reason you think it might be? I checked the website of the university that created it, and they do reserve their material in general. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, truth to be told, I was myself surprised to see that I indeed copy-pasted that part from the legal clinics article. I don't think there should be any similar issue with my edits of the past couple of years, but I can't say that about the edits I've done when I was starting with wiki. From glancing through what I edited long time ago, I am not sure if this Josef_Šnejdárek#Life_timeline is OK. It is direct translation of timeline in the sourced book. Otherwise I am aware of the non-English citations standard as can be seen here: Beneš_decrees#Validity_of_the_decrees.

As regards Academic Degree issue - the Diploma Supplement is basically the same model used by most Czech Universities, which led me to believe that it must be stipulated by the Ministry of Education and as such it would fall within the public domain. I could not find any respective Ministerial decision, I could find this: [6] "The Diploma Supplement was introduced by Higher Education Act n 111 of 1998 (§57,g). It is issued on the request of the student. A working group composed of the representatives of 5 higher education institutions, the ECTS/DS coordinator, representatives of Ministry of Education and the Czech NARIC office formulated the recommendations concerning the structure of the DS, a description of the higher education system, a scheme of HES and a preamble to the DS in Czech and English. The Czech National team of Bologna Promoters is also involved in the DS implementation. Representatives of higher education institutions (including ECTS/DS consultants), a representative of the Accreditation Commission, students and representative of research in higher education are members of the team. The Ministry of Education coordinates the activities of the BP team. The Socrates office is responsible for organisational issues. The Czech NARIC office is an advisory body for recognition. All these actors have promoted the Diploma Supplement model. Some higher education institutions have already issued DS automatically to all graduates usually as a bilingual (Czech and English) document. All Czech higher education institutions intend to issue a DS automatically to every student from 2005.". Unfortunately the sublinks there are all dead. I still think it is public domain, but can't point to anything more specific than the fact that it was prepared by a publicly funded group of public institutions.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

Hi, please feel free to contact me with any issues that may be found with the article. Thank you, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sudetendeutsches Freikorps, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Petrovice. 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) 09:36, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article

You make some really good edits. Keep it up! 206.82.167.3 (talk) 20:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is nice to be appreciated! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I write you with regard to the chapter "Criminal activities". It's OK if you don't agree my point of view, but I don't really like the fact that you used the term "vandalism" to describe the changes that I made, because there's a specific talk on the argument, and I participated to such talk. This voice is kind of unique and weird on Wikipedia and it shows an improper use of the encyclopedia as as a means for a political propaganda. You can search Sicilians in US, but you won't find such chapter. Well.... why don't you join the talk instead of doing such deliberate action without even consulting with the people who participated the talk? Bear in mind that there are also few nonsense statements that might need some amendment. cheers --Amurdad (talk) 21:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I found wrong citations and unrelevant information and I made two small changes. Please, before rolling back any change, add a comment either here or in the talk section. Let's discuss it first, otherwise is not really acceptable. Cheers/nashledanou --Amurdad (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

what you did originally was blanking a whole section that was well structured and well referenced. That is, in fact, in wikilanguage, vandalism.

The recent edit is more to the point, however it is still too large. You deleted the following whole part:

>These drugs are often made for export to

Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

it makes sense that you didn't find anything in my history. I use to work mainly in the Italian Wiki, and I just happened to see this page because I worked 4 years in the Czech Republic and I was interested onto this topic.

For the drugs sold to Germany, Italy, France I wrote an extensive explanation and I'll copy it here as it is: "First of all, in Italy, Germany, France marijuana is decriminalized (it shows up in the link that was mentioned in the page) as in Czech Republic. Hence the statement is wrong. Furthermore, the fact that marijuana is posed as an alternative or deterrent to heroine is a very personal theory. They aren't the same things. Here (I live in the Netherlands) is possible to buy weed freely, but there are people addicted to heroine as well. However I am not here to argue, I am here to say that this is a very personal and respectable opinion, which does not have scientific basis. I therefore amended the small part regarding this topic."

hence, if the statement of the "decriminalization" is not true, why they should sell everything abroad, and not locally?

Sicilians or whatever else. You can go to African Americans page, and you won't find the word "criminality" at all in the whole page.

--Amurdad (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. Voting in the

2016 Arbitration Committee elections

is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CP, The wording is slightly off on your edit there; the core tests for the Irish firearms licence date from 1925 (and can be tracked back to the 1800s in English law before that) and are orthogonal to the European firearms directive, which doesn't speak to the requirements for a firearms licence in terms of what the applicant has to have done to qualify for one; they mostly deal with how firearms should be classified for licencing, how firearms should be marked and so forth. Most of the Irish firearms act is unaffected by the directive, having been far stricter than the directive since 1925 (the EU directive does technically take precedence, it's just that the Irish act doesn't have any portion that needed modification to comply with it with the exception of the introduction of the europass). MarkDennehy (talk) 15:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MD, well, the fact of the matter is that Irish law is EU compliant. I think that adding the last sentence you wrote above into the lead of the article would be helpful to navigate for someone who is from outside of EU and doesn't know how the EU legislation works.

Cheers, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's absolutely compliant (it's required to be so by law); the point is that this is a specific area not covered by EU law. We could decide who gets a licence by reading entrails and it'd still comply with the EU firearms directive... MarkDennehy (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. Voting in the

2017 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, do you think you can make the article about gun laws GA status? Your work on the Czech gun laws was excellent.

Here's a good infograph that summarizes Swiss gun laws: https://i.imgur.com/Fz3kGIJ.jpg

I am sorry, the Czech gun laws took literally dozens and dozens of hours to make. Unfortunatelly right now I don't have the time necessary to put the same dedication to the Swiss gun laws. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:20, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the dedicated article is far better than the brief overview in the Overview page, nice job. MarkDennehy (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you mean with "opposite side". That it is a subjective view by some doesn't mean there is an equally subjective view by others. I know we live in a post-truth society, but as far as I know there is no longstanding tradition worldwide that claims that this is really some unalienable right, which is what your edit was doing in Wikipedia's voice. Drmies (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an intro to Wikipedia article. Basing the lead sentense on "this is what it means by someone" is unencyclopedical.

The article is not about particularities of firearms legislation in the world. It is about "right to keep and bear arms" which is a term specific to the United States legislation. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just want to let you know that I started a

I'm feeling a bit worried that I went overkill though. We'll see how it turns out. CommanderOzEvolved (talk) (contribs) 10:10, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello User:CommanderOzEvolved, thank you for the information. I am that kind of user who is interested more in adding meaningful content than in the processes that keep it Wiki running. Please let me know what can I do regarding this investigation.

Prat. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Calling you "DOG" seemed inapropriate, [[User:Roxy the dog|Roxy, the dog.]. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2017 Chomutov incident, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DGU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Cimmerian praetor. Voting in the

2018 Arbitration Committee elections

is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of massacres in the Czech Republic, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Macedonia and Petřvald.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Moravian University. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 6#Moravian University until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, mohli by jste odsouhlasit tento nový článek, prosim?

Střední ž-Ž Střední ž-Ž je specifický znak, který byl navržen jako 85. písmeno moderní české abecedy, čítající dosud 42 malých a 42 velkých písmen (znak ž-Ž zastupuje font pro toto písmeno, který zatím v české Wikipedii schází). Písmeno bylo zavedeno v r. 2021 jako řešení jednoho problematického aspektu českého pravopisu – rozdíl mezi velkým a malým písmenem je totiž závazně používán k signalizaci toho, zda pisatel má na mysli skupinovou identitu náboženskou (žid) nebo národní, resp. národnostní (Žid). S poukazem na to, že tato dichotomizace nevystihuje komplexnost židovských identit, a v konkrétních textech je tedy často nepoužitelná nebo zavádějící, vznikla pravopisná podoba slova ž-Žid, zahrnující jak náboženskou, tak národní identitu v jednom slově.

Problém správného psaní slova ž-Žid v češtině je zmiňován už v roce 1887.^[2] Ve smyslu národním měl být tento výraz stejně jako dnes psán s velkým Ž, zatímco žid jako příslušník náboženské skupiny se měl psát s malým ž. Aplikace tohoto pravidla však působí problémy při přepisu mluvené řeči, překládání z jiných jazyků nebo snaze vyjádřit souběžně oba významy. Židé samotní obvykle vnímají obě identity jako neoddělitelné, neboť moderní koncepty národa a náboženství se zformovaly až dlouho po vzniku židovstva. V návaznosti na tento spor upřednostňovali českoslovenští sionisté ve 20. století ve svých novinách, tiskovinách a interních dokumentech psaní s velkým písmenem, zatímco českožidovští asimilacionisté nebo židé vymezující se striktně nábožensky (charedim) často volili psaní s písmenem malým.

Osobitě byl tento problém vyřešen v českém vydání publikace Martina J. Weina^[3] History of the Jews in the Bohemian Lands / Dějiny ž-Židů v českých zemích, které připravilo Vydavatelství Univerzity Palackého v Olomouci.^[4] Uplatněním klasického postupu teze, antiteze a syntézy ve vizuální a grafické rovině byl vytvořen nový glyf, kombinující horní část malého písmene ž s dolní částí velkého písmene Ž, čímž vzniklo „střední“ písmeno coby vizuální kompromis. Autorkou znaku je typografka Veronika Burianová a výslednou podobu knihy s využitím uzpůsobeného fontu Edita UPO navrhla grafička Markéta Cole.^[5]

Nové písmeno podnítilo akademickou i veřejnou diskusi. Hebraista a odborník na blízkovýchodní studia Zbyněk Tarant ze Západočeské univerzity v Plzni se problematice psaní slova ž-Žid v češtině podrobně věnoval už v roce 2020.^[6] Jazykovědec Jiří Nekvapil z Univerzity Karlovy v Praze považuje zavedení středního ž-Ž ve Weinově knize za další doklad toho, že česká jazyková situace se stala příznivou pro utváření variantního pravopisu češtiny, specifického pro různé funkční oblasti spisovného jazyka.^[7]

Yarmuk (talk) 10:03, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Související články

• Český pravopis

Externí odkazy

• Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci
• Nekvapil, J. (2007). Kultivace (standardního) jazyka. Slovo a slovesnost, 68, s. 287–301
• Článek o středním ž-Ž
• Krátký film o středním ž-Ž

Please stop your disruptive editing. You just delete other information, like the edits with France, and you are destroying the list with your edits, (see Czech section), it does no one any good to just delete everything, so please stop. Also not providing numbers is not a valid source, the +20 are machines that have already been seen, so confirmed. If you absolutely want to include "Undisclosed number", we can talk about it, but just slapping a big text in the list is not conducive either, again, if it is necessary, please put it at the top of the list. Uwdwadafsainainawinfi‬! (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uwdwadafsainainawinfi (talk • contribs) [reply]

U:Uwdwadafsainainawinfi

I had added about 20 multiple sources to the Czech section, which were all replaced by the Oryx section. Also multiple details had been lost repeatedly during edits of that section.

The original Oryx list was most probably compiled from Wikipedia leading to reference in circle, just with adding some numbers. The fact is that most of those Oryx numbers (a) either don't appear anywhere else (e.g. the Dana howitzers) or (b) are contradicted by other source (e.g. the helicopters - which according to some sources are as high as 11, which is however improbable, as that would mean only a couple left in Czech service) or (c) are without context (e.g. "bought from Bulgaria" - Czech companies are regularly buying ex-Soviet equipment from all around the world, refurbishing it and reselling it - and there is no other source than Oryx to support that "Bulgaria" was targeted resale, not just part of sale of privately owned stock located in the Czech Republic).

I understand your frustration with the loss of French information, but I've been there now three times with you reverting the Czech information. So, please you do stop with your disruptive edits. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

This person can't verify data and keeps changing and adding nonsense... even if he doesn't understand the subject he is able to change a good thing to a bad thing... this user is on immediate ban (Tatra T815 is really not Tatra T815-7 as you keep editing the wrong picture, unsigned orders for weapons do not really belong in the arsenal of the Czech army and many others). Zabdas message delivery (talk) 23:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Military Barnstar
		Thank you for your contribution to the list of military aid to Ukraine during the Russo-Ukrainian War. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:13, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kill house, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czechoslovak Army in the West.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cimmerian praetor! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor at Dominik Feri that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia—it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]