User talk:Qertis

Zda&#345; b&#367;h,

believe that Bohemia is a more proper land of origin of Josef Capek's. Czechia is still a somewhat harsh neologism. Oneliner 21:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

--- Could you tell me where you found the dicretic marks that you put on the Czech names? Where in Wikipedia can I find a list of these? Can you leave a msg on my talk page User:WHEELER thanksWHEELER 22:34, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I would be nice if you could add info on Czech gymnasia under Gymnasium (school). Juro 13:25, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. I think it is the same as in Slovakia. Qertis 12:07, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Country name
Ahoy!

I noticed in Richard Freiherr von Krafft-Ebing that you changed the reference to his place of education: "...Prague, in what is now the Czech Republic." The phrase you removed accurately implied that in his day the land had a different name. I think what you did in Jan Evangelista Purkinje, where you retain Bohemia as the name of the land his birthplace, is good because it shows what the land was called during his time, and one can learn the modern name by clicking it. It is always a good idea to keep historical events in context, and indicating the name of the place during his time avoids conflicts with other sources who use those then-current names. I hope you will consider reverting Krafft-Ebing back, to restore the in what is now the Czech Republic form.--StanZegel 16:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Ahoj, you are right, but then be consistent and retype the phrase "...born in Mannheim, Baden, Germany" since there was no country named "Germany" in 1840. "True" phrase is "...born in Mannheim, Baden, German Confederation". BTW, is there any Wiki policy on this problem? Should it be a) Mannheim, Germany, b) Mannheim, Baden, Germany, c) Mannheim, Baden, German Confederation, d) Mannheim, Baden, in what is now Germany, e) Mannheim, Baden, German Confederation (now Germany) or f) Manheim, Baden-Württemerg, Germany (then German Confederation)? I don't know. The country called Czech Republic (Czechia) since 1993 (or 1918 in the name Czechoslovakia) was known as Bohemia until 1918 (in English), that is true. But this "renaming" occured only in some languages (mostly Germanic and Romance), while in others (especially Slavic) nothing has changed and the country's name remained untouched until today. Anyway, I have made the change mainly because the phrase "in what is now" seems ugly to me. What about "Prague, Bohemia" or simply "Prague"? --Qertis 09:23, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are correct-- consistency is desirable. I think the way the location is cited in Franz Kafka should be used in all cases.--StanZegel 05:51, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nationalization of Names of Persons
You have moved Jan Evangelista Purkinje from its previous location, which used the German form of his name. While I can appreciate Czech pride, I wonder what form of the name he used himself while he was alive? During his time, was not German the actual language he would have used? Did he usually sign his name as Johannes? How was his name registered with the authorities at birth? His identity cards? I would suggest that pre-1918 Czech persons should have their main page located under the name they used when they were alive or best known as in the English-speaking world (this being the English Wikipedia), with redirects to it from other forms of the name or aliases. Don't you agree that that better preserves the historical context?. --StanZegel 17:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * As a Czech I just prefer Czechs to be titled by their Czech names and since "Jan" is also used in English, I am for it. Germanized and widely used form of his name certainly should be mentioned in the article. --Qertis 11:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Category:Bohemian monarchs
Hi Qertis, please take a look at User_talk:Itai and Categories_for_deletion. There was a minimum consensus among several users to subclassify the Bohemian rulers as either Kings or Dukes. The original reason, I think, was that the Dukes were also to be a subcategory of Category:Dukes. I think you should either give a substantial (presumably historical) reason for your edits, revert them or propose Category:Dukes of Bohemia and Category:Kings of Bohemia (which you emptied) for deletion to allow for a more comprehensive discussion. Best, Martg76 15:29, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, 1)There are huge differences between duke titles in Britain, HRE or Central Europe (Bohemia, Poland, Hungary) and it is not very useful to subsume them under one single category. 2)On the contrary, it is extremely useful to have all Bohemian sovereigns included in one category such as all Polish, Hungarian and others (see Category:Monarchs). In short, category "Bohemian monarchs" is much more valuable than "Dukes of Bohemia" and "Kings of Bohemia" together, especially when Category:Kings is empty. I will propose these categories for deletion.


 * You really shouldn't depopulate categories, even if you disagree with them (see item 4 in WP:CFD). Yours is a valid viewpoint, but by depopulating the category you prevent discussion - except for the few individuals who watch this page, the community has no way of knowing what used to be in this category. Given this, I shall take the liberty of reverting your edits. If you still believe that there is no place for this category, by all means list it in WP:CFD. (By the way, sign your posts!) -- Itai 16:22, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * OK, I am sorry for that. I am not very familiar with this stuff. -- Qertis 01:14, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem. -- Itai 11:36, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote
Hi. Since you have edited on WikiProject Cities/Names issues, I would invite you to vote on Talk:Gdansk/Vote to settle the multi-year dozens-of-pages dispute about the naming of Gdansk/Danzig and other locations. The vote has two parts, one with questions when to use Gdansk/Danzig, and a second part affecting articles related to locations with Polish/German history in general. An enforcement is also voted on. The vote has a total of 10 questions to vote on, and ends in two weeks on Friday, March 4 0:00. Thank you -- Chris 73 Talk 07:13, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Praha/Prague/Prag
IMO the German name for Prague should stay in article. There are historical reasons and it is good habit for other cities. Pavel Vozenilek 17:36, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it should be in the article but perhaps in a special "Name" or "Etymology" section rather than in the first sentence. The German name is of certain historical importance, but also of certain controversy (see neverending Polish-German edit wars). BTW "Prag" is its name not only in German, but also in Croatian, Danish, Swedish or Turkish. Qertis 23:17, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I think Etymology section would only add mess into the article. Should it stay as it was before no revert I would expect very little controversies to happen. Croatian, Danish, etc languages have little in common with Prague. Pavel Vozenilek 18:29, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * 1)There is nothing messy about etymology or any other additional info about the city. 2) Go ahead and add Warschau into the opening sentence in Warsaw article. I really wonder what reactions you'll get... Anyway, if it stays there, I will agree with Prag. Qertis 21:32, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I coudn't care less about German-Polish revert wars. My point is that Prag name is historically important. Pavel Vozenilek 15:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Charles University of Prague
Why Charles IV -> Charles I ? --Michal Jurosz 09:01, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * He was the first King of Bohemia of its name (Carolus Primus) and he issued the Bull as king, not emperor (he wasn't emperor yet). The phrase "king Charles IV" is therefore ahistorical and completely wrong. Qertis 09:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Czechia vs Czech Republic vs ...
Please reach consensus first on Talk page of given article and avoid revert wars. It is wasting time of other people. Thank you. Pavel Vozenilek 17:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, but it wasn't me who started this war. Qertis 07:52, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

České Budějovice and Plzeň
Ahoj Qertis, I have noticed that NoPuzzleStranger initiated changes to both articles. He is pushing a wording change to foreign name references indicating that Pilsen and Budweis are not current English name alternatives.

I have found several examples of current use of both Pilsen and Budweis in English language texts by the local population, including the municipal web site of the City of Pilsen. Obviously, both names are used by foreigners as well - for historical or practical reasons.

I disagree with his changes and would value your opinion since you have authored the text in question. Jbetak 1 July 2005 22:37 (UTC)


 * Ahoj, to me it is absolutely clear and I really don't know what is behind NoPuzzleStranger's strange behaviour. I fully agree with you. Qertis 2 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

Petr Chelčický
I have no doubt that Petr Chelčický is the correct name, but wonder about the advisability of the title change. For the English version of Wikipedia it seems that Naming conventions (use English) would recommend the 'Peter Chelcicky' spelling: "Convention: Title your pages using the English name, if one exists, and give the native spelling on the first line of the article. If the native spelling is not in the Latin alphabet, also provide a Latin transliteration. Only use the native spelling as an article title if it is more commonly used in English than the anglicized form." I didn't make any change, but would like to get some input. Thanks. - Rlvaughn 3 July 2005 03:23 (UTC)


 * Maybe I am wrong, but I just don't think that "Peter Chelcicky" is so deeply rooted anglicized form of his name, that it should be petrified here on Wikipedia. The Czech or Polish names are now used in titles with the original spelling even when they have commonly used anglicized form (see Tadeusz Kościuszko). Qertis 3 July 2005 11:21 (UTC)


 * True, "Peter Chelcicky" may not be that deeply rooted (probably because many people have never heard of him), but it is the "correct" anglicized form of his name. The chief problem, IMO, is that the diacritical or accent marks are not part of standard English, and that makes the Wikipedia less "user-friendly" to the "average Joe". In the long run it may not matter that much, though, since entering "Peter Chelcicky" will redirect one to the article anyway. - Rlvaughn 3 July 2005

Eduard Nápravník
Perhaps not everyone should be mentioned in List of Czechs as it would result in flattened mirror of Category:Czech people.

I'd created page about Nápravník because he was born in nearby village and I am trying to cover this location. Pavel Vozenilek 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Good work, Pavel, I have heard about him before and just find him important enough to be there. Qertis 06:57, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Can we cut down on the number of Austrians in this list?
I think its best to just include Czechs or Austrians with Czech affiliations and not just Austrians born in the Czech Republic like Marie Ebershech or whatever her name is.

Can we PLEASE consider this?


 * I disagree. There is no clear dividing line between Czechs/Bohemians and Austrians. What does it mean "Austrian" at all? There was an Austrian Empire for over 100 years and therefore all the Czechs, Austrian Germans, Hungarians etc. who lived at that time could be called "Austrians", despite they have little or nothing in common with present-day Republic of Austria. Should we everyone who lived in the territory of former Empire and his mother tongue was German call Austrian? Why? Was Franz Kafka Austrian? He spent almost all his life in Bohemia and he certainly wasn't Austrian in present-day meaning of this word. Was Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach Austrian? She was born Dubská into an ancient Bohemian/Czech noble family and spent most of her life in what is now Austria. I would call her Bohemian-Austrian or Austrian-Bohemian and certainly would not exclude her from this list, which should contain all important Czechs/Bohemians AND people born in Bohemia (see the header). Qertis 07:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Usercat
You were listed in the Wikipedians/Czech Republic page as living in or being associated with Czech Republic. As part of the User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians in Czech Republic for instructions.Rmky87 08:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Czech vs Bohemian
Hi, Quertis.

The state you say existed even before Poland (as it sure did) was Bohemia (Čechy) and not a "Czech State" (Česko). The problem is that in the Czech language, the adjective český applies to both Čechy and Česko. However, when you render it into English you must remember about the context, and use "Czech" when writing about the modern Česko, but "Bohemian" when writing about Čechy. Anyway, "Bohemia" is not a former English name for the Czech state, it is an English name for a former state which is now one of the three historical regions of the Czech Republic. But, come on, you should know that. – Kpalion (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Kpalion, be sure I know something about my own country :). The way you are describing the problem is quite popular in Czechia (and conseqently on the Czech Wikipedia and elsewhere), but is fairly wrong. The difference between "Čechy" and "Česko" is just grammatical, both names were used as synonyms as early as in the 18th century. The other "historical regions" of the Czech republic, Moravia and Silesia, have been part of Bohemia since 11th (14th) century. They were also called "adjacent lands" and had some degree of autonomy (especially when Bohemia was part of the Habsburg monarchy, since Habsburgs tried to weaken the unity of Bohemia for easier control of the kingdom), but never ceased to be part of it. In short, "Bohemia" is not just one in a row of the Czech regions, it is either a core land (something like Wielkopolska in Poland or Nieder/Oberösterreich in Österreich/Austria) or the country as a whole. Both these meanings are valid, I personally use "Bohemia proper" for the first one and "Bohemia" for the latter.


 * The whole case is only about the English name of the country after it regained its independence in 1918. When T.G. Masaryk, the first president of the republic, advocated Bohemia's sovereignty in 1915, he called it logically Bohemia, see . It was only later when Slovaks demanded "Slovakia" to be mentioned (Česko-Slovensko) and Bohemians were "renamed" Czechs in English, perhaps for underlining the new national character of the state, therefore "Czechoslovakia" instead of "Bohemoslovakia". After its breakup in 1993 the Czech politician were unable to rename the country (in English and other languages) back to Bohemia or enforce the new name "Czechia", so we use the "Czech Republic" everywhere. Finally, as a Pole, you call the Czech republic "Czechy" which is nothing but Čechy/Bohemia. Qertis 11:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * OK, thanks for the explanation. Now, why don't you rewrite the relevant articles (Czech Republic, Bohemia, Czech lands) so that they would say exactly what you've just written above? – Kpalion (talk) 14:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You are right, sadly the majority of involved Wikipedians here are firmly convinced about the opposite and I just haven't enough courage to get myself involved in the inevitable neverending debates yet. Qertis 15:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * No, Quertis, what you write above is to a large extent wrong (you are confusing colloquial and popular usage with official names and Bohemia with the Lands of the Bohemian crown). Moravia was a clearly separated territory in the 19th etc. century. The only time Bohemia could have been used for all the territories was in the early Middle Ages, but even then the correct name is Lands of the Bohemian crown and to prove that the expression "Bohemia" was used officially for the Czech lands at that time would require some research. Also, the form Czech etc., besides Bohemia etc., existed before 1918. But we have been discussing this here already...Juro 16:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Juro, I wouldn't draw such a sharp distinction between colloquial and official names here. Lands of the Bohemian Crown, Bohemian Lands, Bohemian Crown, Crown of the Kingdom of Bohemia (Corona regni Bohemiae) etc. are designations of the Bohemian state and its structure. It is quite evident that it wasn't a unitary state as it is today, but it certainly was a state. States have their long and short names and here simply isn't any other possible short name than "Bohemia". Poles called their homeland "Poland" even when she was partitioned and officially didn't exist. For me, Moravia was part of Bohemia even when Habsburgs officially separated it from the core land. Poland's medieval name is Poland, Hungary is Hungary, but Czech Republic/Czechia can be only "Lands of the Bohemian Crown" and not simply Bohemia? No, in my opinion, there is no reason for such a formality in a common non-historiographic usage. Qertis 10:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I understand what you mean very well, and years ago I also thought this way. But the point is we are talking about the content of a (would-be :) ) encyclopaedia, and one has to be precise in such texts. As I already said above, Bohemia and Moravia can be considered neither "one", nor "state" over the 19th etc. centuries (the state being the Austrian Monarchy etc.), but they probably can for the Middle Ages... And Bohemia IS and CAN be called Bohemia, but only the "true" Bohemia, not including Moravia, Silesia etc.. Hungary and Poland had nothing like "Moravia" at the time in question, so you cannot compare that. To put it simply, saying that Moravia can be called Bohemia in the 19th century is at best equivalent to saying that Canada or say Scotland (in reality part of the British crown) can be called England, because (except for language and culture etc.) the Bohemia and Moravia were politically completely separate. Whether it was bad, is another issue. Juro 17:56, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Production volume for Plzeňský Prazdroj
Thank you, Qertis! I couldn't find that information on their web site. It's not even in their voluminous annual report...where did you find it? Owen&times; &#9742;  13:59, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi, I found it here; its actually slightly under 10. Qertis 20:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Karl Kraus
Hi! I noticed that the Karl Kraus english page is really poor, while the german one it way better. I think this huge author deserves more, can you translate some of it? I'm starting to work to the italian version, but I can't speak German. --Mauro 22:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Śnieżka / Sněžka
I see it was you who moved Śnieżka to Snow Mountain (some months ago), but I'm struggling to understand the logic behind the move. There is a mention somewhere of an inability to choose between the Czech name and the Polish name, but I don't think that justifies the use of the current, invented name. I believe Bozen-Bolzano and Eisack-Isarco set a good example of how to deal with bilingual names, when neither is English. Would you object to the article being moved to Sněžka-Śnieżka? My reason for doing so is that nobody would recognise the mountain in question from the name "Snow Mountain", and that an invented calque is no good solution. If we translated all non-obvious names, then "Snow Mountain" would apply equally to Schneeberg, Snowdon, and countless others. I would suggest turning Snow Mountain into a disambiguation page, and having the Czech/Polish peak elsewhere. --Stemonitis 15:56, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * There is a similar situation with the Karkonosze article, where the alternatives are Karkonosze (Polish), Krkonoše (Czech), and Giant Mountains (English). Unlike the Snow Mountain situation, however, Giant Mountains is used by Britannica, while Krkonoše is used by Columbia. Olessi 18:33, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. I must admitt that "Snow Mountain" was just an attempt to stop the Czech-Polish quarrel over the article's name. Krkonoše-Karkonosze might be another candidate. Qertis 20:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I personally think that Giant Mountains is better than the double-naming. Although I don't like to rely on Google like some contributors do, there are many hits for Giant Mountains on that search engine, as well as it being the term used for a major encyclopedia already. Olessi 20:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Its the same for me, double-naming in this case comes only second to Giant Mountains. Qertis 21:10, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I have now changed it to Sněžka-Śnieżka (using the order of names I found in the Mtnbox template, implying no primacy for either version). I don't like Giant Mountains, personally, along with all other pointless calques (like "Dead Mountains" for Totes Gebirge, etc.), but if it really is used widely, then I suppose it should stay. --Stemonitis 08:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't like pointless calques either- "Dead Mountains" on Google] bring up very few relevant hits. However, Giant Mountains is used extensively on Google, and, most authoritatively, on Britannica. Although Krkonoše-Karkonosze is an acceptable compromise, I prefer Britannica's usage. Olessi 09:37, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

List of country names in various languages under attack !!!
Dear Qertis,

The List of country names in various languages, List of European regions with alternative names, List of European cities with alternative names, List of European rivers with alternative names, and others, have come under attack by a certain Mikka, who, having just stumbled into all these lists, having found them of little use to himself, and having repeatedly ridiculed them and their users, has then promptly filed a petition to delete the lists in question.

Please cast your vote to keep these valuable, informative, and indeed fascinating lists at Articles for deletion/List of country names in various languages.

Thanks! Pasquale 17:17, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Aid in Article-Making
I was wondering if you want to help me make a bunch of articles for all the reds on the Czech list. Contact me as soon as you find time. HotelRoom 05:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk in Brno article
As I stated on the Talk:Brno page, I am wondering what Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk has to do with Brno. I read his page, and the city isn't mentioned.

Thanks for any information you can give me!

John 00:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the answer on the Talk:Brno page!


 * John 18:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

UK
look here.

Barrandov Studios
I'm not sure whether it is wise to keep the list of films as people add the latest ones practicaly automatically here. Pavel Vozenilek 05:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure the selective list belongs here. If you compare it with other movie studio articles, it is still one of the shorter ones. The insignificant additions can be easily removed to keep it readable. Qertis 10:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikics template
Hi Qertis! Recently, I created a new template to indicate English Wikipedia users who also contribute to the Czech Wikipedia.

Template:User wikics

Feel free to add it to your userboxes if you like it (and if you actually contribute). Happy Easter. Daniel Šebesta (talk • contribs) 22:33, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

List of Czech Jews
From the looks of your other talk-page disputes, you seem to have a nack for placing Austrians/German-speaking Bohemians/and Czechs all in the same boat. I've look around and found that there are two lists for people born in Hungary and those born outside of Hungary. On par with this, if you feel it entirely necessary, I wouldn't be against a List of Bohemians and hence comparative List of Bohemian Jews. Though it would be stretching the box a little. 72.144.158.201

Good edit - thanks. --Newport 17:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're doing sterling work. I don't suppose you'd care to look at the lists of Polish and German Jews?--20.138.246.89 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Category:Praguers
I believe this category should be used very, very frugally. Being born in Prague is mere accident and living there for a short time doesn't likely create lasting bond.

The fact that this kind of categories is widely misused in Wikipedia is, IMHO, no reason to repeat the error here. Pavel Vozenilek 19:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Czech Jews
I've made separate lists of Czech and Czech-speaking Jews.--Newport 18:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I dont see any good reason for this unless List of German-speaking Jews, List of English-speaking Jews etc. come next. Qertis 19:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, nice attempt at a resolve but now there's two lists exhibiting the same people. A better resolve would have been renaming the current list List of Jews from Bohemia and Moravia, as has been stated a good number of times, but that would be just as unprecedented and superfluous. 72.144.198.231 02:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Czech-speaking Jews now redirects to List of Czech Jews with all the omissions.--Brownlee 20:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Czech Republic
 ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 19:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help
Thank you for your assistance on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2007. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Carlsbad
Please somebody with your background should help us vote for Carlsbad in English wikipedia instead of 'Karlovy Vary' a local name now forced over original and historic name. Just for sake of Charles IV. Please read through the support/oppose arguments and vote. -- IEEE 00:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I am totally indifferent in this case. Both names are valid, both are used by native English speakers as well as by the city officials in their presentations. The only thing that should matter here is the frequency of usage of these names. It certainly should not become a subject of a heated debate over ethnic/linguistic history of the city, which is IMHO completely irrelevant here. Qertis 18:38, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Brno You might be interested.  ≈Tulkolahten≈ ≈talk≈ 22:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Highway vs Motorway
Hi, i see you moved all czech highways to motorways without a short notice on any discussion. I reverted your changes. You can place move proposal template and we can discuss that somewhere (maybe best place will be there - Template talk:CzechHighways). --Jklamo 21:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Logo-bcpp.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-bcpp.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 16:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:PSE logo en.gif)
Thanks for uploading Image:PSE logo en.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 05:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Barrandov logo.gif
This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Barrandov logo.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 14:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Logo-bcpp.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Logo-bcpp.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Skoda Holding logo.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Skoda Holding logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Event on September 23
Hello. I noticed that you have added an event to September 23 but the event does not link to a supporting article. At first glance, you might think I'm crazy because the event clearly is mentioned in the linked article. But the problem is that the specific date is not mentioned in any of the linked articles. Without mention of the date in the linked article, there is no way to verify that the event that you added actually occurred on the date specified. Simply adding the date to the linked article without providing a reference to support it would not be an acceptable solution. Since it cannot be verified, the event has to be removed. If you can add a reference for the specific date to the linked article, then the event could stand on the date page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Done.Qertis (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Czech casualities in WW1
Hi, could you add the information about Czech casualties in WW1 into the new subhead in WW1 casualties in WW1 ?--Molobo (talk) 17:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Qertis! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Michal Šlesingr -

Talk:Karkonosze
There has been a new and expanded preferential poll created on Talk:Karkonosze similar to the recent Ireland poll. The votes from the previous poll could unfortunately not be transferred over to the new system and you may need to recast your vote. I apologise for the inconvenience. — what a crazy random happenstance 04:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cssd logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Cssd logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:


 * I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
 * I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
 * If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
 * To opt out of these bot messages, add  to your talk page.
 * If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skoda Transportation logo.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Skoda Transportation logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

3rr
Your recent editing history at Czechia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Beshogur (talk) 11:19, 23 June 2024 (UTC)