User talk:Tulkolahten/Archive12

Hi
I was wondering if there is a Czech word for this political entity and if there is a Czech history stub since it was part of Kingdom of Bohemia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_country Have a good day :) --Molobo (talk) 13:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject European Union!
- J Logan t: 15:24, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar. I really do appreciate it, although I constantly have the feeling of contributing much less than the Czech Republic related articles need and deserve. Thanks very much again. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 18:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Czech Barnstar of National Merit
I am honored. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sequens.jpg
Thank you for uploading Image:Sequens.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for "The Czech Barnstar of National Merit"
I am gladden by it... My wife says that this award belongs to her too for her patience with me spending hours at Wikipedia ;) Could I show it on my main (wiki)page? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 17:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus
No problem&mdash;thanks for the note. My browser crashed just before I started the move and I forgot that I would need to log back in. &mdash;David Wilson (talk · cont) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

article structure consistency
Would like your input on the article structure I have developed for the series of articles dealing with Eastern Front operations. I am particularly concerned with the introduction section vs the opening paragraph. The opening paragraph is supposed to be a brief summary of the entire article, but I have found way too much information inserted in them in other articles, duplicating information in 'campaign boxes' and repeated in the introductions that follow Contents.

Below is a suggested standard structure for article taxonomy based more on the military terminology, and incorporating a way of describing an event that follows a more military event structure.

+Contents (here)
 * ‘’’Introductory briefing’’’ (unnamed) – a short, one paragraph of no more then seven average length sentences, description of the article addressing the question when, where, who, why, larger context, significance, and outcome.) Using WikiProject Military history/Essays/Describing conflicts would be helpful here.
 * Role in the conflict – describes role of the event in the larger conflict. A war also has a context in a larger conflict since it usually evolves from non-armed forms of conflict such as social, cultural, political and economic conflicts.


 * Campaign situation – this describes the event in terms of a war's theatre campaign.
 * Strategic situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the campaign where an operation is the event
 * Operation situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the operation where a battle is the event
 * Battle situation (as required) – this describes the event in terms of the battle where an event describes a part of a tactical battle


 * Decision making – after assessment of the situation comes the decision-making process that seeks to change the existing situation through securing of initiative by offensive action.


 * Goal of the operation – to change the situation one needs a situational change goal
 * Objective of the battle – at the tactical level the goal is called an objective
 * Side A intelligence – the first step is to gather understanding by the attacked (A) of the defender’s (D) capacity to resist
 * Side D intelligence – usually anyone suspicious of an attack will also gather intelligence on the likelihood of an impending attack


 * Planning – after the intelligence is gathered, planning starts


 * Side A – description of planning should begin with a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
 * Forces involved – organisation of forces and their structural description (in modern times described as tables of equipment of organisation and equipment) need to be given
 * Side D
 * Forces involved


 * Description of the Campaign/Strategic operation/operation/battle – this is the core part of the article. All military events have phased sequence that can be divided into:


 * Initial attack – describes initial execution of the plan
 * Progress of the offensive – describes success or failure of the plan
 * Decisive action – describes the instance when the plan has the greatest chance of success or failure, or the attempt to correct the divergence from the plan
 * Final commitment – any attempts to secure success or prevent failure of the plan
 * Outcomes – comparison of end result with the planned result of the event plan


 * Consequences – the impact of the outcomes on events that follow, but which are not part of the above-described plan


 * Immediate effects – immediate effects that include changes in a) organisational description, b) logistic arrangements, c) personnel availability and abilities, and d) technology to be used.
 * Effects on future planning – describe effects on the planning in the larger scope of events


 * Myths – often popular rendition or beliefs about the event that are either partly or completely false, or presented for the purpose of propaganda
 * Memorials – a means of post event commemoration of the event
 * Popular culture – depiction of the event in popular culture and media
 * References – page reference in an authoritative source used to research the article content
 * Footnotes – explanatory notes for points made in the article
 * Bibliography – sources used for the compilation of research on the article
 * See also – other Wikipedia articles related to the event
 * Online resources – other online sites that relate to the event or its larger context
 * Further reading – other sources not used for the research of the article but recommended to the reader

The purpose of the article structure suggested above is not to straight-jacket the authors and editors, but to enhance consistency of presentation throughout the project’s assortment of articles to the reader, and to enable the future editors to be more focused in the editing process by providing more focused sections in the article structure. Thank you--mrg3105mrg3105 00:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
I am honoured by your award. In the ongoing work on Wiki, I say thanks only now, I apologise. Never hesitate to ask me for sources or opinion if you find an interesting article or information. I myself look forward to expanding history and information about Bohemia.--Molobo (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:OtakarJaros.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:OtakarJaros.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 08:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE HELP!!
I work for Upbeat Classical Management, and I am currently trying to add biographies for a Baroque group we represent, called Red Priest, but am experiencing difficulties, and would really appreciate your help as I am new to Wikipedia!

The problems are:

1. I wrote an article about Red Priest without realising that one already existed. Therefore, after I had submitted the information and thought I had deleted the old info from the sandbox, both chunks of info (old and new) appeared on the Red Priest article page one after the other (WHICH I DON'T WANT!). I have now tried to merge the articles so that only mine will appear when you do a search for Red Priest, but I dont know if this is the right approach or if I should submit the page for deletion, and re-write it - but again I am unsure whether if i propose an article for deletion, is it then possible to recreate the article with the same name and just my biographical information?

2. I wrote a page about Piers Adams who is the recorder player in Red Priest and submitted it. I then logged on to check if the article was ok, but it appeared with a box saying it was ready for speedy deletion as I had included copyright material from Piers Adams website (www.piersadams.com), however, as his agent, I have access to this information!

Please could you let me know what to do about these two dilemmas - it would be very much appreciated.

Thank you for your time,

Emily. (user name: Classicalphillips) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicalphillips (talk • contribs) 10:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

That was fast!
Thx for adding the source in Brno death march. --Catgut (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you so much! People like you make Wikipedia a much better place to work. Tankred (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Comics
Thanks for the link. It made me laugh. :) Jinak pridej si do watchlistu treba tenhle clanek. U par dalsich byva obcas problem s uzivatelem HLT. Obavam se, ze mu nepujde vysvetlit, ze v ceskych zemich, a pozdeji v Ceskoslovensku, zadni Rakusane nezili. I ve scitanich lidu za prvni republiky neexistovala "rakouska narodnost". Myslim, ze v tomto pripade bychom meli byt nanejvys presni. -- Darwinek (talk) 16:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome....
I poke around in the Czech Republic project as best I can as I've spent some time living in Prague. My contributions are a bit random but I've enjoyed doing what I can :) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Search and Rescue (SGA)
To quote the injunction: "For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

Since you un-redirected this episode article first, it was justified to undo your edit. Please self-revert. Also, the SGA LoE has been having hidden comments for weeks to not start/re-create articles as long as they are not possbible to be expand beyond stub status (" Search and Rescue" will be a stub for at least 3 or 4 months). Furthermore, there have been notifications at the talkpage of the SGA LoE and WT:STARGATE that all episodes that don't establish notability after while (i.e. now or very soon) will be transwikied and then redirected (like is being done with the SG-1 episodes). Every comment is invited there. – sgeureka t•c 13:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify what you meant with "I will self-revert if we will get to this by this talk"? The injunction got violated, and no other comments were made in the threads that I started about the future about SG episodes in the past few weeks. Per Silence and consensus, I assume there is consensus about not making/keeping new stubs for SGA episodes. Even then, the other 80 SGA ep articles don't make any claim of notability, so the per-se-notability and/or future encyclopedic treatment of new SGA episodes may be doubted as well. – sgeureka t•c 14:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I made the proposal about the SGA episodes in general several weeks ago and no-one disagreed. I believe it was first informally suggested in October, and even then there was no opposition. The SGA ep articles are currently being transwikied, and then (in about two or three weeks) redirected. We can make/keep stubs until then, but they will be redirected just the same. The injunction applies nevertheless. – sgeureka t•c 15:13, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing gets destroyed. The information just gets moved (to another wiki), and the link is present next to each episode title. The reason is that the ep articles are a big violation of WP:NOT and WP:OR, so unless someone adds significant real-world information (WP:FICT/WP:WAF/WP:EPISODE) from reliable sources (WP:RS) for the articles like e.g. here, here, here and here, there is no good reason to leave the articles in their current form (I explained all of this in detail at WT:STARGATE). If you are interested in the general matter, please join the discussions at WT:EPISODE, which suggests that what I have been proposing and doing in the last 5 months is what is going to happen for all episodes articles for all TV shows on wikipedia anyway. What I mean is that even if the SGA ep articles stay for now, they will be gone in a few months, very likely before the Season 5 premiere will even air? If we cannot come to agreement to redirect this episode, an admin will redirect the article again. – sgeureka t•c 15:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, you gave an award to a troll - fine
Hi, it was very interesting to see that you gave an award to the notorious troll V. Z. who tried to disturbe some more domains here, see e.g. m:Ban coordination. Go on. The community will thank you for it. User:Victorious.Zoro. (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

German Charles-Ferdinand University
Stop editwarring. You know very well that your Articles for deletion/German Charles-Ferdinand University was declined. Don't try to "make it go away" by merging/redirecting. It was the Czech who wanted to split the University, there were two U's for decades, and there will be two articles. -- Matthead Discuß   23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Munich Agreement article
Dear Tulkolahten, please can you explain us your opinion on the fact that Munich Agreement article (see Talk:Munich_Agreement) is exclusive part of WikiProject Germany and not also part of WikiProject Czech Republic? IMHO there are no reasons against inclusion of Munich Agreement article into WikiProject Czech Republic. What is your stance on that? What shall be done about that? I think that you are perfectly competent to answer this question as you are the leading member of WikiProject Czech Republic well known for your deep interest in History of Central Europe. Thank you for your efforts and attention. --Bluewind (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague
An editor has nominated German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 15:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Accusation of "vandalism"
How, exactly, is adding a reference to the article on Handl/Gallus in the New Grove, the world's largest and most widely recognized reference for music, vandalism, as you indicated in this edit? My edit was in response to the addition of a "cite needed" tag by another editor. Please do not ever accuse good editors of vandalism. You may need to go read Vandalism to learn what that term actually means. Your revert also borked the categories. If you are absolutely certain that the man was born Jakob Petelin, rather than think it just probable based on the evidence, as the musicologists who wrote the Grove article believe, then please provide a cite for that. If your objection is to the "Slovene" part of the preceding edit, then please change only that part. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've changed it back to say he was a "Slovene" composer since Danilo Pokorn and Allen Skei, the musicologists who wrote the Grove article, support that. If you don't like the "Holy Roman Empire" reference, then go ahead and change that part.  Thanks, Antandrus  (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Re
Glad to help, but I think you would be better off asking an admin who has the power to do something. What about Darwinek? The Dominator (talk) 22:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Re
Dik. Kdyztak tam prosim hod nejaky komentar. -- Darwinek (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Great Moravia
I reject this bijou! I have personal attacks with nobody, I dispute the content of the article! I have a right to dispute the objectivity of the article! The existence of the Great Moravian emperor is debated in Hungary! I have a right to put the template out! I will do a scandal at the administrators if you remove the template once more. Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 13:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Is not enough that the existence of the realm is debated? It is not possible to define the borders of the realm punctual if it existed. All of the story is a tale from the Czech great power dreams! Nmate (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 14:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If are web pages in Hungarian language not good for sources? Nmate (talk • contribs)

Dear Tulkolathen!I do not understand you. Are you the Czech lion which defending his Slovak siblings?I inform you about the fact that Czechoslovakia is not exist already.Do you want that i show sources from this fact?

Dear Tulkolathen! Let us close all debates. I am not interested in the Great-Moravian emperor at the moment.Nmate (talk • contribs)

Red Dwarf
Hello... just wanted to let you know that I've reverted the page moves for now. Your idea is sound, but given the sheer number of links to the two pages (well over 1500) there should be some sort of discussion first, if only to ensure there is a plan for the cleanup. Further to this, you might wish to consider changing the various links first (perhaps with AWB) and then move the pages. For example, all of the Red Dwarf-related links can be changed from Red Dwarf to Red Dwarf (TV series) right now, as that page currently redirects to the article. That would also allow you to address the double redirects, which otherwise can end up not working properly. --Ckatz chat spy  19:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Copernicus
I found that 64.7.140.82 is User:Serafin, based on edit patterns. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 11:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom review
Hi, thanks for the note. Since AE threads are very time-consuming (as it's necessary to come up to speed from zero to really give it a good review), I'm trying to limit myself to no more than 1 or 2 per week. I do agree that the queue is getting a bit backed up, and I posted a note at WP:AN asking for more eyes. If no one else gets to it, I'll definitely take a look at those threads within the next couple days. Thanks for your patience, --Elonka 19:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)