Iaroslavvs

Welcome to WikiProject Czech Republic!

Hi, and welcome to the Czech Republic WikiProject!

• We are the project collecting, improving and maintaining articles related to the Czech Republic, Czechoslovakia, medieval Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia and Samo's Empire
• Please feel free to add membership userbox on your page {{User WikiProject Czech Republic}}
• If you spot any article within the scope of our project please add our tag {{WikiProject Czech Republic}} on its talk page
• In case of any questions use talk page of our project
• We wish you happy editing !
• ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 19:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:

		The Czech Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you with our highest star for your continuous effort in the topics related to the Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure :) Say hello to your wife please :) ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 21:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Silesia

Ahoj. Nedělám z Tebe hlupáka, prosím pamatuj o WP:CIVIL. Těšínské Slezsko je území rozkládající se na území ČR i Polska. Nazývat na en wiki českou část obecně Těšínskem je POV, zvláště pokud se jedná o zmíněnou větu. Český Těšín je těžko centrem polské komunity celého Těšínského Slezska, když na polské straně žijí výhradně Poláci. Je centrem polské komunity (menšiny) české části, respektive její východní části zvané Zaolží. Tato zdánlivě drobná technická chyba je bohužel vlastní většině českých obyvatel české části i polských polské. - Darwinek (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Mně se zdálo, že děláš, protože předpokládáš, že edituji jen tak, mýrnix-týrnix, aniž bych o věci něco četl a věděl. Že prostě prosazuji Czech POV. Vzhledem k tomu, že by se obecně na Wiki měla předpokládat dobrá vůle a vzhledem k tomu, že jsem tu nikdy neprojevoval jako vandal nebo nacionalista, mi Tvoje postupy a doporučení ("read...") vůči mně přišly nespravedlivé a svým způsobem ponižující (česky se říká, jak jistě víš, "dělat z člověka vola").

A k tématu těšínské Slezsko: v češtině (a to zdůrazňuji, protože já tam neměnil výraz v angličtině nebo polštině nebo v místním nářečí! A navíc jsem nepsal "Těšínsko", nýbrž "Těšínské Slezsko"!) existuje pro území bývalého Těšínského knížectví (Ducatus Tessinensis), dnes rozděleného mezi Česko a Polsko, označení cs:Těšínsko. Jeho (dnes) česká část, vzniklá v letech 1919/20, musí mít nějaké zpřesňující označení, aby se nezaměňovala se starým, územně větším, knížectvím. cs:České Slezsko označuje celý zbytek Slezska v rámci českých zemí (tj. včetně Opavska a Niska), jak jistě víš. Zaolzie je polské (a nyní i anglické) označení české části bývalého Těšínska (např. Vykoupil, Libor (2000). Slovník českých dějin. Brno: Julius Zirkus. ISBN 80-902782-0-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) píše pod příslušným heslem jasně, že toto území se nazývá "...v polské terminologii Zaolší...") – co tedy zbývá?

Právě ten termín těšínské Slezsko nebo Českotěšínsko, jak se také přiznává v úvodu čl. Zaolzie: "The term 'Zaolzie' is used predominantly in Poland (literally meaning 'lands beyond the Olza River') and also commonly by the Polish community living on this territory. In Czech it is more frequently referred to with the term..." Shrnuto: opravdu nerozumím, co se ti na mé editaci nelíbí a v čem ji považuješ za tendenční, chybnou. Pokud chceš dodat zdroje pro tvrzení, že v češtině je (mnohem) užívanější označení "t(T)ěšínské Slezsko" (resp. Těšínsko, což je ale z historického pohledu nesprávné), než "Zaolzie", není problém. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 14:05, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Marchfeld

The book The Iron and Gold King, 2005. - by Lukáš Němec is not my source, but one's: 88.100.172.183. My source is Small lexicon of the Battles, by: Attila and Balázs Weiszhár; and Military history of Hungary, by: Ervin Liptai, ISBN 9633263379 Doncsecz (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for info! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

To jsem tam uvedl já ale není to zatím seriozní známý zdroj tak jsem ho již smazal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 10:26, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Dobře, díky. Mně se to zdálo divné, že tu knihu nemohu nikde najít – ani v NK. Řekni mi tedy, jen pro mou informaci, kde jsi tu knihu (či článek?) sehnal? Fakt by mě to zajímalo. Jak už jsem psal Doncseczovi, jsem profesí historik a celkem mám přehled o literatuře k tomuto tématu, ale o tomto díle a autorovi jsem neslyšel... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

No to je práce jednho mého známého není to vůbec vydané knižně a nemůže to být pokládáno za seriozní zdroj byla to chyba to tam dávat, ale ta nesmyslná čísla mě vytočila tak ,že jsem tam taky hned něco musel dat. Máš recht madárští vlastenci jsou nehorázná partička snílků...oni si snad myslí že tu bitvu vyhrál Ladislav s pomocí pár rytířů s Rakouska. Také sháním další seriozní zdroje, ale má angličtina je slabší. Ale zatím nikdy jsem neviděl tak šílená čísla jež uvádí v tom Lexikonu bitev. Tahle bitva je vůbec plná pověr a sporů, ale nikdy jsem neviděl názor, že Přemyslova armáda byla početnější a podobné nesmysly jenž rozšiřují. Ocením když opravíš mé případné gramatické chyby při mých snahách napravit todíky moc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 13:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Čau proč jsi vymazal ty obrazy z anglické stránky o bitvě na Moravském poli????....ten co tam zůstal je stejně nacionální jako ty, co jsi smazal... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.100.172.183 (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No právě – jeden je až dost, nemyslíš? Takovýchto mazanin vzniklo na konci 19. století mraky. Hodnotu – uměleckou i faktografickou – přitom nemají (jestli sis všimnul, tak způsob provedení i námět českého a maďarského obrazu byly v podstatě totožné). Jako zástupce této vrstvy "umění" bohatě stačí ta malůvka, která tam byla nejdříve. Kdyžtak můžeme rozšířit její anglický popisek ve smyslu "podobných obrazů vzniklo v českém, německém i maďarském prostředí více", nebo tak nějak... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 10:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bagha Jatin

Can you arrange to get the article on Bagha Jatin translated into Czech ? Kind Regards.--BobClive (talk) 10:16, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to try it. But it's not going to be right now. I'm on wikivacation and edit here only rarely... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 12:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is kind of you. Please drop me a line on my page, when you will have managed to do it. Wish you all the best for the coming 2009!--BobClive (talk) 09:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings

Dear Iaroslavvs ! Wish you a very happy New Year. Please see that people can get proper information on a neglected personality like Bagha Jatin, in the name of justice in history. All the best.--BobClive (talk) 07:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank You, Bob. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright, Beer Barrel Polka

Hi. I'm afraid that Wikipedia can only include the full lyrics for songs that are in public domain. The lyrics for this song are still protected by copyright in the United States (which governs Wikipedia) and, apparently, in Czechoslovakia as well, which allows life of the creator plus 70 years. If you wish to quote from these lyrics as part of critical commentary, this is permitted under US fair use laws and Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. But under our copyright policy, we cannot include the entire song. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Çeri

Hello Iaroslavvs,

I bumped into one of your posts while I was reverting a vandal in Turkish Wikipedia. The post I am referring to is this.

Even though it has been a million years, I still wanted to reply, assuming that this knowledge might be of use to you some day. I see that you are on wikibreak, but I hope that you can see it some time soon.

Anyways,

"Çeri" means "soldier" (singular). Its plural form would be "çeriler" as "-ler" or "-lar" (depending on the vowel harmony) is the standard suffix for forming a plural word in Turkish.

Take care

Vito Genovese 12:30, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Vito! I'm going to use Your information for the Czech version of the Janissary article. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic group navigation templates

In navigation templates, it is preferred to use a direct link to an article's title, rather than a redirect. That way, the navbox shows the current article's title in bold, rather than as a link. Furthermore, please don't remove valid links from navigation boxes. The template's for linking all the ethnic groups in the Czech Republic, whether they're big or small. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank You for Your reminder. I will follow it. But I've one modest question: Do You really want include all ethnic minorities living in Czechia into the template? Well, I guess, it could be a problem because there are about 120 different nationalities (immigrants) in my country... ;) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we are really going to have 120 articles. Most of these groups are too small or too unremarkable for journalists or professors to write anything about them. So they're probably not notable. Cheers, cab (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway it seems you are right, it's not really an important article, so I've nominated it for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Turks in the Czech Republic. Appreciate your opinion there. Thanks, cab (talk) 04:57, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Aero L-39 Albatros

See Wikipedia:Cite#Citation templates and tools - "Citation templates are used to format citations in a consistent way. The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not change an article with a distinctive citation format to another without gaining consensus. Where no agreement can be reached, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." - Cite templates are no more "official" than any other means of presenting a reference and not one which is particularly well suited to anything other than academic journals. and in this case, when applied blindly result in the reference being mangled and information being lost - you deleted the fact that it was the Summer 2000 issue - and you failed to realise that the correct issue name for World Air Power Journal was "Volume 40 Summer 2000". i.e. it was preceded by "Volume 41 Spring 2000", and not a volume containing separate numbered issues.Nigel Ish (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

1. Previous reference format was listed "Winter 2000" not "Summer" period.
2. "...you lost a great deal of information" – isn't it too strong formulation? Wouldn't it be better just to correct this small neglect than revert?
3. If the cite templates aren't more official or suitable for citations so what is their reason to be here in Wiki?
   --Iaroslavvs (talk) 13:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Book

Hi Iaroslavvs,

I doubt there is a database that includes all books, I mean, zillions of them are published each year. Maybe it would be helpful if the Wikipedia page which includes the national book databases included the ISBN codes for those countries too, so that people knew where to look up the books. At first I couldn't find this one either, since Doncsecz translated its title; it was only the 963- beginning of the ISBN that alerted me that this was published in Hungary and the OSZK library must know about it. – Alensha ^talk 17:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Your help in translation would be appreciated

I need help translating an important text of 107 words to Czech. Any chance you could help? If so, would I be able to reach you through IM, IRC or Email? TheCuriousGnome (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

What is the character of the text? What area is it from? If You want, connect me via e-mail. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

It was quite urgent and I eventually managed to find someone from the Czech Republic earlier today whom helped me out. Thanks for offering help. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 00:46, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Silesians

Hello, I certainly don't live in Czechia (nor in the Czech Republic). As to the term, please see debate on the Talk Page of the Czech Republic (although I presume that you know it very well judging from your page). I reversed it back on the Silesians page, please leave it this way.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry for my bad estimation. I reasoned You live in the CR due to Your participation on the Czech Wikipedia and comments in fluent Czech there.

As for short (geographic) X long (political) name of the CR: yes, You are right – I know these long absurd discussions on this topic very well. And a vice versa: You certainly know very well that term Czechia is neither unreasonable (as it is recommended for use by Czech Geographic Society and MFA of the CR) nor even prohibited in Wikipedia! Of course, for many English speaking people sounds somewhat odd but from linguistic and historic point of view is correct. And it is essential – in certain measure is used both by Czechs writing English and native speakers. Ironically, the biggest defiance of Czechia comes from the Czechs itself (especially from Moravian and/or Silesian nationalistic idiots) not from an English speakers... If You deny short name of Czech state it is Your problem not mine.

Repeat once again: previous nonsensical short name of our country wasn't written by me, I just repaired someone else's mistake – why didn't You do this yourself? Nonsens Czech (recently pushed by certain circles in the CR) is OK but when it is corrected to proper short form You start up like Kerberos and revert?? Someone who at every possible opportunity writes into infoboxes location name of the presently non-exist political unit (like here) has not the right to drivel something like "There is no such thing as Czechia..."

Tož tak. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 14:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well when it comes to Palacky University, it is for historical reasons. Nobody is claiming that there is any administrative unit of such name nowadays, however it is one of the three historical Czech lands. Large part of the article is about the history, and the current importance of the University is way behind the one it enjoyed hundreds years ago. The other place where I wrote that, if I am correct, are infoboxes of Tatra cars, also for historical importance (it is after all third oldest still producing manufacturer, which is still in the one place, while the now already in 5th, 6th? state).

I don't know what possible NATIONALISTIC reason could be behind preference of Czech Republic instead of Czechia. The government tried to introduce this term years ago, it failed, and it is not doing it any more. It is not really used by native speakers, as far as I know. While the Czech form Cesko caught quite well, Czechia didn't, and moreover it irritates some people. So why do others like you insist on using it? I don't know, I don't care, I will let it be. Since you so proudly write in your profile that you are from Czechia, I hope it will make you happy.

I would repair it if I would see it before, I only saw your change, nothing personal. If I would see there is country referred as to Czech, I would repair it. Unfortunately I didn't. I don't like the current one, but still better.

Once again, no nationalistic feeling, nothing personal, I wish you happy editing, ciao Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Your explanation. I'm sorry for my somewhat offensive previous reply.

On the other side, I don't understand why some people have such aversion to geographical name of this state. I don't rewrite every occurrence of the Czech Republic (as You could have seen e.g. right in disputed article – I just fixed wrong short form of country's name) but the adversaries of the Czechia do it – even in totally absurd situations (Patron saints of the Czech Republic or History of the Czech Republic in Middle Ages are the most stupid phrases which I have ever heard) – and behave as if short name is something dirty, obscure ("Eastern-like"), forbidden. Wouldn't it be better to give free choice of expression to everybody?

With regard to nationalistic background of official name (the CR) preference: some Moravists (= Moravian nationalist/chauvinist) claim that geographical name Česko/Czechia "insults Moravian soul" while the official one is acceptable. Quite absurd assertion but it doesn't matter... --Iaroslavvs (talk) 17:12, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Note on historical: It is issue which I faced in number of articles including University of Olomouc (which is whole basically my work), I think that "Czech lands" or "Lands of the Bohemian/Czech Crown" works much better than Czechia. Czechia is neologism introduced by bureaucrats. The attempt was simply failure. I don't mind reading or writing "Česko", however in English I can't stand that. It is really confusing for some English speakers - since it is in 99% written the Czech Republic, some even start thinking, if there was another separation like in the case of Slovakia ;) If I think about it, I might fall within category of people changing Czechia to CzR, though it hasn't happened that often so far. But in the case at hand it was simply because I saw you make the change. Sorry if you were offended by my revert.

I understand that some Moravians don't like the short form in neither language, but I am not sure if that falls within the category of "Nationalist".

I am happy we have reached understanding.

Pocházím z ČR, ale už tam nežiju. Možná zase někdy budu, možná ne. Hezký víkend Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Díky za přání. Ať se ti v cizině daří. Mou vlastí je Česko i Slovensko a přesto, že mě v obou zemích řada věcí fakt štve, nechce se mi odtud...

Just one more note: every term/name describing some new fact is – in a certain sense – "neologism". What about the name Czechoslovakia in 1918? --Iaroslavvs (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

U mě nejde o naštvání :)

There is a difference - Czechoslovakia was in official use. Czechia was also, for about (don't know, just estimate - 2 years?). It simply didn't work. Nowadays the officials are back to the Czech Republic. BTW Slovakia is also officially "Slovak Republic", however when it comes to, for example, international organisations, they are always simply "Slovakia" (of course when signing treaties, there is full name). I was in Brussels a couple of weeks ago, and it is the Czech Republic here, Czech Republic there... And also English-speakers don't use it (in a couple of years I met only one foreigner who would use this term). In the Czech Republic itself the short term is widely used, which is OK. Forcing it to English doesn't make sence. Moreover if there are large numbers of people who are allergic to it (which is kind of typical, nobody was asking Germans what they think, then nobody cared about Slovaks' feelings, now nobody cares that Moravians or Silesians may not like this - will we ever learn anything??).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

There isn't any real difference: Czechoslovakia was in official use because it was enforced into public awareness (I don't mean "violently enforced", of course). And presently such will on the part of Czech politicians is missing – V. Havel: "When I heard name 'Czechia' I feel as if snails creep on my skin..."; C. Svoboda: "The term 'Czechia' pushes this country towards the Balkans..." (such assertions perfectly illustrate absurd and irrational character of "anti-Czechia" objections).

I disagree with the assertion that English native speakers strictly avoid the use of name Czechia; my experiences are different. However, admit that geographic name of this country is much less used.

Also, it isn't true that "nobody cares that Moravians or Silesians may not like this" – there were many opportunities during the 90's to propose new short name of the state. But nobody, repeat, NOBODY (neither Moravists nor "enemies of snails on the skin") came with reasonable proposal.

1. Českomoravská republika – right, but where is the Czech Silesia? And what is noun form of the name, "Českomoravsko"?? Absurd
2. Čechy a Morava – again, where is the Czech Silesia? Moreover, it sounds for many Czechs too "protectorateingly"
3. Čechy, Morava a Slezsko – too long, impractical
4. České země – ditto; moreover used only in historic conotations
5. Čechie – archaic term, rather poeticism
6. Českozemě – :D
7. Morče – :DD
8. Slezmorče – :DDD
9. Čechomor – :DDDD

...and so on. English equivalents are similarly stupid. Yes, that is the truth: in fact, there isn't any other option except Česko/Czechia (by the way, this term was first mentioned already in 18th century as You probably know). It isn't matter of any "insulting". It is language regularity! It takes time...

Thank You for the discussion once again. Have a nice weekend too! Bye. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 23:03, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

"Cimmerian praetor" is one of main opponents of Czechia together with "Mewulwe". They delete all, what is in relation to correct use of one-word name, every mention, sentence or argument are immediately erased without any justification (he probably does not sleep). If CP writes something in discussion, it is demagogical quasiargument, standard change of the cause and consequence. They also delete discussion, because are affraid of rational attitude and clearing things up. The fact, that Czechia uses in EU the same name as a short form ("Czech Republic") is embarrassing nonsense. It is not name of geographical, residential-historical unit, awkward, dehonesting and disqualifying and making from the country only some transient political unit, not land with more than 1000 years history. He likjes to use "arguments" about historical variations of the name (Lands of Bohemian crown etc.) as the reason, why not to use Czechia. It is totally stupid. It would be the same, if Germans could not accept "Germany", because its existence has started in 1871 or Slovaks Slovakia, because it was until 1918 a part of Hungary. i see main problem in fact, that English speakers and above all institutions of English speaking countries let the problem on us. Every ignorant feels, he can decide about it, that can ignore recommendation of rules of law and the result has been for 20 twenty yeas the same - we are the country without name and we can read in foreign media e.g., that St.Wenceslas was the duke of the Czech republic. This stupidity is constantly disregarded by opponents. I was the participant of the seminar of about the issue, organized by CzechTourism at philosophical faculty in Prague with participation of students and pedagogues. The persistence of the problem was criticized not only by linguists, but also from the point of economics, because the mark "Czech Republic" is strange and intuitively classified the country as one of banana republics, but the resistance of opponents was truculent. They did not discussed, they simply pretended there, that did not hear anything..... But there is no rest, until the fight´s is done and it will continue

Btw. Czechia was used for the first time in 1631 by Pavel Stránský in Latin.

Czechia pages and links: http://www.czechia-initiative.com/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJyAidlfsvU http://www.facebook.com/pages/Czechia/183105765093521?ref=ts

Neewi (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Bohemian-Moravian Highlands

Hi. Thanks for your recent edit. By "Higland" did you mean "Highland(s)"? Regards. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:14, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not quite.

Czech language distincts between vysočina (land with hills above 200 m, "elevated land"), vrchovina (land with hills between 600–900 m, "hilly land"), hornatina (land with mountains between 900–1600 m, "mountainous land") and velehornatina (above 1600 m, "great mountainous land"). It is quite interesting that although the B-M Higlands lies from geographic point of view in the 2nd category, popularly is called by name of the 1st (i.e. lowest) one – and the Region (Vysočina) is named after it. Since Czech highlights this difference ("higher hills – lower name") I have wanted accent it also in English. And as I know from my dictionaries there is a distinction between these 2 levels in English too: highland (lower) X highlands (higher).

But You are native speaker, You know English much better than me. If it is a mistake, please correct it (= add end letter "s"). Thanks! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Historical regions

We can discuss this issue here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Austrian_historical_regions PANONIAN 20:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Propaganda

Sorry, but seek to myself this claim. I'm slavistic Student and i have opinion about the Czech and Slovak literary language. Doncsecz^talk 07:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Määriläinen also Moravian and supported this article. Sorry, but you is a Czechslovak nationalist. Doncsecz^talk 07:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The proposed Czech source doesn't support inserted claim, but mention to the attempt of the Moravian language. Doncsecz^talk 06:46, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No. It was proved again you didn' read the article. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the restoration is unnecessary, as does not claim, that the Moravian is language, but an important fact, that many Moravians set this. What you're doing, this is silencing. Doncsecz^talk 14:32, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

And what you do is political activism and false citing. Moreover, attempt of small group (only 4 people!) of Moravian nationalists to create new "Moravian language" isn'nt important at all. It's a totally marginal phenomenon, ignored or refused by respectable linguists both Czech and foreign. (With one exception, of course: Aleksandr Dulichenko, who intensively seek out and enthusiastically supports any evidence which fits into his concept of "Slavic microlanguages".) --Iaroslavvs (talk) 18:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Czechia

Hello, Iaroslavvs. You have new messages at Doric Loon's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(I always reply on my own page to any talk posted there. --Doric Loon (talk) 23:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC))

Nationalism

I HAVE THE RIGHT ELSEWHERE PROCLAIM MY OPINION! 3. It's your attitude chauvinistic and nationalistic, none of your business, what I think. The Wikipedia is not stressing my opinion, but other page does, and my declarations not incited! Shame on you! Doncsecz^talk 08:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar

Hello Jaroslav, thank you for the appreciation, but much more than the award i enjoy the knowledge, that there is a person on Wikipedia, who understand the heart of matter. I am happy of it. A lot of greetings from Czechia to Czechia :-)Neewi (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Naming

Of an article you moved is discussed at Talk:House_of_Radziwiłł#Name. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Czech help needed

Hello Iaroslavvs, 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) 04:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sympathizer of the VE. Except that I don't like changes, I'm also convinced that too effortless editing of Wiki = influx of morons and vandals... :(( But I don't want to refuse help with translation due to my personal opinion. Please write me specifically (links) what is needed to translate. I will try my best. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Iaroslavvs, that is noble of you. If I can try to address you're worries, this issue you speak of has been considered for a long time. Only time will tell the truth. However, if you look at vandalism, it is logical that the vandal doesn't care what the input system is, he/she just wants to make his/her mark. That type of person would make a mess whatever type of system we used. As for morons, well, don't we have those already? ;) (only half-kidding) We hope that VE will make it easier for the people we want - people who care about content, but who won't learn a site-specific markup just to participate - to join the editing community.

Anyway, if you still want to help, this page currently has no Czech translation. You just select Czech from the menu on the header, and the translation extension will help you from there. This page can then be copied over to cs.wiki, so cs. editors can find out about VE before the rollout. If you want to discuss VE further, by all means, ask away. Good to hear from you, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

South Yemen

Hi Iaroslavvs, My apologies for not recalling our earlier interaction, I did not mean to dismiss your opinion out of hand, so I hope no offence was taken. The issue I am stuck on is that while the status of satellite state is not an official term in of itself, it is used for the vast majority of Soviet-aligned states' articles - based upon the undue influence the Soviets had in those states' internal affairs. I would include South Yemen in this category, as the Soviet politburo reserved the right to arbitrarily dictate to the policymakers in Aden, and choose who those policymakers were. The case of Ismail and Ali Nasser come to mind as one example of this, as the former was replaced by the latter on Moscow's orders due to Ismail's ineffectual leadership and inflammatory tendencies toward neighbouring states. As such, I would contest that South Yemen was a Soviet satellite state. Thanks for your patience with me in this matter. :) JamesBay (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, James! I'm afraid we still don't understand each other:I fully agree with your words "... (term 'satellite state') is used for the vast majority of Soviet-aligned states' articles - based upon the undue influence the Soviets had in those states' internal affairs" because its true. Undoubtedly, there was a group of leftist-oriented/Communist states which were deeply dependent on (more precisely, suborrdinate to) the Soviet Union and its policy. And, yes, South Yemen used to be one of such somehow vassalized states. I have absolutely no problem with informing about this fact – but no as an official status in infobox. Thus, I suggest a compromise:

1. infobox strictly reserve for official, indisputable informations (e.g. state form, international organizations membership, de iure status – colony, protectorate, condominium etc.)
2. important additional characteristic (e.g. de facto dependence on any foreign power) provide in article's opening paragraph

I think that this could be met by both of us. What do you think?--Iaroslavvs (talk) 15:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree with you on this compromise. The list of infobox status variables includes 'Satellite state', at Template:Infobox former country/Categories, and is meant for Soviet satellite states, so why not use it? JamesBay (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I see. Yet, from my POV this (= "satellite state" as official status placed in infobox) is a serious mistake. Obviously, there is a need for opinions of more people than just us two and broader, systematic solution. I'm going to apply a request for comment. Thanks for your kind approach! --Iaroslavvs (talk) 20:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Not a problem, and good call on the RfC. Cheers. JamesBay (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Czechia

See the discussions on Talk:Czech Republic. Consensus is not to use Czechia in running text. --Khajidha (talk) 00:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC question

Hi Iaroslavvs, I saw you're active on wikiproject Slovakia --- can you comment on the notability of Draft:Klub_vojenskej_histórie_Svoboda ? Hard for me to judge. --Nanite (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

savoia castle

Dear Iaroslavvs, I do not understand your reason, that you soooo eagerly want to use Chateau insted of Castle. Before going ahead, please, read this article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château hope, it will solve the problem.

Rissian immigrant issue: Legal owner on a title is my wife (we have společně jmění manželů) who is German born Italian citizen, that parent emigrate from Czechoslovakia escaping from bolsevik's regime. I hope, I'm clear in this, so if you really need this point you can mention cz-it-ru family, but i would say this is private infornation, and only we (family member) can operate with this data - I don't operate with your family history. Am I right?

There is only one castle in Skvorec, novy zamek - always was hospodarsky dvůr a vrchnostenský urad pod zamkem. Before, prvni pozemkova reforma - all buildings were on one file (list vlastnictví)

I belive, my argumentations are clear, and I'm open for friendly discussion...

kind regards, dmitry eremeev Rhodesian born Italian citizen with Russian origin :-) Dmitryeremeev (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Mr Eremeev, you stubbornly refuse to understand that problem in regarding of this article (of marginal importance, by the way) isn't on my side. Read some related wikirules before you going to start editing again:

1. Wiki isn't a place for self-promoting and/or advertising
2. You aren't the owner of the page, you have no rights to the content!

As for your other reproaches:

• "chateau" vs. "castle" – regarding to your poor level of English, I'm afraid that your argumentation in this case doesn't interested me at all. Of course, Czech term zámek (not the same meaning like Russian замок!) or its German equivalent schloß can be translated by two English words, "castle" or "chateau", which depends on architectural style of the building and the epoch in which it was founded/rebuilded. In this context, I would also like to point out that using of this word isn't limited to French-speaking setting! In Czech/Slovak area, something like e.g. this, this or this is usually understood as a "castle" (hrad) while this, this or this are some examples of "chateaux" (zámek). When we consider when the building, the rest of which you own, was built (18th century), its architectural style (predominantly Baroque) and its size, location and finally, how was called both in Czech and German, it is clear to me that it is a chateau not a castle! Yet, it is possible that my comprehension of this quite special English term is incorrect – but I would like to be corrected from a native speaker, preferably any neutral colleague-Wikipedian, not from yourself, whom English is obviously even worse than mine.
• "Russian immmigrant owner" – specifically at this point I can't understand what's your problem, are you ashamed of your nationality-ethnicity, or because you're an immigrant, or why does the truthful information bother you? What "private information" are you talking about?? Given the fact, that it was you yourself who have inserted your personal data ("2008 – Property of Salvatore-Eremeev family") into the article and it was you yourself who, for example, gave an public interview like this one: "Russian nobleman has saved a chateau from demolition and parked Rolls-Royce in the courtyard"; I simply cann't catch your point. I'm not stalker, I'm not interested in your family history or precise details of ownership (neither in positive nor in negative manner), I just stated simple and sourced fact about new owner(s), that's all!
• New chateau of Škvorec – your argumentation is quite irrelevant because:

1. the article is about the Old castle/chateau, so information about the New chateau should be in the relevant article (i.e. about the village); the only place in the article where is the New chateau properly mentioned is that image caption describing a historical sketch from Friedrich Bernau's book Album der Burgen und Schlösser im Königreiche Böhmen, where such mention is needed for clarification
2. this building is listed in the State Catalogue of Cultural Monuments under the name "Škvorec, the New Chateau" (Škvorec, Nový zámek) – no matter, what was its history and original designation

I hope that this my explanation will finally give you a comprehension of some substantial edit rules which every Wikipedian is obliged to follow and also that you will understand my intentions which are neutral (and friendly toward anyone), focused solely on improvement of this project. Regards, --Iaroslavvs (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Savoia Castle team wishes...

You can have a certain arrogance, and I think that's fine, but what you should never lose is the respect for the others... Dmitryeremeev (talk) 04:35, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Skvorec castle

Dear Sir,

Please, find below a letter from Mr. Stephen Weeks, whom you mentioned in your article. I believe his english is good enough for understanding.

regards, D. Eremeev

Zamek, Hrad, Castle or Chateau: In English a 'zamek' can mean 'Castle' or 'Country House'. A 'Country House' is a mansion or palace in the countryside, with a park. In each case they are lived-in places - homes. All 'hrady' are castles, ie fortified residences, usually dating from the Middle Ages - although there are quite a few fakes made in the 1820s-40s, when the Romantic Movement was at its height, via the novels of Sir Walter Scott. 'Chateau' is a French word usually covering Country Houses or zamky. The French word for castle - ie a fortified medieval stronghold - is 'Chateau Fort'. However, Chateau is now being used incorrectly. Skvorec isn't a chateau - better to use the word castle. 'Chaetau Skvorec is totally wrong. Smaller castles or country houses are Manor Houses (French: manoire) - but Skvorec, in its high days, wasn't small.... so it is a real castle or hrad.

Refer the editor to me, perhaps. Get him to write me on c@stles.org or z@mky.cz Stephen Dmitryeremeev (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Re: Škvorec Chateau

Regarding your talk page message, I was going through article changes and noted Škvorec Chateau was changed from an established format apparently without proper cause e.g. resolving a format dispute, or if the article were on an American subject. Of course, during the editing rounds I may have missed something, and now notice various items of dispute on the page. Don't have much time now to review the edit history on that page, so will have to try to look at that later. Dl2000 (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Skull Chapel

Hi. I understand the information you're trying to provide, however, I don't see how it should be in the lead. History stays in the history section. The lead should include it's current location. And don't say it has nothing to do with Polish history, because the Thirty Years' War was spread all over Europe so maybe there are Polish soldiers buried there. What interests me is its current placement. Thanks. Oliszydlowski, 11:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Current placement is stated in the lede, even in preffered position, which is fine and wikistandard, of course. I don't want deny or hide it in any way. Nevertheless, historical-geographical info isn't something inapropriate (or even prohibited), it's used in similar articles quite often, actually.

As for your absurd speculation "maybe there are Polish soldiers buried there", it's a waste of time to comment it somewhat more – I would just like to remind that on the territory of Bohemia proper (and Kladsko County was its part, as you certainly know) wasn't during the Thirty Years' War (and long afterwards) any Polish unit at all. Moreover, Kladsko/Glatzer Land was before 1945 inhabited only by Germans or Czechs and its pre-WW II art/culture is solely Bohemian or Prussian, without any direct connection to the art of Poland. End of story. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Philippsreut. 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.'
Stop changing Czech Republic to Czechia. There was a major discussion on this already at Talk:Czech Republic. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 17:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

August 2018

Please stop your disruptive editing.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You are requested to obtain an explicit consensus at the article t/p, shall you wish to change Czech Republic to Czechia. ∯WBG^converse 04:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

March 2019

Your recent editing history at Elizabeth Stuart, Queen of Bohemia 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. See BRD for 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—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—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Jozef Gabčík

Hello, On 20 Jun 2019, you added the following sentence to the article: "In 1937 began work at a military chemical plant in Žilina; after the accident, however, he was transferred to the gas storage facility". This sentence is odd, because this "accident" is not mentioned anywhere else in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atteaalto (talk • contribs) 08:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation! Yes, it's my stylistical fail. (Either way, I don't know English as well as I want and need.) Please, correct it, if you can. Meaning of that sentence is: Gabčík was poisoned in a gas (= chemical weapon) factory during one accident and therefore transferred to another workplace. --Iaroslavvs (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech nobility, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Unity of the Brethren.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Duchcov Chateau vs. Castle

An editor has requested for Duchcov Chateau to be moved to another page. Since you had some involvement with Duchcov Chateau, you might want to participate in the move discussion (if you have not already done so). {{replyto|SilverLocust}} (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

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 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)