User talk:Cimmerian praetor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Cimmerian praetor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

LGBT CZ[edit]

Hi, I don't see why you're so obsessed with editing out any mentions in the "LGBT rights in the Czech Republic" article that the Czech Republic is a country in Central-Eastern (as opposed to just Central) Europe. They're both correct geographical designations. And I do think the liberalism vis-a-vis gay rights in the Czech Republic is particularly remarkable because it's unique among ex-Communist-bloc countries. It wouldn't be very surprising compared to Western Europe, would it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.215.252.239 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, as you mentioned, both are correct. In such a case the original should stay, otherwise it can be changed there and back or with a third version ad-absurdum.
I don't agree with you on the 'surprising' issue. No, it is not surprising that the Czech Rep is more liberal than other ex-com countries to anyone who knows more about Czech history and culture than the fact that it was behind the iron curtain. But considering that it was behind the curtain, it is surprising that the country has been far ahead of, for example, Austria or Germany, which are culturally closer to the Czech Rep than Poland or Slovakia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tatra articles[edit]

Hi, thanks for the Tatra articles and even more thanks for the photos you have uploaded in Commons!

Someone has questioned the licencing of [1], could you mark there the licence so that the photo will not be deleted. --Gwafton (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Tatra 77 drag coeficiet of 0.212 is definetely made on 1:5 model, Mackerle gives 0.24 for T87 1:5 model, when the real car was tested the figure was 0.36-7, T77 is very similar, this figure of 0.212 is a great misconception! --

Tatraplan (talk
It might be true, but the majority of sources still claim 0.212 for the car, not for the model. Moreover, the measurement which gave figure 0.36 was done by VW not so long after they had to pay the damages for stealing patents from Tatra, which begs the question of reliability of any data provided by them. Also, everything points to the fact that they measured T77, not T77a. Last but not least, T77 with open ventilation has very different figure compared to closed ventilation (with open ventilation the air is pushed through the rear ventilation ribs significantly reducing the drag on the rear part of the car). The 0.36 sources don't specify, in which manner the test was conducted. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Help needed[edit]

I assume Czech is your native language. Could you help me to understand the description at the bottom of this page: [2]

How to make the difference between T54, T52 and T30? I couldn't figure it out by using Google Translator. --Gwafton (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! (Usually you should write your reply in the same place where the previous comment is). Your translation confirmed that I understood the text correctly. I already wrote here the reason I was confused: Talk:Tatra 54. --Gwafton (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits[edit]

Information.svg Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button Button sig.png located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

{{Infobox tram}}[edit]

I have modified this template so that it works, although it is still a little buggy, as I am not an expert on this kind of template. The problem was that infoboxes require the correct use of a meta-template, {{Infobox}}, which you had not transcluded. If you need any more help with this, I suggest you try the help desk, where you will be able to find users more experienced with infobox templates. However, if you have any other problems, feel free to contact me at any time. strdst_grl (call me Stardust) 16:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


Hi, I modified the sandbox page for the template, and would like to know what do you think about it (Template:Infobox tram/sandbox). I modified (style, some of the naming, order), added () and removed (facelift, comparable models) a few things. If you think this could be used from now on, I'll update all the pages and the documentation accordingly and move this over the old template. Also, I think there could be at least two more things added (borrowing from the Polish Wikipedia): spacing of bogies and spacing of the axles in bogies. What do you think? Soeb talk|contribs 17:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

1 I am not sure if putting comparable models out is good idea. This is encyclopedia and it should easily lead the reader to other pages with similar content, that he might be interested in (I know he can click on list on trams, but there he finds dozens of them). Taking out facelift is OK though.
2 Style and naming is nice, well done, thanks for that.
3 Engine power: I believe there should be first the whole power, then in brackets power of individual engines. For example the production version of 15T is supposed to have 46,6kW per one. Putting 745,6kW (16x46,6kW) makes sence to me. Then imagine the longer version, with even more engines. It gets crazy. It is little bit too much to ask the reader to count such nonsence numbers.
4 I am not an expert in this field - what is the information about spacing of bogies and spacing of axles good for? What does it say about the tram? I was trying to put into infobox not technicalities, but information which might be important or interesting for a reader. Technicalities may be in the text itself. But if this has impact on how the tram may be perceived, let's do it. Just explain it to me first, please.(BTW what about ULF, which doesn't have standard bogie? Or exege or isege or how it is bogies? Just asking)
5 What does class of tram refer to? There is train template, and I understand it there, since in trains there are many different versions, but trams? (no/)lowfloor, (non/)articulated, ... ?
6 Generelly it looks like a good idea, just please explain the bogies and axles and reconsider the comparable models.
7 Don't put out the gradient it is able to climb. There are many cities where this is very important issue. If some hilly city is looking for new model and somebody is reading that in newspaper and then wants to check in Wiki what may be considered, they should be able to have it first hand. I believe that this is important characteristic.
8 Don't put two different versions into one. If they make 3rd or 4th, which they will, it will be total mess. I believe that one for Riga and one for Prague is OK, not putting it together.
9 Mozemy gadac po Polsku albo si můžeme psát česky. Angielski jest tez OK, jak pan sam zechce. PS moj skype jest tak samo jak Wiki Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
1: Since most tram articles are not that long, I suggest keeping this in See Also. This would also keep the infobox a bit shorter.
2: Thanks, I mostly follow the train infobox design.
3: Right, then I'll make a note about it, hoping that others will follow. (that is, total power (number of engines x power of each))
4: I am not actually sure. This is simply something another Wikipedia uses and I wanted another opinion on whether to add it here. Also, not all fields are mandatory, this is just an additional field.
5: This I kept from the old template. I wasn't sure whether to remove it, but it seems it does not make sense. I'll get rid of it, then.
6: As I said previously: this is something another Wikipedia has in the infobox. I wasn't actually able find further information about this. Thus, it's probably best not to add it.
7: I didn't. I just renamed it and forgot to fix it in the example. It is fixed now.
8: That's just for this example. In real articles I'll be avoiding it.
9: Świetnie, to na pewno pozwoli trochę ułatwić konwersację. Ale moje čeština není až tak dobrá, nebo spíš nedokážu moc dobře používat tuto klávesnici. ;) Soeb talk|contribs 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
4 OK. Ja szukale na Polskiej Wiki do czego sie to nadaje, ale nieznalazle. Ale tak generalnie nie jeste przeczywko temu, tylko chce gapowac, po co to jest dobre.
9 Pore lat temu uzywale Polskiego codziennie, ale to dawno temu. Teraz jest tak trochu glupio, ale chyba uzywanie powinno to polepszyc. Ale jak bydzie za wiele tragicznie, to napisz, I will write English then. Teraz mam durzo roboty, ostatni egzamin w szkole, to jest w twojich rekach, nie mam na Wiki czas. Twoj Czeski jest napewno lepsyz od mojego Polskiego :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:12, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
V takovém případě zítra začnu to ve všech místech vyměňovat. A ta polština není tak hrozná, lze to pochopit ;) Soeb talk|contribs 19:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

My answer[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cimmerian praetor. You have new messages at Ja 62's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Palacký University[edit]

Ahoj. Hezký kus práce na článku o Universitě Palackého. Přemýšlel jsi o nominaci na T:TDYK? - Darwinek (talk) 16:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahoj, díky za pochvalu. Jen jsem ten odkaz proletěl a moc tomu nerozumím. K čemu je to dobré? Wiki dělám teprve chvíli a ještě mi spousta věcí uniká. K UP - chystám se tam udělat ještě detailně historii tak jak je na stránce univerzity a pak ještě přidat detaily co najdu jinde, aby tam nebyla zdrojována pouze stránka univerzity. Ještě s tím zdaleka nejsem spokojen :) Pokud se trochu víc vyznáš v technických věcech, mohl bys prosím rozepsat fakultu přírodních věd? Co jsem to sledoval, tak jsem měl dojem, že jsou relativně úspěšní, ale kdybych to měl překládat já, tak by z toho mohl vzniknout nepříjemný anglický paskvil (proto se taky vyhýbám popisům technických detailů když dělám wikistránky Tatrovek, byť by si ten popis opravdu zasloužily).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Bohužel, v technických věcech se taky moc nevyznám. :) "Did You Know" stránka umožňuje zviditelnit nové články a značně rozšířené články. Ty se pak objevují v příslušné sekci na hlavní stránce. - Darwinek (talk) 08:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
OK, kouknu na to, až to dodělám.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Jsem z toho zmatený jak prase, vůbec jsem nepochopil, kam se to má vložit, mohl bys to prosím nominovat Ty s mým přiznaným autorstvím? Text pro hook: "that Palacký University, Olomouc was established in 1573 to help re-catholization of predominantly protestant Czech lands, while it later suffered persecutions of all the tyrranies (Habsburgs, Nazis, Communists) that ruled there?" Díky moc, mohl bys mi případně poslat pět vět pro návodu pro debily, jak že se to dělá? Děkuji moc Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:29, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Není problém, nominuju to tam. Hook je dobrý, ale zkrátil bych ho na "that Palacký University, Olomouc was established in 1573 to help re-catholization of predominantly protestant Czech lands". S těmi delšími hooky mají často lidi problém. - Darwinek (talk) 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Nechám to tvé expertíze, třeba to zkrať. Hele já jsem se snažil zjistit, kde se to má PŘIDAT a na to jsem nepřišel, jinak ten template a co v něm to mi došlo, akorát prostě nechápu, kde se to má vložit a uložit.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Tak jsem to nominoval. Jednou za čas na tu stránku mrkni, stává se, že má někdo nějaké připomínky. - Darwinek (talk) 12:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Ahoj. Máš na té stránce připomínky od nějakého uživatele. - Darwinek (talk) 18:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
Dík. Ten citation needed u 95% protestantů udělám někdy za pár dní, teď budu chvíli bez netu, to číslo jsem četl opakovaně v několika zdrojích, jen ještě nějaký najít teď, když je to třeba. :(Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Centre for Clinical Legal Education (Palacký University, Faculty of Law)[edit]

I'll happily copy-edit that for you. I'd recommend you check my edits at the University article as you may disagree with the changes in some places. I only actually removed one bit of text, I think, which to me seemed irrelevant to a largly non-Czech audience. Si Trew (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Only minor stuff. Si Trew (talk) 16:12, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

this[edit]

I presume you meant Josef Šnejdárek? (your link didn't work for me.) Yep, I'll do that some time today for you. Glad to see the other ones have had a bit more attention too, from yourself and others. Si Trew (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

OK I've subbed (copy-edited, we UK people say sub-edited or subbed) that. I've changed the Infobox to the more-specific {{Infobox military person}} and split the article into sections, which I admit are rather short so I can see why you didn't do so. Apart from that the changes were quite minor ("fortificated" -> "fortified", "fight" -> "battle", and a few changes in putting dates earlier in the sentence, I think that's about it).
Do you know, if you translate it from another Wikipedia, you should put the {{Translated page}} template on its talk page?
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 14:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Yay man we didn't understand each other. I made Šnejdárek on Wikiquotes, not the one on wikipedia. I must say that translating citations and trying not to f**k is very hard job. Could you please look it up on wikicitations? It REALLY neads sub-edit there, please. And one more questions: is this bothering you, or can I rely on you whenever I make something that I believe is worth attention of a native english speaker to clean it up? Anyway thank you very much, though it makes mi think a bit less about my English every time my article is sub-edited :)
No, I didn't know the tlx template. I will use it in future (so far I translated from wiki only Škoda 15 T.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Palacký University[edit]

I'm copy editing this for you now; can you please (in the opening para) explain the difference between a public university and a state one? In the UK the two are the same thing. Si Trew (talk) 08:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I will do that.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I've written there this: "Czech universities have a long tradition of self-governance and independence from state interference, which goes back to the Middle Ages. Today, self-governance is assured by the University Education Act No. 111/1998 (the Act deals only with public universities, which have self-governance despite being payed by state, not state ones, which are governed directly by state administration (these are only the University of Defence and University of Interior) or private ones, which only need state accreditation for awarding University degrees, but otherwise are governed totally by their own rules).Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:19, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
OK that's fine (except "paid" not "payed"), except perhaps it would be better to say "University of the Ministry of Defence" and "University of the Ministry of the Interior", or even telescope the two into "Universities of the Ministries of Defence and of the Interior".
Done Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:17, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
In "Facilities", "Sport" there is "[outdoor grounds...] together with the University docks appertain to the hall". I really don't know what this means. The University docks, presumably, does not mean a maritime dock or a loading dock, do you mean that it is adjacent or, in more everyday English, "next to"? "Appertain" I am not sure what you mean here, I think you mean that each hall has its own facilities? I just think that your translating dictionary has let you down a bit here!

Reviewing the other sections now. I don't really know that there's much to add. Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Si Trew (talk) 07:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've copy edited those. Main thing was with the libraries, I have reorganised it a bit since I think the Armoury deserves a full subsection, putting it in a list suggests the information under it is rather parenthetical, but it's quite interesting. In fact I wonder if it is worth splitting out to a separate article, albeit a short one – but that is perhaps too much work for now.
As for the Halls of Residence Bureau, I think Bureau is fine here, although Office could perhaps be put instead. I'll leave that up to you. A Bureau does tend to suggest it's more of a consultancy service, perhaps, though of course it's from French bureau, meaning "office" (do you like the new {{etymology}} template?!).
Otherwise all good I think. I changed "Armory" to use the British spelling ("Armoury") since I think you are using British English here? One thing I haven't changed is some words ending in -ize; some British people tend to prefer -ise, but the Oxford English Dictionary and Fowler's Modern English Usage prefer -ize, amongst others.
I've created redirects to sections at Palacký University Scientific-Technical Park and Palacký University Press, and put them into the lists (the last one I've changed to use the new link). I can see that one day these might become articles in their own right, so this way you then just replace the redirect with the article, rather than having to edit every article that has a link-to-section. The WikiMedia software's "what links here" facility does not work well with links-to-sections, so this helps to keep it more stable. It also means things are less likely to break if the section names are changed (but see MOS:HEAD and MOS:SECTIONS for that; use {{anchor}} to help guard against future breaking changes). Si Trew (talk) 09:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

History[edit]

I've changed the section titles a bit; in particular I've changed "pre-education" to "before the university" or some such, so as not to suggest we are dealing with kindergartens or whatever.

Nothing major here. I note that you tend to write the thousands separator as a dot instead of a comma. Normally I would just replace them straight in the article, but in this article I've used the {{formatnum:}} pseudo-template to do so, since I guessed it might be easier for you kinda to force yourself to use that for all numbers, instead of remembering which way round you had to write them. (Sadism eh?) Perhaps this also works better for those using text-to-speech readers and so on, I don't know. Si Trew (talk) 20:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mid-Atlantic English[edit]

(Re WP:ENGVAR). Sure, just use Mid-Atlantic English!

I have a similar problem with working for a company that is split half-and-half between the UK and the US. We in the UK are supposed to write in US English, but we can't really do it: while we can alter our spelling (especially with the aid of a spelling checker), we don't tend to alter the grammar or use different words (for example I changed your "rooting" [for a team] to "supporting"; I doubt it would ever even occur to me to change "support" to "root"). Most articles don't suffer much trouble with this, one does get the occasional editor – often an anonymous IP editor who is just starting out and notices an "error" – who will change a perfectly good use. As I say, it becomes more problematic with articles that have vastly different vocabularies, and transportation seems to be one of them; on geography articles, for example, I've rarely had to worry about it, beyond making sure the spelling is consistent.

I have a bit of an interest in linguistics generally, and speak a couple of languages, but no Slavic or Germanic ones, only Latinate plus a bit of Japanese and Arabic. My partner is Hungarian, so I am learning that, but slowly because I haven't anyone else to practice with. It means that although I maybe don't know much if anything of the language (as is the case with Czech, for example), I tend to be able to make educated guesses about why something might have been written a particular way, i.e. what has got lost in translation.I notice, for example, you sometimes use "the" when it is not needed, or omit it when it is, which I imagine comes from how its use differs between Czech and English. It's for the same reason that while I could use Google Translate to translate most of those road signs, and of course most of them I would know the English for them anyway, I wanted a native speaker to look over them to make sure consistent terminology or for signs we don't have (snow chains, for example).

On the whole I think your writing is very clear, though, and although suitably formal is a pleasure to read. I don't understand the school of thought that thinks big words equals big thoughts, so it is a joy to read something that's understandable, and considering that we are trying to appeal to a very wide audience, I see no problem in using "easy" words, providing of course they cover the meaning.

I hope also you don't mind if I refer you to this or that template or policy, I hope that doesn't sound like preaching. I know from my own experience, learning Wikipedia is often hard because one kinda thinks "there must be a policy to help me decide this, or someone must have written a template to do this already, but I can't find it". Personally I find searching Wikipedia very difficult. But please feel free to ignore anything I say, I won't be offended! Si Trew (talk) 11:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Road signs in the Czech Republic[edit]

You might be able to help with one thing: at Road signs in the Czech Republic, the definitions of the signs are in Czech and need translating. While of course most of them are obvious, there will no doubt be a few that I wouldn't be able to guess at accurately. Perhaps if I attempted to translate the ones I can (i.e. just substitute what we call them in the United Kingdom), you could check it over and fill in the rest? (This came to my attention via WP:PNT) Si Trew (talk) 08:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks with the road signs. I am trying to use the words used by the British Highway Code so I will look at those two and see what I make of it. I am sure that will not suit everyone (our American audience especially) but we can't really have both American and British English words for everything so I've taken the view one standard is better than none.

I've left the direction signs to last as the most wordy and also that I am not sure how best to translate each kind of road: Motorway, highway, and so on.

There are still a few untranslated in the other sections (marked with {{lang|cs}}) just when I was not sure the best translation. To my surprise, Google Translate seemed to give quite a good translation most of the time. Si Trew (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll do any tidying from the English side, please take no offence! Nice work! Si Trew (talk) 12:24, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the "EN", yes it is English but as in English language not England! I've nothing against American English (I lived in the US for a couple of years) but in the area of transportation particularly, the language seems to vary so much that it is difficult to produce a "neutral" version.
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 12:31, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I know you were joking :) Si Trew (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-governance[edit]

I wonder if the article Subsidiarity is anywhere close to what you want with self-governance. This word got the British media rather raising its eyebrows when John Major used it to describe how he wished to see the UK Parliament in relation to the European Union – I think most suspected the word was made up by eurocrats.

I do remember vaguely changing the quango article or link or something, I can't remember which way round now. I think at the time that article did more accurately cover simply non-governmental organisations, but it may have changed somewhat now and need moving again to a better title ("Self-governing body" or some such). Si Trew (talk) 12:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Josef Šnejdárek[edit]

I'm subbing Josef Šnejdárek. Is Czech: rotmistr by any chance Sergeant major? Si Trew (talk) 14:13, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Czech: zástupce velitele roty: Second lieutenant? Si Trew (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well, worth a guess. It could be Warrant Officer, which in the UK come in Grades I and II, although WO2 is pretty much sergeant major.
Perhaps it's worth asking someone at the Military History project (WP:MILHIST). They're pretty friendly over there. They might give you some pointers to categorising the article, too.
I'll look at those quotes later. Of course, not knowing any Czech I am not sure I am the best person to ask! Si Trew (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Legal clinic[edit]

I've copy-edited Legal clinic as you asked. Nothing major, just the usual bits of rewording and I added a few links in. Please of course do revert/change if I have mistakenly changed any meaning.

Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 02:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking around to expand it for the European section, to add a bit for the UK. (That would seem pretty obvious to you probably but I hadn't thought of it and you didn't ask it.) An essay (lecture?) by a university professor here I think is quite good and undoubtably RS, though is a bit tangential to the topic. If you have time to read it then I imagine you will extract the pertinent information better than I can; of course I'll copy edit it for you.
Your English is great, you know that, you still slip on the articles sometimes ("the" and "a"), and in my opinion you tend to avoid just writing in plain words – I know the Hungarian Wikipédia does this, it's considered elegant and whatnot to write all around the houses rather than say something straight, and the French Wikipédia also does it. I know if I translate from French half my battle is realising that the four things they have called something are in fact the same thing (elegant variation). You are not that bad, but I do think you have a slight tendency to avoid the plain word. I could well be mistaken, certainly your writing is completely intelligible, it's just a constructive criticism. Si Trew (talk) 06:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
By the way I was just looking at your help with {{Infobox tram}}. As you may know, I've recently got Old Rouen tramway to GA and have been fiddling with Montmartre funicular amongst other things. I suggest you might have a look at those to see whether comments about what should and should not be included are valid. I didn't use {{Infobox tram}} because I didn't think it was suitable: that may be a valid decision, or maybe indicate that it needs a few more fields or fewer. In particular, I think it should be clearer whether a tram refers to the whole network (as for Old Rouen tramway), a particular line, or a particular model of tram no matter what line it is used on. I'd appreciate your views. Si Trew (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Nicely done with the Lewis reference. That is a very well written essay I think, as a layman not a lawyer I can understand it. I've done a bit of copy editing as requested, but I think that looks quite nice. I've removed "Europe" as a section because European law and UK law are from different systems, as you know: UK law is closer to US law for obvious historical reasons.
I hope that is all OK but please do check it to make sure I've not cocked it up
By the way, you are putting this all into Czech Wikipedia as well, aren't you?
Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 18:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'd also recommend to you A P Herbert's Misleading cases, which includes for example The negotiable cow. His protagonist, Mr Albert Haddock, who is of course Herbert himself, is forever bringing cases to law on fine points. Quite amusing. I'll send you a copy if you want. He wasn't entirely in vain, Herbert reformed the divorce laws in 1936 I think. Si Trew (talk) 18:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I would be delighted to read that.
I was also thinking about removing the "Europe", especially as it should be more in historical, not alphabetical order. I was about to write about South Africa, where they seem to have clinics from 1970's, however I wasn't able to establish, if these are just pro bono work of University (legal aid office different from education clinical office, like for example in Slovenia) (=wouldn't fall within the article), or if they are part of the education (=should be in the Legal clinic article).
Indeed I did also the Czech one yesterday, I may enlarge it in the same manner in future. The thing is, that I basically do English wiki, and only when I find something important missing on the Czech one, I put there some short version. But when I was doing Tatra vehicles (see User:Cimmerian_praetor and especially the NW ones, I didn't care to put it also on Czech. I am about to start seriously working on my German, so in half a year I may focus on the German wiki.
I am looking forward to read the Misleading cases!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I'll send you my copy but it is an original edition called Uncommon Law. I'd need your email address or something. Mine is trewy@live.co.uk. I've no worries giving that out because as you know I use my real name, and I very very rarely get junk mail. I do very occasionally get confused with Simon Trew, a respected military historian, but only when I edit military articles. Si Trew (talk) 19:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Oh my German is very poor. The oddest request I have had so far is for book references which were in German, French, Latin, Greek and Hungarian. I did most of them but the missus did the Hungarian. I'm finding it quite hard to learn, not for any particular reason except that the only person I know who speaks it is the missus, so I don't get much chance to practice. Si Trew (talk) 19:40, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Re: scan[edit]

Ahoj. Velmi rád. Zde posílám odkaz. - Darwinek (talk) 09:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Není zač. Možná by pouze stačilo upřesnit tu větu, aby bylo zřejmé, že české úřady Poláky nevyháněly. Současná formulace totiž může vést k nejasným interpretacím. Samostatný článek by byl pravděpodobně pouze kratičký. Žádná publikace se specificky tímto tématem nezabývá. Dílčí informace jsou k nalezení v českých i polských publikacích převážně meziválečného období a pak po 1989. V Polsku se pak nacházejí v archívech přesné seznamy vyhnaných osob. - Darwinek (talk) 11:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Your pictures in Commons and T77[edit]

Hi! Have you noticed that there are marked requests for sources on the old NW/Tatra photos you have uploaded in Commons? Would you fill the needed information so that they will not be deleted. I have used the same photos on the Finnish NW/Tatra articles as well and wouldn't be happy if someone deleted them.

Another matter. I found this article about T77 (in Polish). It says that the first serial produced streamliner car was Rumpler Tropfenwagen, not T77. To me it looks like the writer knows what he is talking about. Does the other information match with the sources you have used?

Moreover, the source claims that Hans Ledwinka was not the one who brought streamlining to Tatra, but it was Erich Übelacker. Übelacker joined in Tatra in 1927 and when he tried to convince Ledwinka about the benefits of the design, he had doubts about it, but told about the idea to the company board. As you know, then they started a new project called V570. Based on the experience about the second prototype, Ledwinka got convinced about the benefits of the design.

However, the story gets more interesting the deeper you go into it. This source says that the Austrian automotive pioneer Béla Barényi created a concept of a stremalined people's car with a central load carrying tube and air cooled boxer engine with a rear engine layout between 1925-1931. He went to show it to several companies including Tatra, Steyr and Porsche's newly opened engineering company. But due to the recession of early 1930's, the companies were not interested in such revolutionary ideas but put all their efforts on survival.

I read somewhere (don't remember where) that Barényi wrote about his ideas on Motor-Kritik magazine, where the main director was Josef Ganz. He made later a concept car Standard Superior. It is unclear to me, if Ganz got his ideas from Barényi or Barényi from Ganz. There are some websites in the net which claim that the honour about VW Beetle belongs to Ganz. But still I don't think the truth is that simple. I should also search for Edmund Rumpler's role in the development.

I hope these links are useful to you if you still want to improve the articles. Could you please tell me if you happen to find interesting and believable sources about the matter. --Gwafton (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

German occupation of Czechoslovakia[edit]

Ahoj, as I know, that you are interested in modern history. There is article German occupation of Czechoslovakia, but this article looks not so good and can be improved. Can you help me? Děkuji--Yopie (talk) 01:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I will take a look at it from January on. I am currently in Germany, so I could get some German sources in library, however, not so much time now.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry not to have looked at the articles you wanted[edit]

Cimmerian, sorry I have been extremely busy lately as we have just moved house a few weeks ago and have been fixing up the decor and so on. I did not expect to be moved so quickly otherwise I would have said. I will try to get around to y our requests, but please my apologies for my neglect and a very happy christmas to you if I don't catch you before.

Si Trew (talk) 00:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Simon, don't worry about that! I think it needs only fine tuning otherwise it should be readable, so it can wait as long as you need. I hope everything is well with you, especially considering the new house. Thank you for the wishes and let me wish you Merry Christmas too as well as Happy New Year in the new house! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

"...His successor Vilém Prusinovský z Víckova invited Jesuits to Olomouc in 1566 and one year later he handed them the College..."[edit]

I do not know if this question is for you or for the talk page of the university entry. But the sources are in Czech so it's not one I can answer. (Also the sources are books and I do not have them.)

According to the entry on Vilém Prusinovský z Víckova "a year after his death, in 1573, his plan of promotion of the Olomouc school to Jesuit Academy was realized"

The implication of the earlier statement is that the institution was passed over to the Jesuits in 1566. Does that mean the Jesuits got it in 1566, but it only became a Jesuit academy in 1573. (In my limited understanding, the Jesuits would surely not have waited seven years...) Or does it mean that one of those dates is incorrect?

Sorry it's not more obvious to me. But it's not...

Best wishes

Charles01 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello. There was a college in Olomouc. This college was given to Jesuits in 1566/7. The sources are not coherent about this, but it seems that in 1566 the Jesuits were invited to Olomouc, late that year they came, and in 1567 they took the college over. They supposedly established number of other schools, which makes problems. As far as I understand it, the Academy, which they established, was part of the College. Or it can be interpreted that the Jesuit Acadamy was the name used for the College.
There was a number of other Jesuit Colleges established in the Czech lands at the time, but they all lacked the right to award University degrees to its students. That changed in Olomouc in 1573, when the Olomouc Jesuit College was promoted to University status, becoming the Olomouc Jesuit University. Does this explanation make sence?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Thank you. That explains it very clearly.
After I'd written that message last night I think I realised that in my mind I way conflating two separate events. Mea culpa. But what I understand much better from you, now, is why the statement on the event(s) of 1566 appeared vague. Hmmmm.
I guess the challenge is to try and communicate the vagueness without leaving an english language speaker thinking that the vagueness is a translation issue. Clearly it's not.
And the other challenge - one at which I often fail - is to try and be accurate without writing too much. I'm not always too good at being succinct. More hmmmm.
Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 06:39, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
The 1566/7 is accurate, what is not so sure is whether they already took over in 1566 or 1567. I decided for sources which put invitation and comming to 1566 and taking over to 1567.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I suppose it is possible that it was 1567 at the time, but became 1566 a couple of decades later: that's the thought that this way of writing years always trigger for me. As you probably realise, the late sixteenth century the period when the Julian calendar, with it's March year end, was replaced by the Gregorian calendar which places the year end at 31 December. I don't known when the Gregorian calendar was introduced in Moravia. It's even possible that Jesuits started to apply it in or soon after 1582 while protestants ....... didn't. Generally it was the Roman catholic countries that took to it first. Here in England, with the church a branch of the state and the Pope officially loathed, they waited nearly two centuries - I think till 1752 - and even then, when you look at local records, you find that twenty or thirty years later people in country areas were applying the old Julian calendar. Still, this is really rather near the edge of the scope of the wiki entry on the pre-university at Olomouc. Charles01 (talk) 14:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
That might be the issue, I have never thought about it that way. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. And thank you very much for your work on this article. I want to get it to Good Article level, however I haven't find a way to find someone who could promote it, or tell me, what may be missing/wrong in it.
There are three much less complicated (not that long) articles of mine which may need language check. These are Centre for Clinical Legal Education (Palacký University, Faculty of Law) and Vítkov arson attack of 2009. Last but not least it is Tatra 603, which might be interesting for you. I did whole bunch of Tatra/NW articles, especially those which lack other english-language resources, however I lack the necessary technical knowledge to make them real good (I wouldn't be able to do it well in Czech, not to mention in English). I am particularly sorry for that in case of Tatra 77 which I did as good as I could, but which nevertheless deserves much better. In case you are not bored by repairing through my articles, could you please check also these three?
Yes I'd be interested to take another look at those other entries and, with particular interest, the Tatra articles, though I too sometimes get flummoxed by the technical stuff in the car articles. Especially (often) on the suspension. I always had a soft spot for the Tatra 603 ever since my father went to represent his firm at a trade fair in Prague around 1965 and came back with a toy model of the Tatra for me. (I have no idea why they sent him as he spoke no Czech and for that matter no Russian, but I guess he had good manners and was fluent with English and German. Also I have no idea what happened to my toy Tatra. Sad.) Well, it was a remarkable car, and doubly interesting back then for anyone interested in Volkswagens.
Anyway, it won't be today, but I'll look forward to taking a look at those other entries later.
On the Good Article thing, I have no idea what that involves. It seems to be a bit of a lottery, and certainly one or two "car" articles that got it would not have got it from me! Anyhow, presumably trying to smooth the English where something is written using a too obviously non English word-order or thought structure is a "good thing" in terms of whatever those "GA" guys look for.
Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Funny you say that as I have a toy model of 603 on my desk just beside the computer :) Although this one was for free with a magazine (and made in China) and so its quality can't rival the one you got in 60s :) On the other side as a child I had a large plastic Tatra 815 tipper on which I could drive downhill on the road by my parents' house, so despite the many small injuries I also have long happy history with Tatra toys (including similarly large T138 excavator) :) I am only sorry that I visited their factory museum before I started with wiki and therefore I didn't take particular care when taking pictures of the cars.
Well if you like to write on suspension I may ask you one day to help me with article on T817/815-7. This is the latest development of the Tatra concept; they are currently working on way of getting the front axle of 817 into the civian 815, I think that there might be a number of interesting details (IMHO Backbone chassis might also need some work). Unfortunately I don't have time to work on it now. Similarly Tatra 810 is supposed to be using some unique features regarding its suspension, but I couldn't really address the issue as I don't know much about it. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"In 1752 the Office of Faculty Directors was established"[edit]

It's not clear to the reader (at least to this reader) whether we are discussing Olomouc or the whole empire. (I didn't fancy struggling to master the source, I'm afraid!) If it's across the entire empire, then that would become clear by writing (for instance) "In 1752 the Office of Faculty Directors was established in Vienna (or Prague?)" If we're just discussing Olomouc, then of course "....at Olomouc" would do the job. Any views?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This is regarding the faculties of University of Olomouc. It is possible that the same was happening also at other Universities, but I have no sources regarding that.
Basically until now the Faculty Deans were leading the faculties and they were second to University Rector. The Directors were second to the Empress (or to some administrative people by the court representing her authority). I am not completely sure what was the relation Dean-Faculty Director - the Deans' offices were dissolved only in 1784. I also don't know whether Deans were in fact appointed after 1752 (whether they were there concurrently with the directors), or whether the offices were empty and the 1784 dissolution was merely official act without real significancy.
I am grateful for the thorough edit. Once more thank you. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


"Teaching of medicine became a separate field, in which surgeons and obstreticians' assistants were taught."[edit]

I do not understand if this means that a medical school was set up (separately) in Olomouc. If it wasn't, I'm not necessarily sure why this sentence belongs in the entry at all. Also, if it became a separate field around 1782, that begs the question of how was it taught before? Part of the Law or Theology syllabus? I hope not, but I am pretty ignorant on the history of medicine.

Anyway, a source is shown. If you have access to that source, maybe it is clearer to you?

I'm rather enjoying this: I hope I will not be "treading on toes". I am maybe making more changes than I had intended. Now I must go to my (English) dictionary to find out how we are meant to spell obst... obstetricians. Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting question to which I have no direct answer. Presumably there were some lectures in the field also before (it could be Faculty of Philosophy, after all from today's perspective they did more science than philosophy there, as it seems from the list of notable people), but only now they reached status of separate study, though not being a faculty yet. The sentence is direct translation of the source, which is somewhat strange: I am sure that there were midwifes at the era, not "obstetrician's assistents". Whoever wrote the source took it from the present perspective, which I think might be changed in the wiki article, however I will leave that to your consideration.
I am happy you are enjoying it. I would hate to be a pain in the ass with this. I am sorry my English needs editing. I really appreciate that. I tried to work on German wikipedia too, but the Germans seem to prefer to simply erase whatever is not correct gramatically, instead of repairing it for the sake of Wiki.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I want to change the bit about the medical school. As long as it is unchanged, the ambiguity (as to where it was) is apparent and someone who knows may be moved to confirm / clarify that it was indeed the Olomouc medical teaching that endured and where (building/faculty..) it had been before and where it was (building...) now. Charles01 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"The Communist coup d'état of 1948 brought a new wave of persecution, including repeated closures of the Faculty of Theology in 1950."[edit]

This is a very picky point, but if they close the Theology Faculty repeatedly in a single year, then it must reopen almost as frequently. The comment begs more questions than (for me) it answers. If the communists did not like people learning about theology, why did they not close the faculty permanently? Or was it more a question of a succession of government sponsored raids, in which case why only during 1950? I think I would expect the same behaviour to continue for several years, "during the early 1950s". The understanding here is that things remained particularly repressive in Czechoslovakia at least until 1953 when Gottwald and Stalin died. But of course I know nothing about what was actually happening. Any insights? Charles01 (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The history of persecutions
  • The establishment of Olomouc University was a product of persecution itself - the Olomouc bishop invited Jesuits to convert local Protestants to Catholicism. Later during the history the Olomouc Academic community suffered from all tyrranies that ruled Czech lands.
  • The Habsburg despots subdued the University to state control in 1750s, only to close it later in 1860s (apart from the Faculty of Theology).
  • The German occupiers shut down all Czech Universities in 1939 (including Olomouc Theology).
  • The communist coup d'état of 1948 brought new wave of persecutions (including repeated shut down of Faculty of Theology in 1950).
  • The Warsaw Pact invasion of 1968 brought yet another wave of persecutions. Every fourth lecturer was affected in some form.
The wording probably needs to be changed. It was closed only once in 1950. The Faculty was
closed by Germans in 1939, however it reopened immediately after Soviets freed Olomouc.
Following the 1948 communist coup it was closed in 1950 (in fact all theology faculties in CR were closed that year, there was only one left/made in Litoměřice, under communist control). However since 1965 there was strong democratization movement (Prague Spring), which led to re-opening the faculty in Olomouc in 1968 (though formally as a mere branch of Litoměřice faculty). When the Warszaw pact countries invaded Czechoslovakia, they persecuted those behind democratisation, and
the Theology was closed again in 1974.
That part is summarizing information, which is to some extent repeated in following paragraphs and dealt with larger detail in faculties paragraphs. It was originally as infobox on the right side of the text, however somebody re-edited it into the text. I believe that the oppression needs to be stressed in some way.
The box shows what it looked like when I introduced the infobox in July 2010. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, you remind me of what I was already thinking in the back of my mind. That little burst of "bullet points" does not really fit with the flow of the the rest of the history section. These things happen all the time with wikipedia, as each of us has a different idea how the thing should flow! Or not. But I think there is a strong case for putting them back in a box, the way it appears here on your talk page.
There might be an argument for adding 1848 to the other examples listed. Then again, as far as I can make out the sight of a lot of soldiers glowering out of the fortress was enough to persuade the more rebelliously inclined that the real action was in Prague or Vienna. That also explains why (I never knew it till now) the emperor retreated to Olomouc later in the year. For him it was evidently a safer place to be! So no, maybe 1848 was not a year of oppression for Olomouc Uni.
On the same section, I understand now that the adjective "repeated" means that it was a repeat of the closure that had happened in 1939. But with my mother tongue English that is not how I read it. Please don't ask me why: I don't have the intellect of a Chomsky. To me, "repeated" in this context implies several closures during 1950. Of course, I cannot promise that every English speaker would read it like that. English is a complicated language because it comes from such diverse origins. Anyhow, your idea works fine for me: I'll try and apply it plus a bit about the oppression which inevitably is something lots of folks will remember with pain themselves or feel acutely from having learned of it from older relatives. Charles01 (talk) 16:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Actually the army played a crucial role in all of it since the head of the Olomouc fortress refused to act against the students (and he was asked to do so by both the City Council and the Archbishop - actually Archbishop was a loughing stock for the students, who were almost for months making some kind of non-violent "fun" under his windows). There were some skirmishes between the students and out-of-duty soldiers (meaning fisfights in the streets) but this all stopped when the soldiers took the canons out of the Armoury and were armed also when not in duty (I suppose that generally they were not armed when out of Fortress, meaning within the civilian part of the town). Maybe it should be mentioned that despite being in full combat readiness, the army in Olomouc never intervened. Despite the Olomouc's impact on the Czech National revival, the real politics were not happening in Olomouc but in Vienna, Prague, Frankfurt.
Actually even after the Revolution was crushed, the Habsburgs probably didn't feel strong enough to swipe its enemies. 1849-1850 meant quite a progress for the University (especially Faculty of Law, where some subjects were taught in Czech for the first time (might have been partially in Czech in 1680s and then again in 1780s though, but I have no sources for it), at Philosophy faculty Czech was used in some subjects since 1830s). Only when the Habsburgs felt strong enough they started repressions. However all this information seemed too detailed and not specific enough to be included in the article.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree that it is very hard to know when to stop adding detail that is at the periphery of the scope of the entry. It's very interesting to read these further details from you, though. As for the Hapsburg regime under Franz-Josef, they do seem to have been an essentially cautious lot, which is no doubt one reason that the status quo crumbled away gradually during the rest of the century rather than being subjected to the sort of violent shock that blew away the French "emperor" with a little bit of help from across the Rhine somewhere round 1871. Charles01 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Palacký_University_of_Olomouc#History[edit]

I've finally got round to copy editing this. There were not too many fa ults in English grammar, but I have changed a few piped links i.e. what the wording of the pipe is because what no doubt is common knowledge in the Czech Republic is not so in the UK (and vice versa of course); but please feel free to revert any or all of it, and no doubt I have probably introduced slips myself even though I have tried to check carefully; sometimes one can't see the meat for the potatoes.

I am sorry this has taken me so long to get around to, the missus and I have been very busy decorating our new home. My sincere best wishes. Prost! Si Trew (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Simon, I appreciate that very much. TLast days there was also other Wikipedian working on that (as you may see in my talk and in article's history). I think the more people contribute the better. Thank you very much.
I hope that you are either finished with the works on house or that you are able to enjoy them. Wish you lots of succesfull edits from your new home!Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this cos I just nipped out. Yes we very much enjoy our new home but lots more work still to do. The bulbs we planted in November are just starting to shoot through the soil, Spring is on its way I hope. Poca a poca, little by little. We are going for a winter break to Paris this week for a few days, and I intend to take the missus up the Montmartre funicular and see how it compares with my translation.
I forgot to mention, I linked dissolution which is a DAB page,as you may see from there it may be ambiguous to an English (people not language) audience, it would be most closely associated with Henry VIII's dissolution of the monastaries, which is not far off I expect what your meaning is in the dissolution of the Jesuits, but I left it for you to think what is best. Si Trew (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Nice, I am currently studying on French border, in Saarland, I hope to go to Paris in next couple of months too.
I am using the disoslution few times, once as dissolution of Jesuit order, then of faculties, of university. I thought it has general meaning. It may need a native speaker to go through it, check it, and use a different word. Could you please do that?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

flags[edit]

Hello, read the WP:MOSFLAG or million of threads (old discussions) in the WP:CARS rgds -->Typ932 T·C 03:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Juristic[edit]

I would suggest, in a friendly way, that contributions on law faculties should be careful about using the word "Juristic" too much. The problem is that Jurist means very different things in the anglo-american tradition from what it means in the continental European tradition. I think the wikipedia entry on Jurist explains it quite well. A law expert in any country will be aware of the challenge and understand the word well enough, but there will be other readers who think they know what you mean - so they won't bother to look it up in the dictionary - but who may infer a meaning that the writer did not intend.

Just sharing the thought while I had it. Hope you don't mind. I have to switch tasks, now, and print my son's homework. I seem to be in possession of the household's only working printer. Eat your heart out, HP.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I am always trying to improve my English, so all remarks of this kind are more than welcome. I am thankful for language cleaning of my work. I am currently held in school from mornings to evenings, so I can't work much on it (unfortunately I am not good enough to work on articles and follow lessons, talk page is the best I can manage ;) ).
I am asking you again to take a look at Palacký_University_of_Olomouc#University_Library before you leave the article for good. It deals mainly with history, but foremost I am not sure if I managed to get through the message, that the original library is now independent from University, though important for it, while the current University library is in reality set of a number of other libraries. Thank you very much for that.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You're right that I am beginning to run out of ooooomph (not an encylopaedic espression...) as regard the university entry, but I will certainly look at the University Library section next tome I return to the uni entry which is certainly still on my list.
My general sense regarding the subsections faculty by faculty is that they tend to repeat a little some of the history we already saw. They give slightly more detail, but not necessarily enough more history to justify the repeated bits. Does that make any sense? I think if one were to balance it out with more on where the faculties are today - relative excellence (relative to other Czech unis) in terms of exam results, proportion of law / theology / medical graduates still, five years after graduating, working in law / for God/ in medicine. Proportion working in Czechia / opther European Uniom / rest of the world. Proportion of graduates still unemployed / studying further / earning a wage/salary 12 months after graduating. I've no idea if those statistics exist, but they'd balance some of the history stuff. Clearly it would be interesting (and helpful as long as it doesn't go above two lines per person - you can always give the more deserving ones their own wiki entry later) to name any internationally known professors, especially if they publish on subjects that the world finds interesting. (To digress, I remember a medical researcher telling me that she always said she was researching Alzheimers because that way she always got funding for he research, though in reality the nature of her research meant she had very little idea which disease(s) her research would address.)
Having written that, there is also risk that the overall entry will become even longer and someone will say it is too long. There is, for example, a contrast with the length of the Innsbruck University entry at which I was persuaded to look.
So I come with more questions than answers on some of this. But having had the thoughts, it seemed silly not to share them. Clearly you are under no obligation to agree!
Another unrelated concern that I had a few days ago and which relates to the atrocity at Vitkov is that of rapid switches between the present tense and the past tense when you are narrating a chronology. It is HORRIBLY difficult to translate this rapid tense switching out of your mother tongue, and especially (I think) into English because each language does this in a different way. As a English mother-tongue speaker I tend to avoid it because I find it looks curiously subject to fashion - like Flared trousers and tail fins. BUT I am not sure that every English mother-tongue speaker would agree with me on the fashion point. I do think, however, that anyone with much experience of translating between mainstream European languages would agree that it is very hard to translate all this tense switching between languages. If one knows the source language quite well (as in, for me, French) one can watch the writer's brain working in French even as one reads the direct translation into English. I suspect I am seeing Czech language thought patterns in English when I read the Vitkov entry. But the result is still slightly disconcerting if one approaches the text as though it had always been in English. Again, this is more of a comment than a solution, and I do not know if there are easy answers. But the thought felt like one that might be worth sharing.
Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 09:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I will take a look at Vítkov and put it to the same tense, where possible. When describing such event, should I go with present simple, or past simple?
I totally understand if you get bored by the Uni article. If it becomes too troublesome to continue, just don't, I totally understand.
I am not sure whether there are such detailed statistical data. The issue is that the Czech Republic has relatively low number of people with University degree in the areas taught in Olomouc (the communist governments focused on education in technical areas), so it is and probably it will be in next 5 years easy for those who graduate to find a job (although that has changed during the economical crisis, but I don't think that it is long-term trend). Generally there is no comparison on quality of Czech Universities, a few big ones make it into international ratings (Charles University, Masaryk University, Czech Technical University in Prague and University of Economics, Prague). With more than half of the students in Education, Philosophy, Theology, Olomouc Uni does not qualify very high. I will try to stress fields in which it excells (nanotechnology, optics, etc.) as I did it in case of Clinical Legal Education.
It may be interesting that there is quite a lot of British students studying medicine in Olomouc. Unlike in UK, it is for free, and comparably to other Czech university cities/towns, living in Olomouc is much cheaper. However I don't have any statistical data on that, apart from the whole number of students studying in English language
Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
"...present simple, or past simple?..." It's a question of personal preference. Mine would be to base it in past simple. Because (1) I find it easier to do, (2) I THINK if in the future someone will translate it to a third language they will find it easier, (3) I think it looks slightly more encyclopaedic (whatever that is) and (4) I've forgotten (4)
Obviously anything you add about the faculties needs to be based on available information. My suggestions were purely theoretical. But by basing yourself on what is known, I think you have come up with several good ideas. Obviously the uni would wish you to emphasize its areas of excellence. Nanotechnology seems to be a fashion that will (as far as one can tell) last a long time, and optics is of permanent interest to the many people who have to visit an optician every year and discuss their eyes. Which is lots of us. But picking out your most eye catching good ideas risks downgrading the others which I don't think I should wish to do. So I'll stop. All your ideas can be made into good interesting information.
On with lunch. Best wishes. Charles01 (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

and allowed them to take any Greek or Latin books[edit]

My eye is caught by this phrase. In 1570, surely most books were in Latin or maybe Greek. But it was generous, because either the books were mostly pretty new because newly printed or else they were hand copied. Either way they would have been horribly expensive. I wonder if there is a source that comments on the language of the books or ... what. Anyhow, it seems that when the Swedes did what they did two generations later, the library would have represented a great treasure store. Hmmm. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I took it from a thesis, on which I based the Czech wiki law faculty article, here. He cites there NEŠPOR, V.: Dějiny university olomoucké. Olomouc 1947: „Biskup se staral i o knihovnu koleje a dovolil jesuitům, aby si z jeho vlastní knihovny vybrali knihy latinské a řecké, které by mohli potřebovat..“1 "The bishop took care of the college's library too and allowed the Jesuits to take any of the latin and greek books they might need from his library"
Then, as it is in the history section As a result, Olomouc University's most precious relics are now in the Swedish Royal Library in Stockholm, including 1,142 codices made under the patronage of Bishop of Olomouc Jindřich Zdíka. with source here. More information on that (in Czech, if google translator doesn't help you, I will): here and here and here more detailed.
I guess it is safe to say that Swedes hit jackpot in Olomouc :) Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

it was assembling samples of all printings from Moravia (and at times also from Silesia)[edit]

I think this means that the library obtained and retained a copy of every book, journal, (?newspaper), (?pamphlet) printed in Moravia between 1860 and 1946. (And from areas of Silesia during the Austro-Hungarian emp[ire period). Is that your understanding? I'm only about 90% confident that I've understood this correctly.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

In Czechoslovakia, Moravia and Silesia were merged as one administrative unit
Yes, that is my understanding.
With Silesia it might happened actually later - in the Habsburg monarchy, Silesia was a separate part of the monarchy as same as Moravia. In Czechoslovakia, the Moravia and Silesia were merged as one administrative unit. I am not sure, at which periods it was assembling also from Silesia, therefore I left it without time specification regarding Silesia.
On totally not related note. As Brno gained more importance, the official registrary of Moravia Margrave was in both Olomouc and Brno, making duplicate records regarding the land. I just remembered it and I thought it might be interesting for you, though irrelevant for the article about Uni. Thank you very much once more for cleaning my mess. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Eurocentre[edit]

I just finished with libraries section. I may come back to it if I notice anything I got very wrong, but my intention is to leave he University entry alone, at least for a bit.

There was a reference to the Eurocentre in the library section. I can guess what that is, but I don't know if I'd guess right. It maybe needs a sentence of explanation in the library section or even, if there is anything interesting to be written about it, a little section of its own. Or maybe it is very dull and the reference to it should be removed? Either way, I tried clicking on the source page indicated, but wasn't smart enough to find Eurocentre on it....

Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to find out what it is about. First I thought it is this one: European Documentation and Information Centre, however I found out, that this kind of "eurocentre" is situated at Faculty of Law (I remember there being some room in the library, where European documents were stored, and where I never saw anybody putting lights on, I guess that is it). So I looked further and I found this and that. Which quite shocked me (I always thought, that such things are pursued by Eurocrats and that they are consequently paid mostly from German taxpayers' money). It seems, that the Eurocentres were established in the Czech Republic in order to "bridge the information deficit of Czech public as regards the European Constitutional Treaty". So the government of the Czech Republic decided to inform the public. Eurocentres were established in each of the Regions of the Czech Republic. In 2005 the Prague Eurocentre was built, in year 2006 the other regional Eurocentre's were planned to be built.
It might be also in other EU states, but from the wording of the document it seems to be some Czech peculiarity. I was recently in Brussels and collected a number of free-to-take things they have in office of EU commission, so I guess that people of Czech Republic can do the same in their regional capitals. Too bad I havent found it out during my study years in Olomouc. Now on a serious note: according to the PDF the Eurocentres were established in order to "disseminate knowledge about policies and programmes of the EU and about the actions of the Czech government in connection with the European agenda, and they will" ... wait for it... ;) "function as intermediary between the Government of the Czech Republic and the citizens of the regions".
I hope that answers your question. I will leave it up to you to decide, whether current version is OK, or whether a couple of sentences on the "Eurocentre" should be added.
Last but not least THANK YOU for your work on the Uni article. This one has taken the most of my time on Wiki so far, it is nice to see it in good English shape finally :)
The pleasure is mine. It's interesting. Charles01 (talk) 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


The court found all defendants guilty of racially motivated attempted multiple murder and of destroying others property. The court sentenced ..... All defendants appealed[edit]

1. Can you tell from the source whether they appealed against (1) their convictions or only (2) their sentences. I would assume it's (1), but I think one should spell it out in the entry.
2. Do we know the outcome of the appeals yet? If not, do we know when the appeals are scheduled to be heard by the court?

It's interesting going through this one in a bit of detail. It was actually reported, if only briefly, in England, possibly because it plays to some of the preconceptions the English media have about "Abroad", and / or possibly because it was a shocking and eye-catching event. Also, they always like to report anything with Hitler in the title, because the 1939-45 war (our dates for it) is one period in history where the English come out pretty unambiguously as the good guys (though I appreciate that from the heart of Joe Stalin's middle European empire that may not have looked quite as obvious as it did from London).

Actually, as far as I remember, the reporting on the BBC of the Vitkov attrocity was pretty much in line with the Czech reports. Maybe that's where they copied it from. Twenty years ago the BBC used to send correspondents to find out what was going on and report on it, but these days they increasingly depend on feeds from other agencies (at best) and otherwise devote large chunks of the news reports to pumping out half digested rehashes of press releases issued on behalf of "clients" (mostly politicians and celebrities) by "public relations professionals". But I think the BBC news reports probably still contain a higher proportion of truth than many of the English newspapers. Today there is a story all over the news about a politician's wife being photographed dressed in a sheet. That's the story. There's another one about Malawi (hang on while we find it on the map) where someone has allegedly suggested that farting in public should be made illegal. Sorry ... you didn't ask for this. But (to revert to my intended scope with this request) it would help the entry to become more complete if we were able to fill in a bit more on these appeals in the Vitkov case.

Best wishes 20:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

They appealed against the conviction, sentences, as well as against the damages (in total the damages are above 1 million USD, mostly healthcare for the girl, I may add it). Unfortunately I don't know, when the appeal will be decided.
I started that article, because there was a lot of nonsence about it in English-language media, mostly American.
I used to read BBC newspage as primary source of news a couple of years ago, that was before they cut spending on the webpage newssite. And another couple of years after they cut spending of central and eastern european news in order to concentrate on muslim world. But still they have pretty high standard, among with guardian and neuer zurcher zeitung my favorites.
Sorry I am a bit in hurry so I am answering just in bits. I may return to it later. Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the sum of damages into the section about court decision. I have just finished Karel Slavíček and I am now considering whether do another person, or continue on faculties, or to leave it and do finally some Tatra. Or maybe learning, 8 exams ahead...
Even despite declining quality you are still lucky to be English speaker. If you want, you can get all the information, and all you need to do is just pay a few pounds for internet connection. On the other hand, the Czech Republic is a small society of some 10 million people, of which vast majority does not speak any other language nor do they seek information in other languages. Therefore the forerunners of Czech media can keep on feeding people total crap without being ever uncovered as bunch of morons, idiots and bigots. Thus people like Václav Klaus can be popular despite being considered as total fools in the rest of the world on one hand and being responsible for the Tunneling (fraud) on the other.
Generally the public discussion in Czech media is held by a very limited number of idiots sitting in their offices in Prague and having no idea whatsoever, what is in other countries nor in the rest of the Czech Republic. That leads to situation that basically nobody trusts anything that is written nor said in papers or tv, very similar to the times of communist propaganda.
Have a nice rest of the weekend. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


He participated actively in the activities of the far-right Workers' Party, which is currently the only political party that has ever been banned[edit]

This reads to me as though no political party has ever, at any time, been banned in the Czech republic, except for this one.

That may be strictly speaking correct, but I would imagine that under the communists, many parties (the ones not communist) were banned in Czechoslovakia. English-language readers may not be instantly aware that the Czech republic is a new country.

I'm assuming a lot here. If I'm wrong, please tell me. But if I'm right, how about

"....which, in 2011, remains the only political party to have been banned since the creation of the Czech republic in 1993"

?

Many thanks if you have any insights to share on this. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. It should read more like "...which, in 2011, remains the only political party to have been banned since the fall in communism in 1989" (don't forget, 1918-38 was also democratic state, which, didn't ban neither communist nor german-nazi parties, until 1938 munich agreement; the communists were also not banned after 1989 and it is only state, where communist party has not changed name but nevertheless remained in the parliament following the fall of iron curtain). Many thanks for working on it. Best regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, this looks like the solution. I know (of course) that Czechoslovakia was a democratic state 1918 - 1938 though (beyond the fact that according to my mother it was economically and culturally seen as a pretty vibrant period even at the time, and not just in retrospect), I don't know more about CS during those interwar decades. But my point was the slightly different one that Czech republic is not Czechoslovakia, because it lacks Slovakia. Anyhow, your solution addresses both concerns.

= on the damages[edit]

They were between them also ordered to pay damages in excess of 17 million Does this mean, that each one of them is fully responsible for the whole sum? I mean, if one of them wins a lottery of 17M, he has to pay it all, and then he can try to collect the shares from the other ones. I was not able to translate that and I am not sure if I understand it from this wording. Thank you for answer. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah, no.
You mean that if three die (or less dramatically, go bankrupt) with the damages unpaid, then the fourth who survived solvent has to pay the whole lot. Yes? Ok, I know what you mean.
The English term for this is "joint and several liability". It is very common because normally it is also the kind of liability that you owe to the bank if you together with a friend (or wife, or business associate or ... whoever) take out a bank loan to buy a house. It's still a legal term which non-legal people might say they don't understand, but maybe that can be resolved by use of a link to a definition. I'll see what I can find.

Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's it, thank you. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


Josef Vratislav Monse[edit]

Having mentioned that he married Marie Anna in Vienna, I can't help thinking we ought to say something about her. Eg ...was she the daughter of a Viennese lawyer called (zum Beispiel) Johann Mueller. Would she (sorry if it's there and I didn't get to it yet) be the mother of his five children? Irgendwas waere notwendig, meine Meinuing nach. Or?

Out of interest, does the fact that he married at all imply protestant tendencies despite re-Catholicization of Moravia since 1620? I wonder how that would have gone down with the folks in Vienna. In the medieval period (at least in England: as you see, I known nothing about that period in the Czech lands) university scholars were all priests and therefore officially celibate.

Charles01 (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Truth to be told, none of the sources I went through was dealing with the wife nor with religion issue. Since there was no mention about other wifes, I suppose, that she was in fact mother of all his children. On the protestant note - I am not aware of that, however if I am correct, it became possible to be openly protestant in the Habsburg Monarchy only following Monse's death (and even then not more than 1-3% of people were protestant, mostly in Austrian Silesia, where there are protestants up today, however in Moravia it seems there were none left). Jesuits burned thousands/tens of thousands (depending on source) of people alive in the Czech Lands for heresy, and although that was probably not often happening at that time (but it was still in the criminal code during the rule of Maria Theresa), being protestant and going to Olomouc would be kind of masochist. But, it might happened as you write, I will try to find more on it.
However the law professors were not priests, and that was one of the reasons, why the Jesuits were opposing them so much. See Monse's predecessors Karel Ferdinand Irmler, Kryštof Josef Hollandt and Johann Heinrich Bösenselle.
The Charles University was long in hands of protestants and I suppose that they didn't really care, whether the professors were priests (after all, they wanted universal education already in 15th century). Then during the rule of (catholic) Rudolf II dozens of important scientists were lured to Prague, many probably also held lectures in Prague without being priests. Although I have no sources regarding that, I believe that also other professors at the Academy of Nobility where laics. What is sure that when the medical studies became separate after 1782, they were also taught by secular medical doctors (before 1771 it was in hands of Jesuits too). Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I just found out that here they translate JUDr. as Doctor of Jurisprudence. However as he was teaching also canon law, my guess is, that he was in fact Doctor of both laws, as it is currently in the article. (the JUDr. title is also given today, but with no canon law implied) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Interesting on both counts. Thank you.
As you presumably realise, my real issue with "Doctor of both Laws" is that I have not come across the qualification. So I do not think it is a qualification most people would know about in UK or US. I never studied law in much detail, but I have worked with lawyers off and on a good deal, and at university I was at a college which was full of law students (still is). In other words, if the concept was known outside the most specialist circles, I would expect to have come across it. Thus the joys of translation: the words are the easy bit!
While I have your attention, I'm not too happy with using the word "lawyer" in place of "syndic". "Syndic" is another word I've not come across in England, though "syndicate" is a word that crops up in connection with university life here. ("Syndicate" is a word that crops up in a range of contexts in England, though since my speciality at uni was mostly modernish history, I tend to think of "syndcalism" in terms of French trades unionism. Not really relevant, here, no....) I wonder, could "legal official" be a better description of the position that Monse's father held in his town? Maybe even "municipal legal official" if he was effectively employed by the Town Hall or Town Council?
Regards Charles01 (talk) 20:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
That would probably be the right way to solve the syndic thing. Actually the word is not used in present context in Czech, so I can't give you many hints on that. The vocabulary gives also possibility of it being some kind of town representative with procuratory regarding the municipality (that would mean, that it was more than just a legal job, but a kind of administrative too). I am not really sure about this one. I would stick with "municipal legal official", as you propose.
Best Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

proposing some changes: "Monse was key to the establishment of the academic history tradition in Moravia." Maybe the word historiography would be better? Or does simply "history" mean also "history science" in English? a determined reflection of his "motto": "Return the Old Glory to the Homeland!" -> that is my own translation, if there would be a better way to put it, please do so.

Yes, on two of the thee, I think I'm with you (assuming it makes sense to you where I have entered the changes). In which case, that's the easy bit and good. But...
The bit about the motto, my "solution" is lumpy, and while one can more or less see what it means, it the sentence as I have set it up does not flow properly. Did he often quote this motto in his writings? Is it perhaps the inscription he chose for his tombstone? Somehow the word "motto", though not overwhelmingly incorrect, does not quite fit, at least to my ear. And since I do not understand the Czech, I am not able to come up with an instant alternative translation of my own.
I'm also in a bit of a quandary about the next bit. I don't suppose you can point me towards a French (even old French) text equivalent to "Rozmluva mezi klerikem a vojákem o důstojnosti papežské a královské" ...
I'm sorry that today I am inflicting my moments of doubt on you: but the reward, I hope, is a better text. And of course my personal reward is a better understanding. Best wishes Charles01 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry I can't help you with the French thesis. I already tried extensively to find more on it in English, when I was writing the article, however, I failed. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I managed to find the latin name, hurra! Latin: Dialogus inter clericum et militem supra dignitate papali et regia. Few words regarding that would be very nice, and, since you are/were a historian, I would like to ask you to put it into context. It should be reflection of the struggle between Philip VI of France and Pope Boniface VIII. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 19:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Bohdan Pomahač[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Bohdan Pomahač at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Snek01 (talk) 22:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Bohdan Pomahač[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

tb[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Cimmerian praetor. You have new messages at Volunteer Marek's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

(btw, I like the user name).

Václav Klaus[edit]

Any source that bank account in swiss bank was under Klaus' name? section corruption scandals. I only found sources it was ods account. otherwise Ill put it back 88.101.175.204 (talk) 16:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are right, it seems he had a villa there, the name of the account's owner remained unknown. Actually I was not really checking it, I reverted it mostly because you changed original sourced content without providing a source or reason for the change. Please feel free to change it while providing a source which will name it as "ODS' account".Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
I put the exact sentence from source.Source remained the same. Account under klaus name is nonsense since it was anonymous.Villa was just a rumor. anyway cascade of events was a little more complicated. Czech version of this is Id say unbiased and beteer explaining.Im novice so I dont know how to put there the reason for changing.Stamjeck (talk) 13:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Official language of CZ[edit]

Czech is the only official language of the Czech Republic, and it is spoken by about 96% of the population. SOURCE. Czech.cz is a site of MZV!

Answered at Talk:Czech_Republic#Official_language Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at Czech Republic. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. CIreland (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

Unblock[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Cimmerian praetor (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

Please review the reasons for my block. I brought it forward to the notice board, as the other user was just deleting what he didn't like at the Czech Republic wikipage. I tried to resolve it with him at the talk page, to no avail. I understand that I breached the 3RR. I just saw no other way to prevent the deleting attack. I did it in good faith, please instruct me how to prevent deleting of essential info without being blocked in future. Thank you.

Decline reason:

"Essential info" is in the eyes of WP:CONSENSUS. If someone else is edit-warring, you can take them to WP:AN/3RR. If you want the page protected, go to WP:RFPP. Otherwise, use WP:DR (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first and then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

Your DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Lumír Ondřej Hanuš at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

DYK for Lumír Ondřej Hanuš[edit]

Materialscientist (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Europa-Institut[edit]

I don't feel 100% confident that all is well. Did I make the move you requested? Should there be an existing talk page somewhere?--SPhilbrickT 12:19, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Palacký University of Olomouc/GA1[edit]

The nomination was speedy failed. You may use the suggestions in improving the article. Moray An Par (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Universities[edit]

Hi. Drop me an email and I'll send you the list along so that you can look for yourself. There are also listed "other important centres of higher learning" such as "Brno: (German) Polytechnic 1849". As for true universities my list is exhaustive, that is at least as my reference is concerned. I did not leave out a single entry. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No need for that. From your wording I can see that there are "true" universities and "untrue/false" universities. That is all I wanted to know. Thank you for the explanation. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Johann Karl Nestler[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

He is now featured at the Portal:Germany. If you have other DYK related to Germany, please feel free to add it there yourself! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

2011 Chilean Pen Incident[edit]

Hi Cimmerian praetor. As for this edit summary, please don't forget that the article in Reflex was a prank, not a serious claim. Btw, I don't think this incident deserves a stand alone article, however that's a topic of another discussion. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the original article was prank, but some media took it seriously and reported it as a fact. There are for example videos on youtube with the JOJ news with English subtitles. If it remained only as a prank, it would not be notable enough. However in this situation I believe it needs to be mentioned, and it needs to be mentioned in full context. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
So, the unbelievably amateurish work and misinterpretation of TV JOJ contributes to another confusion of people on Internet. Okay, in that case we should provide relevant clarification (if we accept the article as a notable encyclopedic topic). I think this whole hullabaloo over a really unclear and unimportant event have been grossly inflated by the media from the very beginning. I consider the pen incident as a tabloid story unworthy of serious attention. Moreover, it serves to public and unjust disparaging of a living person. ...and I'm not a supporter or defender of Václav Klaus. What do you think about the article? --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I thought the same originally. But living abroad it came to my attention, that most foreigners know Klaus only for the pen incident, many know the incident but think it is connected with Havel, some know the incident but don't know what country the "perpetrator" is president of. It caught more attention than anything Klaus has ever done before. That said I guess it deserves its place in Wikipedia. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

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

Zbrnajsem, you are totally missing the point. It is not there because the prank took place, but because some media took the prank seriously and because they reported it as a serious news. This has attracted some attention. If it is not covered in the article, it may lead some people, who inquire about the issue to the belief that it is a real state of matters.
The fact is that abroad even people who could not find Czech Republic on a map know that there is a president who pocketed a pen on TV. As regards Havel, he is THE known Czech politician: many even think, that Havel took the pen (Klaus is known only to few as regards the Lisbon Treaty issue). The latest incident in Australia has shown, that the pen incident will be in news whenever Klaus' name is mentioned, because it is simply what international audience knows him for. See reporting about Australian parliament visit: Vaclav Klaus, who gained notoriety for stealing a pen while holding a press conference, Czech Republic president Vaclav Klaus, made famous in a viral internet clip showing him pocketing a ceremonial pen in Chile, HE is a renowned climate sceptic who became an internet sensation after being filmed stealing a pen., etc.
Klaus took the pen in a very dishonest way, and you cannot now blame his opposition for mocking him for it. The Czech public TV has not invented anything, they just reported on the issue. It was not the Czech TV who pocketed the pen, it was Klaus. The fact you don't like it is no reason for deleting it. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

This is not a debate about Klaus and what he has done for Czech nor any other nation. This is a simple issue of Klaus taking a pen, putting it under table, and finally pocketing it, while smiling like a little brat that has taken a forbidden apple. Even his entourage didn't claim, that the sequence was changed, where did you get that? Secondly, it is issue of some media reporting the kleptomania as a true story. If you think, that writing on wikipedia, that this was only a prank, and not a real deal (as there are still people who believe in it) is damaging to Mr. Klaus, well then I can't help you.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, Cimmerian. I also commented on the issue on my talk page. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

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

My dear friend from Brno, this debate is getting to an absurd direction, but as I consider it polite, I will not leave it without an answer.
  • Changing sequence - I was only surprised by this claim of yours, since it was the very first time I've heard such an accusation. As regards entourage - if the sequence would be changed, I very much believe that Klaus' people would very happily point that out.
  • This is not an issue of diplomacy. Klaus simply gained the far largest notoriety abroad for taking the pen. I was hoping, that it will be forgotten soon, but as reporting from Australia shows, the issue is usually used by the newspapers to get the readers realize who the article is about.
  • Klaus very well may be a friend of NATO and the US, too bad that the only people who have recently invited him for high state visits live in Kremlin. If he happened to be invited elsewhere, it was usually thanks to the acts of the Czech Government.
  • The Wikipedia article is stating, unlike some serious reports, that the kleptomania thing is entirely based on a prank article and is entirely untrue. If this is beyond your understanding, I can't really help.
  • Abroad, Klaus is simply laughing stock, for the better. For the worse, he is despised. I don't know compatriots in US nor in Australia, but I know some who live in Switzerland (left the country in 1968). I have just come back from visiting Switzerland, and there Klaus is seen as an illustration of the Czech Republic being still more of a banana republic rather than a developed country.
  • I don't know how you got to the sentence about Havel. I only stated that he is the known Czech politician to the extent that some even today think that he is the one who took the pen.
  • As regards privacy, when a person decides to enter a life of a public figure, being it a superstar or a politician, as is the case of Klaus, he or she immediately deprives him/her-self of a large portion of privacy rights. This is a rule well accepted in open societies, see decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court or of the US Supreme Court in these matters. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's a pity that you didn't comment in the discussion. I would like to point out that my sympathies for Klaus are similar to the ones I have for dishwashing (I believe you understand me). As for my opinion on this particular article, you know where to find it. Best regards. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:53, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I thought, that this debate was already closed. As far as I remember, there was no tag anymore. My bad.

If you think the deletion was unjust you can bring the issue to the WP:DRV. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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

I like your sense of humor :) Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:16, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Administrative divisions of a city in the Czech republic[edit]

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

I see your point. It would make more sense if "okres" would be translated as "county", and "obvod" as "district". However, I think you need to ask a native speaker to clarify that. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
But "obvod" is not the same as "městská část", for example Prague is divided into parts called "obvod" but Brno is not. And as far as I know "obvod" consists of more parts called "městská část" and they consists of parts called "katastrání území". --Millenium187 (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

If you want to use a description picture by a Wikiproject, make sure it covers what you want to subsume in it.

I reverted your edit backed only by your OR summary. czech Republic is considered as an Eastern European country by UN, just like Slovakia. Please note that Wikipedia is not a place for biased arguments but instead reliable sources are accepted only. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 17:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

You yourself use the map, which does not cover it. The division by the UN is (1) minority view and (2) in place only due to pertaining cold war approach to the region. Regards Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
The map is a work of an editor, therefore it is not trustworthy. Also, if you look closely at the map you will find out that Finland is also included in Eastern Europe. The map is not reliable, sources like this are. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't follow how the sentense "Czech Republic, country located in central Europe." supports your thesis. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
Did you click on the right link? Let me pick few lines from the website for you: "Czech agriculture is among the most advanced in eastern Europe, with better than average yields.", "The Czech iron and steel industries have traditionally been among the largest in eastern Europe but rely mainly on imported ores (especially from Ukraine). ", "The major Czech car manufacturer remains Škoda, eastern Europe’s oldest car manufacturer", etc. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:37, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Opening sentence reads "Czech Republic, country located in central Europe." I understand that some political/economical areas are within the article compared with countries from beyond the former iron curtain, that however does not change the opening sentence and its message "Czech Republic is in central Europe". Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Tatra 77[edit]

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

As in the article: Optimization and computational fluid dynamics, Gàbor Janiga, Springer, 2008, page 196 for one.
The sources which claim that it was for T77 at the same time write that it was 1938 model. Hence it must have been T77a. T77a was made with sole purpose of making it as streamlined as possible. On the other hand T87 was made with aim to solve shortcomings of T77a as regards handling etc.; with aerodynamics taking already second place. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

Janiga's book, as the name suggests, is concerned with dynamics, and yes, it claims it is figure for the car.
As regards your claim that there were no pre-WW2 wind tunnel tests on cars, can you substantiate it? Because sources dealing with Paul Jaray suggest otherwise (that he used the tunnels made for tests of Zeppelins for car designs)
I understand that there are sources claiming 0.36 for T87 and that the difference with claimed for T77a is very large. However as long as there are reliable sources like Janiga, it will stay this way. Anything else would be WP:Original research, which is inadmissible on wiki.
I very much welcome retesting of T77a. I am especially looking forward to see the difference between the car with engine off and closed ventilation, and with engine on, open ventilation and warm air pushed through the rear ribs. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

I didn't say that he canno qualify it. I don't have the book on me. The fact is that it is a specialist in the field who claims this figure. What is the basis of his claim, I don't know. But in line with WP:Original research we cannot just say, that it is unprobable, unless there are sources for such a claim. All you provide are sources for T 87 Cimmerian praetor (talk) 13:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Czech Republic[edit]

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

Hello. Firstly, if only the language would be the issue, I would gladly correct it. But the biggest problem is, that it is too detailed: White movement, Trans-Siberian railway, Shooting of the Romanov family are all very interesting facts, however these are only very loosely connected to the part of article dealing with the Czech history. All these are to be found in article Czechoslovak Legions. The article "Czech Republic" should give a general overview, not detailed description of each segment. There are the designated articles for the details. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

1945 Silesia[edit]

Thanks I have made a clarification

During April and May 1945 an estimated 1.6 million Germans from Polish Silesia fled the advancing Soviet forces and became refugees in Bohemia-Moravia. Thus according to German estimates there were 4.5 million German civilians present in Bohemia-Moravia in May 1945. [http://z-g-v.de/doku/archiv/frameset04_1.htm Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung aus der Tschechoslowakei Band 1 (German) Page 18 --Woogie10w (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the German text

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



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

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

1969 nebo 1993 ?[edit]

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

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

Doktor práv[edit]

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

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

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

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

Právnická fakulta[edit]

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

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

Co se týče doktorského studia, tak je to nepravdivá informace, k 29. únoru 2012 byla akreditace odňata. Pravděpodobně se jedná o důsledek neaktualizace stránek fakulty.
U magisterského studia máte pravdu. V současnosti ale škola má pouze akreditaci pro dokončení studia stávajících studentů, nikoliv pro přijímání nových (to bude předmětem dalšího rozhodnutí MŠMT). Proto nelze napsat, že na škole lze studovat magisterský studijní obor - je možné ho totiž pouze "dostudovat".
S pozdravem Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

14 vs 15T[edit]

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

Cimmerian praetor, you are invited![edit]

Your Note[edit]

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

The source is the largest mainstream online media in the Czech Republic, affiliated to 3rd largest mainstream printed newspaper, it is no bogus. And it has since come out that he has been charged and faces up to 5 to 10 years in prison. The reliability of the source is high, as it cites the police spokesperson. Who the hell else should be more reliable on the issue of whether the charges were brought than an official police spokeswoman?Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Firstly, if you're going to be uncivil I'm simply going to cease direct communication with you and seek third party assistance. Secondly, the band's management has release a statement saying he has not been charged. Third, one of your sources is, by your own admission, a tabloid, which is not reliable. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
In what way am I uncivil? You just keep deleting the content (although, I agree that you were right on the tabloid). At what time has the management released the information? The police has had 48 hours to charge him or release him, apparently the situation has changed since the statement of the management was posted. Most probably he was charged after only after giving his testimony, which was probably delayed by the effort to find the best lawyer his money can pay (I only assume this and I am in no way trying to push this assumption into the article). I am trying to put there up to date information from reliable Czech sources, and I believe that the police spokeswoman knows the criminal process of the country a bit better than the management. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
FYI [BTW this blog and 2010 comments on fansites regarding the 2010 concert are full of similar description. Not reliable source, I know. Well, it is in the prosecutors hands now to accuse or not to accuse him. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I might know where the issue of "bringing charges" may stem from. In the Czech system, the police first "obviní", or brings charges. Thereafter, the prosecutor "obžaluje", or accuses. Maybe it was lost in translation. He got the first one by now, that is sure. And if the prosecutor will petition to remand in custody, then the second will be also coming. And then fair trial - innocent until proven otherwise. Regards. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've added the source for his management's statements, filled out the section with more from your source and cleaned up some of the wording. In the context of this article, it doesn't matter what actually happened, only time will tell there, but we do need to ensure only reliable, verifiable information appears here. When two reliable sources contradict one another, we publish both, saying 'according to' so the reader can come to their own conclusion. Finally, when you say "Who the hell else..." instead of asking why someone might not be reliable, you're being uncivil in my book. And FYI, I'm not the only one who found your sources to be unreliable. Take a look at the section now and let me know what you think.--Williamsburgland (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Directly from your article:

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

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

No, it says the contrary, that Blythe attacked the fan. Other sources go further and write about other fans who were attacked during the same concert when attempted to do the stagediving (jumping from the stage onto the hands of other fans, very popular in the Czech republic).
Notwithstanding what you cite above I deleted the "attack" because was only in the first news hours after the arrest and the correct translation for the most sources is "altercation". For the sources that use word that can be translated as attack, there is same number of those who claim that the fan was initial attacker and those who put Blythe as initial attacker. There are even US source that claimed that Blythe has bludgeoned the fan with microphone pole not only this one. I tried to pick the most reliable from many source, there was no bad faith on my side.
I see your point, however for the most part you were deleting much more than was necessary.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The link you just used doesn't mention anything about Randy hitting anyone with a microphone... further, a second source just told me that the translation I had was correct - "The {singer} was attacked after a fan climbed on stage." --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I just CTRL Effed... are you talking about the comment, with someone saying he heard that Blythe hit the guy with a mic stand? Not only isn't that reliable in the context of WP, it isn't reliable in the context of a big fish story. Again, it seems the source that you added indicates Blythe was attacked. I'm not assuming bad faith on your part, but please find a source backing up your statements or revert that last edit.--Williamsburgland (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
My bad, I just googled it again (I worked with some 25 sources) and I thought it is the one without checking it. Here it goes: After the 2010 incident, those who know the band heard the intruder may have been struck with a microphone before the security team forced him from the stage. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:21, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Please go and find a couple of random Czech wikipedians to translate it for you if you have no trust in me.
Full translation: According to one of the participants (literal translation, i.e. fans) of the concert, the event of the attack on the fan occurred after the fan climbed on the stage between two songs. "He was thrown backwards into the crowd, he flew (literal translation, more correct is fell) in a curve and fell backwards directly onto his head".
As to your latest edit, the police will not continue keeping him, but the judge will decide whether he will remand him in custody, which is not police custody (i.e. 48 hours) but prosecutorial custody which may be up to either 1 or 2 years long (I am not sure which of the two applies in the given case, I might check it tomorrow, the time is late in the CR). I leave it to your judgment whether you want to make it more precise.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Last note: Blythe was reportedly arrested by detectives of elite unit nicknamed "headhunters" who specialize in catching criminals on run, which is quite unusual in a case when no warrant was issued. IMHO they knew that the moment the warrant would be issued Blythe would not ever leave US again and USA does not extradite its own citizens (same as regards the Czech Republic) so they decided to wait. I think that it is a terrible bad judgment from the bands management to bring him back to Prague, if they knew about the deadly injury. Cimmerian praetor (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I've actually removed your bit on Czech law because it was uncited and irrelevant. Again, the job of wikipedia is only to supply verifiable facts relevant to the articles in question. So too is what process the case could take, unless it's in direct relation to an official statement, like the the one I cited. I don't care about judgement or what's happening under the surface, I only care about what belongs in the article. --Williamsburgland (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I am inclined to believe that you do care, since you have not put there that the newspapers allege that Blythe attacked the fan, after the original translation that the fan attacked Blythe proved to be incorrect.
Regarding the translation:
K napadení fanouška došlo... = the event of the attack on the fan took place (as in the article)
K napadení fanouškem došlo.. = the event of the fan's attack took place (as was the wrong translation).
As regards the length of the custody - it see it as relevant. As regards lack of citations, you could just point it out by adding the template. I would gladly add the reference §77. I don't see you deleting most of the content of the article just for the lack of references, somehow only my edits are being deleted.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Once again, I've translated via Google and had a friend do so - they both seem to agree with the translation I used. In terms of whatever law is being applied - you can't just cite that law - you need to cite reliable articles covering the events at hand. Otherwise you're just speculating. Lastly, concerning what all else is in the article in question, you're right, I'm not removing every uncited statement. Technically should statements like 'he was on ABC bands album' be cited? Of course. But that's one thing, and a developing current event involving criminal charges and homicide are quite another. Most of my edits do involve removing or citing more mundane information, but this particular issue necessitates a much heavier hand in enforcing the rules. Again, I don't care. If he's innocent I hope he gets out soon, if he's guilty I hope they lock him up. That said, every source I've come across and added has indicated the former, and the only reliable source I've seen you add describing the incident seems to have a questionable translation to me. If you have more sources/details, by all means, add them. Otherwise, they don't belong here.--Williamsburgland (talk) 01:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
One other thing - regardless of the translation, I can tell you one thing for sure - it doesn't say Blythe attacked the fan. It doesn't mention his name once. --Williamsburgland (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it says so. I understand that translating from Czech to English is very hard as Czech is one of the most complicated languages and automated translators simply can cope only with the basics. That is why I brought the Czech sources to the article with my non-automated translation.
Důvodem stíhání je podle médií incident z května 2010, kdy se zpěvák v pražském klubu Abaton popral s jedním z fanoušků, který za ním vylezl na pódium. Muž, který později zemřel, nebyl podle deníku Mladá fronta Dnes opilý ani pod vlivem drog. Podle jednoho z účastníků tehdejšího koncertu došlo k napadení fanouška poté, co vylezl mezi skladbami na pódium. "Byl vržen po zádech směrem do davu, letěl obloukem a dopadl pozadu přímo na hlavu," popsal svědek pro Aktuálně.cz. Na pódium přitom muž údajně vylezl na vyzvání zpěváka, který do publika volal "Come on up", což doslovně znamená "Pojďte nahoru". Při koncertech tuto větu hudebníci používají pro vyvolání potlesku a řevu. "Kamarád nebyl pod vlivem ani alkoholu ani drog a v nemocnici velmi dlouho čekal na ošetření. Zdravotníci nám nechtěli věřit, že vůbec nepil," uvedl svědek. Muž byl několik měsíců v komatu. Měl silné krvácení do mozku, na jehož následky zemřel.
The reason behind the charges is according to other media an incident from May 2010, when the singer (Andy Blythe is used at the beginning of the article, later it is only "the singer") in Prague Abaton club got into an altercation with one of the fans, who climbed to him onto the podium. The man, who had later died, according to Mladá fronta Dnes was not drunk neither under influence of drugs (drugs are essentially legal in the country). According to one of the participants (literal translation, i.e. fans) of the concert, the event of the attack on the fan occurred after the fan climbed on the stage between two songs. "He was thrown backwards into the crowd, he flew (literal translation, more correct is fell) in a curve and fell backwards directly onto his head". Reportedly he climbed the podium following the invitation of the singer, who was chanting towards the crowd "Come on up", which literally means "Come on up". During concerts, musicians often use this sentence to raise applause and roar. "My friend was not under the influence of alcohol neither drugs and he had to wait in the hospital for treatment for quite some time, as the medical staff did not believe he hadn't been drinking (literal translation, better is they initially thought he was just drunk)" said an eyewitness. The man was for months in coma (other sources claim weeks). He had a strong intracranial hemorrhage, due to which he died.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 09:01, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Pankrác Prison at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 09:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

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

"Liberation" of Poland[edit]

  • Czechoslovakia doesn't inform how many Soviet soldiers died liberating Czechoslovakia. Why do you insist that Poland should contain such information but you don't inform how many Polish soldiers died at this time.
  • There are many opinions what was "Poland" 1944/1945 so informations about it are generally POV. One of the POVs is that Poland wasn't liberated but was occupied by the Red Army and NKVD, compare Augustów roundup (600 victims) and Lidice.Xx236 (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
    • It is an essential historical information. Should I have a time during the weekend, I will tend to add it to the Czech article too (also including the number of US soldiers, as those liberated area up to Pilsen, and of the Czech and Slovak resistance). Of course you may change it from "liberating" to something more neutral, and you are welcome to add the figures of Polish soldiers and civilians who died for anti-nazi activities (four members of my family were executed for taking part in them in Zaolzie area).
    • Considering that the Nazis are responsible for death of 15% of Polish population, even when seeing the Soviet forces as invaders and occupiers, they still compare better to the previous Hitler's regime, don't you think?
Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 06:06, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
      • Do you know any former slaves who praize their less cruel masters? If Czech people consider German rules to be an occupation, we can consider comparable Soviet rules as an occupation, too. Current Russian government continues Soviet politics and refuses to cooperate with families of murdered people.
      • Any number of dead Soviet soldiers includes NKVD and Smersh officers who committed crimes in Poland, Soviet victims of Soviet crimes and Soviet "management" of Lyudyey u nas mnogo type.
      • The Soviets were Nazi allies 1939-1941, manipulated Warsaw Uprising, incited some German crimes. Xx236 (talk) 11:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

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

Exactly. There are many opinions what was "Poland" 1944/1945 so informations about it are generally POV.Xx236 (talk) 10:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding. My argument does not go to the label, be it "liberation" or "fight against Nazi army on Polish soil" or "fight between Nazis and Soviets within the area of Poland", but I think it inappropriate to delete the mention of the fallen soldiers completely.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 18:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Appeasement[edit]

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Freedom of speech by country, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Punk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Institute of technology, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Collegium Nobilium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

ITN Credit[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kunovice (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:52, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Randy Blythe (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Chris Adler
Unincorporated area (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Proving Ground

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

Klaus´s amnesty[edit]

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

Dear Zbrnajsem. It is not so much about the record itself, but about the fact how this record reflects the mood of the population. Surely, legally the amnesty is OK, but that does not make it legitimate. The very fact that impeachment process is being attempted at the end of Klaus' office term, when not only it has little to no chance to succeed but it also cannot have any impact (unlike in case of a midterm impeachment, for, lets say, unconstitutionally delaying signing of the Lisbon treaty) has a lot to say about the legacy he is taking with him.
Moreover, I don't only think that this paragraph should remain there, I believe that it should be enlarged by list of the most notorious cases that were stopped by Klaus, as well as by the people who were killed by released prisoners (at least two of them within 1 month). This step will leave a real stain on the Republic for the next at least half-a-decade, with top cops and prosecutors resigning to do the best they can out of fear that it may anyway lead to nothing. Best regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 11:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Dear Cimmerian praetor, I firmly oppose any enlargement of this case on English Wikipedia. It is not so important. We should rather work on other topics, like continuous obstruction by the opposition against any measures for consolidation of the state budget, continuous naiveté of 90 p.c. of the population on economic and other questions, or the coming of a new President. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 11:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
You should try taking a step back from your political views. This is encyclopedia. It's purpose is to provide information, not to shape opinions.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 12:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe. But your insisting on edits on a random problem (yes, the amnesty is in fact only a random problem) depicts also your political views. There are much more important features of Klaus´s long-term career and of his political legacy than this amnesty, which was perhaps not the best measure, but maybe he had some reasons for it. Prosecutors resigning to do the best they can? What can they do after they have resigned? I always try to stay neutral, and well informed. For this, I am quite well equipped. The situation in the Czech Republic is, of course, not encouraging at all. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 18:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 12[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Randy Blythe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Encore (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Bail[edit]

Dear Cimmerian praetor,

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

Deipnosophista

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

Disambiguation link notification for May 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Škoda Popular, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cc (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 16:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The Superbs[edit]

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

Hello,
  • Yes, the backbone chassis was used throughout the new range. I've added the displacement to emphasize the model's role, from a small car to the large one.
  • The torsional stiffness issue was connected with use of wooden bodywork on ladder frame. (if you are a car guy, see video Tatra vs Zetros on youtube) Latter metal bodywork on the ladder frame holds ok, but wood didn't fare that well at the time. So it was a more general issue of ladder frame+wooden bodywork, not an exact model.
  • The 650 was outgoing model, which was sold alongside Superb for some time. Its price was a bit higher and the number of sold cars was lower, so I suppose it was also more luxurious (the size seems about the same) - although on the other hand 650 was depression model, while Superb came already after the depression.
  • contemporary pricing policy - today the Superb prices start also roughly at about the double of Rapid, it was the same before WW2. Sorry for confusion, I meant today's pricing policy.
Thank you for your help, much appreciated! Regards, Cimmerian praetor (talk) 22:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
♠Glad to do it. I learned something about Škodas in the process, so we both win. :)
♠If you're a car guy, let me invite you to look at this, this, & especially this, which could use more eyes; the Merc could use some clarification & sourcing, too. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:30, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting a ping saying you answered; is that the old reply notice? If so, feel free to delete this. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
I guess it was the old one :) Cimmerian praetor (talk) 21:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

DYK for 1st Czechoslovak Partisan Brigade of Jan Žižka[edit]

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

Disambiguation link notification for July 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vietnamese (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Czech help needed[edit]

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

Hello Pearly,

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

C.p., great to hear! The two pages that are really important are the User Guide and the FAQ page. The translation extension makes things quite easy. I'll email you the message before the weekend. Thanks for helping! PEarley (WMF) (talk) 06:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'll post the message here, as you don't have email enabled. Thank you for helping. Message is:
""Hello Czech Wikipedia editors from the Wikimedia Foundation. As some of you already know, the new VisualEditor (VE) is coming soon to all Wikipedias. The current date for Czech Wikipedia to have this feature enabled is in mid-August. The new editor will be offered alongside the old editing interface.
If you would like to try out the new editor before then, go to "Preferences", "Edit Page" and "Enable VisualEditor" at the bottom. Save your changes, and VE should be available. We are looking for problems and ideas for improvement. Please leave your feedback at my talk page [LINK] or at MediaWiki here here. We also need volunteers for translating VE documents, to help with this, go here. Thank you, (polite Czech goodbye?)" PEarley (WMF) (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
C.p. - an update. We are finally going to roll out VE to Czech wiki for real. September 24th is the date. Could you do a translation for the official message? I don't trust the google. If you time, I'd be very happy ... Regards, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I could get to that on Sep 22. Is that too late? Cimmerian praetor (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to give the cs.wiki users at least a week or more notice before the rollout. Any chance you could find time sooner? If not, no worries. There are a few others I could ask to do it. Best, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Unfortunately I have 9-22 working week and this weekend is also busy for me, so I can hardly do anything else other than guarding watchlist.Cimmerian praetor (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
You're working too hard! No problem, C.P., I'm sure I can find someone. Thanks for offering to help, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 01:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Seznam zrušených dekretů prezidenta republiky[edit]

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

Mendel[edit]

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

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

Randy Blythe manslaughter case[edit]

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

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

Request complete[edit]


Harok family murder article[edit]

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

WikiCup 2014[edit]

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

Your GA nomination of Randy Blythe manslaughter case[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Randy Blythe manslaughter case you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 03:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Randy Blythe manslaughter case[edit]

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

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

Name of Ford Taunus[edit]

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

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

...even today, the Czech economy has the highest proportion of manufacturing to other sectors (services & agriculture) among EU countries,[2]...[edit]

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

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

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

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

You wanted a discussion[edit]

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

Your GA nomination of Gun politics in the Czech Republic[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gun politics in the Czech Republic you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Gun politics in the Czech Republic[edit]

The article Gun politics in the Czech Republic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gun politics in the Czech Republic for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gun politics in the Czech Republic[edit]

The article Gun politics in the Czech Republic you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Gun politics in the Czech Republic for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tezero -- Tezero (talk) 20:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA, great job! C679 23:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, much appreciated! Cimmerian praetor (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Overview of gun laws by nation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page FMJ. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Gun politics in the Czech Republic[edit]

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