User talk:ŠJů

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

Welcome to Wikipedia from Biblbroks[edit]

Hi, ŠJů. I welcome you to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! Please sign your name on talk pages using four squiggles (~~~~); this will produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or put {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up very soon to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Happy wiki-ing! --Biblbroks's talk 08:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Traffic light[edit]

We don't have any articles on "tram traffic lights" in Wikipedia, and it is bad form to put in a link to an article on a different subject on a Wikipedia of another language. Please translate the target article on the other language's Wikipedia into English, and link to that instead. -- Denelson83 21:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

Re: Category:Railway engine shedsCategory:Railway depots. The category Category:Rolling stock depots is absent, the subcategory Category:Railway depots in the United Kingdom isnt divided to either the engine (locomotive) depots and the rolling stock depots. --ŠJů (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You added the above request at Wikipedia:Requested moves, but things in the category namespace can't be moved like normal articles. The venue for moving categories is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. Please relist your request there if you wish. Happy editing! Dekimasuよ! 03:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank You. --ŠJů (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Repost of Category:Fictional children[edit]

Information icon.svg

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Fictional children, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Fictional children was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD)

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Fictional children, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 20:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


Ahoj. Díky moc za upozornění, úplně jsem zapomněl, že to tam mám. Už jsem to spravil. - Darwinek (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


Trawling for articles with DFC as an acronym and then placing them on that acronym's page does not make them valid. If these articles or events are unknown by the acronym, they should not be used. FruitMonkey (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

My experience is that I first found the abbreviation DFC (which should mean some music festival) and consequently i searched its meaing in Wikipedia. Hereat I found by Google that the abbrevation DFC is also used for the Dubai Festival City. Both abbreviations are in use evidently and it is purposeful to mention them in the disambiguation page just as all other meanings. --ŠJů (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
See for example,, etc. --ŠJů (talk) 19:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Then please put them into the articles, as there is no reference to this information on the pages. Thanks FruitMonkey (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Such abbrevations are quite expectable and self-evident. It's no usual to prove by references every common abbrevation. Even articles about mentioned footbal clubs don't contain such explicit reference. I don't understand why you need to see just these two subjects as problematic. --ŠJů (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Ephebophilia article[edit]

The discussion was moved to Talk:Ephebophilia#Various term meanings. --ŠJů (talk) 06:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Air ticket for deletion[edit]

The article Air ticket is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Air ticket until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. ttonyb (talk) 04:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I was created a redirict, not the article. --ŠJů (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Motorail, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split (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) 10:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Mysterious Castle in the Carpathians - your citation needed tag[edit]

You indicated that the English movie name should be verified, while the article already links to an IMDB page, which, as those usually do, lists AKA names - and the English name is, in fact, one of them! What shall we do? Gryllida 04:31, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I was not able to find the English title at the only source page – If the information is only at the linked subpage, I think, the subpage can be directly linked. Btw, the UK title is more exactly translated than the USA title - is there some evidence (other source) that the stated USA title was really used? All language versions use the substantive word (tajemství, the secret, das Geheimnis, mistero, várkastély) only the USA version use adjective word (mysterious). Adjective form is used in the Czech title of the Verne's novel. --ŠJů (talk) 11:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Letadlo Spojených arabských emirátů.jpg[edit]

Hi. I'm an assistant language teacher in Japan. Over the past seven months I've been making a visual novel type game to help my students with English. To aid this, I have used one of your pictures that you have kindly made available under a Creative Commons licence ( I just wanted to thank you personally for making the resource available. If you want to play the game, though please bear in mind a lot of it is in Japanese, it can be downloaded online (I won't put the link up as it might count as spam, but let me know if you want it and I'll pop it up). Thank you very much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watashinotabi (talkcontribs) 00:48, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank You for your message. I'm pleased that my photo is useful for you. --ŠJů (talk) 11:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Problem with table template on[edit]

Hello ŠJů. Thank you for testing VisualEditor on I was looking at your problem, and it seems the table text is editable through the "template editor" - the puzzle piece icon that appears at the top right of the template when you put your mouse over it. It then lists the parameters, in each, the text can be altered. Does this answer your question? It is this way with table templates in VE. Improvements to how VE handles tables are coming. Please let me know about any other problems you are having with VE on, and, if you have time, there is still some Czech translation work to be done at VE TranslationCentral. PEarley (WMF) (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Czech help needed[edit]

Hello ŠJů, 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) 23:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)


You've probably noticed that Dudemanfellabra hasn't been around lately, so your questions about the Commons script went unanswered. I just contacted him offline, and he said that he plans to be back once things calm down in real life. He also asked me to mention this to you. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, thank you and him. I supposed he choose a better way how to spend this summer :-) His script works perfectly, only small "cosmetic" corrections remain to be solved. There's no hurry. --ŠJů (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I found a little time today to implement some of the changes you requested and will work on the rest. I have responded to each inquiry at User talk:Dudemanfellabra/AddCommonsCatLinks. Sorry for the long wait!--Dudemanfellabra (talk) 17:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for cleaning up after my Commons uploads and Wikipedia stubs related to the Czech Republic. Your work is not unnoticed. :) Much appreciated! --Another Believer (Talk) 05:07, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Segway PT, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Podolí (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) 09:07, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

September 2016[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Bohemia shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:ŠJů reported by User:Chris troutman (Result: ). Thank you. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring at Bohemia[edit]

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

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.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 26 September 2016 (UTC)


Cau, fakt ma smysl v uvodu clanku o Cechach zminovat, ze byly dve regionalni reformy a jmenovat ruzne druhy spravnich jednotek? A rozepisovat historii Ceskoslovenska a nasledne Ceske socialisticke republiky a nasledne Ceske republiky o detaily, ktere nezminuji ani uvody zdejsich clanku Czech Republic nebo Czechoslovakia? Neni pro uvod tadyhle clanku Bohemia jednodussi mit vetu, ze do roku toho a toho byla administrativni jednotkou, ale od te doby neni, a ze proste byla v Ceskoslovensku a nasledne CR? --CCCVCCCC (talk) 09:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Čau. Myslím, že v článku o jedné z českých zemí je docela důležité zdůraznit, že ta země měla vždy postavení země a nebyl to jen nějaký kraj či abstraktně "region" či "administrativní jednotka". A změna zřízení ze zemského na krajské se právě postavení a statusu Čech (o nichž je ten článek) týká velmi podstatně, ať už má čtenář na ty reformy názor jakýkoliv. Jsou lidé, kteří se dokonce domnívají, že zánikem zemského zřízení zanikly i země, resp. zůstaly už jen historickou skutečností. Pokud by úvod měl být zjednodušen, tak spíš vypustit podrobná hodnocení, zda ta země byla "administrativní jednotkou", nežli vypouštět informaci, že vždycky byla zemí. Z hlediska začlenění Čech je pak důležitějším datem rok 1969 než rok 1993 - ten je důležitý z hlediska České republiky, nikoliv z hlediska postavení Čech.
Samozřejmě by mohlo být rozebíráno podrobněji, že kraje z let 1949 a 1960 respektovaly hranice Čech a Moravy jaksi "nominálně" (byly "české kraje" a dva "moravské kraje"), takže de fakto hranici Čech a Moravy jakoby posouvaly a český úlomek Slezska asimilovaly do Moravy, zatímco kraje z roku 2000 jdou už naprosto napříč (zejména tedy Vysočina). Ale jinak česko-moravská hranice, její vývoj a její vztah k administrivním hranicícm, by si asi zasluhovala samostatný článek, jako ho má i na české Wikipedii. I když dnes už je to spíš folkloristická záležitost. --ŠJů (talk) 09:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@CCCVCCCC: Jinak zrovna mezi zeměmi a nějakými obecně "administrativními jednotkami" vidím ten rozdíl, že obvykle stát sestává ze zemí, ale je rozdělen na administrativní jednotky. Tj. země předcházejí existenci státu, de facto ho vytvářejí, zatímco administrativní jednotky jako kraje nebo okresy si ten stát sám ze své vůle vytváří. Alespoň tedy v Evropě bych to tak nějak vnímal. Proto taky země jsou v české ústavě už v preambuli jako něco, z čeho stát odvozuje svoji legitimitu a kontinuitu, ačkoliv fakticky už jinak země nemají praktický význam, zatímco kraje (či VÚSC) jsou až kdesi v textu. Nicméně ani v době, kdy zemské zřízení naplno fungovalo a na Moravě byly jiné dopravní předpisy než v Čechách, nebyly Čechy a Morava administrativními jednotkami zřízenými shora, byť tereziánské reformy byly v tomto směru. --ŠJů (talk) 09:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Tak tomu s temi zememi jeste rozumim, ale tak nejak to neresi ten zbytek – v uvodu clanku se ted v podle me prehnanem detailu venuji dve vety vyvoji Ceska v ramci Ceskoslovenska/Ceske republiky. To mi pro uvod clanku o Cechach prijde zbytecne. Shodou okolnosti to je ta cast, o ktere jsem rikal, ze v uvodu ji neresi ani zdejsi clanky Ceska republika/Ceskoslovensko, kde by myslim mely vetsi smysl. A presto tam nejsou.
"In 1969, Czechia (including Bohemia) was given autonomy within Czechoslovakia as the Czech Socialist Republic. In 1990, the name was changed to the Czech Republic, which become a separate state in 1993 with the dissolution Dissolution of Czechoslovakia," to prece pro uvod clanku o Cechach neni dulezite – vzhledem k tomu, ze se jedna o jednu nemennou informaci "Cechy vzdycky byly v Cesku". Cechy byly v ceske casti Ceskoslovenska. Cechy byly v ceske casti federace. Cechy byly v ceske casti federace po jeji zmene nazvu. Cechy byly v Ceske republice po rozpadu federace. Ja fakt nevidim tu nutnost to takhle rozepisovat. Proto jsem tam puvodne nechal[1] jen podle meho nazoru nejrelevantnejsi "Bohemia remained a part of the Czech Republic" – Cechy zustaly (protoze v ni vzdycky byly) v Ceske republice (protoze Ceska republika to je ted, soucasny a tedy nejzajimavejsi stav). Vubec nic to nevypovida o nejake zmene jejich stavu, jak pises v dalsi edit summary.
Plus ta pasaz o tech reformach se mi taky nelibi: "Since then, administrative reforms have replaced self-governing lands with a modified system of "regions" ("kraje") which do not follow the borders of the historical Czech lands (or the regions from the 1960 and 2000 reforms)." Jak jsem psal vyse, "zeme" teda nechat, ale ten muj puvodni edit[2] schvalne nechal "subsequent reforms" (a nechal predpritomny cas) prave proto, ze od 1949 hranice kraju uz historicke hranice navzdory trem reformam (proto plural) nerespektovaly. Zminovat konkretni roky mi v uvodu prislo zbytecne – v podobnem duchu jako vyse u rozepisovani vyvoje Ceska v ramci CS/CSR/CR, protoze na Cechy jako takove nemelo vliv. Napsat, ze od roku 1949 (dodnes) uz zadne z nekolika administrativnich rozdeleni historicke hranice nerespektovalo, mi prislo nejjednodussi. Nez to natahovat tim, ze "od roku 1949 se hranice Cech neresi a neresi se ani po reforme v roce 1960 a neresi se ani po reforme v roce 2000."
Predevsim je ale teda soucasny spatny jazykove, prave ted to totiz s tou zavorkou rika, ze "(od roku 1949) probehly reformy, ktere vymenily zeme za kraje, ale zadna z tech reforem nerespektovala hranice historickych zemi nebo hranice regionu z roku 1960 a 2000." Coz je proste blbost, zejo. Protoze reformy byly tri vcetne te z r. 1949 a ta treti plati dodnes. I proto mi reseni v duchu "v roce 1949 to prestalo a od te doby probehly ruzne reformy, z nichz zadna nerespektovala historicke hranice Cech".
Suma sumarum bych z uvodu vyhodil ten vyvoj Ceska a nahradil je v duchu "Cechy vzdycky byly v Cesku a jsou tam dodnes" a u tech regionu dal to z predchoziho odstavce. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 07:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@CCCVCCCC: Ze současného hlediska je důležitý především vztah k aktuálním státním útvarům a poslední nedávný vývoj, na druhou stranu je fakt, že zemské uspořádání už je za zenitem a těžiště tématu "Bohemia" leží v monarchické éře. Já jsem především napravoval to znění, které vypadalo, jako by se teprve v roce 1993 rozhodovalo, kam budou Čechy přiděleny. Přitom v roce 1993 se na příslušnosti Čech k Česku neměnilo vlastně vůbec nic. Rok 1969 je z hlediska postavení Čech důležitější, protože právě tehdy se Čechy staly součástí České republiky. Je nesmysl psát, že Čechy zůstaly součástí České republiky, aniž bychom zmínili, že se o 24 let dříve její součástí staly, a k tomu zase je nezbytné zmínit, že ta republika, která v roce 1969 vznikla, je totožná s dnešní Českou republikou, ač se původně jmenovala jinak. Naopak nemá smysl v souvislosti s rokem 1993 vůbec psát, že něco zůstalo součástí České republiky, protože vymezení České republiky ani postavení Čech v jejím rámci se v tom roce, až na nějaké ty dvě osady na moravsko-slovenské hranici, vůbec neměnilo. Ovšem zmínit, že v roce 1993 Čechy (spolu s Českou republikou) přestaly být součástí Československa je celkem podstatné.
Co se týče té formulace "subsequent reforms" (ani jsem nevěděl, že autorem jsi byl ty), to tvoje znění (Since then, it has lost this status and subsequent regional reforms have not followed the borders of the historical Czech lands.) navozovalo dojem, jako by při jedné reformě (1949) bylo zrušeno zemské zřízení a teprve až další reformy po nějaké době (1960, 2000) zaváděly krajské zřízení, které zemské hranice nerespektovaly. Ve skutečnosti to však byla jedna a tatáž reforma v roce 1949, která zároveň zrušila zemské zřízení a zároveň zavedla krajské, které ty země "nerespektovalo". Tedy nikoliv "subsequent". Je samozřejmě možné, že dělám nějaké chyby v předminulých časech či podmiňovacích způsobech, ale že ta tvoje formulace byla chybná a zavádějící, tím si jsem docela jistý. Letopočet zrušení Čech jako samosprávné země je podle mého názoru v tomto článku jedním z nejklíčovějších dat, reformy 1960 a 2000 pak mají bezprostřední vztah k současnosti, protože oba tyto systémy krajů jsou dostu platné - ten z roku 1960 jako územně-správní kraje, ten z roku 2000 jako samosprávné kraje. Přičemž existence obou těchto systémů krajů má bezprostřední souvislost s neexistencí zemského zřízení - jednak proto, že v obou případech byl krajský systém zaveden jako alternativa zemského zřízení, jednak kvůli té programové neskladebnosti krajského a zemského členění.
Je pravda, že Česko a Slovensko byly do jisté míry administrativními jednotkami v době unitárního Československa po zrušení zemského zřízení - dokonce bylo myslím i nějakými zákony pojištěno, že česko-slovenská hranice byla nedotknutelná, a i před federalizací platily některé československé zákony jen v některé části republiky. Zatímco česko-moravská hranice byla de facto poslána do historie už v tom roce 1949.
Čechy byly vždycky jádrem Česka, ale otázka je, jak ve vztahu k historii definovat to Česko. Asi ho těžko můžeme definovat jinak než dnešním vymezením, protože jinak bychom museli rozhodovat, jestli Lužice a Pruské Slezko byly kdysi také součástí Česka a jestli tedy v té době byla součástí Česka Morava. --ŠJů (talk) 18:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)