User talk:Jan.Kamenicek

If you want to leave me a message, you can obviously do it in any language listed in my Babel chart, but I (though a non-native English speaker) strongly prefer English, since this is an international site and I prefer when everybody can understand.

/archive

On 30 August, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Externism, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--Mgm|^(talk) 20:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On November 11, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rejvíz, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Hello Jan, and thanks for bring the Czech Republic to the front page. Keep it up! Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to be adding Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them to articles such as Vojtěch Šafařík, shouldn't you also make sure that the article to which the category is being added has a reference to the article such as, in this case, Šafařík (crater)? And conversely, that "Šafařík (crater)" has some reference to "Vojtěch Šafařík"? Gene Nygaard 22:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Yes, you are right, the job has not been finished yet. I will do it soon. BTW, Šafařík (crater) has reference to Vojtěch Šafařík, but it is true that there could be written more about this eponym. Jan.Kamenicek 08:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for pointing out the incorrect link. I've now fixed it. Warofdreams talk 01:55, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jan! Could you help me translating a stub about Spiritism to the Slovak Wikipedia? As far as I'm concerned there's no such an article on that Wiki... Arges 16:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj Honzo! Přeji hezké a klidné Vánoce a šťastný nový rok. :) - Darwinek 19:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Spam#External link spamming with bots. So this is your way of having happy holidays? ;-) `'mikka 00:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

zkus to. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.103.192 (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC). Jan.Kamenicek 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I can see no reason, why you decided to make troubles or to insult other people here. Please stop. I would appreciate, if you decided to cooperate on writing this encyclopaedia instead.

Because I do not want to feed any troll, I won't answer you here anymore, unless:

- you write your messages in English, so that everybody can understand

- you change your ways of expression

- you change your behaviour when editing Wikipedia articles

Jan.Kamenicek 23:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj Honzo. Možná by tě zajímalo podpořit, účastnit se WikiProjektu Czech Republic. Myslím si, že je hodně potřebný, je to cesta jak zvýšit kvalitu článků o ČR na EN Wiki. Můžeš hlasovat nebo komentovat zde: [1]. Přeji hezký den. :) Jinak mrkni na hlasování u článku Waldemar Matuska, o přesunutí do verze s diakritikou.- Darwinek 10:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your invitation, I will have a look at the project pages soon. Jan.Kamenicek 12:43, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Projekt byl uspesne spusten: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Czech_Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 12:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Template:User wikisk. Are you aware of some similar userboxes for other wikipedias? (I am interested in Czech and German, but I guess other users would appreciate finding userboxes for other wikipedias, too.) TIA --Kompik 08:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you like it. The complete list of existing templates of this kind can be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Wikipedia#Wikipedia Foreign Language user pages. The Czech Wikipedia template is Template:User wikics and the German one is Template:User wikide. Jan.Kamenicek 12:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for rememberng me as well, i appreciated it, even though i prefer to contribute to hu.wikipedia :) Nóra 20:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I dont mind it at all (replacing it with the template). :)Nóra 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To uz vam vsem mladym v Cesku uplne jebe? Ty vase neustale najezdy na emigranty uz nejsou ani ubohe, ani trapne - jsou vyslovene ostudne. Ross.Hedvicek 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I have nothing against people who emigrated from their country. Many of them had good reasons which I respect. I voted for the deletion of the stub on Ivan Špaček simply because he does not seem notable to me. You wrote that he is a "founder of several literary movements". Well, why does no library give any information about him? Not many people can bear such a title. You wrote that he founded Literary Cubism. However, he is not old enough so that his cubistic work (if it exists) could precede the works by Guillaume Apollinaire or Gertrude Stein.

You can speak English very well and therefore I do not understand why you adressed me your vulgar insults in Czech language (despite the fact that our previous discussions used to be in English). Despite the fact that you removed it later, I decided to put it back here, so that at least people who understand Czech could see it. Please, next time follow my request at the top of this page and write your contributions here only in English, so that everybody can understand. Jan.Kamenicek 22:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I posted a comment for you at Talk:Šárka Záhrobská about referencing this info. Thanks. Seattle Skier 19:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Should Cat:Czechoslovakian footballers etc. be renamed to "Czechoslovak" form ? Thanks. - Darwinek 09:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan, just to let you know I have made the three speedy noms into a full nomination with all the other '-ian' categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 21#People from Czechoslovakia. Thanks, mattbr³⁰ 19:28, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 February, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Šárka Záhrobská, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 17:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to say thanks for your help on the FIS Nordic World Ski Championships 2007. I greatly appreciate it. Chris 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome :-) Jan.Kamenicek 08:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should be interested in this [2], please take a look there ! ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 22:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 5 March, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Roman Šebrle , which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thank you for your contribution! — ERcheck (talk) 05:04, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess that's a great idea adding the IPA pronunciation to Czech places. Might I suggest adding syllable divisions as well? They may be obvious for a Czech speaker but not so much for a foreigner. – Caroig 20:35, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about it as well, but I have only rarely seen it at Wikipedia. I think it may not be so necessary, as in IPA one vowel usually means one syllable, and exceptions are marked with non-syllable (such as [ˈolomoʊ̯ts]) and syllable marks (such as [ˈkr̩nof]). I also think that sometimes it would make the transcriptions unnecessarily long, for example [ˈva.laʃ.skɛ: ˈmɛ.zɪ.r̝i:.tʃi:] Jan.Kamenicek 20:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I could read IPA pretty well yet I didn't know about these special tags, thanks. I head those diphtongs or syllables without vowels in mind, this solves the matter. – Caroig 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for pointing that out. My big old mistake, it should be moved back as soon as possible. Sorry for that. - Darwinek 22:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan, thank you very much for the Ribbon. I am happy about it. I really appreciate it. I do not express my feelings as much, but I would like you that you know it.

• I have added new links to cs:Pevnost Olomouc. I hope it can be usefull for you. --Snek01 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, I was happy to have a chance to award you. The links are very useful, thanks very much. I hope to finish the article on the Siege of Olmütz in a couple of days. Jan.Kamenicek 23:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, are you using Windows Explorer to browse there? And you should unzip them all, I think they're subsets of the same font type (like for bold and italic use). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you listen to the audio file pronunciation of Leoš Janáček's name, the accent is not where you have moved it to. I believe that the accent should go on the second syllable of the surname. If you are sure that this is incorrect then please replace/remove the audio files as well. Thanks. Lesnail 15:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened to the file, but it seems to me that the stress is on the first syllable. The impression of a stress on the second syllable may be due to its length. "Janáček" is a Czech surname and the rule says that the stress is always on the first syllable. Jan.Kamenicek 19:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've noticed you replaced Pilsen Region with Plzeň Region in the Město Touškov article. Recently, I've either created and extended all articles on administrative units within the Pilsen Region, providing some basic data and location maps. I tried to do that in as much consistent way as possible. Thus I used everywhere Pilsen Region though I'm aware the article is currently named Plzeň Region. I chose this approach as it seems illogical and confusing to anyone not familiar with the Plzeň/Pilsen names, which is most readers who aren't from the Czech Republic, to use Pilsen someplace and Plzeň someplace else. The article on Pilsen is currently under the "Pilsen" name and as the article is much more comprehensive than the Pilsen Region article I think the name Pilsen Region should be used preferably. I didn't want to change the name of that article because there are a lot of users whose only agenda seems to be fighting petty and silly edit/naming wars.

Both names Plzeň and Pilsen have their relevancy on Wikipedia. In my view Pilsen is better as it is easy to pronounce and use for English speaker and it is a valid English name for this city. I put a lot of effort into my edits being consistent. I just don't understand why you're changing the name someplace while leaving it untouched elsewhere. So if you think the name Plzeň Region is better, that's OK, but please be consistent and change it everywhere where both the region or the town are concerned. It's extremely confusing for everyone when there's Plzeň Region and Pilsen as its capital in one sentence. As most towns and administrative units use the Pilsen form, I suggest leaving it as it is. – Caroig (talk) 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I changed it was the name of the Wikipedia article on Plzeň Region and the fact that, while there are both names of Plzeň and Pilsen used in English, the region is usually referred to as the Plzeň (not Pilsen) Region.

Generally, I have no problem with the name Pilsen. When there was voting on the Plzeň talk page some time ago, I voted for renaming it to Pilsen. However, it is also true that later, after I read arguments that this originally German version of the city's name currently seems to have been abandoned by English writing media, I changed my mind, but the voting was closed before I decided to change my vote.

You are right about my inconsistency. Sometimes I have noticed which version was used and changed it when editing the article, some other times I have not. I will will try to be more consistent.

I do not consider this issue crucial either. I also understand your arguments, so if you feel happier about Pilsen, I can respect it. Jan.Kamenicek 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about me being happy with either Pilsen or Plzeň, it's about not confusing the readers. As I wrote before I'm aware the article's currently named Plzeň Region but when there's a sentence saying Pilsen is the capital of the region they both should be named the same way, otherwise the readers don't see the connection between the region's name and its capital.

As of the origin of the name Pilsen, it's obviously German, i.e. a Germanic language, so it's only logical English, another Germanic language, would borrow the name from German, not Czech. I don't think the name Pilsen has been abondoned by English speakers (personal observation) but it's true the media rather avoid it, the reason not being linguistic but rather political over-correctness.

My point was just incosistency within one article. I agree it's nothing substantial; I always try to make my post clear-cut from a general reader's view, a Wikipedia policy many Czech editors, I'm afraid, fail to observe. – Caroig (talk) 19:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you tagged this article as part copyvio. Could you give me a better link? Since, even though it's Czech, I don't see that list on the source page. Garion96 (talk) 15:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you come to the Jindřichův Hradec homepage, you have to click on the link "Naše město" (= Our town) on the left. A list of various links will appear. If you choose e. g. "Založení města" (= Foundation of the town) or "Historické mezníky" (= Historical milestones), lists of dates and events will appear. The History part in the Wikipedia article on Jindřichův Hradec has been directly translated from these lists and therefore I believe that it should be considered copyvio. Jan.Kamenicek 21:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, it was too much interwoven in the history to do a history purge. But I removed the copyvio. Garion96 (talk) 21:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wondering whether "Kaplický" should be pronounced "KAP-lit-sky" with the primary stress on the first syllable (as is currently indicated), or "kap-LIT-sky" which seems more natural? (A copy of this message has been posted in "Talk:Jan Kaplický".) Cheers, Jacklee 11:39, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dobrý den, Jan! I'm glad you like the Prague Spring idea. Some of my Hungarian friends from the 1956 project might want to join us at some point (I know for 99% sure one guy will want to help, it was actually his suggestion back in August that if we enlisted some Czech help for 1956, we would gladly return the favor and help with Prague Spring. But there wasn't any WP:CZECH back then, so it got nowhere...anyway, I'm pretty sure he'll want to help whenever we get started, though he's on wikibreak right now.) Don't worry that you won't be able to work much on it until July, we'd still have plenty of time. I just wanted to avoid the hectic insanity that was the last few days of the 56 project.

I don't have much time for epic projects like this until mid-June myself, but I'll get some books and start reading up on it as soon as I can. Thanks again! K. Lásztocska 21:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, sorry for my wording, I mean my usage of the word "mess". I will try to explain my thoughts on some convenient place. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 07:47, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, no problem. Jan.Kamenicek 09:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj Honzo. Do you think categories Cat:Reservoirs in the Czech Republic and Cat:Dams in the Czech Republic should be merged to form "Reservoirs and dams in the Czech Republic"? Category in CS Wikipedia is "Přehrady v Česku". I think that most of přehrady are vodní nádrž (reservoir) and přehrada (dam) at the same time. What do you think? - Darwinek 08:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yes, I also think that most (if not all) Czech dams serve as water reservoirs as well and so merging the categories seems reasonable. Jan.Kamenicek 17:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I have also noticed some of ponds (rybníky) were categorized improperly under old "Reservoirs" category. Do you think I should create "Ponds in the Czech Republic" category? CS Wikipedia has "Rybníky v Česku". Ponds issue is quite a Czech phenomenon and I haven't noticed any other categories here named "Ponds in XY". As of now, ponds are categorized under "Geography of the Czech Republic" category. - Darwinek 12:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Rybník" is usually translated as "pond" into English, which is not very exact. The wikiarticle Pond says that "A pond is typically a man made body of water smaller than a lake. However the difference between a pond and an artificial lake is subjective. They are both formed by ponding water." And later the article even statest that "In earlier times, ponds were man-made and utilitarian; as stew ponds, mill ponds and so on. The significance of this feature seems in some cases, to have been lost when the word was carried abroad with emigrants so that in places like the United States, natural pools are often called ponds." Which is something different from a typical definition of rybník.

Therefore I think that the category should be called more precisely "Fishponds (or fish ponds) in the Czech Republic". Jan.Kamenicek 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jay U. Gunter, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 19:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Russell Merle Genet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 03:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 16 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Kamil Hornoch, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai 18:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		A barnstar for you for your fine work with bluelinking Amateur Achievement Award of the ASP,which have resulted in several fine articles. Circeus 15:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done on your FL achievement - but wouldn't "Amateur Achievement Award of THE Astronomical Society of the Pacific" be even better? Just a thought... Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're a bit inconsistent: see here for example, where it's "Presidents of the Astronomical...". Using "the" would make more grammatical sense, but I won't interfere! Bencherlite^Talk 10:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Albert F. A. L. Jones, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 14:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know? was updated. On August 20, 2007, a fact from the article Oscar Monnig, which you recently nominated, was featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks again Jan. Happy editing, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 August, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Michiel Daniel Overbeek, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for the DYK entries!--DarkFalls ^talk 06:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On August 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Edward A. Halbach, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for all the stars on DYK Jan, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that article name Siege of Olomouc could be better than Siege of Olmütz. But I am not expert in terminology of battles. --Snek01 21:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The names of battles used in English often differ from the current names of places where they were fought and those which took place in Central Europe are (quite naturally) based on German. Thus we have e. g. the Battle of Austerlitz instead of the Battle of Slavkov, the Battle of Landeshut instead of the Battle of Kamienna Góra or the Battle of Lobositz instead of the Battle of Lovosice.

Google gives just 8 hits for the Siege of Olomouc, but 158 hits for the Siege of Olmütz and 647 hits for the Siege of Olmutz (however, these seem to include the diacritical version of Olmütz too). Therefore I consider these two last versions - Olmütz and Olmutz. Jan.Kamenicek 22:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 September, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Gregg Thompson (astronomer), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Carabinieri 16:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You might be interested in checking out the brand new Wikipedia:Slovak Wikipedians' notice board. All Wikipedians interested in Slovakia or subjects somehow related to Slovakia are invited to use this noticeboard as a tool for better organizing their activities, making announcements to others with similar interests, and discussing any actual issues related to their work on Wikipedia. You are welcome to add this notice board to your watchlist, so that you could see when it is updated and thus take part in any projects, initiatives, and improvements relating to articles about Slovakia. Also, you are welcome to report your own articles here so they could be peer-reviewed and expanded by other contributors. Tankred 16:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You either nominated a WP:FLC or closed such a nomination recently. As such, you are the type of editor whose opinion I am soliciting. We now have over 400 featured lists and seem to be promoting in excess of 30 per month of late (41 in August and 42 in September). When Today's featured article (TFA) started (2004-02-22), they only had about 200 featured articles and were barely promoting 20 new ones per month. I think the quality of featured lists is at least as good as the quality of featured articles was when they started appearing on the main page. Thus, I am ready to open debate on a proposal to institute a List of the Day on the main page with nominations starting November 1 2007, voting starting December 1 2007 and main page appearances starting January 1 2008. For brevity, the proposal page does not discuss the details of eventual main page content, but since the work has already been done, you should consider this proposal assuming the eventual content will resemble the current content at the featured content page. Such output would probably start at the bottom of the main page. The proposal page does not debate whether starting with weekly list main page entries would be better than daily entries. However, I suspect persons in favor of weekly lists are really voicing opinions against lists on the main page since neither TFA nor Picture of the day started as weekly endeavors, to the best of my knowledge. Right now debate seems to be among support for the current selective democratic/consensus based proposal, a selective dictatorial approach like that used at WP:TFA or a non-selective first in line/calendar approach like that used at WP:POTD. See the List of the Day proposal and comment at WP:LOTDP and its talk page.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 18:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a series of proposals to initiate a Featured List of the Day on the main page. Numerous proposals have been put forth. After the third one failed, I audited all WP:FL's in order to begin an experiment in my own user space that will hopefully get it going. Today, it commences at WP:LOTD. Afterwards I created my experimental page, a new proposal was set forth to do a featured list that is strikingly similar to my own which is to do a user page experimental featured list, but no format has been confirmed and mechanism set in place. I continue to be willing to do the experiment myself and with this posting it commences. Please submit any list that you would like to have considered for list of the day in the month of January 2008 by the end of this month to WP:LOTD and its subpages. You may submit multiple lists for consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 17:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. Kamenicek: I have posed two questions for whomever on the "discussion" page of Astronomical naming conventions, but thought that you, having taken an interest in the subject, might be willing and able to answer them. Writtenright (talk) 02:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)Writtenright[reply]

Ahoj Honzo! Přeji šťastné a veselé Vánoce a vše nejlepší v novém roce. - Darwinek (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On 28 December, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mausoleum of Yugoslavian Soldiers in Olomouc, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 23:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

the stage result in Tour de Ski pursuit events, are based on the time used on the course, regardless of handicap-minutes. Lukáš Bauer won the pursuit race, but his skiing time was 9.6 seconds slower than Emmanuel Jonnier, therefore he is second in the stage. Hope this clarified the issue for you. lil2mas (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On January 1, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Campanula gelida, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 (talk) 02:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Czech Barnstar of National Merit
		I award you with our highest star for your continuous efforts in the topics related to the Czech Republic. ≈Tulkolahten≈≈talk≈ 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any information on the etymology of the Czech place name, Horovice? I read somewhere that it may derive from "hora", meaning "mountain" but I don't know whether there are mountains or hills in the area. Thank You, Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I looked for the information at the Hořovice homepage and found an explanation (in Czech) there. They say that originally it meant "village of the Hoř's people" or "village of the Hora's people" - both "Hoř" or "Hora" would be a name of a person. Unfortunately they do not write anything about roots of this personal name. I think it may not necessarily be directly connected with any real mountain (Czech: hora), it can simply imply that the person (or somebody of his ancestors) was a big man - but that is my speculation. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. I'll try to find out more :) Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the effort to update the authored by data for the Jack B. Newton image. It ends up it is a self-portrait made by Jack B. Newton himself. If you would like to verify this you can email him at jack@jacknewton.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meade4m (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jan, thank you for your concern about Clint's image. We do have specific permission for the image from the copyright holder, and it is an image of an historic person who is now dead so it cannot be easily reproduced. I have edited the photograph page regarding this.

Nicely, since I now work at the AAVSO, I'm in the position to talk to Kate and Dr. Henden about specifically releasing these pictures under the GFDL, which I'll do!

Thanks again! -Richard "Doc" Kinne (talk) 01:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A no tak nehledě na to, jak to chodí zde, tak kdybych si dal žádost o správce (a o byrokratovi už nemluvě) na de.wiki a uvedl jako svou produkci sedum pahýlů, tak mi to tam škrtnou ještě než se někdo dostane k hlasování. Ale zdá se, že takovéto věci, ať se to týká volby nových správců/byrokratů nebo jejich vymobovaného desysopu na cs.wiki nehrají tak důležitou roli. S pozdravem, 87.160.210.181 (talk) 17:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC) (-jkb-, asi nejspíš k sehnání ani ne tak na cs.source jako na de.wiki)[reply]

Máte pravdu, bohužel nehrají, a zdá se, že na argumenty nikdo neslyší. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Sinkhole comes closest to the structure that you describe. The article itself is rather unbalanced with most examples coming from the USA. In France I think that this would be called a gouffre, like this one [3], but they all form when the roof of a cavern collapses. I hope that helps a little. Mikenorton (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking again at the Sinkhole article it talks about 'removal' rather than erosion and goes on to specifally mention cavern collapse "Mechanisms of formation may include the gradual removal of slightly soluble bedrock (such as limestone) by percolating water, the collapse of a cave roof". Although it includes structures formed by erosion, most of the examples come from areas with Karst development. Chasm unfortunately is not a very precise term. If I get the time , I will try to improve the Sinkhole article to make it clearer that dissolution is the main cause. Mikenorton (talk) 13:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a reasonable solution to me. Mikenorton (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jan, díky za upo:-)

Rudoleska (talk) 19:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, Jane.
I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Czech_Republic and I saw that your interest area is history.
I've noticed that in the category Category:History by country, there's no Category:History of Czech Republic, although many European countries have their respective category.
I saw that there's a category:Czech history, but does that corresponds to Category:History of Czech Republic? What do you think?
Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 08:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The reason, why this category has not been founded, is probably a small number of articles, which may fall into it. The history of the Czech Rep. is very short gives very few opportunities to write articles about it. One of the articles in this category could be Dissolution of Czechoslovakia, if you find some more, I think you can start the new category. It should be a subcategory of the category:Czech history. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan! Image:Clintford.jpg has permission to be used by the copyright holder. It is linked to one page for which it does have a non-free use rationale. This image is fine. Thanks for your diligence! -Richard "Doc" Kinne (talk) 00:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan Kamenicek. I have tried to find information about the topic you requested, but I am sorry to say that I couldn't find any articles in the Indonesian online media that covers what finally happened to the allegedly stolen bones. dragunova^discuss 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan, First, I want to thank you for working on the article. I think the things that you are adding are good, and you are right that these sections probably need to be expanded. One thing that we should work on is trying to find and cite the original scientific articles, as blogs and other self-published sources are generally discouraged. In the case of the Hawks website, we're probably ok, since John Hawks is an acknowledged authority, independent of his blog (since he is an Associate Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin—Madison). One other thing that's good is that you are asking people to work with you on this; the content of your edits is good, but as you are not a native English speaker, some of the wording is awkward. I think that we can work to make this better.

Concerning the Featured article review, and my initial reaction, I still feel that going to that level was not necessary. Normally, FAR is reserved for articles that have gotten significantly worse through the edits (the majority of the edits you note reflect additions of new information/arguments as they appeared), and is should also be reserved as an option of last resort, after other channels like the talk page have already been tried and failed to yield any progress on the nom'ers concerns. In the case of Homo floresiensis your initial questions were posted less than 24 hours before you nominated the article for FAR, which is not sufficient time to allow other routes to run their course before nominating an article for FAR. Additionally, given that (as you now know) one of the things you listed actually was covered in the article, and the other reflected an actual absence of information in the public sphere, I felt that FAR was hasty and not warranted (I think I said "frivolous" in my initial irritation). Joel is the admin in charge of FAR nominations, so I raised this issue with him. As you see, he has not closed the FAR, so the article is still in FAR. This does *not* mean that I don't want to work with you to improve the article, as you can see by my edits on the article to your additions, and my coming here to your talk page. In fact, as of now, it appears that only you and I are even involved in the discussion. But, perhaps in the future, you can take more time to let talk pages work, and try to contact people that have worked on the article before directly, before proceeding to FAR. Edhubbard (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan, I think we are making good changes to the article, and good progress. However, you still seem to be working under one misconception about the FAR process, when you say "But I still think that it would help the article, after all the changes which were or are going to be made, if somebody did an independent and thourough review". That's just it. As far as FAR goes, we're it; unlike promoting an article to FA, there is no one like Tony1 who really reads the articles for coherence, style, etc, etc, as is done with a promotion to FA. When the nom'er, and anyone one else who comments on the FAR, think it's done, then it's done. Perhaps once we have worked on the content issues, we can ask Joel to read the whole article with fresh eyes, but there is no automatic enlistment of someone to read the article over. If you and I (it seems to be only the two of us now) don't agree at the end of two to three weeks that the article is back up to FA status, Joel may move the article to FARC (featured article removal candidate) which may enlist a few more people, but I wouldn't count on it. When this article was last up for FARC, it was mostly Joel and I that worked on it to keep the gold star. Edhubbard (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that all your concerns have been addressed and that the review can be closed without going to FARC? Joelito (talk) 03:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was just idly browsing FAR and I noticed you've been working on an article, Homo floresiensis. I noticed there you were looking for an article by Jungers, located here: [4]

I'm pleased to say that I have the article in question, as I have access to Athens which gives me institutional access. I've saved the article to my computer, and would be happy to provide you with it if we could arrange a means by which to do this. It's a fairly large file, about 1.6Mb, but if you have an email program that allows for attachments of that size, perhaps I could email it to you? If you could get back to me I'll get the article to you as soon as I can. I'd use it myself but I know nothing of the subject so best to leave that to those such as yourself who do!

Best regards, Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 18:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying. I have sent you the article from my email, alewis (at) caledonian (dot) ac (dot) uk. If there are any issues or you have not received the email, please get in touch and I will try again. Thanks, Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 19:18, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia), which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On September 22, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josef Mikoláš, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Shubinator (talk) 12:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article HC Dukla Prague has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Seems to be the same subject as Dukla Prague. Remove this notice if otherwise.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tim1357 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The passage you have deleted from the article on Bagha Jatin seems to be unimportant (sic!) for you, but it is a vital question for the history of India where the official version of the fight for freedom begins with Gandhi, in spite of evidences that there was a generation (1893-1918) before Gandhi - under the leadership of Sri Aurobindo and other "Extremist" militants - who had prepared the field for a mass movement. Though you call the passage "poorly referenced", you cannot deny the sources that have been quoted. Personally working since 1955 on this pre-Gandhian phase, I am a former Fulbright Scholar and author of a host of books and articles (including a French thesis successfully defended for the Doctorat d'Etat or PhD). Please try not to revert this modification. Warm regards.--BobClive (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Answer at the Bagha Jatin talk page Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 11:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jan.Kamenicek, The fact of finding details about how Voska lived till his death belongs, obviously, to Czech history. Since this article by Redvicek appeared three years ago in several periodicals, it has drawn due attention of some intellectuals in India. I shall appreciate your effort to understand the importance that has been attached to this information. Welcome to my Talk Page. All the best.--BobClive (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Josef Bryks, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Snek01 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many, MANY edits to wikipedia. Probably 10% of the NHL pages have been done my me, including all of the Sharks stuff and most of the individual salary information.

However, nicknames are very important because that is how they are enshrined in the hall of fame; ie Wayne Gretzky is actually listed as Wayne "The Great One" Gretzky. Besides, while it may be trivial, it still helps. I am resourcing the edits so that they no longer use wiki articles... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.184.40 () 10:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have answered this message and expressed my doubts concerning the stated amount of edits at User talk:67.169.184.40. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just a note to say I have replied to your comments on the article's talk page. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On November 29, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steve Mandel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 08:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Přeji Ti šťastné, veselé a blahoslavené Vánoce. Doufám, že si je užiješ v poklidu a šťastném vánočním duchu. Také přeji vše nejlepší do nového roku a ať se Ti dobře edituje. :) / I wish you Merry and Blessed Christmas. Have a great, happy and peaceful time, my friend, and a productive 2010. - Darwinek (talk) 14:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much and I wish you Merry Christmas too. Let's hope the New Year is a good one :-) Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_skating_at_the_Winter_Olympics 1 0 1 = 2 incorrect (Sablikova gold 3000+5000 2 0 1 = 3) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.244.81.207 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing, I have corrected the table. If you see any other mistakes, you can also correct them yourself. Thanks again and happy editing :-) Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Universe Today article used this source. Serendi^podous 21:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I have replaced it in the article. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you added {{Link GA|cs}} to an article. What does that do? Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is similar to the {{Link FA}} template. It indicates in the interwiki column that the same article in a foreign language Wikipedia (Czech in this case) has reached a Good Article status. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't know that. I thought it would have something to do with Good Article, but the article was only a start in English. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 14:53, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the trust. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I expanded and corrected section, added cite. thanks for the heads-up. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to look at File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-a-faces.jpg, which was also created by NASA, ESA and Marc W. Buie. Double sharp (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. BTW, do not forget to add the collon before "file", when you want to place a link to a picture :-) Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have mentioned the problem at the Commons Village Pump]. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 13:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan,

We run an educational TV show about the internet cloud called The Cloud Show http://cloudshow.tv

and are interested in using the image shown here http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Turk-engraving5.jpg in a future episode on Crowdsourcing and about Amazon Mechanical Turk.

The GNU license does not cover TV/Film and so we wanted to ask you to grant us permission/license to run the image in our program. You would receive a Thank you in the episode credits.

Thank you for your consideration! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecloudguy (talk • contribs) 23:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am not the author of the image, which was uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons by Badlydrawnjeff. The summary below the image says that it comes from a book published in 1783 and so its copyright expired long time ago, which means that the image is in the public domain now and you can use it freely.

I wish you great success with your show :-) Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Davis Cup, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czechoslovakia Davis Cup team (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) 11:43, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan, I'm contacting you because we need some Czech translators to help with the deployment of the new VisualEditor on cs.wikipedia. There are help pages, user guides, and description pages that need translating, as well as the interface itself. The translating work is going on over on MediaWiki: Translation Central. I also need help with a personal message for the Czech Wikipedians. If you are able to help in any way, either reply here, or head over to TranslationCentral. Thanks for your time, PEarley (WMF) (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Vápenice (natural monument) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it 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! C679 10:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 May 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vápenice (natural monument), which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the natural monument Vápenice in the Czech Republic is a former limestone quarry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vápenice (natural monument). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:38, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can I move this article to Earth-grazing meteoroid? The title is too precise, and there are no other such meteoroids. --George Ho (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are other events like this. Later today I will answer in more detail. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 06:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a general article on the topic called Earth-grazing fireball (the word "fireball" is not very precise here, because it points more to the streak of light than to the rocky body that caused it, grazing the atmosphere). There are also several articles on individual events of this kind, such as 1860 Great Meteor, 1913 Great Meteor Procession or 1972 Great Daylight Fireball. In fact there are many more events of this kind, only some of them were observed, and some of these even scientifically studied. Therefore I chose to mention the exact date in the article. If it should be shortened, than I would suggest the name 1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid, but I am not sure, if it is really better. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 12:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 February 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 1990 Earth-grazing meteoroid above Czechoslovakia and Poland was captured from two sites, which for the first time enabled geometrical calculations of the orbit of such a body? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:02, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990 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 Gug01 -- Gug01 (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jan, my internet's been down for a week so I wasn't able to respond. But I think you've solved it anyway! Gruß. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt: No problem, somebody else helped. Thanks for your answer. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Earth-grazing meteoroid of 13 October 1990. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:06, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jan Kameníček (talk) 01:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the 2015–16 ISU Speed Skating World Cup – Women's 3000 and 5000 metres page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here's a FAC nomination of yours at TFA, I'm working on the TFA text now. - Dank (push to talk) 02:17, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot for letting me know, I do appreciate the fact the text is going to appear on the main page. I have made a small change in the last sentence concerning the trace left by the body if it hypothetically had got deeper into the atmosphere. Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, I do appreciate it! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A year ago, you were recipient no. 1490 of Precious, a prize of QAI! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Two years now! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt:. Yes, thanks for awarding it. I have not editted much on English Wiipedia since, but I have spent quite a lot of time on other projects including Commons, Czech WIkipedia or English Wiktionary or Wikisource. I plan to return here as well. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tak to netrvalo ani moc dlouho, než jsem našel někoho z cs ;). OJJ (talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome :-) You may also be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject Czech Republic. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 09:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was pleasure to work on such a topic :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to discuss any changes you want to make on the talk page. Right now I don't see any reason to delete the part you deleted. --Moscow Connection (talk) 16:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Girl with Peaches 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 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. --20:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talk • contribs)

Dear Moscow Connection, you are perfectly right that edit wars are bad, so please refrain from them. I explained my edits and you keep reverting them, which is really bad. Hope you will learn something from what you have written above, though you have not signed it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my revert. When you understood that you wouldn't succeed by peaceful means you decided to start an edit war. --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, you have not addressed the main points I raised about its triviality and lack of encyclopaedic information, and about the way quotations are treated in Wikipedia. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've written something in the talk page of the article Czech phonology. I'd be really delighted if you would be so kind as to answer me. Thank you very much indeed, and greetings from Italy. Pio d'Ausonia (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's at the end of the section Pronunciation of ř. Pio d'Ausonia (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jan,

It is, admittedly, a little cryptic. MOS:DAB refers to the Manual of Style (MOS) for disambiguation pages. In particular, for my edit to Červená hora, the MOS prohibits entries on disambiguation pages with only red links (see: MOS:DABRL), so I removed those entries. All the redlinked entries I removed seem like fine candidates for inclusion on the disambiguation page, but the corresponding article needs to be created first, before adding it the disambiguation page. (A disambiguation page lists articles, not subjects of articles.)

Also, because disambiguation pages aren't articles, it's rare to give them hatnotes: all potentially ambiguous article names should be listed together. Disambiguation pages don't discriminate by subject. You could make a set index article listing mountains named Červená hora, but that's a different sort of thing.

Cheers—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, thanks for explanation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jan.Kamenicek, and thanks for patrolling new pages! I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:AT Global Markets, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. You may wish to review the Criteria for Speedy Deletion before tagging further pages. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:43, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: Hello. Honestly, I am quite confused, because I can see that one minute after writing this message you deleted the page, giving Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G11 as the reason, which was practically the same reason as the one I had given. BTW, I do not patrol new pages in en.wikipedia, I patrol them at en.wikisource, and when I meet a spammer there, I check their crosswiki contributions and mark their spam for deletion in other projects too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This may come down to a difference in how the templates work between the two projects: here, {{speedy}} categorizes a page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion for unspecified reason, but admins are not to delete pages unless a specific reason has been given, i.e. one of the narrow criteria for speedy deletion. The reason you gave, "crosswiki spam", isn't one of those criteria, although it does tend to overlap with unambiguous promotion (G11) or blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a webhost (U5). I was rejecting a number of pages out of that category this morning, but I went back to this article afterwards and deleted it anyway.

In future, you can use {{db-spam}} as a shortcut template for criterion G11, which will put the page into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as spam, which gets much faster attention most of the time. Thanks. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ivanvector: I see. Unfortunately, I am not able to remember all the various criteria codes or templates which all the projects have, so I use the generally understood {{speedy}}, which has never been a problem so far. Sometimes there are really many such spam attempts in many projects at the same time, so I just mark them as quickly as possible so that I can proceed farther. Up to now it has worked well in all projects, including en.wikipedia, because local admins know the speedy deletion criteria better than contributors coming from other projects, and so when they see "spam", they simply apply the correct criterion without my precise specification (and I do the same when somebody out of en.wikisource, not knowing our local speedy deletion codes and criteria, marks spam with their own wording in our project). I am very sorry, but I usually do not have enough time to do it otherwise, so if it turned out to be a problem here for other admins too, I would have to skip en.wp when following a spammer next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked Daniel Beckwitt based on your report to AIV, but now I see that you have reversed your block of the same user on Wikisource. I also can't find the edit that I checked to confirm your story in their contribs. What happened? – bradv 22:05, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: I apologize, I have misunderstood the situation. When I found the text connecting the user with the murderer, I thought it was added there by the user. But then I noticed that it was added there by an IP address, so it was probably just plain vandalism, and it is quite possible that the fact the user has the same name as the murderer is just accidental. It is my mistake, I should have checked the history of the user page better before I started taking any action against the user. I do apologize again, I will be more careful next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked User:Daniel Beckwitt with my apologies. Is that IP edit still visible or was it revdeleted? I can't find it anymore, but I know I looked at it and that wasn't obvious to me either. – bradv 22:53, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: Yes, the vandal edit has been revdeleted in Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv: However, it is still visible in Wikiquote, although I would prefer not to link to it here. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When copying content from one Wikipedia article to another ([5]), please remember to give proper attribution in the edit summary. Bennv123 (talk) 12:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in this case I did not pay attention to giving atribution as it was just one sentence (which I reworded) and a plain list of links. But if it is considered important even in such cases, I will take more care about it next time too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How the Songhai Empire State was organised during the 15 and 16century? 41.113.217.17 (talk) 17:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, wondering why you have chosen my talk page to ask. Try to have a look at Songhai Empire. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:18, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's false and it not true the mistakes i made are more good faith than vandalism. Depotadore (talk) 05:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, this account has not been blocked either in English Wikisource or in any other Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You did when i'm trying to log in it gives me a block says "Your username or IP address and it shows an incorrect ip address to so please unblock me (I entered my password correct) Depotadore (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And its on english wikisource Depotadore (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible that the IP address you are using has been blocked. If you tell me your IP address, I can have a look at it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No (for privacy reasons) and it loging im my Account Depotadore (talk) 04:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Depotadore (talk) 05:39, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Depotadore: Can you try to login now? Hopefully It should be OK. If not, let me know again, please. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It works now Depotadore (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Eight years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:53, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]