User talk:Jirka.h23

Welcome!

Hello, Jirka.h23, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. -- MelbourneStar☆ ^{(talk to me)} 12:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Czech Republic, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 07:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. This goes for all your edits, so editors who "don't think", are fully aware of your changes. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 07:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article that you pointed out in the edit summary, does not mention your changes. Again, I have reverted until you can find a source. -- MST☆R ^{(Happy Halloween!)} 07:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you read WP:RS and if you have any questions about whether a source is notable then go to the [][WP:RSN|reliable sources noticeboard]] where someone will be able to give you an answer. The source I just reverted was a blog / personal website. Although it quoted sources itself, one of them was Wikipedia and that is unfortunately not allowed (see WP:CIRCULAR). --Biker Biker (talk) 15:06, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on the Tatra article that MTX Tatra V8's were built in Kopřivnice. Have you got a source for this? In my knowledge all Tatra cars were built in Příbor since the presentation of T603 and only heavy vehicles were built in Kopřivnice since the production of Tatraplan ceased. And was it really Tatra that built the MTX cars, not Metalex? --Gwafton (talk) 19:52, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you are right i really dont know if it was made in Kopřivnice or Příbor, i will try to look for it. And it was made by MTX with cooperation with Tatra. (Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for you recent edit to V8 engine. Please beware that English uses '.' to separate units and decimal factions. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  08:17, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of Czech cars, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tatra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Prague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Staré Město (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) 11:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited List of Czech cars, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Z9 and Z4 (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) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Prague, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages T3 and Taxi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Prague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spanish Synagogue (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) 10:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kingdom of Bohemia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Kingdom

Nika Award (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Prisoner of the Caucasus

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when they said it. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 07:00, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, fixed. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Samo, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Slavic and Avars (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) 11:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pilsner, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Belgia and Dutch (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) 11:12, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kontinental Hockey League, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Polish (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) 11:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka, thanks for your contributions to the KHL History section. I like some your additions, but I am not happy with the restructuring. We had the table for season-by-season facts, but the text part was organized on a "notable events" basis. Some events like the Yaroslavl plane crash deserve a sub-section on their own, while the events of some seasons don't really need any text. So if you don't mind, I will revert the structure to the old format, but will keep your input. Agree? Wild8oar (talk) 07:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but i disagree, teams created by merging or dates are important for me. If you like you can create Yaroslavl plane crash sub-section. But its links are already four times in the article, it was a sad chapter and have not much to do with the hockey league.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The changes among teams and the expansion are also important to me. But there is already a lot of tabular information, e.g. also the Kontinental Hockey League team changes with a complete overview. I would like to have a section, where important events are covered in a text basis (at least: Founding, Yaroslavl plane crash, Expansion to Central Europe). I don't think that we need a sub-section for each season, better to have a sub-section for each important event, supported by tabular information/extra pages with the more factual/statistical information. Wild8oar (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the changes among teams and the expansion are also important for you, so Founding, Yaroslavl plane crash, Expansion to Central Europe you missing Introduction of conferences (which is very important step in the league), so now you are on four sections. For me is as well important the merging of Moscow teams, so its five. If nothing interesting will happen in the season it does not have to be mentioned. If you want, you can delete some info mentioned in the wikitable if you really think the text is too long. Thank you.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:27, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good, I am glad that we found an agreement. So let's have the following sections then: Founding, Intro. of Conferences, Merging of Moscow teams, Yaroslavl crash, expansion to central europe and if you like a section about the current season which we can remove later or re-format it to something more event-based. Thanks for discussing this. Wild8oar (talk) 08:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The NHL lookout would probably deserve an extra section/replace the current season section Wild8oar (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fain, i agree:). Cheers.Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golem, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chris Carter and Michael Scott (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) 11:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited National Gallery in Prague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Functionalist (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) 10:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you discuss the jewels RM with User:Vejvančický and/or User:Filelakeshoe and get their opinion. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jirka.h23. You have new messages at Vejvančický's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 07:04, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

...další odpověď na mé talk page. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 08:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cinema of Russia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Night Watch

Cinema of the Czech Republic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Director

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sport in the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page O2 Arena (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) 18:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under the heading of "Championship Medalists" you have made a strange and rather inaccurate entry. I get the idea of what you are trying to express, but perhaps you could help explain what you view as a country, and where you are getting your totals from. There are 14 different nations that have won medals at the world championships. I understand, if listed with explanation, how you could group USSR together with Russia, and possibly the Czech Republic with Czechoslovakia, and then West Germany and Germany are technically the same country by name. but that still leaves you with 11, and the Russians are still 4th (yes 4th) behind Canada (46), Czech (46) and Sweden (43).18abruce (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, you are right. But i mean count of the "Gold" medals, i forgot the word gold there. But i can alter it if you like it like that, looks better for my country if i am from Czech Republic :-). What do you think is better? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's really no need for such a small section. The list is already linked to several times on the page. That small section adds nothing that isn't already mentioned elsewhere in the page. By adding the section just so people can "easily" find the main list of champions, you are assuming that wikipedia's readers are really, really stupid. Even if it isn't extremely obvious, readers are still able to find the list without a section that screams "It's right here, stupid!" -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 13:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am using wiki to find things easy and fast, it is better than go through all the text in the article. I dont understand why this link should be somewhere in "Divisions" section where NOBODY could expect it. If you want i can extend this section with some text, or create an subsection, but not here. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously don't understand wikipedia. The list of medalists was created to save space in the main World Championships article. What is the point of creating a large section in the main article that just repeats information in the list? The page is linked to several times. Under "See als", under "Divisions" and in the template at the bottom. I've also now added a link within the text in the article's lead. Per wikipedia's linking policy, that's more than enough links. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:09, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is even worse than before, can you explain me how could possibly somebody expect this link in this sentense about Canada? If you do not like creating of a new section, we can mention it in the article's lead, but noticable and not to hide it again somewhere. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add images to the image gallery without first seeking consensus on the talk page. There are even several comments in place warning editors to seek consensus before adding to the image gallery due to the article's history of collecting dozens of indiscriminate additions under the heading of examples. WP:NOTGALLERY says we should avoid adding collecting indiscriminate additions of images under example galleries. I have some images I'd like considered for inclusion as well, but I'm seeking consensus on the talk page first. Thank you. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 18:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Smržovka, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Roadster (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) 11:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jirka.h23, 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]

Hey, I was wondering if you could assist me with something at Bohemian Crown Jewels. At the moment the chart which I will place below has dates incomprehensible to an English-speaker:

I have no idea how to convert these dates into normal English dates, which are usually written as "Day Month Year", e.g. 2 December 2012. I did it for the List of crowned Bohemian kings and queens table, but for this one, I just don't understand why there are four numbers instead of three, and what the hyphens mean. If you could help out, it would be much appreciated. RGloucester — 📬 16:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i will do it for you. Is it better now? Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks very much for fixing that table at Bohemian Crown Jewels. You did it perfectly, and I do appreciate it. RGloucester — 📬 18:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jirka.h23, a while ago you added some information about Bohemia to Otto I (thank you), see diff [[1]]. Do you have any more information about this "leccos.com" source by any chance? I don't speak Czech and am sort of lost on that website. What purpose does it have, is it a university site or privately operated? Does it focus on history or other topics aswell? Who is the admin/author of the content? I am slowly working on improving the article (hopefully towards GA territory), so any additional details about this source would be greatly appreciated. GermanJoe (talk) 07:07, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually i am lost on this page too:) I dont see any author or admin there, it is just collection of articles. But if you are looking for a better source, look at http://www.slovane.cz/, admin is: Petr Tryščuk and it does focus on history, as for two defeated slavic dukes in Mecklenburg, look here:www.slovane.cz/pic/kremer/pb-slovane.doc, it was duke Stojgněv and Nakon, they died in a battles with Otto I. and Boleslaus I. I will try to improve the text later because unfortunately i dont have much time now.Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I trust, that the added Bohemia-related info is generally correct, just the sourcing could be a bit better. GermanJoe (talk) 06:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jirka.h23! We are looking for editors to join the Europeana 1989 challenge, a multilingual Wikipedia Challenge where all of the participants are invited to improve Wikipedia articles related to the European Revolutions of 1989 in their own language. We have selected a short list of topics that may be improved or translated. As you have already edited some of the listed articles, we thought you might be interested, and accept the challenge. Hope that you will join us. Thanks!!!

--Kippelboy (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you might be interested in the discussion about a consistent format for KHL team names: Talk:Kontinental Hockey League#Team names: the (hopefully final) discussion. Thanks for participating. Wild8oar (talk) 08:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Yekaterinburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czechoslovak legions (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) 12:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Sibir (nuclear icebreaker). Since you had some involvement with the Sibir (nuclear icebreaker) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Please take care when you edit any redirects. In this case you redirected the 1977 ship to the 1938 ship: two different ships, both icebreakers, only one a nuclear-powered icebreaker. A redlink is better than a wrong link. Thanks. PamD 08:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World War I, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zborov (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) 13:30, 19 January 2014 (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 Timeline of Solar System exploration page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter 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) 00:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mercury-P, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mercury and Soyuz-2 (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) 08:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kontinental Hockey League may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | [[Digi TV|DigiSport]] (Romania
• The league formed from the [[Russian Superleague]] (RSL, and the champion of the [[2007–08 Vysshaya Liga season|2007–08 season]] of the [[Russian Major

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:57, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opravdu se používá "lion pride", "pack" se zase používá např. ve spojení s vlky: "wolf pack". Pojem "lion pack" není korektní. --IJK_Principle (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ne, to není pravda, pack se používá jako výraz pro smečku, lion pride = lví pýcha. Jirka.h23 (talk) 11:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google ku pomoci: hledání výrazu "lion pack" nalézá pouze výrazy "lion pride", také doporučuji wiktionary: "(zoology) A company of lions." --IJK_Principle (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hm translator při zadání lion pride ukázuje jen lví pýcha, říkal jsem si že na translatoru stejně nezáleží a odvodil to z logicky samotných slov, ale jak koukám tak opravdu takový spojení existuje, asi máte pravdu.Jirka.h23 (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ještě jsem to upravil, aby se to nepletlo s "pýchou" - "lion pride" změněno na "A pride of lions". --IJK_Principle (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karlovy Vary International Film Festival, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages William Forsythe, Kevin Macdonald and Scott Cooper. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. 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. RGloucester — ☎ 15:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding Eastern Europe, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date.

RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Jawa Moto, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Jawa Motors. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. CorenSearchBot (talk) 08:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You need to go fix double redirects left by your page move. For example, Jawa Minor. -- Brianhe (talk) 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brianhe, how can i find all of them? Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Russia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive, until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges.
You were provided a clear explanation as to the reason for removal of the image you added, and the WP:RECENTISM text content added to the contemporary RF. In fact, I created a section on the corresponding talk page which you failed to respond to. The process is WP:BRD, not BRRRRR. Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Move review describes the procedure to request another administrator to review the decision made in this case. You will see that the first step you have to take is to discuss you concerns with the first admin. (You can see where I did so at user talk:Cuchullain#Budweiser move - I see no consensus).

Then you have to show that the first administrator acted contrary to the rules. This is the first time (in about 7 years as a wikipedia editor) that I've felt minded to challenge a decision on a move request: I haven't had to because in all other cases the closing admin has determined that there was no clear consensus for change and none was made. [In a couple of cases I supported the move but accepted that 'no consensus' was an accurate summary]. In this particular case, I do not think that there was a consensus in favour of the move, I consider that the admin relied too much on his own judgement of the merits of the argument. But in the end, I don't care enough about the topic to spend the time and energy on it. One admin is not going to find against another unless the decision was particularly egregious - which in this case I can't see a convincing argument that it was. Unfair, yes; irrational, no; contrary to the rules, no. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Czechs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kingdom. 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) 09:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!Tvx1 (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited West Slavs, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lusatians. 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) 15:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Jirka.h23. Just letting you know that I reverted your addition to the Russia article here. As I've explained in the edit summary, it's probably fine for the Russian language article, provided that you use WP:INTEXT attribution for the source as it's a blog, but you'd need to find some reliable sources in order to include it in the "Russia" article (even though, given the size of the article, it's probably WP:UNDUE). On top of that, it isn't that straight forward given that the information (which I've checked in the blog) is already in the Russian language article under this section. It breaks down even further when applied to the top sites where Chinese, Japanese, etc. are still ahead of Russian. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Iryna Harpy, please stop trying to delete ALL of my posts. This beginning me to getting nervous. This is sourced and belongs very well to the paragraph. As for the map, there are many such versions which do not include sources,(like here: CarteLangueRusse.png, or here Category:Linguistic maps of the Russian language) do you want to delete all of them? Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get nervous: it's not my intention to upset you which is why I've left personal comments regarding why your content is being removed. There are a lot of unsourced maps, but they weren't challenged in time and, once they're used on a number of pages, the admins at Wiki Commons don't want to delete them as Commons doesn't adhere to the strict policies of the actual Wikipedias and expect that it's up to the editors of the articles to make WP:RS calls on whether they are acceptable or not. If you can provide some sources for inclusion (for example, you've obviously sourced info for Russian being used in Israel, etc.) I have no objections to its use in English Wikipedia. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 20:54, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will look for all sources. Jirka.h23 (talk) 10:18, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, somehow I forgot about it for a long time. However, for the info about Russian language in Israel exist even wiki page (Russian language in Israel), where even the first sentence state that: "The Russian language in Israel is spoken natively by a large proportion of the population, reaching about 20 percent of the total population by 1989." And as Jameslwoodward said, the map cannot be deleted except for copyvio. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:39, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. I think there's plenty of sourced evidence for the fact that there are a large number of post-Soviet Russophones and more who migrated later. Whether or not their children speak Russian, or whether Russian will remain widely spoken, is irrelevant at this point in time as it's only meant as a current indicator. I don't think it's worth quibbling over exact percentages unless other editors object or want precise sources. Cheers for getting back to me on the matter (I'd forgotten about it myself!). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Jirka.h23,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thank you Iryna Harpy, happy New Year to you too! Have a productive New Year with many impartial contributions;) Cheers! Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:41, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the grammar for your changes to the content of the Ukraine article, but still find it UNDUE as the article link, Russian famine of 1921, is self-explanatory, and your addition detracts from the readability of what is only meant as a summary of a large number of relevant main articles.

Nevertheless, if you're adamant that WP:ITSIMPORTANT to the understanding of the subject at hand, could you please find a better source than a review of a book which doesn't discuss Ukraine at all. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For your edits on Crimea, we need more editors to represent diverse viewpoints on the subject and improve articles. I have edited your section a bit and requested some sources.Please free to improve it. Kind regards. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at Crimea, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. Kudzu1 (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i am awaiting your answer at a talk page. To find a consensus. Otherwise this text is not going to be included there.Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crimea. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount and can lead to a block, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. RGloucester — ☎ 15:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately at this time I am awfully busy in real life. I appreciate your efforts at consensus despite the atmosphere surrounding this articles. As a side comment, let me tell you that I always liked Czech Republic, and certainly its much more sensible approach to international relations then the one of my homeland.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Prague, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Split. 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) 09:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed all DAB problems in the article. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The former article of Potential superpowers derived from a consensus of several people.Where did you find this consensus in the Talk?you did a pure vandalic act adding Russia to the main list.151.40.61.248 (talk) 16:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This topic was not discussed at all in the talk page, so no consensus was found.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So restore the former page joined with abroad consensus and try before to join it passing by the Talk page.151.40.94.9 (talk) 17:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should say to Jirka, I did find some things (also this) in the talk page (a search for Russia in the archive box will help), but indeed, it was a discussion only. No real consensus of anything. If you wish to put something official down, open an request for comment on the talk page if you are so concerned, unless you can find me something that shows some sort of consensus. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:14, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was joined after a long talking with the majority of people that agereed.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, where is it? Give me a link. You can't just decide that it was consensus. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:26, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Go to read the discussion.You'll find all.Antiochus the Great several times asked for broad consensus as main aspect of Wikipedia to accept an article.151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm. I am not disputing what I have read, but what is this? See the bottom. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 18:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So?151.40.94.9 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why to bother with unregistered ip? Anyway, as I have read "My name is not dave's" links, I can clearly see that no consensus was found, Russia was only challenged, as the EU, India etc. Article should stay as it is. Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus was joined by the majority in a broad talking.A person can't change without broad consensus and talking.151.40.94.9 (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you are lasting even after the revert by Antiochus the Great accepted by NeilN.Please stop.I've already warned.151.40.53.57 (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at 2018 FIFA World Cup 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 get 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. Qed237 (talk) 14:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The main victims were peasants and the map shows the cities.Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among city population was the same percentage loss of population, also, in the rural population was the same population structure. Russians also died in a huge numbers in Ukraine.Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's something completely new for me, any sources? Ukrainian peasants were mostly Ukrainian. Ethnic Ukrainans starved also in Russian Kuban.

Thdere were many Russians among workers, but the workers didn't starve the way peasants did.

Russia invested big effort in rationalizing the Holodomor rather than to inform about the Russian victims.

The Russian article doesn't inform about Russian victims. Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, it seems that the only time Russia's government remembers the Russian victims of the Terror-Famine is when it needs them to counter Ukrainian claims about "the so-called Holodomor. [2] The Russian vicrims of the whole Hunger, not only inside Ukraine.Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that peasants were mostly Ukrainian (same as the whole population was mostly Ukrainian). However, do you have any source that the peasant composition of the population was significantly different from the picture presented? In my opinion, it does reflect former status very well. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russians and Russified Ukrainians ruled Ukraine till the Revolution.

Millions of people moved during the First five-year plan (Soviet Union).Xx236 (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

[4]

The ratio changed, there were many factors so I don't summarize.Xx236 (talk) 09:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am working on a map showing the percentage of population in these regions - not just cities. Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:47, 14 December 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) 14:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind you that the article falls under WP:ARBEE sanctions. I don't want to embarrass you by slapping an ARB boilerplate on your talk page, so I thought I'd leave you a discrete heads up. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Large artificial Federation Island in the sea near the Sochi of Khostinsky City District is shaped like the Russian Federation and host hotels and offices." Xx236 (talk) 07:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Xx236, why do you ask me? But all what I know about it, is that it was originally planned for completion in 2014, before the start of the Winter Olympics, which was failed. The new plan aims to 2020. What is your question? Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Russia#Tourism - I have just removed your unsourced edit.Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, its just plans. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Praga V3S, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BAZ. 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) 10:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoj, proc Miami-Dade pryc? Ten mestskej web je teda hroznej neaktualni a nejasnej bordel, ale zrovna u M-D tam je docela normalni info (a ne zadny pet let stary bludy o "pocatcich navazovani spoluprace" nebo tak neco). --CCCVCCCC (talk) 19:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ta stránka byla aktualizovaná naposled v dubnu 2016. Už to tady (Prague) chtělo pročistit, zdá se že, si sem v průběhu času každej připisoval jaký město se mu zrovna zlíbí (třeba kvůli tomu že spolupracovaly na 1 projektu).

Každopádně děkuju za to Miami-Dade, to jsem přehlíd. Jinak příště takový věci můžeš rovnou upravit -nemusíš se mě ptát.

S pozdravem Jirka.h23 (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jirka.h23. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• You have created an error.
• Please discuss your edits on the Talk page.

Xx236 (talk) 08:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Xx236, if you want to change content in the article which was there correctly for years, its you who should first discuss it on the talk page. Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have, you haven't.

Old lies don't become better.Xx236 (talk) 08:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You refuse to discuss on Russia talk page. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have not started any discussion there, and I did not refuse to discuss.Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You phrase is controversial. Xx236 (talk) 08:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is my phrase? It is not.Jirka.h23 (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to 2018 FIFA World Cup, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 11:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Jkudlick, I did not mention that you have already explained this revert in this earlier edit. I just saw mine revert by Qed237, where he did not explain in summary anything - which is against wiki policy. If you insist on this size of the image so much, I have no problem with it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka,

I noticed you updated a version of this map: [5]. Do you think you can now update Czechia as dark green now? Let me know. Thanks! Étienne Dolet (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Dennis Bratland. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Harley-Davidson have been undone because they appeared to be promotional. Advertising and using Wikipedia as a "soapbox" are against Wikipedia policy and not permitted; Wikipedia articles are written objectively and from a neutral perspective. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dennis Bratland, I want to warn you to stop deleting information, which is very well sourced. Mention of the HD clubs in this article is very related to this article. And I want to warn you, that I am not going to stop adding this, because you have no reason for removing this. Also, I am going to use every tools I can to stop your (in my opinion) vandalism - removing of sourced content very related to the article. Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Harley-Davidson. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 32.218.33.164 (talk) 17:36, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka.h23, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! TonyBallioni (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. Cheers:) Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jirka.h23. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at United States presidential election, 2016 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

--NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tramway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 09:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Czech Republic 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. DMacks (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing my edit on that page. Turns out someone had vandalized the Bohemia page so it just redirected to the rapper. Which is a little more obvious in retrospect. Jkar (talk) 19:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure you get notifications on commons. We can move this discussion there if you prefer. So to start with, I'm not an expert on Slovak history, but my general understanding is that Slovaks were just a collection of Slavic tribes at the time the map describes, and the modern Slovak identity crystallized much later (additionally, scholars that take the "Hungarian side" may dispute hte continuity of the Slavic population in the region but I'm agnostic about this). In the Balkans, the solid colors of Slavs (whereas other "mixed areas" are hashed) is a bit bizarre looking as it would imply Albanians and Dalmatians -- and many Greeks and Romanians -- simply did not exist, which is a (far-right) fringe view. Lastly, the Mordvins is not really a fatal error, but Mordvins on Ukraine's borders also seems a bit... surprising. You mentioned sources. What are they? --Calthinus (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Calthinus, some discussion has already taken place on the talk page, however, I have no problem to continue here. We can build on for example from these sources: 1, 2, 3. As to Slovaks, you are right that their formation into a separate nation came later (about 10th century), however in the 9th century developed the Principality of Nitra, which become a part of Great Moravia and between the 8th and 9th centuries Slovak-Moravian dialects merged, laying the foundations of a later Slovak language. But what to do with it? We can describe them as "Slovak ancestors", if you would prefer this. But this is probably not the only case, the early Slavs were organized on a tribal level and gave the foundations of later common ethnic distribution. Texts are only informative. You mentioned Dalmatians, they were an ancient people more widespread before the arrival of the Slavs, same with Romanians and Greeks. In case of Albanians, you are probably right that they should be mentioned. Give me some suggestion on how it should look. You know, when I first created the picture, I left more empty areas in the southern Balkans (bordering the sea), but the picture has been changed by user Ceha, I asked him about the sources for his claim that there were more slavs in the Balkans and he answered:

• Slavs arrived in Istria in 7.century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Istria
• northern Dalmatia is core region of Croatian state; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchy_of_Croatia#/media/File:Balkans_in_9th_century.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Croatia_(925%E2%80%931102)
• Slavic population went very deep in Greece, there are even mentions of slavic tribes on the greek islands like Crete.. http://img-fotki.yandex.ru/get/5642/81165341.18/0_9a1f2_8a6a0a3f_L.jpg.jpg

In case of Mordvins you're probably right, they should be more north and east, I can rather delete them from the map. Sincerely, Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:57, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find this map to be fairly in line with what I've seen elsewhere [[6]]. Most of what you said makes sense. I'm not disputing the presence of Slavs in a lot of these areas, what I'm saying is that their presence does not imply the absence of others and in cases where we know others were present, the hashed coloring should indicate this. Being hte core area of a state is more about state-building than demography (the "core" of Russia for awhile was St Petersburg -- whose hinterland had many Finnic populations including Protestant ones -- given how "dark" the Balkans were in the period its hard to say much conclusively).

Dalmatia -- it seems like the map was more accurate before Ceha changed it.

Albania -- There were three or four non-Slavic populations at play, a Western Romance speaking group inhabiting urban centers in the coastal regions (Durres, Shkoder, etc), some Greek speakers along the southern coasts (some still today -- Himara) and in some cities (Durres), it's unclear when the Vlachs (Eastern Romance) arrived on the scene, and finally the Albanians. It's unclear whether Albanians were at this time a population formed by the merger of refuge populations who had fled the Slavic invasions (and earlier barbarians) into the mountains and molded into a common culture; although their language has a Paleo-Balkan origin (Illyrian, Thracian or Dacian-- the current dominant theory last I heard is that they were indeed of primarily Illyrian origin, but not the specific Illyrians of Albania but rather from Dardania), the vast majority of its vocabulary was Latin. This group would descend from teh mountains and eventually Albanize (or re-Albanize?) the coastal Western Romance speaking population, resulting in the Coastal Romance substrate in Albanian, as identified by scholars such as Vatasescu. In the 6th century, this population lived likely in a mountainous area, spanning from the Gheg highlands (places like Mirdita, Mati, and Malesia along hte modern Montenegrin-Albanian border) to places fairly far east, including Nish in Serbia (< Naissos, it's thought the name passed from Albanian to Slavic) and Shtip in Macedonia (here's Hamp: [[7]], and Curtis: [[8]]) . One interpretation of this, where Albanians extended a bit farther into Montenegro, made by Romanian scholars, is illustrated here [[9]] -- I don't advise strictly following this one though, as your map depicts a couple centuries later than that. I think overall the best policy for "unclear" regions is the hashed coloring.

Re Greece, yes I acknowledge Slavic migrations which reached even into the Pelopponese. But did we really have these inland areas in Epirus and Thessaly and W Makedonia where the indigenous Greek population disappeared (Slavified??)? If there are sources for that, sure.

Other issues I noticed too -- Slavs were settled in Anatolia too, and the map misses this. Likewise, Bulgaria had some non-Slavic populations that seem to be missing, though I don't have sources for this at the moment (Turkic speakers, Bessi, etc).

Re Slovaks -- "Slovak ancestors" sounds weird. Why not list the Slavic tribes present at the time in Slovakia? That's what we're doing elsewhere in the image, with Volhynians, Severians, etc.

I propose this : (1) revert Ceha's edit, (2) the southern Balkans as a whole, spanning from Montenegro to Bulgaria nad including Greece, goes to hashed by default, and becomes solid if and only if we have sources asserting exclusive or overwhelmingly Slavic character for a particular region, (3) "Slovaks" gets replaced with the time period-relevant Slavic tribal names (sadly I don't know these) in the area, (4) Asia Minor Slavs are added as hashed in areas they were known to be settled, such as Bythinia, (5) if Ceha or other Croatian editors find treatment in Dalmatia problematic, and have sources of Slavic settlement in coastal Dalmatia at the time, it becomes hashed. Does that sound workable? --Calthinus (talk)

I copied this discussion into the File talk page, so user Ceha, and others, can also comment on it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Jirka.h23. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going by the precedent set by the previous two Mortal Kombat games, as well as Injustice 2, then Shao Kahn falls under the same category as Goro and Darkseid, who are both listed as DLC in MKX and I2, respectively, and so he should be considered DLC like them. However, Frost falls into the same category as Quan Chi from MK9, Shinnok from MKX and Brainiac from I2, so should be listed as part of the initial roster. CBFan (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I said there, Quan Chi or Shinnok are not available to buy and download, as Frost as DLC content.Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your first warning was to not insult people. Do you even read your talk page? Stop it. Also, I've been here longer than you have. 79.74.194.118 (talk) 09:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding MK11 talk page, it is not me who is insultive, in your almost every post you called me childish or hypocritical, and that's just because I warned you that you are wrong, saying that I am the one who do not consider them DLC, in fact it was exactly the opposite. This also insist that you have not read the discussion at all, or not carefully, what's wrong with it? I warn you stop insulting others, I found it offensive and against Wiki policy, it is also disrupting that discussion.Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert, I mistaken that you removed vital information on the account but I forgot to scroll down. --Vauxford (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i just moved images to gallery, because in my viewer they overlapped the Engines table. Scout could be also there, in related paragraph. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See what you mean now, does look better, it also good you added the trims since lot of the newer crossover articles were lacking the section about them. --Vauxford (talk) 15:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavs#/media/File:Slavic_tribes_in_the_7th_to_9th_century.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.184.37.35 (talk) 02:02, 7 October 2019 (UTC) There are 2 locationos of Poles tribe on this map /in west and east/. Poles are western slavs so whats witch the estern poles? How did they get there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.184.37.35 (talk) 01:59, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there were two separate Slavic tribes bearing the name of Polans, the Polans (eastern) and the Polans (western). In the 10th century, the term "Polans" was exchanged for "Rus". But this is not a discussion forum, if you are interested in this topic, read history books and learn more about it yourself. Jirka.h23 (talk) 06:03, 7 October 2019 (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) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ancient Bohemian Legends, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Faust House (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited National Technical Museum (Prague), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jawa (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, literally, for the revert on Sorry! (game)! I must have clicked the rollback in error, the watchlist can jump around a bit on a phonescreen sometimes, no disagreement intended. --Lord Belbury (talk) 09:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. :-) Jirka.h23 (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stop WP:Edit warring over that content. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, Flyer22 Frozen? I did answer TrueHeartSusie3 a week ago. She still do not answer back, which mean that there are still no allegations of editing the tape. So theres no reason to remove this audio. Thanks for the answer. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka.h23! I saw at Talk:Xenia (emulator) that you've been referring to bold edits that you disagree with as vandalism. Please don't do this. We should all assume good faith of other editors. In fact, calling good-faith edits "vandalism" tends to get viewed as a personal attack. You can read more about our policy on vandalism at WP:VAND, and the subsection "What is not vandalism" at WP:NOTVAND. Cheers! Woodroar (talk) 11:49, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Triang3l originally called it vandalism, I just wanted to say that I agree with him, that (in my opinion) I don't think it's right to remove most of the article content, just to prove is not notable and delete it. Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I left the same message for Triang3l. Even if he said it first, you called it vandalism as well. Regardless, whether it's good-faith bold editing or disruptive editing or even adding misinformation, that's not considered vandalism. But accusing an editor of vandalism without supplying evidence of actual vandalism does tend to get viewed as a personal attack, so I'll please ask again that you stop saying that. Woodroar (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing from certain pages (Joe Biden) for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  ~Awilley (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When you add something to a hotly contested article like this and it gets reverted, you need to go to the talk page to make the case for adding, it, not repeatedly revert the content back into the article. In fact, the Joe Biden article has a rule in place (viewable at the top of the talk page and when you click "edit") that you must do this and wait 24 hours before making the same edit again. Also, as a couple of users have noted above, it's not helpful to falsely accuse people of "vandalism" in your edit summaries. Note that I've only blocked you from the article, so you can continue discussing your addition on the talk page if you want. ~Awilley (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think blocking was necessary. During the first revert, sourcing was required, I added the sources, at the second no request was made (with no reason), until at the next he asked me to take to the talk page, I have no problem with that. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2020 (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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article World Traveller Adventures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non notable film collection. A WP:BEFORE failed to find anything to help it pass WP:NFILM. Tagged for notability since November 2020.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jirka, I may have been too bold on the page! The page does have many significant issues though, so I added a "multiple issues" template. I am happy to discuss them with you or anyone else and don't hesitate to ping me. PS: And apologies, but I don't know what the template for "higher quality sources needed" is, so feel welcome to replace the "more citations needed" with such a template, as that would be closer to the issue I wish to raise. Morgengave (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for your work. Please note that on en.WP, we do not normally link years, dates, or common terms. Tony (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why you reverted this edit by Setreix? The random IP editor was clearly violating WP:NOTFORUM with apparent personal vendetta and misinformation. Such comments are supposed to be removed per WP:TPNO. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:30, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Setreix did not specify why the text was removed. WP:NOTFORUM applies to changes in articles, talk pages exist to discuss how to improve articles, and he proposed to remove India, I think I've opposed him enough. Personal misinformation sometimes appears this way, but therefore these pages exist, so that we can agree and not change the pages straight away. Jirka.h23 (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Setreix didn't felt a need to specify because it was obvious why he removed it. Where the IP was talking about improving the article or highlighting any factual error? I don't see if he 'proposed' anything, but only shared his personal vendetta. Talk page is not for that. I would suggest you remove the section entirely since it does not benefit anyway but adds toxicity to the already controversial subject. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Where he was talking about improving the article? Read the text again, there is clearly written that he demands deletion of India from the article. Specific reasons he writes there.. it does not break any rules, we don't have to agree with that, but we should explain everything to him if possible, not just delete it. I know everything he writes there is not true, but it is his opinion. I've seen things like this in discussions many times, if you're from India, try to oppose him effectively, for example with Bangladesh:) Or effectively defend India. Jirka.h23 (talk) 05:35, 23 May 2021 (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) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		Awarded for efforts in expanding and verifying articles related to the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis and 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:FALSEBALANCE. NPOV does not mean that "both sides" need to be given "equal weight". We don't give equal weight to Holocaust denial simply because there are "two sides". Same principle applies here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Hi Jirka.h23! I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of Bucha massacre several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree at Talk:Bucha massacre, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Peace section you added at the 2022 Russian invasion article appears to be redundant and already covered on 2 other Wikipedia pages. It already has its own article at Main article: 2022 Russia–Ukraine peace negotiations. Also it is covered in the new 2022 Reactions article created last week. The main article is also approaching 400Kb in size and a number of other sections may need to be split into new articles in the coming weeks to keep the main article from becoming sprawling in size. The material you wish to cover is already on 2 other separate articles in Wikipedia. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was deleted from the 2022 Invasion article following Wikipedia policy for BRD, and you appear to be edit warring to force your edit into the article. Could I ask you to delete your edit which appears to be edit warring and to discussit on the Talk page. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Slatersteven (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at war, I reversed him only once, he reversed me twice, but no problem, we will clarify this in the talk page, there is no reason for him to remove this sourced text (which was there before). Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe you should not use edit summaries that say "returned" [[10]], that that seems to say you are returning text that had been removed. Also I only see one revert by the other editor [[11]]. Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was returned, because it was a stable version, it was removed without reason. Yes, and second revert was from you (still do not understand why?). But let's take it to that talk page. Jirka.h23 (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a revert then, as was [[12]]. So that is two reverts. Also when was it removed the forest time? Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for restoring your edit and forcing it into the article. Your edit is reverted until you establish consensus. Both Slatersteven and myself have reverted your edit by Wikipedia policy for BRD. Establish consensus on Talk page prior to further edits. ErnestKrause (talk) 18:34, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ErnestKrause, there is no consensus to remove it from the stable version. It is you who should find a consensus. This paragraph was here until 11 August, and since consensus was not found, moreover 3:2 were in favor to preserve the text, it should be returned to the stable version that were here for about half a year (almost from the beginning of this article). Anyway, now it is 3:2 to keep the paragraph.Jirka.h23 (talk) 19:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read wp:bludgeon. Slatersteven (talk) 12:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus at present on the Talk page and your edit is reverted according to Wikipedia policy for BRD. Two editors have already notified you on your Talk page that you appear to be edit warring against Wikipedia policy. Could I ask that you stop edit warring. If you need more details about edit warring and Wikipedia policy for BRD then possibly Ermenrich could inform you that Edit warring intentionally as you appear to be doing is not Wikipedia policy. ErnestKrause (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.

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

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continued disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, consensus was not reached for your edit (removal of the sourced content) and five people are against. Therefore the page returns to stable version, find first consensus for removal of the paragraph. Thanks.Jirka.h23 (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Thank you. Ermenrich (talk) 14:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

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.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Bbb23 (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this administrator action does not adhere to WP:BLOCK policy. Neither Ermenrich or Rosguill participated in the discussion before reverting this editor. Ermenrich's insistence on an RfC [13] was not in line with the consensus on Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Do_I_need_to_start_another_RfC?. IntrepidContributor (talk) 06:35, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They do not have to. Pleases read wp:3rr. Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are weird rules, I tried to roll it back to the stable version and they didn't participate in the discussion at all, but they are not blocked because there are two of them. Weird.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Please don't force your edits and reach the consensus on a talk page first. If there is somebody who is against the change, that means there is no consensus for new edits. Thank you! Manyareasexpert (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in a revert war, just reverted it to a stable state. No problem, it was resolved in the discussion and the text remained in the well sourced and stable version.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting Italy.Simplyred90 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Simplyred90, then why do you just revert, without to write a reason? This is not correct according to the Wikipedia rules.Jirka.h23 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the map no Italy.Simplyred90 (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:International_reactions_to_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine.svg

Central African Republic, Mali, and Zimbabwe support Russia.

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2023/08/russia-africa-summit-fails-deliver-concrete-results

2600:8807:BA07:E400:1D1A:F256:AC95:B65B (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can change it yourself, for SVG use something like Inkscape.Jirka.h23 (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to do that 2600:8807:BA07:E400:1D1A:F256:AC95:B65B (talk) 12:30, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Russia. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Given that you already have a block for edit warring on this exact article, I suggest you stop attempting to remove long standing content through brute force and gain consensus on the article talk page. TylerBurden (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hello. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1370:8186:45A9:C186:D46C:AA93:A4B5 (talk) 07:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your graph of safe tap water from English Wikipedia articles due to some inaccuracies and inconsistencies I discovered, I'd love your input on the talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Drinking_water#Inaccurate_graph skarz (talk) 15:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2024 Summer Olympics medal table. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this source seems to be a blog: [14] ("citing a blog or free web host"); leave or delete the sentence? JacktheBrown (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I kept the image. JacktheBrown (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JacktheBrown, I think I already warned you. Please read how to edit articles, Help:Show preview: Use preview during editing to check what the page will look like...publishing the same article several times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history. I don't do it, but it's probable that another editor will delete your edit for a whole day just because of this.Jirka.h23 (talk) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]