User talk:Szalas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome from Redwolf24

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We as a community are glad to have you and thank you for creating a user account! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Yes some of the links appear a bit boring at first, but they are VERY helpful if you ever take the time to read them.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (Redwolf24 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (Redwolf24) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome.

Redwolf24 02:36, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

P.S. I like messages :-P

[edit] Prague

Please feel free to create page like Famous people connected with Prague and put more names into it. The main article is already like a novel and having potentialy endless list here would make no good. Such leaf article can contain interesting details about relation of each person to Prague.

My pruning was subjective but it is bit hard to be objective. I removed those who could be also associated with other places.


About Prague - Venue: this is even better candidate to leaf article which can contain information about history, trends, infrastructure, Pakul, target audience etc, in addition to current meetings. Such article would be better maintainable and could go to interesting details.

Notes:

  1. please write in English. It is annoying to other people not to be able to read it.
  2. sign your comments with ~~~~

Pavel Vozenilek 16:28, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, I agree szalas

[edit] Parent categories and subcategories

I personally prefere to use only the most detailed category and omit its parents, like if there's Category:Castles in Prague then the parent Category:Prague is not needed. It reduces clutter on page little bit. It is no written policy (AFAIK) but for most of time this style it gets used. Pavel Vozenilek 04:06, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Famous...Prague

The title of this article is a little off I think. Perhaps Famous citizens of Prague--and it should be just citizens, not people who passed thru briefly or were born there but never really lived in it. Also, try to avoid notes to self/others on the main page ("In a few months this could be huge..."). Anyhow, welcome. Why not add something to your user page? Marskell 11:47, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

  • hi, all the people listed there lived and worked in the city (min one year).
  • about the name of the page - maybe more users could give their opinion. For example Mozart loved Prague and was writing operas for it (but he was probably not citizen- although was working there) or Einstein began the work on the theory of Relativity there (during his teaching in Prague University).
  • Im not sure what you mean with "try to avoid notes to self/others on the main page. I put it in the discussion - it is not the main page...?
  • I´ll add something to my user-page soon;) User:Szalas
I made few changes, usually small ones - typos, diacritics, more explanation. Thanks for your work. Pavel Vozenilek 02:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
City mayor Karel Baxa [1] would be quite handy addition here, more relevant than say Einstein. Pavel Vozenilek 17:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving a page

Hi Szalas, I noticed you put a message to administrators at Talk:Prague underground (movement), asking for its move to "Prague underground (culture)". I've moved the page, although I am not an admin; you can move pages yourself: by selecting the "move" tab on the top (it's next to "history" and "watch"). A page can be moved to a new title when no article with the designed title exists or when it exists, but has only one item in history. When there are more items in history, you have to fulfill a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves. -- Sandius 21:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Oh thanx;) I did that article time ago, when I was new at wiki - I allready know it -I just forgoted it is still there;) but thank you, Szalas
OK :) -- Sandius 22:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

Hi Szalas and thanks for your message! I am sorry, I probably made an overstatement about the deletion from the template. I knew about the operation and it's significance, and one almost always feels bad when removing things...I remember once feeling very bad after removing duplicated links to the Holocaust and the atombombs over Japan - I felt like I diminished their importance.

But please add Operation Anthropoid with a little info to List of military engagements of World War II, if it's not already present there. It definitely should be there.

My regards, Dennis Nilsson. Dna-Dennis talk - contribs 14:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Czech resistance to Nazi occupation

Well writen but it covers only small part of the history. Ideal would be main article with leaf articles for internal and external resistance and periods.

If you have time you may add something here or engage someone from here or encite Czech Wiki to help with it here (I did minor cleanup here but I am too low on time). Pavel Vozenilek 23:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prague logo

Perhaps <gallery>:


Prague-logo.png

logo of Prague
Prague-logo.png

once more


or table:

logo of Prague
logo of Prague
Image:Prague-logo.png
once more


which can be put inside infoboxes etc. Pavel Vozenilek 23:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

and thanx for this Pavel. I wanted to put the new logo with the old coat of arms in the "Prague article" but it did´t look good (4 me;).

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

True enough; I've re-added it (to the top of the list, incidentally—replacing entries in the middle causes lots of confusion later on). It was also linked from the Selected anniversaries section of the portal at one point, though ;-) —Kirill Lokshin 18:46, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Acting presidents

IMO it is better to include even acting presidents. Its not their fault they were merely acting but during the time they had (many of) presidential privileges and duties. Pavel Vozenilek 23:35, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but you know, that acting president is in the Czech rep. not considered to be president. The fact that Spidla had some presidential privileges and duties doesn´t makes him president. There should be some mention about the "acting people" in the "presidential articles" but not in the part, where I deleted it.

[edit] Template:CZ presidents

I'd removed this template from articles. Sorry but every article about presidents already has handy infobox and adding similar structure worsens article quality. Please note that main value of an article is in its text, not in bunch of templates plastered over them.

I'd recommend that you ask to delete this template on WP:TFD.

PS: Some articles, e.g. Antonin Novotny require complete revision - it would be much better spent time. TIA

Pavel Vozenilek 00:32, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I don´t agree Pavel. Templates are very usefull and it is one of the difference between Old (normal printed) Encyclopedy and Wikipedia. It allows not only jump from 1st to 2nd (and so..) but you can see all. From my POV it is useful.
Gee, the combined template boxes would then in most articles take more screen space than the article itself. If the overview list is that needed then add link to current inbofox as small, non-intrusive link somewhere at right bottom, where it doesn't resize the box.
A problem with your template was free mixing of Czechoslovak and Czech presidents. I do not want to to see Slovaks jumping in and making the template bigger, adding branch like structures into it and making the situation even worse.
In my experience templates are very often controversial, prone to wars, harder to make them right than one thinks and in many cases they bring very little value into the article.
There's so much of work related to Prague: I once created Svatopluk Čech Bridge but every bridge in Prague deserves an article. Why not work on this or other topics? Pavel Vozenilek 20:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image copyright problem with Image:Svatovaclavska_koruna.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Svatovaclavska_koruna.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 23:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dresden

The "See Also" section is internal wiki links. It might qualify as an External link, but without the long winded explanation. In addition, it might be off topic. Cordially SirIsaacBrock 21:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinhard Heydrich

Thanks for the cleanup. Such "popular" articles accumulate lot of garbage quickly and because frequent changes no one really maintains them. Pavel Vozenilek 23:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Dancing House and Neo-Baroque

Greetings. I have some questions concerning this edit [2] to the article Neo-Baroque.

  1. You wrote: "There are also number of post-modern buildings in the baroque style" (should be: "a number"). Question: Do you know other examples?
well:) from my POV new baroque is every modern building build in baroque style. The term modern (or post-moder) I understand like ...using of glass or generally new materials (technologies). At this moment I would say for example City Hall (London) or reconstructed Reichstag (building). But maybe I´m wrong.
  1. The style of the Dancing House is certainly baroque in the colloquial sense of "extravagant, complex, bizarre, irregular in shape", but is it also baroque in the sense of Baroque architecture and is that what is meant by the "baroque" in "new-baroque"?
...as I said ...glass, new technologies, Baroque is history - modern buildings in Baroque style are not Baroque.
  1. Shouldn't Vlado Milunić be mentioned at least as prominently as Frank Gehry?
Of course;)
  1. The only source for this that I could find is this interview: [3]. Note that it is the interviewer who states that 'Frank Gehry and Vlado Milunic have described [the Dancing Building] as "new Baroque"'. This was presumably not a literal statement during the interview; there the interviewer would have said: "Frank Gehry and you". Now we only have a non-literal statement by the interviewer of the claim that the term "new Baroque" was used by the architects to describe the building. Do you have another, preferably more direct source?
No more sources, man, I was looking for some now and no source. It is posible Im absolutely wrong:)

LambiamTalk 21:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Operation Anthropoid

this is not truth - in February 1944 Polish Home Army assassinated Gaulaiter of Carinthia, SS general (chief of Warsaw SS) and police leader of the Warsaw district - Franz Kutschera - so delete all the sentence about the other assasination attempts failure or leave the information that this was the only succesfull action backed by the British

Heydrich was a TOP Nazi! He was probably 2-3.most powerful man in Nazi Germany (chief of RSHA!) Compare it with some Chief of Warsaw SS. He was maybe important (in region), but he was not a TOP Nazi.

[edit] Images used with permission

Hello, and thank you for uploading Image:Charles bridge prague.jpg, Image:Railway prague.jpg, and Image:Sazka arena prague.jpg. I noticed that the licensing information for these images says that they are copyrighted, but can be used on Wikipedia. Unfortunately this is not enough. The goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia that anyone can use or modify for any purpose. To achieve this goal, we require that copyrighted images be licensed under a free license such as the GFDL. If the holder of the copyright to these images is not willing to release them under such a license, which would allow anyone to use them for commercial or non-commercial use and to modify them at will, then unfortunately we cannot use the images on Wikipedia. I have changed the tags on these images to {{permission}}. Please let me know if you have any questions. —Bkell (talk) 05:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:SlovanLiberec.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:SlovanLiberec.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Non-free use disputed for Image:Forum2002.gif

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Forum2002.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 09:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Prague_castle_treasures.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Prague_castle_treasures.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. MER-C 12:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Trutnov fest.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Trutnov fest.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 02:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Peopleinneed.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Peopleinneed.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 00:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)