User talk:Bolekpolivka

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

• Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try Wikipedia:How to edit a page.
• To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use ~~~~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes).
• You can experiment in the Sandbox.
• For help, see Wikipedia:Where to ask a question.
• Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Five pillars, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at Wikipedia:New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Thanks for uploading Image:Hausser2vfgr.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:02, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:WittmannXX.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Henlein.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bolekpolivka,

I've noticed you've been editing a lot of Germany-related articles like Kurt Daluege. You may be interested in the Wikiproject Germany.--Carabinieri^T_T^a_a^l_l^k_k 19:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sudetenland is not an official name in the Czech Republic, thus it cannot be used in the articles for current events otherwise it should and will be considered as a vandalism. Please stay away from using this name for current places, cities and villages. ≈Tulkolahten≈^≈talk≈ 18:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please have a look at the Template:Infobox Military Person. Here you will see that on images the thumb attribute must not be used. Thanks MisterBee1966 15:03, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bockfw.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Nv8200p talk 21:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Guderian01234.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Alex Spade 10:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to discuss this issue with Darwinek on template's talk. Instead of revert warring, which makes both parties angry, rational discussion on talk can lead to mutual understanding and compromise. I am sure that if talk it over, you both will find a good solution.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, there. 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. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Bolek

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Sepp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 01:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Image:Kageneckerbo.bmp.jpg, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Image:Kageneckerbo.bmp.jpg is a duplicate of an already existing article, category or image.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Image:Kageneckerbo.bmp.jpg, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 18:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Bockfw.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. BetacommandBot 14:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Just wnated to say that I trully enjoy the discussion. I think it is an interesting topic and you have some good and valid points!! Hope the category stays in some form on Wikipedia, though :) . Bolekpolivka 11:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's what makes Wikipedia so grand, isn't it?

I appreciate your comment. A lot of people have a tendency to take things personally on Wikipedia, which I think should never be necessary. I also recognize that the intention behind the category was and is entirely good, and wouldn't think of begrudging that anyone.

I will admit to being a bit of a pedant, though. My opinion on the category is, as I said, pedantic and not philosophical. I think, then, that we agree more than we disagree.

Cheers, and happy wiki'ing! - Revolving Bugbear (formerly Che Nuevara) 17:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading images/media to Wikipedia! There is however another Wikimedia foundation project called Wikimedia Commons, a central media repository for all free media. In the future, please consider creating an account and uploading media there instead. That way, all the other language Wikipedias can use them too, as well as our many sister projects. This will also allow our visitors to search for, view and use our media in one central location. If you wish to move previous uploads to Commons, see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons (you may view images you have previously uploaded by going to your user contributions on the left and choosing the 'image' namespace from the drop down box). Please note that non-free content, such as images claimed as fair use, cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons. Help us spread the word about Commons by informing other users, and please continue uploading!

--OsamaK (talk) 20:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been brought to my attention that your username is the name of a famous Czech actor. You probably weren't aware of this, but Wikipedia policy on usernames forbids the use of a real name of a living famous person as your username; see Wikipedia:Username policy. Are you actually Bolek Polivka? If not, you'll have to change your username. Fortunately, this is relatively easy to do, if you file a request at Wikipedia:Changing username, your new username will keep your old contributions attached to it. Mangojuice^talk 02:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a note to your userpage explaining that you aren't the famous person. Feel free to format it any way you want. Obviously there's no reason to discourage you from using your own real name, just as long as you keep a note on your userpage somehow that you aren't the same person, it'll be fine. Mangojuice^talk 18:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hello friend!

Please be so kind to upload this picture to Commons as it is public domain. Other Wikis would also use this picture. I'am absolutely unfamiliar about doing this. Maybe you could do it instead. Thank you very much! Greetings from Finland! --Kinki78 (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, first of all I included the official list, it is the one and only correct, sorry. Don't call me a "vandal", you are the one convicted of lying permanently and using sockpuppets. I also understand your positive contributions to some articles of Freiwaldau and Jauernig region, appreciated but there is only one truth in that case of municipal parts and its the official one. It should be no problem for you, I just corrected the article. By the way I included a population data some time ago, if you look. - Darwinek (talk) 08:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the discussion that has resulted from your post. You may also want to check out WP:OWN, as Darwinek has suggested. Darwinek is a respectable administrator who knows the policies, and unfortunately he is doing what is best for the article. As it stands, you could be blocked for suckpuppetry (which seems to have been used to stop yourself being blocked under the 3RR policy). Read that discussion & reconsider what you're doing. Thankyou, Lradrama 13:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resulting from your disruptive behaviour & operation of sockpuppet accounts, you have been blocked again, this time for 1 month.Lradrama 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Lradrama 13:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Bolekpolivka (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Please do have a good look at the article. First of all, I have written 90% of the article. Recently, I added new administrative part section with proper references. These references were repeatedly removed by Darwinek. He did not contact me or consider that the original references may be also correct --- Please do follow the links and have a look. Darwinek simply added much broader reference in place of the original one, which is much more specific. Consequently, the treatment that I am receiving from the administrators is fairly unfair. in addition, your argument stating that I operate some shadow account is ridiculous. I have made some corrections to the article without signing in at that is all. According to Wikipedia rules, I am not required to sign in every time I edit an article. The administrator Lradrama considers Darwinek a good contributor to the site, please do have a look at the history of my contributions. I am not some vandal who is sabotaging this site. I have never had a problem with anyone here apart from Darwinek and I can't help but wonder if it is not a personal vendetta (in which he in the past included his friends). I suggest that a fair-minded administrator looks over my previous "blocks." In all of these Darwinek is the counter party. Consider the previous cases: I made a info-box for historical settlements in a specific district. Darwinek changed it and the meaning behind it. There was not compromise - I am wrong as he is the administrator. Similar case here: I have researched and made new section in the Javornik article, included references and such. He deleted my contribution and I have no right to say anything? Your block is completely unjust and should be removed as I am not a vandal. The referencesI included are well researched and genuine, useful for researchers and readers alike. There was no disruptive editing or so called sockpuppetry. Also, I have written a nice note to Darwinek on his talk page and there was not reply from him only additional edits on the page in question. Final note: I did report Darwinek's actions earlier today to the administrator, yet User:Lradrama together WITH Darwinek concluded that I am the one who is wrong. I was not privy to that decision. Is that truly fair? The first rule for administrator is that he/she is impartial. Obviously that is not the case here.

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2= Please do have a good look at the article. First of all, I have written 90% of the article. Recently, I added new administrative part section with proper references. These references were repeatedly removed by Darwinek. He did not contact me or consider that the original references may be also correct --- Please do follow the links and have a look. Darwinek simply added much broader reference in place of the original one, which is much more specific. Consequently, the treatment that I am receiving from the administrators is fairly unfair. in addition, your argument stating that I operate some shadow account is ridiculous. I have made some corrections to the article without signing in at that is all. According to Wikipedia rules, I am not required to sign in every time I edit an article. The administrator Lradrama considers Darwinek a good contributor to the site, please do have a look at the history of my contributions. I am not some vandal who is sabotaging this site. I have never had a problem with anyone here apart from Darwinek and I can't help but wonder if it is not a personal vendetta (in which he in the past included his friends). I suggest that a fair-minded administrator looks over my previous "blocks." In all of these Darwinek is the counter party. Consider the previous cases: I made a info-box for historical settlements in a specific district. Darwinek changed it and the meaning behind it. There was not compromise - I am wrong as he is the administrator. Similar case here: I have researched and made new section in the Javornik article, included references and such. He deleted my contribution and I have no right to say anything? Your block is completely unjust and should be removed as I am not a vandal. The referencesI included are well researched and genuine, useful for researchers and readers alike. There was no disruptive editing or so called sockpuppetry. Also, I have written a nice note to Darwinek on his talk page and there was not reply from him only additional edits on the page in question. Final note: I did report Darwinek's actions earlier today to the administrator, yet [[User:Lradrama]] together WITH Darwinek concluded that I am the one who is wrong. I was not privy to that decision. Is that truly fair? The first rule for administrator is that he/she is impartial. Obviously that is not the case here. |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1= Please do have a good look at the article. First of all, I have written 90% of the article. Recently, I added new administrative part section with proper references. These references were repeatedly removed by Darwinek. He did not contact me or consider that the original references may be also correct --- Please do follow the links and have a look. Darwinek simply added much broader reference in place of the original one, which is much more specific. Consequently, the treatment that I am receiving from the administrators is fairly unfair. in addition, your argument stating that I operate some shadow account is ridiculous. I have made some corrections to the article without signing in at that is all. According to Wikipedia rules, I am not required to sign in every time I edit an article. The administrator Lradrama considers Darwinek a good contributor to the site, please do have a look at the history of my contributions. I am not some vandal who is sabotaging this site. I have never had a problem with anyone here apart from Darwinek and I can't help but wonder if it is not a personal vendetta (in which he in the past included his friends). I suggest that a fair-minded administrator looks over my previous "blocks." In all of these Darwinek is the counter party. Consider the previous cases: I made a info-box for historical settlements in a specific district. Darwinek changed it and the meaning behind it. There was not compromise - I am wrong as he is the administrator. Similar case here: I have researched and made new section in the Javornik article, included references and such. He deleted my contribution and I have no right to say anything? Your block is completely unjust and should be removed as I am not a vandal. The referencesI included are well researched and genuine, useful for researchers and readers alike. There was no disruptive editing or so called sockpuppetry. Also, I have written a nice note to Darwinek on his talk page and there was not reply from him only additional edits on the page in question. Final note: I did report Darwinek's actions earlier today to the administrator, yet [[User:Lradrama]] together WITH Darwinek concluded that I am the one who is wrong. I was not privy to that decision. Is that truly fair? The first rule for administrator is that he/she is impartial. Obviously that is not the case here. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1= Please do have a good look at the article. First of all, I have written 90% of the article. Recently, I added new administrative part section with proper references. These references were repeatedly removed by Darwinek. He did not contact me or consider that the original references may be also correct --- Please do follow the links and have a look. Darwinek simply added much broader reference in place of the original one, which is much more specific. Consequently, the treatment that I am receiving from the administrators is fairly unfair. in addition, your argument stating that I operate some shadow account is ridiculous. I have made some corrections to the article without signing in at that is all. According to Wikipedia rules, I am not required to sign in every time I edit an article. The administrator Lradrama considers Darwinek a good contributor to the site, please do have a look at the history of my contributions. I am not some vandal who is sabotaging this site. I have never had a problem with anyone here apart from Darwinek and I can't help but wonder if it is not a personal vendetta (in which he in the past included his friends). I suggest that a fair-minded administrator looks over my previous "blocks." In all of these Darwinek is the counter party. Consider the previous cases: I made a info-box for historical settlements in a specific district. Darwinek changed it and the meaning behind it. There was not compromise - I am wrong as he is the administrator. Similar case here: I have researched and made new section in the Javornik article, included references and such. He deleted my contribution and I have no right to say anything? Your block is completely unjust and should be removed as I am not a vandal. The referencesI included are well researched and genuine, useful for researchers and readers alike. There was no disruptive editing or so called sockpuppetry. Also, I have written a nice note to Darwinek on his talk page and there was not reply from him only additional edits on the page in question. Final note: I did report Darwinek's actions earlier today to the administrator, yet [[User:Lradrama]] together WITH Darwinek concluded that I am the one who is wrong. I was not privy to that decision. Is that truly fair? The first rule for administrator is that he/she is impartial. Obviously that is not the case here. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

Bolekpolivka (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]