User talk:ZH8000

Mass IP undos (native names, local spellings, sister cities, ...)

Hi, you seem to be mass-reverting the contributions by IP 65.129.203.34, like this one. I'm not sure I see the point, is there anything I'm missing? – Uanfala (talk) 11:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the very same user does these rather arbitrary edits for quite a long time now. (S)he eventually started as the users User:Laibwart and User:Chickensire. Both have been blocked indefinitely for the very same kind of edits. Since then (s)he does continue under various IPs, but always from the same ISP, namely CenturyLink, Tuscon, Arizona, USA (tcso.qwest.net). Latest edits are by IP 67.1.133.169.

So far I know edits by the following IPs (most recent first): 67.1.133.169, 67.1.113.85, 67.1.194.190, 67.1.112.110, 67.1.134.48, 65.129.203.221, 67.1.248.80, 65.129.129.192, 67.1.220.157, 65.129.157.166, 67.1.129.0(!), 67.1.224.185, 65.129.132.108, 67.1.142.64, 67.1.155.152, 65.129.133.133, 67.1.155.112, 67.1.233.54, 67.1.244.84, 67.1.247.236, 65.129.203.77, 65.129.153.116, 67.1.225.20, 67.1.237.50, 67.1.111.35, 67.1.128.43, 67.1.147.112, 65.129.202.189, 67.1.196.182, 67.1.198.250, 65.129.196.200, 67.1.251.133, 65.129.203.34, 67.1.109.60, 65.129.195.249, 75.164.97.180, 67.1.115.126 (e.g. see talk page!), 67.1.215.109, 67.1.140.59, 65.129.223.166, 67.1.157.12, 174.18.87.185, 65.129.155.10, 67.1.144.142, 65.129.128.18, 67.1.144.44, 67.1.226.194, 65.129.128.18, 75.164.99.113, 67.1.46.81, 67.1.209.111, 67.1.144.14, 67.1.144.142, 67.1.215.109, 67.1.109.64, 75.164.97.180, 65.129.195.249, 65.129.203.253.

(S)he is editing almost always the same two patterns:

1. Adding presumably local spelling of places
2. Changing national entities, e.g. of sister cities entries
3. and others

The issues are the following:

1. The local spellings are never sourced. I can say for sure regarding German Swiss places (my mother language), there are often errors, though astonishingly quite often quite correct. But not always. Often quite correct, but not totally. And sometimes simply wrong. For example, the issue with German Swiss places in particular is that there is no official spelling of Swiss German – it is just a spoken language. We can assume that (s)he "knows" them from hearsay or derives them from some rather basic knowledge of the corresponding languages/dialects, but not with certainty, or even by source. So I can easily assume that her/his contribution is quite arbitrary. A very good example of the IP's applied arbritraryness is also given by this comment to the undo of such an edit to an Irish village: "Per IMOS, place does not derive from Irish. "!
2. (S)he edits the listing of sister cities by adding subnational units. This for itself is not a problem, though it is not a consensus on almost every list. For example, (s)he often replaces UK with England, or Wales, or Scotland and changes the flags accordingly. But this is not the consensus! The sister cities lists roughly follow the pattern of "<national flag> <place name>, <nation name>, since <year>", more or less.

I revert all of her/his edits just because of the large work load. I am not willing to check every single edit for correctness. Or even to search for missing sources.

I also feel supported by the previous blocks of the users Laibwart and Chickensire.

I tried to communicate with this person several times, but never got a single response.

I also often reported her/him to administrators. But this did not have any effect. So I stopped to do so.

It also seems that (s)he does not recognize my or anybody's reverts.

So I assume that this person has some psychological handicaps and does not concern about the quality or seriousness of her/his edits.

I would however acknowledge any better solution by the admins than just telling me, "well (s)he stopped editing under the same IP, we won't do anything further"; (s)he will simply come back later under a new IP and continue.

So, I can only revert her/his edits if I find some time of peace and quiet to do so. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Rhône

Hi, what makes you think that the description of a river is upstream? Normally, the description is from the source to the gulf [1]. I don't get it. Obvousisly you followed the description in the paragraph, but it is awkward to make a river description upstream. Anyway have a nice day. Tschüss --Gabriel HM (talk) 10:49, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. To describe a river upstream is somehow awkward, counter-intuitive (however, in earlier days, the sources of streams have been discovered exactely that way!).

But as far as I understand the original author, (s)he just wanted to describe a south-northern dividing line between the Alps and the French Plateau by the major line of the Rhône. The remaining part between Lyon and Geneva then became a kind of a collateral, (s)he then only could add writing upstream-wards, so to speak.

And I was just too lazy to rewrite the whole sentance. ;-) -- ZH8000 (talk)

Ya, it was the same for me, i don't really have the energy to rewrite the whole paragraph. Furthermore I didn't see that the contributor was making an upside down description, so I assumed that it was a mistake. Anyhow, the subject is closed. Merci--Gabriel HM (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Rail usage

Hi ZH, Thanks for your contribution, it was not me that i added the stat for Chineese passenger-km, the data was registered by a chineese user with a chineese link so i could not verify it. However it seems to me that his source is more relevant than the stat given by UIC. Perhaps one should open an item in the talk of the Rail usage statistics by country page to make sure, however what i could find i english is the passenger traffic for 2013 it was 1,059.5 Billion passenger-km source here.

Anyway if you corect something and if you still find the UIC more relevant than the oficial Chineese stats' office at least please do it corectly you still left China in the top of the ranking ;)

P.S. i consider i wrote nothing of novelist i liked only to add a brief introduction about the historical evolution of rail traffic (freight & passengers) as a backbroung to that page, your subjective judgment found it novelist it was your point of view.

Rgrds Rami75013 (talk) 16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

River names

Hello- I saw your edits to river-related articles in France. I realize that many of the edits fixed links to point to the correct article name. But I wanted to let you know that in English, river names are often expressed including the word River (capitalized) as part of the name. It is neither incorrect nor bad style. For example, many anglophone readers will not necessarily know that the Charente is a river unless this has already been established in the context. You might read or hear Rhine or Rhine River interchangeably, the former more in situations where the context is already established. You will also sometimes encounter names with River first, as in River Thames. Eric ^talk 19:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Eric. Thanks for your commemts. Yes, I am aware of these linguistical aspects. During my changes I tried to make sure the context about rivers are given. I will never change a river's naming where River is part of its original language. – Nevertheless, as you probably know, even though in some European languages that despite for lakes is true, that their kind is part of their names, such as in "Genfersee", "Lac Léman", "lago di Ginvera", and so on, this, however, is not true for rivers: "Rohne"fluss (ge), "Le fleuve du Rhône" (fr), il fiume di "Rodano" (it) etc. In French, the article is even part of the name! I will always keep speaking about the River Thames, the Colorado River, Lake Tahoe, and Lake Zurich, but I very much prefer to speak about the Rhine, or if necessary at all, the river Charante, while always following the very same motivation: acknowledging their original meaning/usage. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi ZH8000, whilst I agree generally that "River" is not part of the official name of rivers in Europe, it is quite common for English sources to refer to them as "River Foo" (British and Irish English) or "Foo River" (US English). For example the "River Lech" and "River Inn" are both referred to in that way here. It's just common English language practice. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER -- ZH8000 (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Twin cities of Munich

You deleted "Harare" in the "International relations" section with the comment "WP:VER is failing". Actually Harare is pictured on the official plaque and it's well documented in the article as a reference. So do you have a personal problem with Harare? --Einemnet (talk) 15:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I actually don't have a personal problem with Harare. And if so, it should not matter. But obviously I deleted it from the list. I am sorry about that. This is clearly a mistake from my side. Please accept my apologies. Sincerely, ZH8000 (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Chewa language deletion

I'd be interested if you could tell me which part of WP:SOAP was the cause of your removing the link to a foreign language course on Chinyanja in the article Chewa language. I have read the guidelines but cannot see anything relevant or which might justify deletion. Kanjuzi (talk) 13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

The deleted link to livelinga.com, a private company, had been promoted by User talk:Rcb5 on many language articles as a US Foreign Institute service. The user has been "blocked indefinitely from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of the conflict of interest and notability guidelines". -- ZH8000 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I see, thank you. It's a pity, though, as it was a jolly useful link for anyone studying Chichewa! Kanjuzi (talk) 17:47, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

List of countries by intentional homicide rate

You have reverted all my edits to the above with the message "everything works just fine". Are you aware that you have reverted edits adding extra functionality? Did you even examine the edits at all? The previous comment is without prejudice to whether any functionality in question does in fact, work "jsut fine". 92.39.201.191 (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon-me, I mismatched you with 87.254.72.92, and I did not consider to check the changes. – One good reason to register your own account? -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Changing Swiss Federal Railways to SBB CFF FFS

Hi.

I notice that you have amended a number of articles on Swiss railway stations to change the link from Swiss Federal Railways to SBB CFF FFS and I'm puzzled why. The target article is definitely called Swiss Federal Railways, with SBB CFF FFS as a redirect.

The name Swiss Federal Railways is the normally used English language name for the organisation, and whilst the individual language specific acronyms (SBB, CFF or FFS) may be more common in their respective linguistic regions, I don't think I've ever heard anybody call it SBB CFF FFS in normal usage (in English, German, French or Italian). Yes, I know that is what they write on their assets, but that is surely a multi-lingual compromise rather than a real name. As WP:EN is the English language version of Wikipedia, surely we should prefer the perfectly good English name over an awkward compromise that is pretty irrelevant to the English speaking world, however necessary it is within Switzerland.

In support of that view, I would also cite the fact that the German, French and Italian versions of this article are called respectively de:Schweizerische Bundesbahnen, fr:Chemins de fer fédéraux suisses and it:Ferrovie Federali Svizzere. Just as on WP:EN, SBB CFF FFS is merely a redirect.

-- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Chris:. First of all, excuse my very late response. I just forgot about it. MY apologies!

My reason was: I prefer to use abbreviations, especially in overviews, such as the info box. For the ease of use and especially the much better recognizability. In General. Well, it's a brand finally.

We–here on WP–do it for every other case of a railway company as well: We prefer to use ZVV instead of Zürcher Verkehrsverbund. And ZVV is even less prominent than SBB to the outsider!!

Secondly, "SBB CFF FFS" is THE official brand and by far most often used by SBB, not their language-specific abbreviations, though you can use them as abbreviations (but not as a brand).

Thirdly, if I see the "SBB CFF FFS" written, I of course do not read the whole thing, just SBB, me as a German speaking person. And eventually a Romand reads it simply as CFF. And so forth. And no, I do not think it is a compromise, not at all. Especially not a bad one, quite the contrary!

Fourthly, even on international travel sites, they very much prefer SBB over Swiss Federal Railways, such as on forums like by tripadvisor!!

Fifthly,

Finally, I used to add "(Swiss Federal Railways)" as a fast hint on its first apperance. I think, together with the link, this should sufficient, by far.

Therefore, I think, that, especially for info boxes, the usage of the no. 1 brand by SBB, accompanied with the written-out name on its first appearance is not only suitable and prefered for its ease of use and recognizeability, but also a must for the uneducated reader to learn about it. -- ZH8000 (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi. No problem about the lateness, no need to apologise. First let me say I have no problem with the use of abbreviations, and on the whole I prefer to use names in the local language rather than over-translate into English. Thus ZVV or Zürcher Verkehrsverbund are fine, and I think both are much preferrable to using Zürich Transport Network. I've no problem with using SBB as an abbreviation where the linguistic context is clearly German, and indeed I've just done so in my recent changes to tabulate the routes of the Zürich S-Bahn. Likewise obviously CFF or FFS in their respective linguistic contexts.

My problem is specifically with SBB CFF FFS, which is hard to say, write or think about. It comprises no less than nine consonants, with no vowels, so it is unpronouncable and you cannot mentally deal with it as anything other than a string of nine unrelated letters. A three word name (like Swiss Federal Railways) is much easier to think about or remember. Whilst I'd prefer a local name (I would never, for example, write German Railways rather than Deutsche Bahn), the multi-lingual nature of Switzerland means that in some contexts that isn't available, and I think using a English name rather than a nine-letter not-quite abbreviation is the lesser of two evils.

I think you explain the way SBB CFF FFS works in Switzerland quite well when you say if I see the "SBB CFF FFS" written, I of course do not read the whole thing, just SBB, me as a German speaking person. The point is that I, as a native English speaker, do not have that option. I'm forced to read and process the whole thing. And the target audience for WP:EN is English speakers.

However from a practical perspective, I seem to remember that the articles you were amending were about railway stations in the German speaking part of Switzerland, and where therefore there is a valid local language context. If my memory is correct, I'd have no problem if you were instead to replace Swiss Federal Railways with SBB. Indeed I'd probably regard that as an improvement. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry for this edit. I didn't mean to duplicate it (or edit war with you). Thanks for catching it. Kind regards -- Marek.69 ^talk 10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Lauterbrunnen Wall

Thanks for the alert and your precision. I'll change the intro to state that it's a term used (quite widely) in the English-speaking mountaineering world, cite multiple sources for this, and add that it has no official status. Then I'll remove the deletion template. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Swiss international schools recognized as such by the Swiss federal government?

I expanded Template:Swiss international schools to include multiple Swiss schools, some of which are listed by the Swiss government and others not. Do you have a definitive current list of schools approved by the Swiss government?

I also heard somewhere the one in Accra, Ghana used to be recognized as an official Swiss school but is no longer considered such...

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Rome/Paris Sister Cities

Hello, you clearly feel very strongly about the subject for some reason. However, you claim that "the convention is to list twin and sister cities and separate partership cities". Could you please point me towards the discussion where this convention was reached or the guideline saying as much? Because for example Tokyo, one of your two reverts alongside Prague, has a single section. The only relevant community activity related to this subject I could find is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cities, but that one actually has another user speaking out against your edits. Because creating a new section for a single city and spelling out just how special their relationship with an unrelated city is on the page of a completely different city seems rather unnecessary. --CCCVCCCC (talk) 08:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Amateur site

I'm a little uncomfortable about you adding a 'type=amateur site' to citations, as you have on Rigi–Scheidegg railway and Scheidegg (Rigi). I don't really see what it adds to the cite, nor do I know how you know the amateur or professional status of the web site, or indeed what that means. I'm sure you don't mean it as a value judgement (the eingestellte-bahnen.ch web site, at least, comes across as pretty well researched and presented) but it could be read that way. What is your motivation in doing this?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

It is intended to mean what it literally says: they are sites by amateurs. And yes, it does not say whether the statements are correct or not. But it also says that the published information is not offical, nor by a professional publication. And therefore, it maily means, that there is no editorial process behind such private websites. And last but not least, according to WP policies, these would not even be acceptable source: WP:USERGENERATED. -- ZH8000 (talk) 23:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Your edits to Swiss history topics

I frankly don't know how to go about your edits to Swiss topics.

Many of them are valuable, but some of them are completely misguided. Almost all of them introduce problems, mainly stylistic or linguistic. Please try to seek input and don't simply butcher well-developed pages. Failing that, follow WP:BRD.

To point out some recurring problems specifically, which seem to be informed by a German-speaking perspective

• your campaign against the term "canton": you do not seem to be aware that the term "canton" is the literal translation of the (historical) term Ort
• you introduce inflected German forms. This is jarring and confusing to the non-German-speaking reader
• your "corrections" of e.g. "Aare river" to "Aare" with the "explanation" that "river is not part of the name". Please learn about WP:UCN. It is perfectly common to introduce the name as "Aare river" the first time it occurs in the text just for clarity. If in doubt, use google books (1,750 hits for "Aare river"[2]) to get an idea of preferred usage in relevant English-language literature.

If you find that the usage as it stands in the page is perfetly current in English and you still want to change it, don't use haughty summaries like "correction", but as a sign of respect to the original authors present your rationale for the change. If it doesn't fit into the edit summary, use the talkpage and present a coherent explanation of why you think your change was an improvement. Remember that this is a collaboration and if you ignore proper procedure people will feel justified in simply reverting your edits.

You also introduce tons of redlinks. If you aren't going to write these articles over the next few days, don't introduce the links. E.g Oberhasli used to be a well-developed, more or less self-contained page. After your "enhancing" it is a sprawling mess of redlinks. That's not to say many of your additions weren't valid, so I am reluctant to just revert you wholesale, but you really need to spend more effort copyediting your additions if you want them to stand. --dab (𒁳) 09:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Alpine Rhine

Hi there, i was wondering why you undid ALL of the additions made by me in the article Alpin Rhine? Could you be more specific on "too many substantial errors or inacurracies"?! I understand if some parts are not ok but undoing everything is a little hard... kind regards MichaelPedro (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@MichaelPedro: Because I was too upset about the many inconsistencies and errors and too lazy to correct them. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:55, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

@ZH8000: It took me 2 hours worth of research and creating content. I miss a little respect from your side to this effort. If there is a problem, make a suggestion or help me out and i will gladly try to improve. I know the region very well and wanted to provide more information to visitors and interested users. Errors i understand as Englisch is not my mother tongue but inconsistencies? You mean lack of sources? (MichaelPedro (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC))

Finally it is done. ;) -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Clarification request on cycle parking info added for Zürich stations

Hi. You added the following text to the infobox at Zürich Hauptbahnhof:

openair (10/1048), covered (3/214)

and to Zürich Stadelhofen railway station:

openair (3/349)

It isn't obvious, at least to me, what the numbers mean. I can image that 1048, 214 and 349 are the number of cycle spaces, but what are the 10 and 3?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

spots/spaces -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:02, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Alps range coordinates error

Your edit seems to have had the effect of breaking the range coordinates math; see the error at the top of the page and in the infobox. I have no idea how any of this works, and you didn't edit the template parameters directly, but based on the error message I guess it could be due to the hyphen in the width_km parameter. But I suspect that is a correct depiction of the Alps' N-S extent, so I didn't want to change it without being aware of all the consequences. David Brooks (talk) 13:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

You were right. Thanks for the hint. -- ZH8000 (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Extra map information on various articles in Switzerland

Hi. Thank you for adding the extra information to my map cites on various Swiss related articles (eg. Versam-Safien (Rhaetian Railway station)). I wondered whether there is any way of determining that information from the https://map.geo.admin.ch/ web site (or other web site) so that I can add it to similar references I make in future. I tried to find this information for cite on the Disentis/Mustér railway station article I updated yesterday, but was unable to see anything obvious. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC

Chris j wood I see. Here it is how you have to proceed:

1. Start with the following structure:

<ref name=ZH8000Version1.0>{{cite map |url= |title= |map= - |map-url= |scale=1: |series=National Map 1:'000 |edition= |date= |publisher=Federal Office of Topography – [[swisstopo]] |location=Wabern, Switzerland |isbn= |via=map.geo.admin.ch |accessdate=2017-}}</ref>

2. Go to map.geo.admin.ch and

1. select the area you prefer, then
2. copy-paste the share link to the URL parameter, e.g.: url=https://s.geo.admin.ch/73af72b0f3
3. define a useful title, e.g.: title=Geographical center of Switzerland

3. Now change topic to swisstopo

1. expand Digital maps hierarchy, then expand National maps digital
2. Define the scale: while moving with your mouse over the several selection possibilities ("National Map 1:xx'000") compare them with your previous map selection. If the map does not change its appearance while moving over a particlar selection, i.e. there is no difference between your selection and the moved over scale, then you got the scale you need.
3. set the scale parameter accordingly, e.g.: scale=1:25 000
4. set the series parameter accordingly, e.g.: series=National Map 1:25'000 – please use the Swiss version for the thousand delimiter ('), since this is a citation of a series title.

4. expand Printed maps hierarchy,

1. then select the according Division national map xx Raster/Paper, e.g. "Division national map 25 Paper"
2. then click to the point of your interest on the map (e.g. "Mittelpunkt der Schweiz") --> then a new small window pops up with all additional data:

1. set the isbn parameter with the value of the ISBN number, e.g.: isbn=978-3-302-01190-5
2. set the edition parameter with the Edition year, e.g.: edition=2016
3. set the date parameter with the State of updates year, if available (otherwise leave it blank), e.g.: date=2013
4. set the map parameter the following way while using the Number and the Name: <Number> - <Name>, e.g.: map=1190 - Melchtal
5. Finally, click on the order button, then copy the resulting url from your browser window and set the map-url parameter accordingly, e.g.: map-url=https://shop.swisstopo.admin.ch/en/products/maps/national/lk25?layer=ch.swisstopo.landeskarte25_papier.metadata&product=1190&productIdentifier=1190&childGroupIdentifier=lk25eb#product-1190

5. Close with the access date, e.g.: accessdate=2017-06-07

Then you get the following result:

-- ZH8000 (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. I've updated the cite on Disentis/Mustér railway station using those instructions. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:27, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Move request Pilatus railway

Hi, you have requested a move of Pilatus railway to itself, I guess that you want it with a capital R, but will leave you to correct request as appropriate. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Keith D Yes indeed. Many thanks for the hint! -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

mass removal of pictures

You have removed our contribution in a lot of articles (i.e. Luc Court, Bern Theatre). Our pictures of shares and bonds from the different companies show the reason, why this companies could exist. What was your reason for this unpleasant activity? Edhac-Edham (talk) 20:59, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Edhac-Edham: Your pictures of these pretendingly "official" documents totally lack any verification WP:VER. I would strongly propose to update all your seemingly security pictures with accordingly serious sources for online verification. Otherwise I will also challenge their publication on commons! Please do so soon! Thanks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

@ZH8000: Sorry, but I cannot recognize, that online verification is required, I see different information in WP:VER. Our scans are from origin historical security papers, that are stored in the a albums of our club or the club members. But they are not online available. The name of the club is mentioned in the source. If you have a better idea about the content of the description for our historical security papers, than please present a good example. Edhac-Edham (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Metro

The Metro is not one of the "lowest quality tabloids" as you put it. It is actually one of the better newspapers published in tabloid format, with the added advantage for the reader of the printed copy that it is free. OK, maybe they got the story wrong, but they weren't the only one. Several reliable sources, including the Independent were reporting a two train collision. This has obviously changed as full details became available. Note that the Independent still has the old headline but has the locomotive runs into carriages story. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Abbey of Saint Martial, Limoges

I wonder why you reversed the previous edit here. The information given seems to be in line with the title of the corresponding page in Occitan wikipedia, and very similar to the Catalan version, so it seems unlikely it's terribly wrong. Maybe a request for citation might be in order, although this seems to be simply a translation issue. Sjwells53 (talk) 16:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. See #Mass IP undos (native names, local spellings, sister cities, ...) for an explanation. I am however fine with your assertion. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:59, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

River Rhine

Hi ZH, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please don't delete instances of River Rhine because "River is not part of the name". In English sources, it frequently is. There are over 1/2 million hits on Google for "river rhine", many of which are capitalised. For the record, the US style, "Rhine River", is about as common too. HTH, Gruss, --Bermicourt (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER -- ZH8000 (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and if you read the first sentence it talks about "most common usage". So if you continue to mass change names without consensus it may be seen as WP:DIS. There is a convention that European river article names don't need the word "River" and that's fine, but it's perfectly okay to use common English naming in the text and reflects the sources out there. Just chill out and enjoy the variety. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:26, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

AND the next (!) two sentences say: "X river" (i.e. non-capitalized "river") is not recommended. When common usage does not include the word "River", but disambiguation is required (e.g. the river Inn in central Europe), parenthetical, non-capitalized "river" should be used: Inn (river). In other words neither "river" (without parentheses) nor "River" should be used to disambiguate articles.!

Furthermore, there is a strong consensus to write western/central European rivers (except for UK, of course) without any "river" in order to follow the original wording and meaning (at least valid for Germany, Benelux states, France, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Spain, Portugal, ...); you should know this (see talk history!). That's finally the reason why their article names are spelled that way (sic!)!

And finally, a term should be used consistently by its article name, except in order to pronounce local spellings. WP still intends to be an encylopedia, not a magazine. -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course, that is all to do with how we title articles; within the text itself there is freedom to emulate the sources. In any case we clearly disagree, so you should stop making these global change to river articles until there is consensus. That's how Wikipedia works. Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You are just expressing your WP:POV. My edits are all comply with WP:NCRIVER and WP:NCGN, which clearly says: "The contents (this applies to all articles using the name in question): The same name as in the title should be used consistently throughout the article" (emphasis by me). Stop vandalisig (i.e. undoing) my edits! -- ZH8000 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

That is just your WP:POV and when 2 editors disagree, they are supposed to discuss the issue and reach consensus. I am simply following WP:BRD, unfortunately you are ignoring it. You also need to read WP:VANDNOT and be very careful about accusing other editors of vandalism. Bold reversion is NOT vandalism. I'm repeating this message here and asking you for a second time to stop your unilateral mass edits, your reversions of BRD and to discuss the issue on an appropriate talk page.Bermicourt (talk) 07:11, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

ZH8000, it would be really helpful to all of us if you could follow WP:Consensus... ZachG (Talk) 15:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCRIVER, WP:NCGN -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:35, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

These are guidelines, not policies (WP:NCGN: "These are *advice*, intended to guide, *not force*, consensus"). Consensus is "Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making". ZachG (Talk) 17:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

As you can easily verify in WikiProject Rivers' talk history, WP:NCRIVER is an explicit consensus' result! Nothing else. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

They are also totally irrelevant to the question in point. They advise as to how articles should be named. They say nothing about how articles should be written. Please stop quoting them to justify changes to the text of articles. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:08, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

You are totally mistaken: WP:NCRIVER defines the articles title, AND WP:NCGN says ... well, see yourself above. -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

ZH, take it from a native speaker of English: You are in the wrong here. I'm sure we all appreciate your zeal, but you stray from the path of improving the encyclopedia when you attempt to enforce your own notions of English usage in the face of corrections presented by multiple editors. Please recall our above discussion from two years ago: User_talk:ZH8000#River_names. Eric ^talk 21:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the Swiss Confederation

Hi. Either I've misunderstood something, or you have... You've replaced "As of 2017, he is the only President not to complete his term" by "As of 2009"... Why? It remains the case today, in 2017, that no President of Switzerland other than Wilhelm Hertenstein has ever died in office, or seen their term ended earlier than expected. What's special about 2009? Aridd (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, your version is linguistically incorrect. You cannot, in 2017, say that a statement is true "as of 2009", if we have information about it which is more recent than 2009. If you think there was an incumbent President of Switzerland who died in or after 2009 (which does not appear to be the case), then the sentence should be: "Until 2009, he was the only President not to complete his term". Otherwise, it should be: "As of 2017, he is the only President not to complete his term". And the {{currentisoyear}} template makes it possible to keep that statement up to date. Aridd (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. My error. My apologies! But please, the next time add such a message to the talk page of the related article, where it belongs. thks. -- ZH8000 (talk) 11:39, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

No problem. Aridd (talk) 11:44, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Railway names

Your four technical requests got converted to separate RM discussions. I'm going to revert all those, so you can make a more well-formed argument in a multiple-RM discussion per the instructions at WP:RM. Dicklyon (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

List of countries by traffic-related death rate

moved to article's talk page -- ZH8000 (talk) 13:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

President of the Swiss Confederation vs. President of the Confederation

Moved to the article's talk page -- ZH8000 (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

NRLA "copyedit"

I copyedited the article and made other improvements (such as alt text and a caption), but the changes requested on the {{copy edit}} tag go well beyond copyediting. Please see WP:C/E and WP:TC, and use a more appropriate tag. Miniapolis 20:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Static IP templates

If you are going to add a static IP template, please ensure that you add the correct location and not some randomly guessed place that is on the other side of the planet.

You are not supposed to add the template after a single warning but only once a pattern of a few warnings has been established. 86.149.139.103 (talk) 13:12, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Histmerge

Regarding your edit summary here, please don't confuse WP:MERGE with WP:HISTMERGE. The latter one is generally uncontroversial and, in fact, even required for copyright reasons. —capmo (talk) 15:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the info! -- ZH8000 (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Rivers

Hi ZH8000, I see your removing instances of "River Foo" again. Please don't do this. It is quite normal English to describe rivers as "River Foo", "Foo river" or just "Foo". None is preferred and changing them to your preferred naming schema is WP:POV pushing and doesn't reflect the sources. 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Bermicourt (talk)

Ditto. Eric ^talk 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

With regard to this, WP:NCRIVER is perfectly obvious. Of course I know that you (Americans, British) people usually call river as X River or River X, or sometimes X. No problem with this; in German for example the Colorado River is called - guess it! - Colorado River, since this is its name. No problem with this, neither.

Geneva is a city, therefore you can say: "Geneva has ..." or "The city Geneva is ...". But it would be strange and wrong to call it Geneva City, since city is not part of its name, as it is for example for Salt Lake City.

Further, and in accordance to WP:NCRIVER, the article about the river Inn is called "Inn (river)" and we refer to it as Inn, or the river Inn, if you want to pronounce its nature/kind. But in accordance to WP:NCRIVER we don't use either Inn River, or River Inn, nor Inn river. "(river)" is just used as a disambiguation; otherwise the article would be called Inn River. But it is not. I will follow further this policy. It's not a question of language, but logic. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

ZH, you are quite fond of citing WP:NCRIVER, which is guidance for the naming of articles, if I understand correctly. The issue here is how river names are expressed in English in the text of an article. You are one of many non-native speakers of English who prefer to make most of your contributions on the English Wikipedia. Whatever your reasons may be for this inclination, if your true goal is the betterment of the encyclopedia, you might consider accepting the guidance of native speakers here, rather than promoting a notion of English usage that is based on your personal view of what is linguistically logical. Eric ^talk 02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

ZH, I see you've reverted my reversions again. That's edit-warring which is not allowed. Please undo your changes or you could be risking a ban. Bermicourt (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

ZH, please remember this is a collaborative encyclopedia. The articles Bermicourt refers to all have awkward English style that has the look of translations out of the authors' mother tongue. Bermicourt is trying to help improve the encyclopedia, not promote a personal opinion of how river names should be expressed. Eric ^talk 12:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I've started a dispute resolution request here. 78.0.246.100 (talk) 05:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Pardon-me, but there is is also a rest of life outside of WP. I was away for a while. And your arguments are still the very same as before, no new arguments given, and especially no (new) references given supporting the claim at the very least. The violation of WP:VER and WP:OR still are applying. -- ZH8000 (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

And as I am just getting aware that the dispute resolution request has anyhow been rejected. So no need to interact by my side anyhow, reasonably. --

May 2018

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:07, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

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. TheVicarsCat (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello ZH8000. You should probably reply and agree to accept the verdict of the discussion. Otherwise you are risking a block. See also a thread on my talk page. Reverting after making a 3RR report yourself, and then avoiding the ensuing discussion, doesn't look good. EdJohnston (talk) 13:17, 30 May 2018 (UTC)