User talk:ZH8000

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

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

Hi, you seem to be mass-reverting the contributions by IP, 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 ( Latest edits are by IP
So far I know edits by the following IPs (most recent first):,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, (e.g. see talk page!),,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
(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.
  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)


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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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[edit]

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, 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[edit]

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". (talk) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Pardon-me, I mismatched you with, 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)

Zürich Town Hall[edit]

Please see Talk:Zürich Town Hall#Requested move 13 January 2016, where I have started a move discussion. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Changing Swiss Federal Railways to SBB CFF FFS[edit]


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!!
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)

In these scenarios I usually prefer to use whatever official English name the organization has chosen. Many Swiss government agencies have done so. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


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)

La Tzoumaz[edit]

Please tell me about wrong information in the La Tzoumaz article. I fixed (with later help) the Infobox, and I can see more WikiLinks are needed. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Lauterbrunnen Wall[edit]

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?[edit]

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)

German Empire/Weimar Republic/Nazi Germany infoboxes[edit]

Hi. In regards to your edits to the infoboxes for German Empire, Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, please allow me to explain the policy in place concerning such infobox usage.

The infobox parameter that you have persisted in changing, "conventional long name", is there in each infobox for the "full name in English" and as such, the official name of the state is placed in this parameter as can be seen in all infoboxes for current countries such as Germany → Federal Republic of Germany; South Africa → Republic of South Africa, China → People's Republic of China; etc. For the infoboxes of former countries, this usage is also in place (e.g. Second Polish Republic → Republic of Poland; Third Czechoslovak Republic → Czechoslovak Republic; etc.). Note that on some usages, differences between the WP:COMMONNAME of the country and the official state name are allowed to occur (e.g. Taiwan → Republic of China; East Timor → Republic of Timor-Leste; etc.). All of this permits, if not favours the usage of the official state name ("German Reich" throughout all three German periods) to be used as opposed to the contemporary names used for clarification as to which period is being discussed.

Additionally, this format was long-standing on all three Wikipedia articles before it was changed to its current format. In my attempt to revert this change, you told me that "if you like to challenge it go to the talk page", however, the original change that disregarded the original format did not seek consensus. I have once again reverted the infoboxes to their former states to keep to established consensus. If you would like to challenge the established format, you may go to the talk page and seek consensus for the change.

If you have any more questions, please ask. Regards. – Nick Mitchell 98 talk 01:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Rome/Paris Sister Cities[edit]

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[edit]

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 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[edit]

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[edit]

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))

Clarification request on cycle parking info added for Zürich stations[edit]

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)

Claudio Castagnoli[edit]


Well, I could make a lot of (useless) words. But let's make it brief and short: Firstly, this article is about the town of Lucerne, nothing else. And especially not about another town or village. Secondly, Claudio Castagnoli is not from Lucerne at all, though falsly used as his home town that way probably by himself in public (but still wrong), probably – I am obviously speculating – since Lucerne is many times more prominent than his real home town and many times better useable for his own promotion worldwide, and probably quite important money-wise, namely: the village of Weggis. It is true that Weggis is part of the canton of Lucerne, but clearly on the other side of the lake and definitely not part of Lucerne. I would propose to list him there. – And finally, I have still the impression that WP should be an encyclopedia. That primarily means providing facts, not fake-news. Well, this is possibly the wrong era we live in to ask for precisement, correctness, honesty, and seriosity. We will see. - ZH8000 (talk) 19:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I will fix this myself. SilkTork ✔Tea time 21:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

:Could you use the correct place for the discussion: Talk:Lucerne#Claudio Castagnoli. Thx. -- ZH8000 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I am now dealing with the article, so no worries. It is up to you what you do with your talkpage, but I generally expect a discussion I am taking part in to remain in one place, and the community prefers editors to archive discussions, particularly those which raise concerns about a user's editing and temperament, rather than delete them or move them elsewhere. It's all about keeping appropriate records, and being open and honest. I don't think you're a bad person, and there are times when all of us handle things poorly, and say things we shouldn't - that's the nature of Wikipedia. The point is to learn from it and move on, rather than attempt to conceal it, or deny it. I'm not expecting anything of you right now. If you don't wish to apologise to the IP editor, that's your affair. As far as I'm concerned the matter is closed, and I'm unwatching this talkpage and moving on. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

Information icon Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of people from Lucerne. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Please move on, your involvement in this is not helpful, and this matter could escalate. I understand that you do not wish to have Claudio Castagnoli (Cesaro) mentioned as being associated with Lucerne, but that's what the sources say. If you disagree, set up a discussion first, do not revert. People will listen to you if you present your case rationally, but edit warring is not going to help you. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)