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

Well, the very same user does these rather arbitrary edits for quite a long time now. (S)he eventually started as the usersUser:Laibwart andUser: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, namelyCenturyLink, Tuscon, Arizona, USA (tcso.qwest.net). Latest edits are by IP 2600:8800:7C00:5AF:3D3B:EFC9:C819:531E .

So far I know edits by the following IPs (most recent first):67.1.13.52,67.1.131.50,67.1.110.141,67.1.105.141,67.1.210.62,67.1.148.69,71.33.64.121,67.1.105.169,67.1.14.209,67.1.226.117,67.1.133.169,67.1.113.85,67.1.194.190,67.1.112.110,67.1.134.48,65.129.203.221,67.1.248.80,65.129.129.192,67.1.220.157,65.129.157.166,67.1.129.0(!),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. seetalk 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 arenever 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 ofSwiss 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 replacesUK withEngland, orWales, orScotland and changes the flags accordingly. Butthis 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 oftenreported 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 theRail usage statistics by country page to make sure, however what i could find i english is the passenger traffic for 2013 it was1,059.5 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.

RgrdsRami75013 (talk)16:41, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 wordRiver (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 hearRhine orRhine River interchangeably, the former more in situations where the context is already established. You will also sometimes encounter names withRiver first, as inRiver Thames.Eric^talk19:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 whereRiver 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), "Lefleuve 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 theRiver Thames, theColorado River,Lake Tahoe, andLake Zurich, but I very much prefer to speak aboutthe Rhine, or if necessary at all,the river Charante, while always following the very same motivation: acknowledging theiroriginal meaning/usage. --ZH8000 (talk)20:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 wayhere. It's just common English language practice. --Bermicourt (talk)17:58, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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 articleChewa language. I have read the guidelines but cannot see anything relevant or which might justify deletion.Kanjuzi (talk)13:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted link to livelinga.com, a private company, had beenpromoted byUser talk:Rcb5 on many language articles as a US Foreign Institute service. The user has been "blockedindefinitely from editing foradvertising or self-promoting in violation of theconflict of interest andnotability guidelines". --ZH8000 (talk)16:19, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi.

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

The nameSwiss Federal Railways is the normally used English language name for the organisation, and whilst the individual language specific acronyms (SBB,CFF orFFS) may be more common in their respective linguistic regions, I don't think I've ever heard anybody call itSBB 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 respectivelyde:Schweizerische Bundesbahnen,fr:Chemins de fer fédéraux suisses andit: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)[reply]

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 themuch 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 THEofficial 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, Iof course donot 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 forumslike 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)[reply]

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. ThusZVV orZürcher Verkehrsverbund are fine, and I think both are much preferrable to usingZürich Transport Network. I've no problem with usingSBB 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 theZürich S-Bahn. Likewise obviously CFF or FFS in their respective linguistic contexts.

My problem is specifically withSBB 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 (likeSwiss Federal Railways) is much easier to think about or remember. Whilst I'd prefer a local name (I would never, for example, writeGerman Railways rather thanDeutsche 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 waySBB CFF FFS works in Switzerland quite well when you sayif I see the "SBB CFF FFS" written, I of course donot 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 replaceSwiss Federal Railways withSBB. Indeed I'd probably regard that as an improvement. --chris_j_wood (talk)11:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry forthis edit. I didn't mean to duplicate it (or edit war with you).Thanks for catching it. Kind regards --Marek.69^talk10:19, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

I expandedTemplate: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)[reply]

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 atWikipedia 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)[reply]

I'm a little uncomfortable about you adding a 'type=amateur site' to citations, as you have onRigi–Scheidegg railway andScheidegg (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 (theeingestellte-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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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, followWP: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) termOrt
• 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 aboutWP: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.gOberhasli 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)[reply]

Hi there, i was wondering why you undid ALL of the additions made by me in the articleAlpin 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 regardsMichaelPedro (talk)10:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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))[reply]

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

Hi. You added the following text to the infobox atZürich Hauptbahnhof:

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

and toZürich 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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 thehttps://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 theDisentis/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 tomap.geo.admin.ch and

1. select the area you prefer, then
2. copy-paste theshare 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. Nowchange topic toswisstopo

1. expandDigital maps hierarchy, then expandNational 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. expandPrinted maps hierarchy,

1. thenselect the accordingDivision national map xx Raster/Paper, e.g. "Division national map 25 Paper"
2. thenclick 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 theISBN number, e.g.:isbn=978-3-302-01190-5
2. set the edition parameter with theEdition year, e.g.:edition=2016
3. set the date parameter with theState of updates year, if available (otherwise leave it blank), e.g.:date=2013
4. set the map parameter the following way while using theNumber and theName:<Number> - <Name>, e.g.:map=1190 - Melchtal
5. Finally, click on theorder 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:^[1]

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

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

Hi, you have requested a move ofPilatus 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@Edhac-Edham: Your pictures of these pretendingly "official" documents totally lackany verificationWP: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)[reply]

@ZH8000: Sorry, but I cannot recognize, that online verification is required, I see different information inWP: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)[reply]

TheMetro 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 theIndependent were reporting a two train collision. This has obviously changed as full details became available. Note that theIndependent still has the old headline but has the locomotive runs into carriages story.Mjroots (talk)18:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi ZH, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, but please don't delete instances ofRiver 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)[reply]

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

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 asWP: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You are just expressing yourWP:POV. My edits are all comply withWP:NCRIVERandWP: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)[reply]

That is just yourWP:POV and when 2 editors disagree, they are supposed to discuss the issue and reach consensus. I am simply followingWP:BRD, unfortunately you are ignoring it. You also need to readWP: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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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^talk21:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 atWP:RM.Dicklyon (talk)06:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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 seeWP:C/E andWP:TC, and use a more appropriate tag.Miniapolis20:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Regarding your edit summaryhere, please don't confuseWP:MERGE withWP:HISTMERGE. The latter one is generally uncontroversial and, in fact, even required for copyright reasons. —capmo (talk)15:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 isWP:POV pushing and doesn't reflect the sources. 18:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Bermicourt (talk)

Ditto.Eric^talk21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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 toWP: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 eitherInn River, orRiver Inn, norInn river. "(river)" is just used as a disambiguation; otherwise the article would be called Inn River. But it isnot. I will follow further this policy. It's not a question of language, but logic. --ZH8000 (talk)20:30, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ZH, you are quite fond of citingWP:NCRIVER, which is guidance for thenaming 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^talk02:14, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

ZH, please remember this is a collaborative encyclopedia. The articlesBermicourt 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^talk12:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you an apology.

Following your block, a new account appeared,SW1998 which appeared to be a sock account created by yourself, and indeed self declared to be so. This account continued your edit waring at two articles (Crime in Switzerland andRomulus and Remus). However, NeilN determined that this account was not you but some other user who makes a habit of creating apparent sock accounts. He did a very good job of emulating you and was very convincing (other than the utter stupidity of it if it had been you).

The upshot is that I reverted the two article edits made (underWP:BMB), labelling them as made by a sock of yourself before the real position became known. Unfortunately I cannot change the edit summaries to replace your account with the real sock-master so these reversions will remain erroneously pointing to you. Again, I apologise for that.

It is perhaps chilling to bear in mind that had the truth not been discovered and the sock accepted as you (self declaration usually being accepted without further evidence), that you would have most likely been indefinitely blocked. Indefinite blocks are fine if they are deserved, but you haven't got there yet.TheVicarsCat (talk)13:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please note that the above apology wasstruck by TheVicarsCat and is no longer in effect. ZH8000, you may remove it entirely from your talk page, but to remove the strike tags while leaving the struck text in place distorts what the user said—and that is unacceptable on talk pages. —C.Fred (talk)18:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you have readHelp:Files before you make any more disruptive image-related edits. The name under which a file is added to an article should be the same name under which it has been uploaded to the server. Otherwise, the file name is invalid, and you are only adding a red link to the article. - Radiphus (talk)20:26, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. I totally did not realize that it is part of a file name, of course. --ZH8000 (talk)20:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For your work undoing edits made byvandals. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖00:47, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Porridge is not made with only oats it can be made with any grain. Why are you putting mistakes back into the article? You should check Google before taking back changes like this, especially if you are not leaving an explanation it is very rude.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNemo230 (talk •contribs)19:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to correct talk page. --ZH8000 (talk)18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZH8ooo, there is a message for you on the talk page of Lake Constance.TheCarlos1975 (talk)11:07, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I am posting this here rather than at every affected talk page, partly to avoid needless repetition and partly because it is mostly inconsequential anyway.

As far as English speakers are concerned, it really does not matter whether Zurich is spelt with or without the umlaut since the base letters are the same, though theWP:MOS does demand consistency throughout any article. Strictly speaking, according to policy, you should not change the established version without obtaining a consensus on the talk page first. However, as I said, this is inconsequential so it is unlikely that anyone will complain.

However, where the article title includes the umlaut, then then every occurrence throughout the article must do so as well (for that required consistency).

Having now posted here, I should observe that: I thought, at first that your redirection of airport names in German to the accompanying railway station might have been vandalism, but I see from your reasoning that you had a good motive for doing so, even if it was a bit misguided. Redirection pages in German (or any language) on the English Wikipedia are not intended to be syntactically correct translations of the redirect destination, but merely what an English user might type in when searching for a particular subject. In the case in point, if an English speaker was searching for "Zurich airport", he would type in "Zurich Flughafen" (English keyboards don't have umlauts) as a stab at the German translation (which most machine translators would give). Only if he was a fluent German speaker might he type "Flughafen Zurich", because "Airport Zurich" is not valid English. Of course, a syntactically correct redirect should exist as well.

In spite of that, keep up the good work on all things Swiss, and good luck.109.153.20.90 (talk)13:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dear IP, I see your point. But your thoughts are totally unrelated. Let me simply list all possibilities in order to make it obvious to you:

Zurich Airport and its "relatives"

Object referenced by	German	English	English Wikipedia current consensus
City of Zurich	Zürich	Zurich	Zürich
Canton of Zurich	Kanton Zürich	Canton of Zurich	Canton of Zürich
ZurichAirport It is also a brand!	Flughafen Zürich Defined by German grammatics	Zurich Airport Official wording by the airport itself![1]	Zurich Airport
Railway station serving the airport Thebuilding!	Bahnhof Zürich Flughafen	Zurich Airport railway station	Zürich Airport railway station
Railway stop name serving the airport Officially defined by Federal Law (SR/RS 510.62)!	ZürichFlughafen	Zürich Flughafen There is no official translation, since it is a proper name!	Zürich Flughafen as redirect toZürich Airport railway station
Tram and bus stop name serving the airport Officially defined by Federal Law (SR/RS 510.62)!	Zürich Flughafen, Bahnhof	Zürich Flughafen, Bahnhof There is no official translation, since it is a proper name!	n/a

You can easily understand now that 'Flughafen Zürich', the airport, and 'Zürich Flughafen', the railway stop, aretwo totally different things, and therefore two different terms, though – geographically – related! In German it is simply not the same!! My changes do nothing else than make this dinguition obvious!

And, if you still think you are mislead by google – probably you are – then you can easily add a hat note to the respective article(s), though not necessary IMO, but please apply this undisbutable logic. Thanks. --ZH8000 (talk)19:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about this being an undisbutable fact, but I do know that as someone who is not intimately familiar with Swiss law or Zurich Airport that Zurich Flughafen is much, much, much less clear than Zurich Airport railway station. If I search for Zurich Airport, I want to find out about the airport. If I remember my German and search for Zurich Flughafen (since my keyboard doesn't have umlauts) then, I'm looking for an airport. If I want to know about the railway station, I search for Zurich airport railway station. Since we strive to write for a non-specialist, English speaking population and since we use English common names for non-English places as much as possible and since we aren't that concerned with following local law for names when there's a more common English name, it makes no sense to insist thatFlughafen Zürich andZürich Flughafen are obviously different and that usingZürich Flughafen is somehow clearer thanZürich Airport railway station.Tobyc75 (talk)12:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear from your postings that you are not an English speaker.This is the English WikipediaNOT the German or the Swiss Wikipedia. English readers don't care what the German is or what the sequence of wording is. The English Wikipedia is written in English. Redirects are to facilitate searches by English users.

Please show where your 'current consensus' is because it ain't on Wikipedia as required. And I see that I have support so there is a certain amount of consensus against you. I don't give a toss about your 'official wording' or what is 'defined in Federal Law' or what has 'no official translation' or what is claimed by Zurich airport, because Swiss officialdom does not apply to England or the English Wikipedia. Continually trying to apply it is at best, disruptive or at worst, vandalism. English as it is spoken and used by the English -does apply throughout the English Wikipedia.109.153.20.90 (talk)16:09, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that this discussion is about edits on several pages. Let me just comment on the naming dispute for the airport tram station inTrams in Zürich: I can agree with ZH8000 that the proper name as written on the station sign should be given. That's how it's done for all the other stations. It says Universitätsspital while linking to theUniversity Hospital of Zürich, for example. That is why it should say Zürich Flughafen, Bahnhof. But it should link to eitherZürich Airport orZürich Airport railway station (like this:Zürich Flughafen, Bahnhof, NOT like this:Zürich Flughafen, Bahnhof). --Gbuvn (talk)18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: There is one more thing that actually complicates the situation: Tram lines 10 and 12 actually end atZürich Flughafen, Fracht rather thanZürich Flughafen, Bahnhof. The latter is the second to last station of those two tram lines and the station at the airport entrance, making it notable as well. --Gbuvn (talk)18:21, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support Gbuvn's statements. Thanks. --ZH8000 (talk)14:01, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently editedLongest train services, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation pageDB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links areusually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles.(Read theFAQ • Join us at theDPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow theseopt-out instructions. Thanks,DPL bot (talk)14:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@ZH8000:, what is the exact article where to add the following contribution?"In a statement of the Swiss government concerning the future of the Gottardo Railway, published in October 2014, it is affirmed that, after the opening of the Gottardo Base Tunnel in 2016, the mountain railway line would be maintained as a "service line for the region and as a tourist link". The report also excluded in the middle term any chance for the line and the surrounding region to become the 13rdWorld Heritage site in Switzerland."

swissinfo.ch mentions the old Gotthard Railway line and in particular the Albula and Bernina lines, "located in the mountainous eastern canton of Graubünden", as the Rhaetian Railway seems to be.

I apoligize for some geographical inaccuracies, but the news is not well contextualized, at least for a foreign reader. I am Italian and not an expert of Switzerland. So I think you may properly address this mine question, and possibly of other users.Hope your help.Micheledisaveriosp (talk)20:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@Micheledisaveriosp: I removed your contribution fom theRhB article, since you did not write anything about RhB. However, I would put your words about the Gotthard railway line intoGotthard railway line (sic!), and also intoGotthard Base Tunnel, and perhaps also in theNRLA,Gotthard Tunnel, andSaint-Gotthard Massif articles. Please use this ref:<ref>{{cite news |author=Isobel Leybold-Johnson |url=https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/unesco-status_what-next-for-the-gotthard-s-historic-railway-/41108598 |title=What next for the Gotthard’s historic railway? |newspaper=SWI swissinfo.ch |publisher=SRG SSR Swiss Broadcasting Corporation |location=Berne, Switzerland |date=23 November 2014 |access-date=2019-07-09}}</ref>. --ZH8000 (talk)12:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi@ZH8000:, this seems to be a good ref, given that it quotesthis statement of the Swiss public authority and then summerizes into English. I didn't found anything else of more recent about the future of the railway line. If we have a moreWP:reliable source for the article, we can use it. Otherwise, I think we can use theswissinfo.ch information channel. In what article? I am not Swiss, so you can choose what kind of tunnel or railway line is more appropriated for this type of content.Micheledisaveriosp (talk)17:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, all the above mentioned articles with the given precedence, but definitely inGotthard railway line andGotthard Base Tunnel. – I just improved the format of the reference you used. --ZH8000 (talk)19:47, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, we are the archivists atLombard Odier in Geneva and wanted to improve the article relating to the bank, which is quite sub-par. We proposed a new versionon the talk page, and the editor who replied to us kindly suggested we see with people from the Wikiproject Switzerland, where your user name is listed (we since also made a first round of improvements and fixed some formatting issues): here is thenew draft.

Unfortunately, the project's talk page has seen little activity over the past few weeks (someone has made minor edits and confirmed it was fine on her end), and I'd like to come back to the editor with a strong consensus on the Project Switzerland side.

To be clear, the very same text has been posted in other languages (French, Spanish, German, and Italian), with editors there helpfully pitching in/editing afterwards[3][4] (German also implementsgesichtete Versionen, so this texthad to be reviewed by someone before appearing publicly). We're entirely fine with the article living its own life and being edited by anyone, we understand it and actually like the idea that people can research and improve content (we are big readers too!).

So if you have time, would you mindhaving a look and telling me if you see anyhing of concern, changes to be done, or if you think the new text is ready to go live here as well?

Thanks and regards,Hello at LO (talk)06:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hello at LO: I am no expert, nor interested in banking. I am sorry, I cannot fulfill your request. --ZH8000 (talk)17:12, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IthinkZug Stadtbahn reflects reality now, though I find the Lucerne S-Bahn S1/Zug Stadtbahn S1 situation confusing. Best,Mackensen(talk)19:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: The confusion probably originate in the fact that in Switzerland, a. Railway Lines (in the sense of a physical track) can be operated by several operators, of course, and traverse several fare networks, b. a Network Line (in the sense of a numbreded/named connection) can be part of several fare networks, such asZuger Verkehrsverbund (canton of Zug) andpassepartout (canton of Lucerne, Nid- and Obwald), butusually are operated by one operator, c. fare networks compromise several/any forms of public transport means. Lucerne S-Bahn andZuger Stadtbahn are just the S-Bahn-style commuter rail network around the respective agglomeration. Therefore S-Bahn S1 of the Lucerne S-Bahn and S-Bahn S1 Zuger Stadtbahn is the same in this case, but could be operated by several operators, and do travel in both fare networks,Zuger Verkehrsverbund andpassepartout,but have different colors according the fare network. And fare networks are usually exclusive (and under auspieces of one or several cantons), except for theZ-Pass fare network which compromises the wholeZVV fare network, but only parts of its surounding fare networks, such as theZuger Verkehrsverbund or theostwind fare networks. ;-))

The entire public transport network in Switzerland is almost fully comprehensively integrated, especially timetable- and fare-wise (price and validity!), including any forms of public transport means!!

In other words, your underlying object model of your implementation does not (fully) comply with the Swiss reality. A most flexible OO-object model would have been very handy and the most effective way to specify and implement it. --ZH8000 (talk)18:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As another fast thought, in order to comply with Swiss realities, "rcb" (or better: "ptcb" for public transport) should not differentiate first of all according the name of the commuter railway, but at least accordingfare network,transport means,line No./name,operator. At least these four aspects define the color and shape of a rcb/ptcb! ;-)) Besides,Zentralbahn (c.f.Module:Adjacent_stations/Zentralbahn) is "just" an operator and not only a S-Bahn! --ZH8000 (talk)18:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And in the danger to repeat myself: thesystem should be a fare network, and not a commuter railway name! --ZH8000 (talk)19:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have to consider the most reasonable way to present this information to people unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Swiss transportation system (note: I've traveled in Switzerland and I'm familiar with the tariff networks). At some level, this involves eliding some distinctions, in the navigation templates at any rate.Mackensen(talk)19:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, to answer your other questions:{{Rail color box}} displays text slightly larger than{{Bahnlinie}} and related templates. I don't see that as a major issue and find the former a little more readable. And, it's not possible (now, anyway) to set a default value for inline. I used croute since it approximated the rounded appearance.Mackensen(talk)02:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mackensen: Thanks for your answer. It probably changed from round to squares boxes in the meantime. It's a pitty I cannot define the default values for lines (or of any object in fact .. OOP ;-) and its default appearances, inluding the box shape. I was thinking to implement the same general pattern with as little redundancy as possible, but it was too much work for me ;-). But for the moment, it is ok. Cheers. --ZH8000 (talk)02:51, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I do not really understand why you removed the default values for Basel S-Bahn (Module:Adjacent stations/Basel S-Bahn). I had the impression that it was working execellently. ?!? --ZH8000 (talk)18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, the termini no longer displayed. I had tried such an implementation in the past and it didn't work.Mackensen(talk)19:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,I know you don't like any info about drug use on CH's main article but at least we should have this stat (see my last edit) which is evidently important and link to main health article for the rest (which I did not revert so far). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Cheers!Swiss romulus (talk)05:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZH8000Re. your recent initiation of a Sock Puppet investigation: I assure you that I am not a Sock Puppet. There seems to be a problem with my IPad and mobile phone, both of which I use to edit Wikipedia, which I have noticed before in other contexts. Also, my user page was recently deleted, for reasons I don't really understand, by User HickoryOughtShirt?4. I am in the process of trying to recreate my talk page, but my IT skills are not good, although I have made valuable contributions to Wikipedia over the last 6 or so years. I assure you that I am not trying to create multiple identities: I am a single bona fide human with an abiding passion and love for Wikipedia.Flobbadob (talk)18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)Flobbadob[reply]

@Flobbadob: I am sorry, but I was not the initiator, you must be mistaken. --ZH8000 (talk)13:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ZH8000. Do you know if the card game ofBinokel (aka Binocle) is still played in Switzerland? I'm trying to research it's history and current distribution in Switzerland and also to see if it was the ancestor of AmericanPinochle and if it came from FrenchBezique. Cheers.Bermicourt (talk)08:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bermicourt:, I have not the slightest idea what it is/was. I only know its original meaning! --ZH8000 (talk)16:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I'm pretty sure it's an old Swiss game, but online Swiss sources about it are hard to come by so I only have a few references. I suspect it's recorded in regional journals and is probably still played locally.Bermicourt (talk)17:39, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you were involved in previous naming discussions, would you like to participate in the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers#Article titles for rivers in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus?Markussep^Talk08:05, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Markusep, I indeed do. Thanks for the hint! --ZH8000 (talk)16:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you'd drop me a note before going around reverting my edits. I had reasons for the changes I made. Let's takeLausanne as an example:

• there's no reason to designate the native name language when the station name is the same in both languages. Adding "fr" literally does nothing.
• changing the owner fromSwiss Federal Railways toSBB CFF FFS (Swiss Federal Railways) is unnecessary. Swiss Federal Railways is what it's called in English, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. It's just doubling the text for no reason. Removing Swiss Federal Railways in favor ofSBB CFF FFS, which you did for the train operator, forces the reader through an unnecessary redirect and makes no sense.
• adding at-grade for the structure is unnecessary; it's reasonable to assume that's the default state of affairs. An underground station is a different matter. In any event, I didn't remove it, but you've now added it a second time.
• why are you adding the translation of tracks to the infobox? This is the English-language Wikipedia. Whether a track is called Voie in French or Gleis in German is irrelevant.
• you'd adding RER Vaud (with a broken link) as a connection when it's a mainline service listed with the other services. It's duplicative and misleading to do so. Same with the Metro.
• there's long-standing consensus that listing service levels (such as trains per hour) is fine, but giving actual timetable times is too much detail. The text of the article indicates service levels to the Geneva Airport; giving the travel times from Lausanne probably goes too far in the other direction. Furthermore, why are you labeling the article with its French name, when the article is at the English-language title?
• given that individual bus routes are not in general notable, and that we have no pages about them, I think it's enough to link the transport operator, ideally with an external reference that gives more information about services.
• I'm not sure what it buys us to have "no parking" and commentary about biking listed, without a reference, though it does lengthen the infobox. That information can be gained from the linked SBB website at the bottom of the page.
• I've included a formatted link to the SBB station page at the bottom of the article. I don't think it's necessary to also included it in the infobox, and I don't understand giving a French title to the link when the title of the SBB page itself is in English.

Best,Mackensen(talk)15:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are no "Autostraßen" in Germany; they are called "Kraftfahrstraßen". These and other kinds of roads similar to motorways are colloquially referred to as "yellow motorways" ("Gelbe Autobahnen") for a reason. Because their signs are YELLOW !!! If you don't believe me:https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn%C3%A4hnliche_Stra%C3%9Fe#DeutschlandFurthermore, your remark that "Bundesstraßen" are not "Autostrassen" is totally meaningless: "Bundesstraße" is a term that denotes that the road is federally owned, but says absolutely nothing about its profile. A "Bundesstraße" can be anything from a relatively unimportant country road up to and including (almost) all motorways."Kraftfahrstraße" on the other hand denotes a certain road classification / profile and has nothing whatsoever to do with ownership of the street (they can be "Bundesstraßen", "Landesstraßen" or even "Gemeindestraßen").Please indeed be more careful with your reverts. Thank you !--Juvand (talk)17:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: In Austria (where the terms "Schnellstraßen" – in road administration law – and "Autostraßen" – in road traffic law – are used) and Switzerland, the colours of directional signs on motorways ("Autobahnen") and "Schnellstraßen"/"Autostraßen" are indeed identical (white on blue in Austria, white on green in Switzerland).

But this is NOT true for Germany, where ONLY motorways have white on blue signs while other roads (except for local roads, of course) have black on yellow signs.Juvand (talk)18:17, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. After worrying about categories for Albert Einstein (removing two for the ETH),RandomCanadian decided to clean up categories on JSB. I objected to that, but preferred to express that as a "null edit" with a summary similar to what you've written. Thanks for restoring those long-standing categories, which I assume will continue to be supported by consensus. I would also support the ETH categories being added back to the article on Einstein.Mathsci (talk)14:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious to find the links to the Berner Oberland on this talk page. UsingGimmelwald as a base, I made trips round there fairly often. I first went there in the 1970s when it was a Youth Hostel. It didn't change much when it became a Mountain Hostel: it was an experience going back fromStechelberg at night in the cable car with locals carrying their giant cowbells. Nice to see the Commons images.Mathsci (talk)14:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathsci: Thanks for your comments and support. I haven't been in this part of the Berner Oberland for many years. Indeed, it is very beautiful and spectacular, but for my taste much too crowded. Before Covid more than a million people got to the Jungfraujoch every year. Hardly enjoyable. There are many countless great spots in the (Swiss) Alps to visit and to hike and as easily accessible by public transport as the overrun Jungfrau region. And it will definitely look quite different compared to the 70ies because of the many new buildings and new lifts. Glad you were there those days! It is of a different taste after 50 years. But that is true for the whole country or even Europe as well. E.g. Switzerland grew from 6 to 8.5 million inhabitants, this is almost 50%! Well, change is the normal thing on this world, isn't it?! Cheers. --ZH8000 (talk)17:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For detecting the mass vandalism on numerous road sign related articles.Ad Orientem (talk)19:05, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping to update the article on Swiss Federal Railways. I wonder if you noticed my note at[5] when I corrected a previous edit of yours.

In[6], you inserted "for brand protecting purposes only", can you provide a reference for this? Please keep in mind that all additions in Wikipedia should be referenced. If you currently have no reference available, please delete this.

Also, in the same edit you deleted 1 of the referenced 5! official language names of the company. Please restore this or provide a references for your edit. Otherwise, it's preferable to open a discussion instead of removing it.Enhancing999 (talk)15:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A big mea culpa about my mistranslating "Geschichte" on Albert's leaving certificate as "creative writing". I think that that may just be the most embarrassing mistake that I've ever made on Wikipedia! My German was always pitiful, but do you think that it means "history"?Niggle1892 (talk)17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon for late response: Yes, correct, of course. – There is always someone who knows better and can (and hopefully will) correct, so no issue at all. --ZH8000 (talk)13:37, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear ZH, Wikipedia being the ferociously argumentative place that it sometimes is, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate your kind response to my tinkering with the biography of Professor Einstein. What you and the other principal authors of that article have achieved with it is astonishing, and it's extremely generous of you to be so gracious to a latecomer attempting a few tiny tweaks to it. Best wishes!Niggle1892 (talk)17:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Whether late, new, or long-term contributor, it does not matter, qualitative high-valued contributions are always welcome and should be thanked for more often than we actually do. --ZH8000 (talk)13:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the talk page of the article, where it belongs. --ZH8000 (talk)18:53, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your restoration of the unsourced material I removed. You may be right, the materialmight be true. But your assertion that the burden is upon others to prove itwrong is backwards. Some editor challenged the material more than a year ago. In that time, no editor(s) put in the effort to verify the material. Unverified material isrequired to be removed if it has been challenged. This is a fundamental wikipedia policy. I understand your position, but unsourced, and more importantlychallenged unsourced material cannot just stay in the encyclopedia, because it is unencyclopedic. You are welcome to put in the effort to verify the material and enter the necessary sources. But please only restore material for which you are providing sources. cheers.anastrophe,an editor he is.17:35, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does sources mean? Do you doubt the existence of direct democracy in Ancient Greece, Ancient Rome and Russia (Novgorod Republic, Pskov Republic)? These are well-known historical facts, about which a lot is written on Wikipedia. Or are you embarrassed that the traditions of democracy in Russia are more ancient than in the US and Western Europe?185.58.219.9 (talk)17:03, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciateyour contributions, but in one of your recent edits toDonner Lake, it appears that you have addedoriginal research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompassescombining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite areliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at thetutorial on citing sources. Thank you.Erp (talk)00:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for using the welcome template given you've been around awhile. However your reversion of my reversion of your initial edit saying that Donner is German for thunder still did not add a reference must less a reference linking the German word for thunder to the name for the lake. I also note that family name etymologies give conflicting etymologies such as descended from Donner (thunder god) or nickname given to a noisy person or angry person (and that is just sticking to the German versions of the name). I also note that nowhere in this article does it say that the Donners were German. In fact even theDonner Party article doesn't mention it. Instead it states that George Donner, the patriarch of the family, was born in North Carolina; nothing mentions German origins (given the names it is likely but likely isn't the same as verifiable). Geni.com which is quite unreliable also has the family name in earlier generations being Danner and Downer (and the family came over sometime before 1727).Erp (talk)20:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw your ping at AIV so I took a look through the history. It looks like one person making a nuisance of themselves rather than a spambot or anything more nefarious. I have, however, blocked 223.255.228.0/24 (which includes all the recent problem IPs) for a week. Hope that helps.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?18:38, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks anyhow! --ZH8000 (talk)18:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a follow-up question for you, because one of the cantons appears to use an electoral system that's uncommon. For theExecutive Council of Basel-Stadt, it appears that the 7-member body is elected all at once, though the president is elected separately. It also appears to be done in two rounds if necessary. My question concerns the most recent election. It appears thatBeat Jans - now on the federal council - was elected in the first round as a regular member along with three other members, but then also ran in the second round to be the president of the council and won. My brain is probably broken, but does that mean one fewer member is to be elected in the second round of the council election if one of the elected member wins the presidency?Criticalthinker (talk)07:07, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should give better change notes than "more than speed" or "no witchcraft involved".Obviously you believe that somehow Gen X notation is better described as "Mode". But do you actually have any argument for that? What else is Gen 1,2,3,4 other than the reflection of a speed grade like thing? So far there is an exact mapping Gen 1= 5 Gbit/s per wire pair, Gen 2 = 10 Gbit/s per wire pair. At the very least provide a good argument for why "Mode" is a better description and "Speed" is wrong. And the Type-C spec also rates the Gen 1-4 globally. Even if they have different meanings within USB3 vs USB4.RayWiki519 (talk)04:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. Alleligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please reviewthe candidates and submit your choices on thevoting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add{{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ZH8000,First of all, thank you for your contributions and for trying to improve the article onDaniele Ganser. I appreciate your willingness to discuss how best to represent Ganser’s credentials. I’m writing here because I believe there is a misunderstanding about whether we should label Ganser as a “historian” in the article. I want to understand your point of view more thoroughly and see if we and other editors (for exampleLute88) can arrive at a consensus based on Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines on the talk page of the article. If you agree, I'll begin the discussion there.

1. No Current Consensus to Add “Historian”You will have noticed that multiple editors have reverted the addition of “historian” to Ganser’s description. Under Wikipedia policy (see WP:CONSENSUS), once there is ongoing disagreement, editors should discuss on the talk page until a consensus is formed. Since there have been multiple reverts already, the default position is to refrain from re-adding the disputed label until the discussion concludes. This prevents edit-warring and is in line with WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss).

2. Sources Calling Him a “Historiker” vs. Formal Recognition

Yes, there are mainstream German-language sources that refer to Ganser as “Historiker,” such as headlines calling him an “umstrittener Historiker.”"Controversial Historian" While such sources might demonstrate how media outlets or journalists describe him in German, , merely being described as a “historian” in media headlines does not necessarily establish him as one in the academic sense.For instance, the Swiss career portal www.berufsberatung.ch defines a historian (Historiker/-in) as someone who conducts systematic research, publishes academic work, and teaches or works at a recognized level within the field of historical studies. While Ganser may hold a Ph.D. in history or related fields, we also need evidence of ongoing scholarly research in history, publication in peer-reviewed academic journals, or recognized professional academic roles typically associated with historians.

3. Significance of Recent Peer-Reviewed WorkWikipedia’s guidelines on verifiability (WP:V) and reliable sources (WP:RS) emphasize that facts about a living person (see also WP:BLP) must be supported by reputable evidence. If Ganser’s most recent books have been reviewed by only 1-2 peer-reviewed publications—and those reviews are overwhelmingly dismissive with one stating he falls short of even popular sciencestandards—it calls into question whether his current publications are regarded in the mainstream historical academic community as historical research, or even popular history. That gap in peer-reviewed historical research suggests we should approach labeling him as a historian with caution, in line withWP:DUE: we need to reflect the weight of the best available sources.

4. Avoiding Undue Emphasis and Maintaining NeutralityBecause Daniele Ganser has garnered attention for promoting various controversial or conspiracy-related claims, it is essential to maintain a neutral point of view (WP:NPOV) and avoid elevating disputed self-identifications or media labels without broad scholarly consensus. When multiple independent reliable sources primarily describe him as a conspiracy theorist or note that his recent work is not taken seriously in academic history circles, labeling him as a historian may be undue. This also ties intoWP:FRINGE considerations when discussing fringe viewpoints or persons associated with them.

5. Ensuring Accurate Representation of CredentialsIt is not incorrect to say Ganser has a background in history or holds certain academic qualifications. However, “historian” in a biographical Wikipedia article typically implies active, recognized, and ongoing participation in the historical field as an academic or professional. We must be careful not to conflate one’s formal educational background with whether they are currently recognized as a historian. Wikipedia’sWP:BLP policy requires accuracy, neutrality, and verifiability, especially when dealing with living persons.

6. Summary and Next StepsRespect the existing consensus: Since there is currently no consensus to label him a historian, perWP:CONSENSUS and repeated reverts, we should not add it to the article without clear, strong, and academically recognized sources.Strengthen the sourcing: If you have robust, peer-reviewed academic sources or statements from recognized historical bodies that confirm Ganser is actively practicing scholarship as a professional historian, or even a review in a reputable journal acknowledging he uses the historical method at all, please bring them forward. Labels from media headlines might not be sufficient.Remain neutral: We should accurately reflect his credentials (e.g., mention his Ph.D. or past roles) while also recognizing the current state of academic and mainstream coverage, which appears to question or severely downplay his status as a historian.Continue discussion: If you disagree, let’s keep the conversation going on this talk page. Maybe we can find a middle ground in phrasing (e.g., clarifying he has a Ph.D. in history, but that his work is not widely recognized in mainstream academia as “historical scholarship”).

I hope this helps clarify why multiple editors are hesitant to label Ganser a “historian” in the lead. Please let me know if you have further sources or reasons to support a different viewpoint. I genuinely want to understand where you are coming from and to make sure the article is both fair and verifiable according to Wikipedia standards.

Thank you again for discussing this. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

Best regards,Wickster12345 (talk)07:01, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to talk page ofDanube. --ZH8000 (talk)14:05, 25 April 2025 (UTC)</small[reply]