User talk:Helveticus96

Welcome!

Hello, Helveticus96, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{Help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Drm310 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Helveticus96. You have new messages at Drm310's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Drm310 (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Helveticus96

User:Helveticus96, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Helveticus96 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Helveticus96 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. The Banner talk 12:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

this is really absurd, we can bring every argument about usage of Czechia e.g articles from Ner York Times from 1925 clearly showing usage of Czechia and everything gets deleted but Yopie and Co. If it happens to you several times after spending long hours working on articles, I can understand user gets emotional. We have all documents on file, decrees of Ministery of Foreign affairs which clearly state Czechia should be used, but what can we do if it gets deleted at all occasions? Please check www.czechia-initiative.com, thank you! Helveticus96 (talk) 19:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You and Askave keep missing the point. You keep arguing about what should be, but the discussion is about what is. General English usage does not include "Czechia", therefor it is not used as the page title and is not generally used in article text. Until and unless general English usage changes, Czechia will not be used in Wikipedia articles. Basically, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic has no authority over the English language. --Khajidha (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is the statement "Czechia will not be used in Wikipedia articles". The fact is that Czechia is used by some sources and it should not therefore wrong to use it proportionately on Wikipedia. However, you will find that there is a small group of Czech article editors who do not accept that and expunge every occurrence. This is not an uncommon problem on Wikipedia where, regardless of the right answer, the decision goes in favour of the majority. And if one continues to oppose the majority, they often seek procedural ways to get one banned (see below?). This happened to a really conscientious editor who had made great contributions to Wikipedia but went against infobox guidelines and was pilloried. So take care not to break the rules, don't lose heart and, if you lose some arguments, that's the downside of an encyclopaedia run on democratic lines; it will default to a level of accuracy and truth commensurate with popular opinion. We just have to move on to other more fruitful work. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, Helveticus96, welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. Your editing pattern indicates that you may be using multiple accounts or coordinating editing with people outside Wikipedia. Our policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow this, and users who use multiple accounts may be blocked from editing. If you operate multiple accounts directly or with the help of another person, please remember to disclose these connections. Thank you. Yopie (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you as well, I am using my account from 2 different IP addresses, thats all, I can not imagine this is forbidden (Helveticus96 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Czechia

See Talk:Czech Republic. As you know, Wikipedia had decided to stick with Czech Republic, at least for now. Don't take it upon yourself to start changing CR to Czechia in random articles in spite of the Wikipedia community's decision. That is a waste of time, and kind of aggressive behaviour. Czechia's time will come if it enters into common usage. For now, you have to accept the consensus. If you don't, you're just being annoying. Ground Zero | t 14:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not threaten. Moreover, in something, what describes itself as "free encyclopedy". Czechia is an official geographic name of the country. The name is registered by UN. You should respect it. In all other cases you prefer geographic names of countries, thus, there is any reason to hide the name. Heptapolein (talk) 15:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether or not you are Helveticus. I have made no threat. I understand that you disagree with the Wikipedia consensus. The place to make your case to change the Wikipedia convention is at Talk:Czech Republic, not by making changes to individual articles. Replacing a valid link with a redirect is not a constructive contribution. Ground Zero | t 18:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am really curious, who and upon which criteria is deciding about "common usage". As the opposition from the administrators from Czechia is so fierce, because "they don't like it", I assume, Wikipedia will be the last resort of republican nonsense.Helveticus96 (talk) 08:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We look to the Wikipedia policy WP:COMMONNAME for guidance. It isn't an exact science. Here are some of the key points from that policy :

"Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources)...."
"Although official... names are often used for article titles, the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used."
"In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data...."
"Sometimes, the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, COMMONNAME still applies, but we give extra weight to sources written after the name change is announced. If the sources written after the change is announced routinely use the new name, Wikipedia should follow suit and change relevant titles to match. If, on the other hand, sources written after the name change is announced continue to use the established name, Wikipedia should continue to do so as well, per COMMONNAME."

If you make your argument at Talk:Czech Republic by referring to this policy, you will have a much better chance of convincing other editors and getting a consensus to move that article, which would be the basis for changing Wikipedia's usage of CR to Czechia. You should not base your argument on Czechia being the "official name" is that is not that significant in the policy. You also should not assume that other editors "just don't like the name". Their opposition does not seem to be based on COMMONNAME, not personal preference.

If you don't like the policy, you can propose to change it at Wikipedia talk:Article titles, but that will be a more difficult argument to win as that is a long-established policy. Ground Zero | t 13:13, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eswatini is not a common name in English and Wikipedia is using it, can someone explain this to me? Why are you fighting Czechia with the argument it's not a common name, and it's easily acceptable for Swaziland after a few months? Never heard anybody calling Swaziland Eswatini. Helveticus96 (talk) 09:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) News stories from around the world about Eswatini have switched to that usage, while the majority of usage of Czechia in the news originates only from Czech sources and 2) Eswatini is an English speaking country. Can YOU explain to me why you care what word another language uses for your country? I know I couldn't give two runny rat turds what the name for my country in Czech is, I would consider it none of my business and would think it exceptionally rude to try to control the speech of another language community.--Khajidha (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any data to support this statement? There 4,5 million hits at Google for Eswatini, 246 million for Swaziland. Swaziland is used much more than Eswatini and will be for some time. Can YOU explain to me your obsession with deleting Czechia all over the place? Czechia is the official short name used on the EU country list, so Wikipedia should respect this, but this update was constantly reverted on Wikipedia. So why are few administrators deleting even evident truth from Wikipedia?Helveticus96 (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Czechia" is so rarely used in English as to effectively not be English. As we are supposed to write this website in English, it is not appropriate for use here. As has been explained to you NUMEROUS times in the past, Wikipedia policy doesn't recognize any obligation to use official names. --Khajidha (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my question about Eswatini, this is your POV and not a fact.Helveticus96 (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you think Eswatini is not the common name for that country, request a move back to Swaziland. Whatever the name of that country, it is of no relevance to the name of any other country. Whether the Eswatini article is named correctly or not has no bearing on what the name of the Czech Republic article should be. --Khajidha (talk) 12:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...I have never seen so persistent and nonsensical effort to deny facts as Khajidha has shown by every his reaction to this issue. This is evident POV, which should be inspected. Including illegal and absolutely out of regulations canceled voting about using Czechia in Wikipedia. For some people is simply still the Earth flat until the time, when somebody more powerful says NO. It is obvious manipulation and abuse of power. What about to do something more beneficial for people, e.g. care for the mentally disabled - Khajida would solve two problems in one by it :-))))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.144.106.201 (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO Swaziland was renamed too soon but it had advantages. 1) more and better advocates 2) better cause (colonialism issues, shame :)) 3) country actively uses it 4) it is RENAMING, Czechia is just addition of a nickname. Khajidha acts like an wikiboss, his language does not help (rat turds), but overall Czechia on wikipedia is not yet winnable. Chrzwzcz (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Name of the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rugby (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop current editing patterns at Name of the Czech Republic.

I have metioned many different times not to use primary sources per WP:PRIMARY and WP:RS, yet you continue to do so and form a list-like section which goes against WP:WWIN. At the very least, this should be discussed on the talk page, at the most, this will be taken to one of the Administrator noticeboards. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 03:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please tell me what is "highly inaccurate" as you claim? All sources are correct and all references are correct as well. The article is called "Adoption of Czechia", so examples of usage should be documented there.Helveticus96 (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Name of the Czech Republic, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Android (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Name of the Czech Republic, it appears that you have added original 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 encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Please stop posting your own original research with primary sources. I've mentioned this many times before. Content such as "_____ uses Czechia" and a link to the page where it is used, is NOT sufficient for Wikipedia. It is not a reliable source as it is a primary source, and shows no context for the inclusion and amounts to OR on your behalf. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stop now.

This is your final warning to start using sources properly. I've already given you many resources to understand how sourcing works here. One last time, please see WP:SOURCES, WP:RS, WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. The source you included at Name of the Czech Republic gives no context as to the date of inclusion. You have done this multiple times now and I have messaged you or posted on the talk page each time saying how this is improper. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Helveticus96. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop.

In regards to what you left on my talk page, I have no idea what this has to do with me, I have mever made any edits to that article. But to answer you anyways, it's likely because English is one of the official languages of Swaziland/Eswatini and that there is no longform name that is commonplace, which is easy to understand.

In regards to Czechia, I'm tired of explaining why we don't use it here. Multiple people, including myself (even in posts above on this very page), have told you why and you seem to either not understand or want to ignore it. Stop messaging me about this on my talk page. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 02:19, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Draft:Vladimir Hirsch

Draft:Vladimir Hirsch, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Vladimir Hirsch and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Vladimir Hirsch during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 07:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing tons of sources and replacing them with a reddit link is unacceptable; stop posting original research; stop using primary sources.

Per title, per [this edit] Please read WP:SOURCES and WP:RELIABILITY . Social media links are not sources. Please also stop listifying Name of the Czech Republic and read WP:UNDUE. We're not making a list of every single person who uses the word. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by inserting unpublished information or your personal analysis into an article, as you did at Name of the Czech Republic. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:44, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly asked you and told you(over 5 times now) not to use WP:PRIMARY sources on Name of the Czech Republic, and yet you keep doing it, [again,] and [again.] It's WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH and it's not acceptable here. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 05:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Vladimir Hirsch concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Vladimir Hirsch, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:28, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Vladimir Hirsch

Hello, Helveticus96. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vladimir Hirsch".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Lapablo (talk) 12:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia 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 impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]