User talk:Heptapolein

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Heptapolein, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Karst (talk) 07:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aghiatrias[edit]

Hello. The reason that was redirected the last time was because there were insufficient sources to indicate notability. Considering they have reformed there must be a number of new sources now. Please add them because currently the page does not demonstrate how the act is notable under the criteria of WP:NMUSIC. Karst (talk) 07:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

July 2017[edit]

Hello, I'm Jd02022092. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Czech Republic have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Narodil se Kristus pán, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Czech (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) 12:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Narodil se Kristus pán for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Narodil se Kristus pán is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narodil se Kristus pán until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 23:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reversions to Name of the Czech Republic[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. -- Gokunks (Speak to me) 01:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please adhere to WP:COMMONNAME.[edit]

In your recent edits you have changed Czech Republic to Czechia on numerous articles. Shellwood (talk · contribs) reverted one edit and explicitly told you that this is due to WP:COMMONNAME.(as stated here)

You seem to have ignored him and made two futher edits (here, and here).

We have had many RfC's (including one yesterday) at Talk:Czech Republic which determined that currently the sourcing and usage only supports Czech Republic as it's WP:COMMONNAME. Please stop changing all instances of this. R9tgokunks ⯃ 05:58, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

.....Voting about it was already done with the result: "do not delete Czechia", but you already deleted it, because it does not suit your personal needs and continue in your malicious activity. You obviously make your own rules according to your subjective opinions, stances and intentions. It is a long-term manipulation of the content and will be published again in media. To call everything "disruptive" and "vandalism" without discussion is not only cheap, stupid and disproportionate, but extremely arrogant, testifying to really disrruptive and vandal approach of yourselves, speaking about real intentions of persons, probably serving to some unfair intent. Deep contempt, Pharisees.....Heptapolein (talk) 09:29, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 30[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mikuláš Medek, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Abstract and Czech (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem on Mikuláš Medek[edit]

Content you added to the above article appears to have been copied from http://vladimirhirsch.com/e_scripts.html. Copying text directly from a source is a copyright violation. Unfortunately, for copyright reasons, the content had to be removed. All content you add to Wikipedia must be written in your own words. Please leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diannaa (talk · contribs), now that it has been confirmed that Heptapolein is in fact a sock of USer:Jan Blanicky, it's now obvious they are the same person, and J Blanicky has in fact been accused of being a paid contributor before in the deletion of Martina Sanollová. J Blanicky has, in fact, worked directly on the website mentioned, thus why a copyright issue was so easy for him to commit. He was essentially bringing his content from that site to Wikipedia. I'm concerned that all related articles should not be on the site due to Blanicky and his constant maintaining of them through socks. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 21:54, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

September 2018[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Name of the Czech Republic. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. DMacks (talk) 17:08, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They should stop to attack people. stop threatening This is all you are able to do, no discussion - cheap solution: to block people with another opinionHeptapolein (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heptapolein, your problem is that you keep talking about what usage "should be". But Wikipedia is written in English as it actually is. For whatever reason, the word Czechia is rare almost to the point of nonexistence in actual English texts. By "actual English texts" I mean materials written by native speakers thst use the name not just define, explain, or advocate for the name. Unless and until that changes, the usage of Czechia in running text makes no sense. -'Khajidha (talk) 17:51, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) the statement is false (nonexistence)

2) if the bureaucratic rule is over the meaning of the thing, then the discussion is worthless

3) how do you want to translate all original Czech expression, using the geographic name? By "Czech Republic"? It is simply wrong, nothing more. No wonder, there are a lot of absurd nonsenses, coming originally from Wikipedia, and transported thoughtlessly into another media, e.g."the king Charles IV was born in the Czech Republic", etc., etc. They are a lot of similar cases across internet. Heptapolein (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Heptapolein that the English treatment of the Czech state is very confusing. However, Khajidha is right that one of the basic principles of Wikipedia is that we don't get to change the usage, even if the change makes it better.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) Heptapolein, you are arguing that this change should happen or needs to be made, that is exactly what I said. 2) The bureaucratic rule is to use terms that are meaningful in English, in English usage "Czechia" is so little used as to have no meaning 3) I'll need an example of an exact case here. But "original Czech expression" does not mean that Czech contributors to Wikipedia get to use Czechia whenever they want. A Czech contributor should use (and link to) the name of the polity that existed during the period they are writing about (whether that is Bohemia, the Czech Republic or something else). Obviously an expression like "King of the Czech Republic" is nonsense, but "King of Czechia" is ALSO nonsense in English. The correct phrase is "King of Bohemia". --Khajidha (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Khajidha You claim "The correct phrase is "King of Bohemia" ", with this logic Giuseppe Verdi is not a composer from Italy but from the First French Empire, Beethoven not from Germany but from Electorate of Cologne, Chopin not from Poland but from Duchy of Warsaw and so on. All mentioned states didn't exist at that time and we still naturally call them by their geographic names today. Just for your information a short article which sums it up nicely. https://www.radio.cz/en/section/letter/from-bohemia-to-czechia Helveticus96 (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that those usages are common in English. Czechia isn't. It's just that simple. You are trying to force a change in English usage, instead of following what that usage actually is. It doesn't matter what is done with other countries. It only matters what English usage for this country is. Again, quit arguing about what you think English usage should be, and simply follow what it is. --Khajidha (talk) 09:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trying to force Czechia, as I have no power to do so, you are the Guardian of the Holy Grail! Holy administrators of Wikipedia should get a statues in the Church of the Holy Republic :-))) We need Czechia for translation of the Czech term Cesko in any case. In some cases, you can't circumvent it. It requires a few more years, and Czechia will be the common name. And thank you for not calling my English Czenglish in you did last time. I would not make comments about your Czech if it were that bad as my English.Helveticus96 (talk) 11:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your entire argument is that Wikipedia should use Czechia. THAT IS TRYING TO FORCE ITS USAGE. Maybe its a cultural thing, but an encyclopedia is the absolute most wrong place to do that. Encyclopedias are compendia of known facts and current usage, they are not places to introduce new usages. Get outside sources to switch to using Czechia. When the BBC reports on economic growth in Czechia, when the New York Times discusses the possibility of NATO missile sites in Czechia, when the travel agencies in Melbourne advertise vacations in Czechia, THAT is when the encyclopedia will change.--Khajidha (talk) 11:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for your idea that English "needs" a term, there are many things that English has no term for and many ways that English could better describe reality. The distinction that Russian makes between sinii and goluboi would be good, as would a true unknown gender (but not genderless) pronoun. And I challenge you to find a usage of Cesko that cannot be adequately translated by the existing terminologies ("Czech Republic", "Bohemia", "what is now the Czech Republic", etc). --Khajidha (talk) 11:58, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(to Heleveticus).....Exactly. It is an absolutely common thing. The name of the state should meet objective criteria, being intelligible, plain, and clear. It is necessary to subject the language to such simplification that allows further work on it. The Czech Republic DOES NOT meet those basic criteria, because it is a transient political name, historically covering only recent 25 years of the history of the country. To use it as the main keyword is simply wrong. More, this mistake as the root of the tree logically only generates and clones more and more particular mistakes. Because Wikipedia serves often as the source for many other media and internet pages, those mistakes are transported into them, making chaos, wrong interpretations and nonsenses. It is like infectious disease. Until the New York Times writes that the earth is round, it will be flat ?.... Heptapolein (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot even begin to fathom the degree of hubris necessary to think that you have the right to decide what is right or wrong usage for another language. If you cannot comprehend 1) that the Czech Republic is the commonly used English term, 2) that Wikipedia usage follows external common usage, and 3) that usage outside Wikipedia must change before Wikipedia changes, then I have to wonder about your competence as an editor. --Khajidha (talk) 13:26, 10 September 2018 (UTC) PS - both of you (Heptapolein and Helveticus96) need to work on making sure that your replies are properly formatted. I have refactored this discussion. In particular, Heptapolein's last contribution was made between Helveticus96's post and my reply to it, making it seem as if I were responding to him and not Helveticus96. I am going to assume that this poor formatting was due only to ignorance and not malice or rudeness.[reply]

Cultural thing? Ignorance? Where does this passive aggressive writing style come from? Are you a superior human being? You constantly give me this feeling! Czenglish was one example. Do you speak that well Czech as me English? Could you stay polite and neutral, please, mighty administrator? And treat us, human worms with respect and dignity? Helveticus96 (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) By "cultural thing" I meant only that perhaps Czech encyclopedias have a more active role in defining norms. Like language regulating bodies. 2) "Ignorance" is simply a lack of knowledge, it is not an insult. We are all ignorant of many things. I meant only that you may not have known how to format your reply or that such formatting was needed. 3) I don't speak Czech at all, which is why I don't edit there. And if I DID speak Czech, I would certainly not attempt to dictate Czech language usage. 4) As near as I can tell, I have remained neutral and respectful. Again, this may be due to a cultural difference or a misunderstanding of terminology or the inability of text to convey tone. --Khajidha (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And have you given any thought as to how your writing appears to others or how it makes them feel? All these usages of "English needs" or "names should" (or any of several other variations) seem like attempts to control the speech of other people. Very dictatorial. Especially when you consider that the people making these demands are, basically, outsiders. If my country were to try to tell your country that your laws were "wrong", "needed to be changed", or "should be this way and not that way", you would resent that. You would, quite rightly, tell my government that it was none of their business what your laws were. THAT is the sort of feeling that your posts engender. --Khajidha (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our country is constantly being forced to change its laws or adopt new laws that are considered to be beneficial by a certain institution - the European Union. We don't resent that: its our duty to obey these appeals. Ordinary people do not always like it, but they adjust for the change over time. The issue with the English language is that there's no institution like that. Khajidha, instead of being offended and a little hysterical about it, why haven't you rather explain these guys what's the difference between languages that have bodies that regulate standard language and these that do not have one? Do you know what's fascinating? Eg. Belarus, eSwatini, Côte d'Ivoire, Croatia or Slovakia COULD tell the English speakers: Hey, call us by these names, alright? And there was no problem with it. What's the reason for this double standard?Oasis98 (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) You decided to join the EU. I'm talking about totally outside countries trying to control you. 2) That point has been made again, and again, and again..... It doesn't seem to sink in. One more time: there is no governing body for the English language. In some languages, such bodies make pronouncements and they are immediately accepted as being "official". These languages can be thought of as working from the "top down". English works from the "bottom up", usage determines what is correct. 3) You have noticed that we still use Ivory Coast and Swaziland, right? As for Belarus, Croatia, and Slovakia, those names were adopted when they became independent. In such cases new names make sense. The old polity is, in some sense, gone. This is the new one, this is its name. --Khajidha (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Heptapolein - you can make your argument, but you cannot attack other editors. I don't see anyone attacking you. Please don't do it again or you will be blocked.--Mojo Hand (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

....ok, but it is not the reason for erasing the part containing the arguments from the discussion page...Heptapolein (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to make your arguments on the article talk page without the insults - like you did on your personal page.Mojo Hand (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

November 2018[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. If you continue to ignore the consensus here and other editors, I will get administrators involved to stop your disruptive edits. You have been warned numerous times against changing "Czech Republic" to "Czechia." - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter (talk · contribs), DMacks (talk · contribs), please check the two most recent edits. User has undergone numerous discussions over this and had been warned repeatedly. Ymblanter (talk · contribs), you even reverted one of these edits. User does not comply with edit summaries when told. I left a message above pointing out that this user did not comply with the policy or consensus (as supplemented by numerous discussions on Talk:Czech Republic) when shown, which they have obviously ignored. I only saw these other instances after I warned the user, which I feel shows they do not want to adhere to policy. This compiled with the previous attacks on other editors at Talk:Name of the Czech Republic, as warned of by DMacks (talk · contribs) warrant some kind of blocking action. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 09:25, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everything where the Czech Republic is changed to Czechia must be reverted on sight.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:53, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formal final warning and no edits since then, so block not needed at this instant. But if and when they return to editing, insta-block (no more warnings) at the first such recurrence of this pattern. DMacks (talk) 05:06, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter (talk · contribs), DMacks (talk · contribs), I've opened a sockpuppet investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Jan_Blanicky based on a vast amount of evidence that the user is one in a series of sockpuppets of Jan Blanicky (talk · contribs). If there's any testimony you can give to support it, it's there. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:36, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigation[edit]

An editor has opened an investigation into sockpuppetry by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Wikipedia account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jan Blanicky, where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Wikipedia administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you have been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Wikipedia policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Wikipedia community. - R9tgokunks ⭕ 01:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]