User talk:Hzh/Archive 1

Archive 2 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Hzh, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tyrol5 [Talk] 19:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ai3 top10.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ai3 top10.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

3rr warning on American Idol

You have made three reverts in a 24-hour period and any other revert could result in being blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Taylor Hicks's sales numbers

I noticed the changes on American Idol alumni album sales and just wanted to ask your personal opinion about Yahoo Music's numbers being correct. It seems highly unlikely to me that Hicks would have sold an additional 101,000 copies since IdolChatter last reported on July 2009. It would be around 1,500 copies a week at a consistent rate or a huge boost at one time, but I would think IdolChatter would have that information. I almost want to write Lyndsey Parker to verify her numbers, but I am not sure what response I would get. Aspects (talk) 17:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it is very likely a mistake, it's probably 709K and and she just mistyped the first number. But since it has been published, unless it is corrected by the author (or a further update by Idol Chatter), other people will keep trying to put that number in.

BTW, I didn't put that number in, someone else did - I normally avoid putting in number that doesn't look right, for example there is a higher number of 783K given for David Archuleta's first album in the Hollywood Reporter article but I chose not to put it in, however, if other people decided that it should go in, then I wouldn't challenge them because I have no basis for objecting other than it doesn't look right to me. There are possibly other ways some numbers may be higher, for example different versions of the album or song being counted as one (4 million unit sold was given by Lyndsey for Jordin's No Air which I'm sure is a combined total of different versions of the song, the main version is only around 3.2 million). Unless I can know for certain that the number is wrong then I can't challenge the number.

You are, however, perfectly welcome to change it to the original number if you are unhappy with it. Hzh (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, I just wondered if I was the only one that thought it was wrong, but since it is a reliable source I am not going to challenge it here, but I hope to write both this writer and the IdolChatter writer to try and get some clarification on the issue. Aspects (talk) 03:08, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Season 8 American Idol

HZH, Please stop undoing the edit on the American Idol season 8 description. The spin is not coming from me, but from you with the implication that Adam has not had any domestic success.

Domestically, Adam has sold more singles, albums & concert tickets and received more award nominations and radio play than Kris. He has also sold more of his debut album and more singles than 'successful recording artist' David Archuletta. Stop attempting to undermine and be truthful, this is supposed to be factual information, not spin. My comments are factual, yours are not.

Tellthetruthidolfans (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC) Tellthetruthidolfans

The word "international" would include the US, the word "domestic" is superfluous. He had not sold platinum in the US, so when you try to remove that sentence you are trying to give a spin in that page. No one is trying to do down Adam, only a rabid Adam fan would think that saying international success is somehow perjorative for Adam. It is a positive statement. Hzh (talk) 15:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Name calling? How classy. International would in fact include domestic if you had not used the word 'while' as a conjunction. 'a has done this while b has done that' means two separate activities, as I am sure you are very well aware. If you really want to include you 'none has achieved platinum' spin, knock yourself out, I won't change that part again because it is factual, although still spin.

Tellthetruthidolfans (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

If it makes you happier, I did not write it that line with "while" about international and domestic sales at all. Blame someone else if you are unhappy with it. Understand how wiki works - you can add or delete things with good reasons, if you insist on adding the word "domestic", then I or others will likely leave it as it is, it's just another person opinion on what is the correct way of writing the same thing. We leave things written by others as they are because they sound reasonable to a non-biased person. You however should not delete things without good reason - and deleting the line about platinum is just a fan's way of spinning something. Read what is written about other idols - Jordin "has enjoyed some success" (and she sold more than Adam), season 9 finalists did not "achieved significant album sales", Kris is the first winner that "failed to achieve gold album status". It's just stating fact. What is written about Adam is nothing special or bad, if he achieves platinum sales, then that line will be removed. Only facts will be stated in the article. Adam fans are obnoxious in many idol forums and wiki, tough if you don't like some fact that is written in wiki, the Internet doesn't belong to Adam's fans. Hzh (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

3rr warning on American Idol (season 10)

You have made more than three reverts in a 24-hour period and any other revert could result in being blocked from editing. Aspects (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That same person Stalker4evag4 has done many more by using dynamic IP address without signing in. Someone is trying to force their way on others willy nilly even when the discussion showed that there is nothing in the rules that would oblige us to use that format. Hzh (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album) 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/Season 8 Favorite Performances (Adam Lambert album) 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Aspects (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Following a complaint at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (accessibility), I looked at Talk:American Idol (season 10) to see where the accessibility issues were discussed. I was astonished to find your personal attacks on me in the section Final's Format. It is utterly unacceptable to make comments such as:

• "So now you admit to bringing RexxS along who is responsible for nominating pages for deletion without good reasons?"
• "And I'm amazed that anyone could consider RexxS neutral."

I'd like you to carefully read WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks and carefully consider whether you should refactor those comments now. --RexxS (talk) 02:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange that you should complain about personal attack when you made personal attacks aplenty in the Thia Megia discussion. For example -

• "And quit the bad faith."
• "I pity you. You are being taken in by the hype of television executives desperate to revive their flagging ratings."
  

And note that the reminder about WP:CIVIL by Realkyhick came after your comment. Directed to us both no doubt, but odd that you don't see it as a comment on your behavior considering when you are so keen to demand that others read WP:CIVIL and WP:No personal attacks. Hzh (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Also note that the comment about neutrality was within the context of the discussion - you shared the same view as Lil_℧niquℇ №1, that cannot be regarded as neutral in any discussion. Also note your personal attack and lack of civility in those discussions, for example

• "just because you're too uncaring to accommodate the disabilities of some of our users."
• "If you're not prepared to put in the effort to accommodate accessibility, then please step out of the way of those that are." Hzh (talk) 10:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article David Cook (singer), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Mlpearc powwow 11:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea why you delete a sentence that is actually sourced and then complain that it is not sourced. It's an actual interview of David Cook talking about it. If you don't consider that reliable, you have a strange idea of what is considered reliable. If you want to complain, please actually read and look at the link first.Hzh (talk) 11:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I see no cites for "They released three studio albums and a number of live albums." or "He was working on his second solo album and supporting himself working as a bartender prior to" in the revert I made [1] Mlpearc powwow 12:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

That's because I only just wrote it! I was writing, finding references, and adding things to the page. It's still work in progress. If you look at the what I have doing on the David Cook page, I was actually finding sources for other unsourced statements, trying to improve a page that looked incomplete and messy. In any case I wasn't complaining about that part that you deleted, I was complaining about the part you deleted that has an actual source, while lecturing me on providing sources. I don't mind anyone deleting things I wrote with good reason, but I find it presumptuous of you giving advice on something when you didn't bother to read carefully what you deleted. Hzh (talk) 13:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ai4 Top11.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ai4 Top11.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Scotty McCreery

Please view WP:DISCOGSTYLE. Only certifications go with singles. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 19:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I went there, where does it say no sales figure with singles? Are you making rules up? Hzh (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

No! I am not making rules up. Where have you seen sales figures in singles tables? Never. Because they don't belong there. Only certifications do. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 20:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are making rules up. Please don't keep repeating that if you don't have evidence to show. If you don't see singles sales figures, it's only because people who can't read and think keep removing those figures and quoting non-existent rules. Understand the simple difference between rules and examples before you try to make another wiki edit. Hzh (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone's a little arrogant. I don't have the patience with you people. You make editing here miserable. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (contributions) • (let's chat) 22:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Clear as Day

1.) It needed to be only at Clear as Day, not Clear as Day (album). There's nothing else called "Clear as Day", so the (album) isn't needed. 2) Mark Bright links to someone else, NOT THE RECORD PRODUCER. Check your links. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I used album because it has a track in there called "Clear as Day" which could be released as a single. I did not link to Mark Bright, someone else did. Complain to the right person, I don't own the page and cannot check every edit when I was busy doing something else. Hzh (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

If the song gets released, it should be at Clear as Day (song). Albums get precedence over title tracks (e.g. Here for a Good Time and Here for a Good Time (song)). I didn't realize you weren't the one linking to Mark Bright. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and NOTNEWS

Thank you for keeping up with the Idol contestant articles. Please have a read of WP:NOTNEWS; encyclopedic articles are not press releases, and exact dates aren't necessary. More importantly, please read Wikipedia's policy on No personal attacks, which are particularly egregious when used in edit summaries as they stand forever in article history. [2] Note also that if you continue to fill contestant articles with information that is "to happen", those articles will need constant updating, which is part of why we have the NOTNEWS policy. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I wrote because you kept reverting perfectly fine English, not at all "press release"-like, and replace with English which is clunky and barely different in sense to the original. If you have a hard time understanding a press release and one that is merely stating a fact, please don't keep citing WP:NOTNEWS (which you don't even appear to have read properly, it doesn't proscribe adding content which is scheduled to happen), it only annoys other people. Hzh (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reviewing some of your other use of edit summaries, 1) please review WP:AGF and take care when referring to IPs as vandals, and 2) please use edit summaries on every edit, so others won't have to click on every edit to get a sense of what you've done (see WP:EDITSUMMARY). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And if you read what I wrote in the discussion, you would have known that the person concerned has been consistently putting in fake numbers in the Adam Lambert and Daughtry pages, and has done so for years.[3] It is not an accusation made lightly. Hzh (talk) 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Further reviewing your talk page, I see you've had previous warnings about personal attacks; you can be blocked from editing by an admin if this continues. Combined with your two warnings for 3RR, I suggest that you migth want to consider taking a more collaborative approach to editing here; WP:BRD might also be good reading for you (once you've been reverted once, discussion on talk is a good idea). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And you would have also read that the person who made the charge started by making personal attacks. Wiki is full of people who throw the rule book at other people when it suits them. In your case you don't even understand what's written in WP:NOTNEWS but just kept citing it. 15:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I suggest again that taking a more collaborative approach to editing will hold you in good stead in the longer run on Wikipedia; the track you are currently on doesn't bode well. I've suggested pages above to help you; best of luck. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I would help even more if you can tell me how I had broken the rules you cited in WP:NOTNEWS. I don't see anywhere in there which proscribe the things you complained about which you claim I have done - where's "exact dates aren't necessary", where's anything written about "press release", where's the rule about things that's about to happen? Don't quote a rule which isn't written down. Hzh (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done that on article talk-- the issue which brought me to examine your personal talk page is the personal attack in edit summary (apparently not your first, and I've edited plenty around RexxS). That is the behavior you might be addressing here, and that is the kind of behavior that isn't conducive to collaborative editing on Wikipedia. When you don't understand something, discuss it rather than calling other editors "morons". You might learn something that will make you a better editor and result in better articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

And I would suggest that saying that those who don't agree with you would necessary mean that they don't understand something is what's likely make other editors quite irate and contribute to uncivil conduct. Same when you keep quoting the WP:NOTNEWS rules that no one has broken. Please consider that other people might already have a reasonable understanding of what is good for entry in wiki pages. Hzh (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on American Idol. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. McDoobAU93 18:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Pipa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Braman (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:19, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

References

Please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:32, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

But yes most of your edits just moved stuff around. I will get to upgrading this page soon.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:34, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You appeared not to have read the reference or understood what I have done. I was providing a reference to a statement that has none. That reference that was deleted is actually the one the says that (and reference in the other review which is general one and not specific to glucose-insulin metabolism). The edits were to fix a very messy section that put irrelevant stuff in different subsection.

And it is not just moving stuff around. Previously MODY was put in there when it is irrelevant to Type 2 diabetes, so I added extra words to explain that. Read more carefully because you try to tell other people what to do. If you were responsible for how the page previously appeared then you haven't done a good job. Hzh (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes agree that it is messy and in need of work. Have trimmed some stuff further.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Pipa

I agree that the article should not be too long, and it is for the best to avoid excessive analysis of theories. I think a major problem with the article, in which you have extensively modified, is that it cites way too many Chinese-language sources, and in some cases you just directly cite ancient Chinese texts for information, but I think many of these ancient texts needs additional external sources and proper English translations. And this is English Wikipedia after all. Also, all the Chinese-language texts in the references are quite distracting. Back to the topic, the understanding that I have, and it is from most of the mainstream sources I've read, is that pipa was introduced to China generally around the Southern and Northern Dynasties, and I've rarely read anything that suggested an extensively earlier time. Thus some of the mentioning of Qin Dynasty pipa and Han Dynasty pipa, although the context was established, it still makes the article especially vague. The Britannica source mentioned the word pipa was used to describe various instruments from Qin to Tang, thus I thought it would clarify things.

If you read something written over twenty years ago, then it would be accurate to say that people thought the pear-shaped pipa was introduced during the Northern and Southern Dynasties. But archaeological discovery in 1990s has found depiction of pear-shaped pipa in Jin Dynasty tombs in Jiuquan (you can find a picture in the first reference in the external link, but I will try to find another better reference I have seen before but lost). This kind of things keep changes depending on archaeological evidence, that no depiction of pear-shaped pipa has yet been found in Han Dynasty doesn't mean that it was not there during that time. Care therefore should be taken as to how the sentences are phrased.

It is actually actually important to keep things vague because to be more specific would introduce interpretations which are unwarranted. The Britannica article chose an interpretation of the history of pipa that most Chinese accept, but as I said already, it is based on a story that is riddled with problems (and I can give more examples why that story by Fu Xuan is problematic but I want to keep things short here). Chinese like the story of princess Liu and Wang Zhaojun with their pipa, and it has become established in general Chinese culture, but that doesn't mean that it is necessarily true or accurate. I think Fu Xuan himself wasn't sure, but said it's a story he preferred. I have read many many sources, both Chinese and English, and they simply don't agree with each other, and we shouldn't choose one theory over another. Another thing to keep in mind is that we should avoid copying texts verbatim from another encyclopedia because that may cause copyright problem.

All the quotes have proper external sources, and I tried to give some translations where I can. The problem with translating ancient texts is that it is not straightforward, and I will avoid making translation until I am fairly sure the translation isn't full of errors. You are however also welcome to translate them. I will stress that it is important to have those original Chinese texts, because many web sources as well as books either ignore certain texts so that they can have a narrative that they prefer, or are simply misinformed as to what those original texts said, so it is important to have the original sources to check (indeed I may also make mistake, but others can have the sources to check if I misinterpreted or misunderstood those text). Hzh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though my first impression of the article was quite good; aesthetically I was impressed with current article, and I thought the images and poems were especially well-chosen. But at a deeper-glance I thought the article was frankly very messy and chaotic. It contains way too many Chinese texts. I honestly don't think many of the more detailed historical notes are clear to English readers. I think a lot of the information could definitely be clarified and trimmed.--Sevilledade (talk) 12:29, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I will add more translations later if I can. I think it is perfectly valid to put Chinese text in the references, although for the main text, it is generally preferable to have less Chinese text. I will delete some of those Chinese text in the main article, although it can't be all deleted because it is often hard to tell from pinyin what the original Chinese word may be. Hzh (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashthon Jones

An article you contributed to, Ashthon Jones, is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashthon Jones. Your participation in the discussion would be appreciated. Aspects (talk) 21:35, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Kara-Khanid Khanate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gulja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. When you recently edited Kara-Khanid Khanate, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Karluk (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Casey James (album)

Please don't add Hot 100 or CAN columns if the artist hasn't charted there yet. Doesn't that seem kind of silly to leave a blank column for a chart that the song hasn't entered? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Kara-Khanid Khanate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Khurasan

Kuchlug (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Talas

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Make sure to use subst on warning templates

I notice you recently added some user warning templates to a talk page, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. –meiskam (talk•contrib) 21:58, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Digital songs sold

Look pal, I'm trying to leave anyone, but I also have been tracking their sales too in other charts, that's how I found Jordin Sparks' latest figures. I'm not making assumptions, I'm just calculating their sales. If I made mistakes for Carrie Underwood's or Lauren Alaina's sales, that might have been because I'm using Yahoo aside from Idolchatter. And I'm editing it in good faith, not in a biased way. I'm open for mistakes. And it's okay to be bold, but please don't act as if you're an editor of arrogance with no breeding and comment using derogatory words. We're on the same page here, I believe that you also want Wikipedia to be better, but I never use such snide words in editing or engaging in discussions in the Wikipedia community. I believe in Wikipedia's dream of free information to everyone by working together through collaborative editing. So let's be civil and polite here, alright? Have a nice day. Woofygoodbird (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how I have used any derogatory words, please point to where I said that. I was merely pointing out your error because you said my numbers were wrong, and if I sound irritated, that's because I was (if you want to accuse other people of being wrong, first make sure that they are wrong). In your talk page I simply gave an example of how I calculated and suggested how you might have made your mistakes, and that was done quite civilly. If you read more than what is written in your talk page, that is not my problem. Civility goes both ways, I don't see what you wrote above as being civil (accusing others of having no breeding is rude).

You are of course perfectly welcome to edit the page in any way you wish, I don't claim ownership of any page, just making sure that the numbers are correct. As for the Kelly Clarkson's total, I recalculated and it came to 22,318,000, I'll check again later to see if any error might have crept in somewhere (I'll also recheck other numbers that are different from yours). Hzh (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Phillip Phillips middle name

Check footnote # 6: [4]. Tinton5 (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Triple-resonance NMR

Good work on the triple-resonance NMR article! I think it would be a good candidate for DYK on the Main Page, but they'll want a reference for every paragraph and a couple are missing. I expect it shouldn't be too much trouble to fill those in though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's probably not quite ready yet. I should be able to get all the references, and some figures will still need to be done (simple figures showing the magnetization transfer pathway), perhaps a spectrum or two, but that depends on whether I can get good ones or not. Might take a week or so because I have other things to do. Not sure if it is too specialized for main page though, at the moment I'm wondering if I should keep it brief or go into some technical details. I was thinking of starting a 3D NMR page (which is oddly missing) but that might be too involved. Many pages on NMR that should be there but aren't, probably because those people working on those areas are too busy to do them. Hzh (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

An article doesn't have to be close to being completed to be eligible for DYK; it just needs 1500 characters and enough references. A technical article like this probably won't get a whole lot of hits, but it's still fun to have your work on the Main Page. It's supposed to be nominated within five days or so of being created, but with the backlogs it probably won't be reviewed for two weeks or so after that so there'd be plenty of time to make further revisions. Yeah, I agree that there are some pretty big gaps in coverage of NMR, about a year ago I did my candidacy exam on nucleic acid NMR and was surprised that there was no such article on Wikipedia; I ended up writing it myself (and about half of the Two-dimensional NMR article) based on what I'd learned from my literature review. That article still isn't comprehensive by any means but it was certainly good enough for DYK. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I have little knowledge of nucleic acid NMR, so if you know anything about the use of triple resonance experiments in nucleic acid studies, do contribute. I know of someone who works in NMR and is a occasional contributor to wiki, but so far as I know, he has never edited a page on NMR. Probably too much like work I suppose. Hzh (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Triple-resonance nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Liao Dynasty

Good to see someone else editing that article. I really do mean to get back to fixing it... eventually.

Your changes disagree with my sources on all counts. I'm not sure how to resolve this, but by all means keep working on the article if you have things to add, the discrepancy thus far hasn't been to serious and my source really didn't go into the evacuation in too much depth.

Feel free to leave me a message if you need anything,

Sven Manguard Wha? 02:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

P.S. You can tell which sections I've worked on and which I haven't by looking for inline citations. The sections I've done have them, the rest do not. Anything that I haven't worked on should be considered potentially tainted, as there is a ton of close paraphrasing from the Mote book.

I am inclined to believe the Michal Biran book because it is a book specifically on the Kara-Khitans with quite bit of details on Yelu Dashi, and the writer appeared to have consulted a wide variety of sources. On the Liao dynasty itself the book doesn't say a lot apart from how the dynasty ended, so there isn't much else that I can edit. There are the odd bits of information which I'll see if they are worth putting into the page. Hzh (talk) 06:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Misha B article - consensus request

Hi Hzh - you are invited to offer your opinion at User_talk:NewzealanderA/Misha_B#User_Consensus_Request regarding X Factor contestant Misha B - User:NewzealanderA/Misha_B. Thank you for your time!-- NewzealanderA (talk) 23:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Request

I have noticed your editing and feel you do an excellent job, especially in expanding articles. Would you be interested in helping me in the article, Battle of Peshawar? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly try, but that would depend on if I can find good sources for it. The sources I have now that talk about the Ghaznavids don't mention the battle, so it would be hard for me to contribute (those sources largely concentrate on Central Asia so Peshawar would be peripheral to them). Other sources are bit short on information.Hzh (talk) 09:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

ETA some sources found which might be useful.Hzh (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

My sincerest thanks for your assistance. I have move the article to wiki under Battle of Peshawar (1001). If you ever need some assistance, please feel free to ask. --Kansas Bear (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

[5] States first major clash. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

If the original source of that book is al-Utbi's Tarikh Yamini (and it appears to say what written in Tarikh Yamini), then I would say the book is wrong, because Tarikh Yamini clearly describes two previous major battles between the Ghazvanids and the Hindu Shahi kingdom and its allies. Hzh (talk) 09:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)