User talk:Hzh/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

GBBO Series Ratings

Thanks for the message explaining why you reverted my edits. All I was planning to do was convert the existing figures to more accurate numbers. (I.e. 2.77 was converted to 2,770,333). I initially planned to calculate the averages myself before noticing that they had (allegedly) already been calculated for me on the individual articles for each series. All I did was copy/paste the numbers over. Sorry for any inconvenience! 109.151.166.132 (talk) 22:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@109.151.166.132: I think the average numbers were calculated by someone, it is however problematic because we don't know if this is how they are calculated officially. There are in fact different ways of using viewer numbers, we gave 1 set of numbers, but it may not be what would be used for official calculation. One issue with wikipedia is that many people, including those in the media, often use what given in articles as accurate, and the numbers or other facts get spread around. I have in fact seen the same numbers (in million) given in a newspaper, but I have no idea if they copied Wikipedia page or not. We could in fact use that as the source for those numbers, but we may be turning this into something circular (us citing them citing us). The numbers by themselves are minor issues compare with other more important facts (one reason why I left it as it was when someone first added the numbers), but there is a need to be more careful. We might get away with giving less precise numbers, but giving such a high degree of precision as you did with the viewer numbers is unwarranted when there is uncertainty with the numbers. Hzh (talk) 01:04, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This week's article for improvement (week 33, 2015)

Berries for sale at a farmers' market Hello, Hzh. The following is WikiProject Today's articles for improvement's weekly selection: Berry Please be bold and help to improve this article! Previous selections: Farmhouse • Igloo Get involved with the TAFI project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: Bananasoldier (talk) 04:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject TAFI •

Bonin Islands

Hello, Hzh - I was looking at recent edits to Bonin Islands when I found a sentence that I thought needed re-arranging. I posted a comment at User talk:Vsmith#Bonin Islands. V is usually quite helpful whenever I have a question, and makes good edits. He did answer my questions, but I don't know how to proceed. I don't want to delete something that ought to stay in the article, and I don't want to bother V anymore with this. Can you read my post, V's replies, and either make any necessary edits or tell me what to take out? CorinneSD (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Sounds like good advice to me, changing the second one to Nathaniel so as to be consistent. Checking Google Books, it would seem that Nathaniel Savory is far more common than Nathanael Savory, therefore the preferred one. It is something that happens frequently in pages with Chinese names given that there are different ways of transcribing Chinese words, so using a single spelling would make it easier for readers' comprehension. The alternative spelling can be given in the page for the person concerned where it is explained that that is in fact a different spelling of the name of the person. Hzh (talk) 19:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hzh, but I realized upon reading your reply that I had posted a much more recent query regarding the Bonin Island article on Vsmith's talk page but hadn't remembered that it was headed User talk:Vsmith#Bonin Islands 2. Corinne (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

P.S. I'm glad you changed "Nathanael" to "Nathaniel". I had seen Vsmith's reply but had forgotten to make the change. Corinne (talk) 21:47, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I changed it, hope it reads right. The previous one sounds wrong. Hzh (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the way it was sounded wrong. I shortened it a little further. Corinne (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your excellent creation of the Glutamic protease article. It's been great watching it take shape. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 08:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Thank you, much appreciated. I'm afraid though there isn't much to be added to the page, given that it is relatively new and the protease does not appear to be common among other organisms. I will probably add a little more another time, but we will have to wait for more research before content could be added. Hzh (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Copy and pasting

We run "copy and paste" detection software on new edits. One of your edits appear to be infringing on someone else's copyright. See also Wikipedia:Copy-paste. We at Wikipedia usually require paraphrasing. If you own the copyright to this material please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials to grant license. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: I'm afraid I have no idea which edits you are referring to, given that I have made many edits. I will usually try to paraphrase them whenever possible, sometimes I give direct quotes (given in quotation marks), sometimes I avoided rephrasing because I am not sure if rephrasing it will change the meaning, but unless you can point to the exact phrase you have issue with, I will find it hard to check and reword. Hzh (talk) 19:45, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see what happened there. I believe you are referring to the edits in History of Singapore, I restored some edits someone else removed because the deletion made the lede became somewhat lacking in sense - here. The content is not my edit per se, I was just returning it to a state that made sense. I will reword the lede when I have the time. Hzh (talk) 20:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, it seems that your detection software is faulty. I checked the source with the content which apparently caused the violation, and it clearly stated that the content came from Wikipedia - [1] . How can you accuse me of violating the copyright of something that's copied from Wikipedia? Hzh (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Timur

Hello, Hzh! I've been reading Timur again, and have gotten partway through. I've come across a sentence that doesn't sound right (it's ungrammatical), but I don't know how to fix it. I know I'd have to read the source, but I'd rather leave that to you. It's in the section Timur#Exhumation:

• In the study of "Anthropological composition of the population of Central Asia" shows the cranium of Timur predominate the characters of the South Siberian Mongoloid type.

If you read the entire paragraph, you might find that the second half of the sentence seems to repeat another statement. Also, if that title is to stay, it should be made clear who the author is (and, if I understand MOS correctly, usually titles of sources are not included in the text of the article), so maybe the entire sentence can be deleted. Corinne (talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: Part of that text was copied verbatim from the source, and it appears that the source text was originally Russian but not well-translated into English, which is why it reads odd. It can be easily fixed I think, although I can't quite find the other parts in the article. I'll have a look further tomorrow, and will see if I can rewrite it then. As far as I know determining race from cranium is not a very precise science, but I wouldn't change the content without other sources, so will just modify it a bit. Hzh (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks! Corinne (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten some of it. If you feel that it is not well-written, feel free to change it. The copy I have of that book is missing that partiuclar page, so I have no idea if what's written on Gerasimov's conclusion in that paragraph is in the source by Oshanin or not, or whether the source for that part is missing. Some might prefer East Asian to be used instead of Mongoloid, but since it is in the source, unless we can find another source it is best to leave it as it is. Hzh (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

When quoting scientific literature, the use of the terms "mongoloid, negroid, caucasoid" is warranted, but as their articles note, these terms are primarily considered archaic and the idea that you can identify race from cranial structure is highly problematic (scientifically, I mean). And outside these usages, as on many pages dealing with Indian topics related to Northeast India, they are used as modern remnants of scientific racism and should be removed (i.e. "Mongoloids entered India"). Ogress _smash! 20:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I would tend to give descriptions according to the source, and if I'm unhappy with any terms used, I would find try to find an alternate source. In this case, there are unlikely to be many people who have examined Timur's bones, so there aren't a lot other people who would write about it. I would also personally avoid pages like scientific racism which appear to be full of assertions that are problematic, but I have no interest in getting involved in such argument.

Just a note about the Timur page - at the moment I'm not sure if Gerasimov did his research together with Oshanin on Timur's bones, or if they did their research separately. The wording may need to change. Hzh (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand your reason for wanting to keep things vague, but "his bones were investigated" is a little odd. What was wrong with "his bones were examined"? Corinne (talk) 15:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

No reason apart from having too many "examined" makes it read slightly clunky ("investigated" was also the word used in Oshanin's source). You can change it back if you like. Reading the source by Oshanin, it seems to imply the bones of Timur were examined by by him and Zezenkova (Zezenkova was his assistant, so you can remove her name if you wish), and they were the ones who drew the conclusion and not Gerasimov, but it is hard to tell from just fragments. It seems that they were all at the opening of tombs. I can only read a little bit of the book by the Gerasimov, so it is not entirely certain what role each person played. Hzh (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, I've changed it back to "examined", might be better that way. Hzh (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

HZN,

As you know, I am new to Wikipedia as an editor, and I appreciate the help fixing my errors from when I was trying to update the download totals on the songs recently. I am trying to learn from my mistakes so that does not happen again. I appreciate all of the help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianc33616 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

brianc33616

@Brianc33616: You are doing fine. I don't think you have made any mistake that I noticed, I think I complained about an edit made by someone else. You also corrected one omission in my edit for Girl in a Country Song, so thank you. If you have any question about my edits, or about editing in general, do feel free to contact me. Welcome to Wikipedia, your contribution is appreciated. Hzh (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

An article that needs writing

I was just reading the article on Sinodelphys, and I saw that there was a red link at "Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences". I thought if you have nothing to do you might like to write an article on it. Corinne (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: Geology and paleontology are not my forte, therefore I would need to be a bit more careful before starting an article that I know very little about. I will certainly look into it, but I suspect it will likely be a stub article because of my ignorance of the subject (for example, I have no idea how prominent it is in the academic world). I'll have a look at it some time next week. Hzh (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

O.K. Great! Corinne (talk) 23:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

@Corinne: I've created the article Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences, but it is going to be just a stub article because the information rely heavily on primary sources. I added information which I normally won't because there is otherwise a lack of secondary sources - the academy is known in the media largely for its work on paleontology which is just a small part of its work, but it appears that it doesn't rank high in the academic world outside of paleontology, so it is hard to find much information outside of paleontology. Hzh (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 15 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Tea in the United Kingdom page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

MCA

With regards to my edit on Malaysian Chinese Association, I feel that it should be allowed as it is a very accurate statement about the reality of the situation in Malaysian politics and regarding MCA's standing in Malaysia. I don't think I'm being biased in the sense that I'm discrediting the party but more of reporting the actual reality instead of painting a rosy picture which could also be arguably a type of biasness. Furthermore, the source comes from within MCA, thus it is non really susceptible to unreliability and biasness.

I do think my edit should be reinstated.

— Junchuann  02:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

@Junchuann: No, you edits are statements that are deliberately biased and unsupported by facts. Your edits violated a few Wikipedia guidelines: you used one person's opinion and turned it into facts - there is no such fact as 5% support (it was Gan's opinion), there is no such fact as "commonly viewed with contempt and seen as irrelevant not only by Chinese voters, but even by BN component parties", again it was Gan's opinion. Even if they are true, we are very careful about writing such things, and would consider adding them only if the person voicing it is someone important like UMNO's chief or MCA's president or someone very high up (not just a minor local chief). We would also not put it in the lead, and we would phrase it carefully without using highly subjective words like "contempt". Read for example what's written about Dr Ismail's comment on MCA. Please read WP:NPOV before you make another edit. Hzh (talk) 11:06, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 22

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Karluks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khwarezmid. 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) 11:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Leigh Nash page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Analects

In response to a request for a copy-edit at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests#Analects, I accepted the assignment to copy-edit Analects. I just started reading the article, and already in the lead I see some things that could use some improvement (in sentence structure, sentence flow, and organization of sentences). I feel that I need to ask someone with some knowledge of these writings, though, before I change some things, and I wonder if you have the time, inclination, and knowledge of the subject to answer a few questions as I go through the article. If not, I'll just leave comments and questions on the article's talk page. Corinne (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Certainly, feel free to ask me any question. It doesn't mean that I would know the answer, but I can always give it a go. Hzh (talk) 02:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Hzh. I've decided to post my questions on the article's talk page so that any other interested and/or knowledgeable editors may respond. I would certainly appreciate your input there. Corinne (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015

Your recent editing history at Mr. Robot (TV series shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly..

There is new discussion on the talk page, and WP:BRD applies. You must discuss your proposed edit and gain consensus. --Drmargi (talk) 13:03, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I'm afraid I'm not the one with the problem here. If you want to use WP:BRD as the basis for the revert, you should be prepared to discuss the specific points raised, so far you have chosen not to do it after repeated requests to do so. Please note that you are requested to reply to the discussion on the points raised, failure to do so will result in the matter being raised in WP:ANI. Hzh (talk) 14:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing edits

Do not, under any circumstances, remove another editor's comments to resolve an edit conflict. I have reverted to restore my edit. If you remove it again; I'll be having a chat with an admin. Your own more recent comments can be added by cutting-and-pasting from the edit history. Yet another example of your refusal to learn appropriate practice and observe policy. --Drmargi (talk) 23:12, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I suggest WP:AGF, which you pointed to recently on the Mr. Robot talk page. Maybe it was a mistake or an edit conflict? Did you not realize that with your edit, that you deleted their comment? Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

That's rich... The testosterone brigade have closed ranks. You know I can revert to restore my own edit; I acted within policy. You guys can dish it out, but you can't take it. --Drmargi (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:@Drovethrughosts:@Drmargi: I did not even see Drmargi's edit. I edited to reply to you Drovethrughost. I have no idea why she is assuming others are doing something wrong deliberately when wiki is acting strange when different people editing at the same time. I had actually thought you removed my edit accidentally (and an edit conflict tag was added). Hzh (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Bullshit. You get an edit conflict alert. There's no way you didn't know my edit was there. --Drmargi (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: I think it is best to take it to an admin as you wanted? Given now that all civility has broken down? Hzh (talk) 00:09, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Chicory 115893660.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Chicory 115893660.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Article upgrade assistance request (Pre-translation stage)

Seasons Greetings,

Hi, i obsrved you have supported article Dance in China well enough. I am looking for support for a relatively new umbrella article on en-wikipedia named Ceremonial pole. Ceremonial pole is a human tradition since ancient times; either existed in past at some point of time, or still exists in some cultures across global continents from north to south & from east to west. Ceremonial poles are used to symbolize a variety of concepts in several different world cultures.

Through article Ceremonial pole we intend to take encyclopedic note of cultural aspects and festive celebrations and dances around Ceremonial pole as an umbrella article and want to have historical, mythological, anthropological aspects, reverence or worships wherever concerned as a small part.

While Ceremonial poles have a long past and strong presence but usually less discussed subject. Even before we seek translation of this article in global languages, we need to have more encyclopedic information/input about Ceremonial poles from all global cultures and languages. And we seek your assistance in the same.

Since other contributors to the article are insisting for reliable sources and Standard native english; If your contributions get deleted (for some reason like linguistics or may be your information is reliable but unfortunately dosent match expectations of other editors) , please do list the same on Talk:Ceremonial pole page so that other wikipedians may help improve by interlanguage collaborations, and/or some other language wikipedias may be interested in giving more importance to reliablity of information over other factors on their respective wikipedia.

This request is made to you since culture related topics may be of intrest to you.

Thanking you with warm regards Mahitgar (talk) 08:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: I'd be happy to be help, but I see a number of problems here. I had a look at the page, one problem I see is the definition, or I'm not sure what exactly it is intended to include. For example, I'm not entirely sure why totem pole is not included by maypole is - whatever exactly is the religious significance of maypole nowadays? If it is about a cultural practice involving poles, then a lot could be included, for example Danza de los Voladores, but if it is only about something that specifically represents a religious concept, then what is the religious nature of the pole used by the Miao people in Huashan festival (the source does say what is is, merely that it symbolises the festival)? The definition seems to have changed in various edits, what you need really is some kind of scholarly definition, perhaps one from an anthropologist. At the moment there is a feeling that the term is made up rather than it being the subject of a scholarly study, which makes it hard to contribute to the article. Hzh (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Thanks for your prompt reply. As you say right now from present definition one does not get to know properly concept of ceremonial pole, and it has remained defficult for me to involve more wikipedians for the same reason. Traditions seem to exist or existed is the fact; world wide getting specific religious or other symbolism is always going to vary across global communities over the centuries and across differend regions some variations are going to be there.

Charak Puja 1849

While starting the article as an umbrella article, I expected a broader definition; While I am trying to get more anthro sources, still it is unlikely that they would have a ready broader comprehensive definition; my personal openion is wikipedians will need to come to some consensus for broader definition and for the same reason I have created a section Talk:Ceremonial_pole#Whether wording "different world religions" is not too narrow

I kindly request you to putforth your openion on article talk page, so others will atleast understand that there is some disagreement and that there is scope to improve the definition as you rightly said, and in course of time definition improves further.

By the way from pictures, and brief discussion Danza de los Voladores, prima facia there seems to be some sort of simillarity between Charak Puja and Bagad the traditions from India.Charak Puja article (while online sources are available) is not currently uptodate on en-wikipedia.

Thanks for your prompt and active support.

Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Unchained Melody may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Deleting biased sources

Ten Pound Hammer told me that the wesbite that the reviews came from were very biased, which is why they were deleted.--Jack Gaines (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joan Baez (album), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Virginia. 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) 08:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperial College London, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Queen's Tower. 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) 09:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
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.. You have exceeded 3 reverts in the past 24 hours. Please self-revert your last edit and discuss on the talk page, not via both talk page and edit summary in an attempt to force an edit. --Drmargi (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Discussion belongs on the show talk page, not mine. I suggest you check the show talk page before leaving some sarcastic and inaccurate nonsense on my talk page. You are no longer welcome there. --Drmargi (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@Drmargi: You chose to revert instead of discussing the issue when requested to do so. My next edit was made to address the point made, which is the wording. Given you reverted before discussing it, there was at that time in fact no indication you were willing to discuss positively, based on something observed before. Hzh (talk) 14:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Green Day awards

Hi could you change the mtv movie award to won for nice guys finish last on green day's award also change much music award to won for people's choice award to won for Wake Me Up When September Ends thank you very much. Also i accedently changed the vmas thinking it was the much music awards sorry for the mistake.

@Wentzpretzels: Aerosmith won the Best Song From A Movie Award for the 1999 MTV Movie Awards - [2]. There is no evidence that Wake Me Up When September Ends won for People's Choice Award: Favourite International Group for MuchMusic Video Awards in 2006 - it was won by Fall Out Boy [3]. I'm afraid you trying to add false information will not work, you will be blocked whatever username you choose for introducing false information. Neither will pretending it to be a mistake, it is an excuse you have made before, and you have made hundreds of such "mistakes". Hzh (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Succession Table

I don't quite understand why you are citing an Album article style guide ((succession table should be at the bottom per manual of style WP:MOS-ALBUM)) for the edit you made to an article for the song (Hotel California). Please provide a citation that supports your change. Joy if (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Joy if: The MOS page is about having a consistent style for music articles, that would apply for an album as much as a single. I'm not sure why you think a single would be differently organized from an album. There is, as far as I'm aware, no separate MOS article that would refer the succession for a single, but how a page should be organized are all linked, for example the WP:SONG would refer to the album MOS or other music guidelines in general on some items. Some people put the succession under the charts section unaware that there is a MOS guideline on where to put them. Why change thing away from one that is consistent with most other articles? Hzh (talk) 16:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

You are however perfectly entitled to ask in the WP:SONG discussion page whether there should be a separate guideline on succession for singles. Hzh (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to follow a standard, which is why I asked you to point to a WP that references singles. I have found there is little to no consistency to where "succession tables" for number-one hits are located. I have found the table in sections: "Background/ Original B-side release", "Charts", "Charts and certifications", "Chart performance", "External links", "In popular culture", "References", "‎See also", "Weekly charts" among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joy if (talk • contribs) 21:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ideally it should be at the end of the article above the navigation templates and categories. I followed a few from Hotel California, to When I Need You, Chanson D'Amour, then someone did it different at Knowing Me, Knowing You, then back to the standard way Free (Deniece Williams song), I Don't Want to Talk About It, Lucille (Kenny Rogers song), etc. Someone will do things different, and some think that if there are different versions of the song, then it should be place under sections for the individual version. Perhaps it isn't an important point, which may be why they never felt the need to spell it out for the singles, but it does look messy. Even for albums they don't do the same way. If you feel strongly about it, then do it the way you prefer (it's not something important for me to get into a fight about), but generally I'd just leave thing as it is unless someone placed it somewhere that looks odd. Hzh (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that the practice of putting succession table at the bottom is standard for other type of articles as well, for example The X-Files and Elizabeth II (done as a collapsed bar). Hzh (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

hii m8

k, ill learn history iranchamber wait turkey turks were absolutely persian. Dengesizz (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Hzh (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outlaw Man, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tequila Sunrise. 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) 10:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

Hi. I have undone a number of your edits for the reason Wikipedia:Record charts; WMAs is not realible according to that. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: I don't know, if you read their articles in the sites, they give sales figures for various countries, so it seems to be a cumulative figure made up of sales from a number of countries rather than something that relied uncertain sources. So far I haven't seen anything that contradicts other sources. I'm not sure if it should be included in the list of unreliable sites. Hzh (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: Its numbers are usually very similar to Mediatraffic, another unreliable source. The author is nowhere to be found in the article. Guidelines. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cornerstonepicker: Similarity doesn't mean anything, you probably need something more concrete than that, for example, are the numbers different from published reliable sources? I don't think having an author listed is relevant to reliability in such cases (for example Billboard charts don't have authors except for specific articles). At the moment it seems like a bit of waffling in Wikipedia:Record charts, nothing much to substantiate it being in the unreliable list. It doesn't really bother me one way or another however, just wondering. Hzh (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, I see what it means by copying verbatim from mediatraffic.de (just checked the site), so that is my mistake even though the same point applies to placing mediatraffic.de in the unreliable list (i.e. no clear reasons for considering it being unreliable). Hzh (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Another SPI report at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002

I just filed another sockpuppet investigation report there, concerning the numerous accounts that have been altering Green Day related articles, as well as some Billboard related articles. Seven accounts and an IP range in the suspected list, including some you mentioned in a report that's stalled there. MPFitz1968 (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Thank you for fine work. I fear that the same vandal will keep trying and be a nuisance for a while yet, until he or she grows up or gets tired that is. There should really be easier way of stopping the vandal, but I'm not really sure what. Hzh (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem, @Hzh:. A follow-up here: DeltaQuad took care of the investigation reports last night (a little less than 24 hours ago), and all the accounts I mentioned in the suspected list of both reports are confirmed socks, plus a few others she listed that I didn't know about. Also, the problem IP range has been range-blocked as well for 3 months. Hopefully, things will be quiet for a while at all the articles that have been targets the last couple of months, at least. MPFitz1968 (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: Wow, excellent! I didn't think they'd range-block because other users might get caught up in it, but I appreciate the exception made because so much effort have been expended by multiple editors trying to stop this vandal creating fictitious information for his or her idols. Vandalism of Green Day pages by that person went back 9-10 months, possibly longer with other IP addresses. I expect the vandal to return later, but great job stopping him or her for now nonetheless. Many thanks. Hzh (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Their Greatest Hits (1971–1975), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blow. 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) 09:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Versions

Have a look here [4], and here [5] and here [6]. There are hundreds more if you need. Anyway this is how it's done on song articles that have more than one notable version. Caden ^cool 22:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: I'm afraid I have no interest in hundreds of other pages, you edit according to Wikipedia guidelines, and you discuss the edits in terms of Wikipedia guidelines. Please do not cite other pages to support your argument. Many editors make mistakes because they copied other pages instead of following guidelines. You have asserted twice that you are right and removing my edits based on nothing but what is done on other pages, please don't do that again. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is the correct way. And yes I have discussed things with you. Please do not remove my edits again. You have implied twice that you are right when you are not. Caden ^cool 23:09, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: Like I said, edit according to Wikipedia guidelines, some guidelines for song article may be found here WP:SONG. You are making up things you cannot substantiate. As for meaning of version, read a dictionary definition of version, e.g. here 3: a form or variant of a type or original. I actually at no time said that I was right, just suggesting that it would be an accurate meaning in English (but yes, I was right as far as English usage goes). You however have insisted that yours is the correct style, and I would ask you to substantiate this assertion according to Wikipedia manual of style guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me but I'm not a newbie so do not insult me. I know what I'm doing unlike you. Furthermore your rudeness and arrogance is unacceptable. I have no further interest in speaking with you. Caden ^cool 23:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: If you reverted based on no Wikipedia guidelines, but claiming that yours is the correct style, then asking you for the actual guideline is the correct response. Many editors have made mistakes because they think other pages should be used as a guide how to edit a page, when that is not the case at all. Pages may be similar because they follow a guideline, but other things may be similar because other people blindly follow other articles, without understanding that there are no such rules or guidelines. Hzh (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'. 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 that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.

1. 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. Caden ^cool 23:49, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: Well, I have not reverted your edit since your last edit and my note to you. I would advise you that making false accusation is wrong, so is adding retaliatory warning. Particularly so when you have already been issued with a warning for possible ANI. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

American Idol 15 controversy section

I just saw your comment on the American Idol season 15 talk page regarding the controversy section. I just wanted to let you know that I agree with your opinion and removed the content. One person making a complaint does not make a controversy, nor does it even make it encylopedic. Many people have various complaints about every season of shows like this. Dirroli (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@Dirroli: Yes, and the quoted writer Slezak is basically someone who makes one complaint or another about the show just about every year, there is no reason to make the show about the opinion of someone not directly involved in the show. The comment by Clay Aiken is also the opinion of a single person, although in this case Jennifer Lopez chose to comment on it, so it could technically be considered not about just one person, but I have no problem with you removing that as well. Note that the person making the edit, Snoopy012, appears to be the same person as the one who edits as an IP editor. If so, then that contravenes Wikipedia policy as it appears to be an attempt to circumvent rule on 3RR, and if that continues, we might have to start a sock puppetry investigation. Hzh (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm not sure if you read my comments on the article's talk page, but the reason I removed the Aiken content as well is because it's meaningless in terms of it being important enough to be in an encylopedia article. It's simply a former contestant giving his opinion that he thinks the hosts are boring. In my view, the fact that Lopez gave a reply to it doesn't at all make Aiken's comment any less meaningless. There has been criticism of the judges literally every season, and it's been far worse than a person calling them boring. So if one former contestant calls them boring, should we then add content about another former contestant calling them exciting? And, yes, I definitely did notice that Snoopy012 and the the IP editor are almost certainly the same person. Dirroli (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I would agree on that it's not encyclopedic. I guess at the moment it's wait and see what Snoopy012 does next, he or she appears to be a fan of Slezak and has been adding comments by him on a number of pages. Hzh (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I didn't realize the editor was doing that. I just looked at some of their past edits. It appears they're adding content to some articles as if they're gossip or fan pages. I don't think he/she understands that this is an encylopedia, and not an entertainment website or blog, etc. Dirroli (talk) 21:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I browsed the edits of Snoopy012 and 150.210.231.30. There's no doubt that they're both the same person because not only have both edited a lot of the American Idol and The Voice articles, they've also edited a number of unusal, random articles, including Friend with Benefit, Mystery Science Theater 3000, Gal of Constant Sorrow, Lisa with an 'S', Mannequin (1987 film), and Much Apu About Something. The AI and Voice articles both accounts have edited are American Idol (season 3), American Idol (season 4), American Idol (season 5), American Idol (season 9), American Idol (season 13), American Idol (season 14), American Idol (season 15), The Voice (U.S. season 10), and List of The Voice (U.S.) contestants. Also, both accounts have edit warred in the same article, like this one. I'm sure I missed some because I went through it pretty quickly. Dirroli (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are correct. Some of the edits made are identical. For example, here and here on Season 4, and here and here on Season 5. Just something to keep in mind should it be necessary to refer to Sock Puppetry Investigation. Hzh (talk) 02:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

You're not kidding, they are identical. And of course these two.[7][8] Dirroli (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

The sockpuppet Snoopy/IP 150 is back! They restored the controversy content to American Idol 15 under their IP account. I removed it.[9] They also added controversy content to The Voice 10. I don't know how to report a sockpuppet, so hopefully you can take care of it. Dirroli (talk) 07:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dirroli: Thanks for letting me know. I'll see how thing goes, at the moment it probably doesn't quite warrant a sockpuppetry investigation, but I will take care of that if it is necessary in the future. The edit on The Voice 10 is unsourced, so perfectly reasonable to remove it, and give appropriate warning. Hzh (talk) 12:03, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks. Dirroli (talk) 18:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Another IP (70.214.100.220) has gotten into the act of adding that controversy section to the article, which I reverted here [10]. Both that IP and the one beginning with 150 geolocate to New York, so definitely another sock candidate. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

You beat me to the punch, MPFitz. Haha. I just saw your revert of IP 70. Thanks. Clearly, it's the same editor. IP 150 is Baruch College in New York, as it shows at the top of their talk page, and IP 70 is also in New York. Dirroli (talk) 21:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Interesting if they are the same editor, although at the moment we need to see if there are more disruptive edits before any action can be taken. Hzh (talk) 01:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I must say, you're an extremely patient person. That's a great quality, so I commend you. But how many times must this editor keep restoring the controversy content with different accounts before they get reported for deviously editing? Dirroli (talk) 23:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Dirroli: The issue would be if the person is deliberately using multiple identities / IP addresses to create the impression that the edits were done by different persons, for example in an edit war to circumvent the 3RR rule. I guess I could have started the investigation around two weeks ago when it appears that this is in fact what the person did, but I thought it would be better to warn the editor first. At the moment the person is only doing it very occasionally, and not actively engaging in edit war, therefore it no longer warrant such an investigation. People do log in and out when editing and we cannot assume that they are doing it intentionally to deceive. Nevertheless if this becomes a long-term issue, then there might be grounds for an investigation. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. I will note, however, how the editor originally claimed that multiple editors worked together to create the controversy section,[11] thus implying that the IP accounts are friends of theirs. From what I recall reading about sockpuppeting, that is not allowed either (to collude with friends to get desired content into an article). But I'll bet all the money I have that every edit has been from just one person, and that they just made up that story to give the impression that others agree with their controversy content. If it happens again, it would be interesting to ask Snoopy who the "several people" are? Dirroli (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Snoopy012 did give the impression that there were multiple editors making that edits. However, I had assume good faith as required by Wikipedia guidelines, and issued a warning instead. Now, given that the editor has been warned, if he or she makes further attempt to imply that they are different editors, then it would be considered a deliberate attempt to deceive, and can be dealt with accordingly. Hzh (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Stalking

I would appreciate that you stop stalking my edits. It's creepy. Caden ^cool 23:21, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: Please don't make accusation. You don't own any article, I mentioned those articles in the discussion on Song Project talk page, and you chose not to answer the questions raised regarding those articles. I had looked at those article, and they were badly organized, and that is supported by other editor on for example Ticket to Ride. You are required to engage in discussion, and if you chose not to, then that may imply you cannot support your edits. Hzh (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No it is not an accusation it is the truth. You have been stalking my edits and you very well know it. And yes I did answer you several times on the "You've Lost That Loving Feeling" talk page, and I made it clear to you that I had nothing more to say to you. But you will not let it go and you keep harassing me and stalking me. Now leave me and my edits alone. I'm done talking with you. Caden ^cool 23:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: They are the subjects of a discussion in a project talk page. If you object, then by all means go to the discussion and contribute. If you refuse to answer the question raised, then we will assume that you in fact don't want to defend your edits, therefore it is perfectly valid to undo you edits. You had in fact refused also to answer the points made on "You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin'". All you did is to assert that all those versions are notable which does not address the points made about the organization of the page. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

STOP stalking me. Stop harassing me. Understood? Caden ^cool 23:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@Caden: You are required to answer for your edits if other people objected, and I'm not the only one who objected to your edits. If you don't like this, then by all means take it up with the administrator. Hzh (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

21 Guns

Hi i would like if you could go to 21 Guns page and updated since it was certified Silver by the BPI on April 15, 2016 thank you. LimpBizkitNookieMan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@LimpBizkitNookieMan: I didn't change it (and it is correct on the page), so the pertinent question is, why are asking me? If you are the same person who has been vandalizing the Green Day articles for a year now, then you know how to change it if you want to. It doesn't matter what user name you choose, a new one will be blocked once you start vandalizing the articles again. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: well just for your information i have never vandalized any Wikipedia article.

Well, for you and everyone else who spent a lot of time tackling vandalism on Green Day articles, let's hope this is true, and you will be making positive contribution to Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

HAH! That was quick. The vandal revealed himself in no time at all. Hzh (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussants needed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4

Since you are among the editors who made at least 10 edits to "Blurred Lines", I was hoping you might take the time to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Emily Ratajkowski/archive4.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Personal attack warning

I noticed you just left a personal attack warning at User talk:Caden. I just looked through their recent contributions and I don't see a personal attack. Perhaps you could point it out to me? HighInBC 19:31, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@HighInBC:He called me creepy a number of times in the edit summaries. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To me it seems to be saying you are acting creepy, they would have said "creep" if they were calling you something. What do you think of their claims that you are following them around? HighInBC 19:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

It is one of the strange accusations Caden made. The articles involved were intended to be discussed at WT:SONG just over a month ago (I checked a few of his edits because he made what is to me odd insertions of the word "version" in those articles), and I invited Caden to discuss them, and he refused to discuss the articles involved, instead weeks later accusing me of following him around. Hzh (talk) 19:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Just trying to get to the bottom of this. So you your encountering them at You've Lost That Lovin' Feelin' and Emotion (Samantha Sang song) and Johnny Angel (song), this is part of a larger discussion? Just looking at the incidences were "creepy" was used in an edit summary it does seem like you keep running into each other, and I have not looked further. HighInBC 19:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Caden was making changes to large number of articles and inserting "version" where it did not appear to be relevant, so I raised the matter at WT:SONG, and at that time I checked some of his edits (and reverted some of those to a pre-existing stable version) so that they could be discussed. He did not try to defend his edits in those articles in the discussion (he simply reverted them) even though I contacted him directly a few times in his talk page and made requests in the edits summaries. For some reasons a few weeks later he started accusing me of stalking him in those articles and calling me creepy (creepy can refer to a person or what he or she does). Hzh (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

To me calling someone creepy would be like calling them a weirdo (perhaps a little worse, creepy would imply something sinister is going on). I would be interested to know if calling someone a weirdo would be considered a personal attack or not. Hzh (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Even if you have an honest reason to repeatedly encounter then in different places over the course of months, can you not see how this may be seen as creepy? HighInBC 20:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

These articles were the subject of a discussion, why would it be seen as creepy? Are you arguing that if someone makes poorly considered changes to many articles, they should not be followed up, especially when the editor refused to engage in the discussion? In any case, no one is following anyone around, I only limit myself to those few articles I looked at initially, and certainly did not bother with any of his other edits. I made around 2000 edits in the last month or so in large number of articles, only a few of these articles has anything to do with him. If he wanted to complain, then complain at the time I looked at them which is over a month ago, why complain now? Hzh (talk) 20:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. I can see where you are coming from. HighInBC 21:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Avett Brothers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American Recordings. 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) 11:16, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't forget to sign your posts

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at User talk:jax 0677, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)