User talk:Hzh/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Lion dance may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• such as be ''Pongsan [[Talchum]]'' (봉산탈춤), ''Suyeong Yayu'' (수영야류), and ''T'ongyong Ogwangdae'' {통영오광대).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.asianinfo.org/asianinfo/korea/perform/mask_dances.htm |title=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hardhome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ian Whyte. 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) 09:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Christine and the Queens Chaleur Humaine.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Christine and the Queens Chaleur Humaine.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) 20:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

WikiLove

Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} has given you a bubble tea! Bubble teas promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a bubble tea, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy drinking!

Spread the awesomeness of bubble teas by adding {{Bubble tea}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your work on Midwest Farmer's Daughter. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• @Erpert: Thank you, much appreciated. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi~ Can you review Ariana Grande discography? This list is a current featured list candidate. I think it meets the criteria and should be a featured list. If you are willing to review the list, you can click here. Thank you. --U990467 (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

July 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Croydon may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[[[File:East Croydon station April 2016.jpg|thumb|East Croydon mainline station]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Spooner has been reviewed!

Thanks for working on Charles Edwin Spooner, HZH!

Wikipedia editor Slashme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

This looks really good!

To reply, leave a comment on Slashme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Reference errors on 28 July

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 Wang Gungwu 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) 00:17, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Thomas Heatherwick into UK pavilion at Expo 2010. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbcom case you might be interested in

I just filed an arbitration request against The Rambling Man, citing an example in which you were involved in. You might be interested in the case. Link is here: [1]. Thanks, Banedon (talk) 05:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 80s Mercedes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boys of Summer. 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) 09:34, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Loulan Kingdom

The two scholars in question are Kazuo Enoki and Lucas Christopoulos, although I could perhaps find more to reach some sort of consensus. Research about Loulan doesn't seem to be a very widely explored topic in academia as a whole. If you can find sources to refute theirs by all means do so. And yes, I understand the research done by two individuals is not as conclusive as a full consensus from the scholarly community (including Sinologists, archaeologists, archaeo-genetecists, and linguists in both Indo-Iranian and Sino-Tibetan languages), so you're perhaps wise in changing the language to emphasize that it is the suggestion of the cited authors and not the conclusive views of the academic community. At the very least their works are at least published by academic presses, not some low-rent publishing house unattached from any respected institution. I haven't personally investigated the work by Dr. Hisao Matsuda, but hopefully I may do so in the near future. Pericles of Athens^Talk 10:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens:You should note that a stated intention of the Sino-Platonic Papers is to give young or not well-established scholars a chance to voice their opinion and research. It does mean that we should be careful about the use of papers from the journal except for authors with good reputation. Some of the opinions expressed in papers such as the one by Lucas Christopoulos are far from mainstream, and although I see no issue with stating some of them, to give such prominence to them (such as giving a large quote from a footnote) is WP:UNDUE. Hzh (talk) 11:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, where did you get the name "Mariner Padwa" from? She's not listed in the contents section of the book as having written that particular chapter. This is a book written by multiple authors and since an author's name is ommitted from that section, I assumed it was composed by the lead editors of the book. If Marina Padwa was the author then you need to cite it as such. About Tocharian, you're right that she expressed doubt and I should have incorporated that into statement about the Tocharian language (I simply misread that bit). As it looks now it appears to be fine, though, so thanks for the edit. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I have the book, the name is listed in the front before the Contents page. If you look at the end of page 171, it says MP, which is given as Mariner Padwa in the front. I will add it to the reference. Hzh (talk) 13:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Much better. Also, who are these scholars who say Tocharian was a dead language at this point? You haven't mentioned it in the article and only raised that point on my talk page. I'm curious, though, do you have a source for that? Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:50, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: I'm afraid it's something I come across once in a while, and won't be able to give you anything specific. I think only one Tocharian variant was used widely, the other two may not have been common by the time written evidence of their existence appeared. It is however something I would not write in article since the Tocharian language is only something I read in passing.

In general, I read a number of sources when I write something down in the article, so what is written in the article could be considered to have some support from the academic community, or at least a reasonable reflection of some part of the academic opinion. You'd also find that many academics in some fields do like to assert things when the evidence don't completely support their view (the evidence is often difficult to come by such fields, so sometimes they have to be inventive in the way they gather evidence), so a more careful approach is good when writing things in article. Usually if a subject is controversial then a more nuanced approach is necessary, citing different scholars' opinions. I would also trust some academics more than another. One issue that I find with some of your edits is that you give excessive prominence to minor academics (in the case of Lucas Christopoulos he appears not to be an academic at all, just an independent writer), so I would say read a few more sources before adding their views to articles. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. If you can hunt them down then by all means add them to the article. It seems like a fairly critical argument to include, does it not? In either case your recent edit with the Han-era pronunciation is fascinating. I've always wondered how we were able to reconstruct the Han-era pronunciations for Chinese characters. By using contemporary rhyme-books and literary criticisms made by Han-era writers? I know from a Western viewpoint this was how we've deduced a lot of pronunciations for ancient Latin versus medieval Church Latin (and especially the early vernacular tongues of the late Roman Epire and Early Middle Ages, mentioned by various authors who were criticizing others for using improper speech). Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:43, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

For instance, how on Earth did modern linguists reconstruct Han-era pronunciations for various Chinese characters even with the handy guide of Yang Xiong (author), his Fangyan? Without alphabetical letters to reproduce speech patterns, I find this to be rather incredible how they achieved this. Pericles of Athens^Talk 16:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Someone once pointed me to a book about historical phonology of Chinese, unfortunately I didn't keep a note of it to get the book, so I can't say much about it. A lot of it I think did come from rhyme books. Also many southern Chinese pronunciations are closer to Tang dynasty pronunciation (it is noticeable that some Japanese pronunciations are close to Hokkien, perhaps they got those pronunciations in older times), therefore regional pronunciations might be a guide. I'm however not entirely sure, so I could be talking nonsense. Hzh (talk) 17:33, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, I think I found out who is responsible for discovering how to pronounce Old Chinese and Middle Chinese. Look to the article on Bernhard Karlgren, as well as Edwin G. Pulleyblank. Apparently in the 1920s Karlgren, a Swedish sinologist, used a number of existing varied Chinese dialects and old rhyme books as well as ancient and Imperial Chinese poetry to reconstruct Old and Middle Chinese. I find it amazing he was able to do this without a working alphabetical system, which made the reconstruction of ancient and medieval Western languages so much easier, but he and others were capable of doing it. Pericles of Athens^Talk 12:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@PericlesofAthens: Thank you for bringing this to my attention, it is useful to know. There must be some validity in the methodology used given how words in different languages borrowed very early on managed to sound the same many centuries later (e.g. Japanese word for "five", probably borrowed into Japanese in the Tang dynasty, sounds very similar in the pronunciation in Hokkien which was also probably introduced to Fujian during the Tang dynasty). I expect there must be a lot of speculations, so not much in the reconstruction could be considered absolutely correct. Hzh (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Correct. It's more of an approximation. However the aforementioned rhyme books and modern Chinese dialects were apparently cross-referenced and used in conjunction with Sino-Korean vocabulary, Sino-Vietnamese vocabulary, and Sino-Japanese vocabulary (which you've suggested), all of which to varying degrees retained the Middle Chinese vocabulary of the Sui-Tang-Song eras. I guess that historical Imperial Chinese influence over these other countries was useful for something, no? :) Lol. Pericles of Athens^Talk 14:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kingdom of Khotan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Niya. 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) 10:52, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! McGeddon (talk) 11:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@McGeddon: I've made over 50,000 edits, so I know what needs to be done. A lot of it is simply copy-editing what's written (and adding and removing words, rephrasing so that it reads better), there is really no point telling all the corrections or adjustment made. All the edits are clear by just doing a diff. I would explain when it is needed to be explain. Often the first edit tells you what is being done for most of the rest (add for adding content). Should I have told you that this edit was done because I thought you added something that, by trimming off what was said, could be considered sarcastic, but it really serves no useful purpose making accusation in edit summary. You are free to ask me why I make certain edits and I would happily explain. Hzh (talk) 11:57, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, apologies for templating a regular there, must have misread the situation. I wasn't referring to any particular edit, and you make a good point about the quote - all your edits seem fine, and it was good to see a new photo. I'd just noticed a lot of blankness in the edit history for the i360 article, making it hard to see when a particular aspect might have been introduced or removed. No need to explain or argue anything in depth in an edit summary ("copyedit" is fine), it's just helpful if other editors can skim a history without having to manually diff and consider each unexplained edit. --McGeddon (talk) 12:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

In most cases, I do add edit summary when making significant changes to other people's edits so that others know why I made those edits. Most of the time I'm adding content and adjusting my own edits. I just thought it made it more difficult to read what's been done when minor adjustments overwhelm the significant changes. But you are right that I should add more explanations, and I'll try to do it more often. Hzh (talk) 12:26, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great British Bake Off (series 7), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chai. 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) 12:07, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Kashgar and Aksu

Thanks for significantly improving the Urumqi article. Would you have any data on the urban districts of Kashgar and Aksu? Could you please update the articles with those figures as they are maybe the most watched demographic figures in all of Xinjiang. Muzzleflash (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

@Muzzleflash: I'm afraid I don't have the book Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region. the 2010 census data where the statistics came from, so I simply copied the data over from the Chinese Wiki. I'm trusting that they got the figures correct (Chinese Wiki also have the figures for the prefectures, but not for the city of Kashgar and Aksu). I have a few books on Xinjiang, but they tend to select statistics to illustrate certain point, rather than a comprehensive set of figures for any particular city. I'll have a look round in a few days time and see if I can find something, it will however likely be just scraps of information. Kashgar is dominated by the Uyghurs, and although there are large number of Han Chinese in Aksu, I'm not sure of their proportion in the city. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Sharawadgi

Hello, Hzh -- In case you don't have this article on your watch list: I thought you might be able to help here: Talk:Sharawadgi#What is "Sa Luo Wei Qi"?.  – Corinne (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne: I think I've found a possible derivation (although spelt slightly differently, and others suggest that it is not the true origin). I'll put it in and adjust the text later. Hzh (talk) 09:22, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

O.K. Thanks!  – Corinne (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I just saw your edits; thank you for working on the article. I made a few more copy-edits. I changed "regularness" to "regularity". I don't believe "regularness" is a word.  – Corinne (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Question.

Just curious, why did you revert it? It has some unique sources in the quora content regarding lions in china, and quora is cited by Wikipedia more than 5,400 times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vetato (talk • contribs) 22:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Vetato: Quora is not really considered a reliable source. That other articles use it is neither here nor there (and I would remove any such link if I see it somewhere else). Any article that relies on Quora alone would get deleted. What you gave is simply a collection of links, some useful, some not, and if you want use a particular link, then choose that link, rather than use Quora itself. I would encourage you to read on reliable source WP:RS. Also note the better way of citing source per WP:CS and WP:RDD. For example, place your link within this <ref>put your link here</ref> Hzh (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016

When adding links to material on external sites, as you did to Woman Hating, please ensure that the external site is not violating the creator's copyright. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website's operator has created or licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to a site that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube or Sci-Hub, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe the linked site is not violating copyright with respect to the material, then you should do one of the following:

• If the linked site is the copyright holder, leave a message explaining the details on the article Talk page;
• If a note on the linked site credibly claims permission to host the material, or a note on the copyright holder's site grants such permission, leave a note on the article Talk page with a link to where we can find that note;
• If you are the copyright holder or the external site administrator, adjust the linked site to indicate permission as above and leave a note on the article Talk page;

If the material is available on a different site that satisfies one of the above conditions, link to that site instead. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Well, what you are doing is extraordinary. I have never seen anyone issue such a strong first warning on what is a single link. You reverted a huge chunk of edit, yet warn me something that is really a simply a link unrelated to the content you deleted. It does seem that you are reverting based on poor rationale, and using warning instead to obsfucate the issue. Please note that you are misusing WP:OR. Using a court transcript is hardly OR, if you want to complain, it is about not using primary source, rather secondary (and primary sources are permitted when used with care). Also using quotes from book is fine when used in the right context. 00:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

First, what I did was hardly "extraordinary". I reverted poorly material that was mostly based on primary sources (a court record and the book in question), which always raise questions of the degree of original research. When another editor removed similar material three years ago, he cited the same concern.

Second, I don't think you understand the gravity of copyright violations, including linking to copyrighted works. Our legal policy could not be more clear: if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. ... Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.

I wasn't obligated to notify you about my reversion at all; I chose to warn you about your serious violation of Wikipedia policy and not post a second template about adding original research to an article. Would you have preferred two templates? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:12, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Given that I restored the edit, you can tell that I did not agree with the rationale. Court judgments are not dubious sources, and I did not restore all, removing a part which I thought could be a POV. The rest is simply what it says, what exactly are the problems with those? You are misusing the OR argument. Hzh (talk) 01:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I've never said that trial transcripts are "dubious sources", although I think they are. The problem, from Wikipedia's point of view, is that they are primary sources.

I have no interest in discussing whether the use of trial transcripts are primary sources. They are, WP:PSTS agrees that they are, and you can argue at WT:NOR if you disagree. The only question is how much of the two paragraphs in question are yours and how much can be cited to the (primary) sources. If this was meaningful criticism of the book, you should be able to find secondary sources that describe it, and not have to rely on your own interpretation of primary sources. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: Well, none of the text is mine since I simply restored part of someone else's edit (although I did change the section title), and the "dubious" part refers to the edit summary of the earlier edit you mentioned that describe legal documents as dubious. You can say that I should have added extra sources when I restored the edits, but I find it odd that anyone would think that a court case like this would have no secondary sources. The most you can say is that I should have removed a couple more sentences, but the bulk of it is perfectly fine. To consider this some OR is simply extraordinary. Hzh (talk) 01:49, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Malik Shabazz: I should also say that you ignoring what WP:PSTS says, given that it quite clearly states that primary sources are permissible when used with care. You reminded me of the well-known case of an expert who use court transcripts to correct erroneous claims in an Wikipedia article, but got reverted because other editors refused to accept a primary source even though it is accurate and they are the ones who are wrong. Given that the court case like this directly relates to the subject of the article, it would be relevant and informative for the article, your indiscriminate revert is therefore damaging to the article, at the same time also misuing the OR rationale for the revert. Hzh (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive editing on Marco Polo

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Silvio1973 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: You should understand that you need to discuss things first before issuing an ANI. Making large number of edits by itself is not disruptive, you have to show that there is actually a problem first. Hzh (talk) 13:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, an administrator has just confirmed that you have the right to do so. So feel free to continue. I think it's not normal at all, but I will comply to the judgment of the administrators. --Silvio1973 (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: No problem. However, if you don't like the edits, then by all means let me know (here or in the article page). I edited to help improve the article, but neither I nor anyone else can have the last word on it, and others are free to criticise any edit I make. I can see issues if people don't like excessive content on particular issue (in the debate section for example), although I think it might be warranted given the controversy that some had asserted (which I see in many places) that he did not go to China. Hzh (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think I will have the strength to go anytime soon trough 170 consecutive edits. This is just an excellent example of how one can use rules to have things his way. However it's legal, so I accept it. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: There is no need to go through all 170 edits at all, you only need to read that what you can see at the end. To make it easier for you to understand what I did, I expanded the subsection on "Debate" into its own section, and replaced it with "Authenticity and veracity" subsection. Therefore you only read those parts, and if you are unhappy with the content in those sections, then do discuss it with me. Hzh (talk) 14:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LeAnn Rimes - Unchained Melody.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:LeAnn Rimes - Unchained Melody.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 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).

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. --B-bot (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 19 November

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 Twiztid discography page, your edit caused a broken reference name (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) 00:17, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hzh. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Malaysian Chinese food

If you have earlier sources, please quote them. If not, you're just trolling.

The Star newspaper is a reliable source and the originator has been thoroughly researched by the Star's team and verified by the locals.

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xng (talk) 23:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xng: I guess you didn't read the source I gave before you started demanding sources. Given that the earlier claim was reported in The Star, made by the Tourism Minister Dr Ng, saying that it was invented in the 1930s, therefore earlier than the one reported for the late 1940s. I would advise you strongly not to call people trolling, you are welcome to report me, and you may find yourself in trouble too. Hzh (talk) 00:00, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr Ng didn't give the source of the inventor, she was just approximating the time because she didn't know the inventor herself. It could be a mistake on the timing.

The source has been verified by many local Klang residents. 'Seng Huat' Bak Kut Teh is one of the relative of Teik Teh. The name Teh comes from Lee Boon Teh. You can go personally to Seng Huat bak kut teh to ask who is the originator. He will say one of his relatives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no interest trying to guess Dr Ng's reasoning. She gave an earlier source, unless she retracts her words, it is what she says. Like I say, someone claiming it to be so, does not make it so. Hzh (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Bak Kut Teh and Dr Ng

I have no interest trying to guess Dr Ng's reasoning. She gave an earlier source, unless she retracts her words, it is what she says. Like I say, someone claiming it to be so, does not make it so. Hzh (talk) 00:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Why don't you give her a call and ask her what were her sources that Bak Kut Teh originated in the 1930s as she claimed? Did she just give a rough estimate? She has an office and a telephone number. She can't even give a specific shop name. GO ahead and call her to verify the date and shop name of the 1930 inventor.

It is not one shop claiming so, it is well known by all the old residents in Klang how the name bak kut teh comes from. Have you ever been in Klang to speak to the old residents (over 60 years old) there ?

If you don't want to call Dr Ng and visit Klang and keep on undoing the edits, you're just trolling without any valid reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 01:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xng: I'm afraid you the one who is questioning what Dr Ng says, so it is up to you to challenge what she says, not me. Hzh (talk) 01:12, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

@Xng: I would also request that you discuss the issue at Talk:Malaysian Chinese#Bak Kut Teh. Hzh (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Dr Ng even claimed Chili crab and Hainanese Chicken rice are invented in Malaysia. What are her sources? Did she do any research?

Unless you have a specific shop name, it's not reliable. The fact that you don't want to call Dr Ng to verify her sources show that you're a troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xng (talk • contribs) 01:30, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

It's easy to verify the inventor of Bak Kut Teh, just go to the shop itself and speak to the old residents who have been living there for 60 years or more. That was what Thestar newspaper and Axian food show did.

That's unlike you who keeps undoing reliable sources and doesn't give any reliable source with a shop name.

Did Dr Ng said that Bak Kut Teh was not invented by Lee Boon Teik? There's no such statements, she just made general statements.

I've watched both Chinese and English Malaysian and Singaporean food programmes who searched the origin of various food, all of them point to the same shop and place. Do you even watch these programmes at all?

You need more than what some food programmes say. This claim is only quite recent, other people have claimed to have invented the dish, for example in Singapore, some apparently claimed it was invented before WWII (therefore before your claim). We have no interest in all the claims and counter claims, only in stating what is true in Wikipedia. Hzh (talk) 01:56, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Christine and the Queens Chaleur Humaine.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Christine and the Queens Chaleur Humaine.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 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).

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. --B-bot (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)