|This is a Wikipedia user page.
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this page belongs may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at
(Nasi Kerabu) Even have only one citation, it is still remained as citation. Others country’s national dishes also have either limit citation or none. So, one of citation is enough as a proof for time being. Research is continuous. Because of only have one citation it doesn’t mean need to remove. Please don't be bias. If you concern for this matters, please remove all national dish that have one citation or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
- The one citation is not unbiased, and make false claim (for example that there is such as a thing as an official national dish), therefore is not a reliable source, and cannot be used. Please see the talk page of that article. Hzh (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I saw your recent edits to Tea. I am sure you know more about the subject of tea than I do, and about Chinese, but I do know something about languages and linguistics, and I just wondered about that phrase "were borrowed into Korean and Japanese". I don't understand "borrowed into". Usually, we say that a language has borrowed words from another language.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
- You can modify the wordings in the way you think best. It is simply an ellipsis (the words "from Chinese" are omitted because that is understood by the following "during earlier periods of Chinese history"), but if it doesn't read right to you, then by all means you are welcome to correct them. Hzh (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi :) may i ask you a BIG favor please? :( I just finished Sanghyang Adi Buddha article. Please can you check my translation? i know i'd made so many grammatical errors, but i can't find it by myself. thank you very much Okkisafire (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I can do some proof-reading, but I don't think I can check the translation because I don't really speak Indonesian (I know a few words and phrases, that's about it). At the moment some of the sentences are unclear as to what they mean, but I'll see what I can do. I'm not sure what "ke-Tuhanan" means, I see that Godliness is translated some dictionaries as "kesalehan", is that what you mean? Or do you mean divinity or God? Hzh (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have found some sources, and I believe you mean "God" rather than "Godliness", so I have changed it, but do let me know if you think it is incorrect. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have no idea what this means: "He is the Buddha who do not work" (itu adalah Sang Buddha jang tidak berkarya). Hzh (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
- Ow, I mean just check my English sentences :}} but thank you for checked the translation. itu adalah Sang Buddha jang tidak berkarya is an old spelling of Indonesian language, but the translation was right, I didn't want to change the direct sentences too much. It should be: "He (the Adi Buddha) is the Buddha (one from so many Buddhas) who doesn't work (you know, it's just like Oranos, Greek's sky god, only watch but nothing else after Kronos castrated him).
- And about "Ketuhanan", that's an adjective, not a noun. I think "Godliness" is more precise than "God". How do you think? "Tuhan" is a noun, we translate it as "God". But "Ketuhanan", i think it has to be "Godliness". ::Thanks a lot :)) Okkisafire (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you are saying. Godliness is a noun, so is God. I'm not sure if you know the definition of godliness, it has little to do with God himself. It means piety. Also I meant that the phrase "He is the Buddha who do not work" does not make sense in English. If it is some kind of Indonesian idiom, then you would need to write it in a way that would make sense to an English reader. Hzh (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- So, how is it? (︶︿︶) It confuse me as well. It is hard to translate "Ketuhanan" into English. Well, maybe "God" just suit it best. I'll ask my friend who live in Oz, how to translate "doesn't work". I'll fix it later. Btw, I just fixed my gratitute banner to you :) I copied it from 7&6=thirteen. Thank you again :) Okkisafire (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps "Belief in God Almighty" might do as a translation for "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa". It is similar to what is written in the page for Pancasila.
- This line doesn't make sense - "In the same year of the heating of the controversy", it might be better to just state the year (e.g "In 1978, the Indonesian Directorate General..."). There are also a number of sentences that I am not sure of, but I'll see if I can make sense of them when I have more time. Hzh (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
- I'd read Pancasila article and the translation of the precepts weren't good. That's why I didn't use it. Well, I'm embarassed x_x my translation is so bad Okkisafire (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think this should not be used, because Lordness is not a word in English, or at least, not a word that most people would have come across. I think the common translation "Belief in One Supreme God", or another one mentioned in the article "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence" should be used instead.
- This translation doesn't make sense: "By call Buddha actually we already mention the Adi Buddha, bhanga the Pacceka Buddha and Gautama Buddha, too. Therefore the homage of a Buddhist simply by say: NAMO Buddhaya!" I'll see how to adjust it later. What does "Namo" means? Hzh (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
- Sorry, i'm so busy lately -_- i didn't notice your message. I think "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence" is the best translation, indeed. "Namo" is a sanskrit word which is mean "Salaam" (just like the Muslims use it) or "Shalom" (just like the Christians use it). I'm gonna change it :) thank you again for your help. Okkisafire (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
|Promoter of understanding and shared knowledge|
|Congratulations on a job well done! May Sanghyang Adi Buddha smile upon you. Okkisafire (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)|
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- Biology Association |date=page last updated October 2006 |accessdate=November 23, 2012}}</ref>) is a species of [[tree]] in the ''[[Artocarpus]]'' genus of the [[mulberry]] family (''[[Moraceae]]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Malaysian Chinese, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Klang (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Ignoring points made and issuing warning instead is not good manner in wikpedia. Hzh (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- takes part in The Island with Bear Grylls reality TV show |date=10 May 2014 |work=York Press }}}</ref>
I am requesting permission to use the photo you uploaded to Wikimedia on the actor, Sean Harris', page. Thank you.
I think it's fair use, but thought to ask.
- In general, it is not advisible to use non-free image on a page for a living person. The reason that image is allowed on the Southcliffe page is because no other substitution would be reasonable because you need an image from the TV show itself, but it is assumed in Wikipedia that you can find a replacement free image for the living person. I would advise you not to use that image for Sean Harris page, it would likely be removed. For a non-free image to be used in any page, a separate rationale is necessary, so you would need to give an acceptable rationale why it needs to be used for that particular page. Hzh (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you. This make sense now. Yes, my promo/press photos were removed. I won't use the photo (or any), but do appreciate your taking the time to explain why.
- I know it is a problem for many Wikipedia pages of individuals to find images for the person involved, often people solve this by looking for free image of the person concerned in Flickr (need to check that it is free to use and has the appropriate licence), or government sources (some government sources are considered public domain), or take the picture of the person concerned themselves at a public event. Wikipedia has stricter criteria on the use of image when it involves a living person, there are exceptions (for example if the image is of particular historical significance, or something that cannot be recreated), but those need to be explained in the rationale for the use of the image. Hzh (talk) 17:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Reference Errors on 3 June
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
About Reliable source
Hi! I saw that you have changed some of my changes on article Uyghur People, you wrote that "I did not provide reliable source" how do you mean that i did not provide reliable source for those i wrote in Population Problem, Education and some others, I have provided books that are legaly published and where these saying are came from, how are those book are not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I have restored the parts that are sourced and relevant. Those that unsourced and not relevant have been removed. I have a particular problem with the population estimate from WUC. I have no idea how they derived the numbers, and without a clear idea it can be just a number invented out of thin air. Neither of the two new sections you have added have any sources, and even if they are sourced, we are required to write the content in a neutral manner. The English used is also generally poor. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so the basic problem here is that im not being neutral in these two sections that i have added, and i admit that maybe im not a flutent english speaker like you but can you then contribute to the page and write thos two sections with a more neutral manner? I will provide you sources for both of them. and what about the Education section that i edited? It was completly in neutral manner with fully reliable and relevant source, so how can that be something that needs to be removed, and the one with art is also cited with source and the source is a reliable good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- I don't think the population section should be there. There isn't a proper source that can be used, what you wrote in that section was just speculations and anecdotes which have no place in Wikipedia. I think there can be a section on the issue with Uyghurs in modern China (separatism, influx of Chinese people, perception of oppression, etc.), although it needs to be done very carefully because it is a contentious issue. I will think about how to add that. I trimmed the Medicine part, it doesn't need more details, and it is hard to distinguish whether some of the contributions were made by Uyghurs, Arabs or ancient people of the Xinjiang area (opium for example was first introduced to China by Arab traders). Hzh (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
If the Population problem shall not be here, then there shall be a redirection to a new page of Uyghur Population problem, maybe you know it or not, it is a common problem in Countries which are trying to ássimilate a people will use false statistics on thier census to fool the world, And if we want to stay Neutral then we need to show both sides view (PRCs and Uyghurs) on various quistions, the population you are giving is not generaly accapeted by uyghurs, The census your wrote est 2009 is actully from 2010, and you said that the medicine part does not need more details, is not it true that Wikipedia wants more information on it not less information, the opium is truely intrduced by Arab merchants but the medical use of it is originaly from Uyghurs medicals says the offical statement the book i statet, the book is used by medical insititution of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not interested in speculations or conspiracy theories unless it is something widely discussed by reliable neutral sources. If any page on Uyghur population is created then it will most likely be deleted, simply for the lack of a reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source for the Uyghur population, then you can add it, but if it is from the WUC, then we would need to know how they got their numbers. Being neutral is not about giving equal weight to numbers given by both sides. We know China has census, so at least we know how they get their numbers, we have no idea how WUC can get any reliable number apart from a complete guess. Hzh (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
- After reviewing other pages for other groups of people, I think I'll leave any section on contemporary issues out for the time being. Other pages don't have a special section on that, and some contemporary issues affecting Uyghurs are addressed in the history section and touched on in others, so it is not necessary. Hzh (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I will write it here so that it will look tidy in your page, you said two books, i have only cited one book on Education, by this i can see that you did not check the book properly and claiming for more details, i don't have so many time to check back my book and give you the specific page or chapter, please don't do like that again. Dolatjan (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
- 1) Blaine Kaltman - Under the Heel of the Dragon: Islam, Racism, Crime, and the Uighur in China
- 2) Chen YangBin - Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School: Social Recapitalization as a Response to Ethnic Integration Hzh (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
BNA closed two years ago. Kenny's been on Columbia for a while now. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)