User talk:Hzh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Sino-Platonic papers cited on Uyghur people[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghur_people&diff=635767398&oldid=635488688

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Uyghur_people&diff=636171698&oldid=636099772

Sino-Platonic papers publishes fringe theories, it explicitly seeks out unknown and "independent" authors to publish "controversial" material.

http://www.sino-platonic.org/complete/spp150_uyghurs.pdf

Rajmaan (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you gave me this message, I did not write those sentences and did not add that reference. Also a lot of what's in Sino-Platonic Paper is OK and uncontroversial, and the content can be used when phrased correctly. What could be considered controversial is suggesting Xiongnu and Beidi were ancestors of Uyghurs - although ancient Chinese texts themselves suggest Uyghurs were related to Xiongnu, it is disputed by modern Chinese scholarship.
I also haven't kept an eye on that page for some months now - too many people without any sense want to edit that page, and it gets tiresome keeping that page in a reasonable state. I might get back to it another time. For now, I would suggest that removing the Di, Chidi, Dingling, and Xiongnu part, pointing it the later section which give a more detailed explanation as to why some of it is controversial. The reference actually say that it is ancient Chinese texts that said that those were Uyghur's ancestors, not modern scholarship, so that sentence in the page that say it is the contemporary view about modern Uyghurs is incorrect and does not reflect what the source says. Some modern scholars dispute what ancient Chinese texts say, you can read that in a number of other sources. Hzh (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It is this sentence which is the problem along with claiming Xiongnu ancestry- "The Uyghurs and their progenitors are an ancient Turkic-speaking people who have been living in Central Asia along the Silk Road at least since the first millennium B.C" and the edit's wording is geared towards emphasizing Turkic origins and Turkic indigeneity and biased against Iranic/indo-european origins. Because the Turkic peoples who contributed to the Uyghurs makeup, did not live in Central Asia along the silk road, but came from Siberia and Mongolia in the first millenium A.D., like the tribes, the Uyghurs did not move into Turfan/Kumul until the collapse of the Uyghur Khaganate and Karluks and other Turkic tribes are also migrants into the Tarim. And as for the Xiongnu, even if we know their definite ethnicity, they still didn't live along the Silk Road but instead originate from Siberia/Mongolia. Its Iranics like the Saka and other Indo-Europeans like Tocharians which lived in Central Asia along the Silk Road in the first millenium B.C.Rajmaan (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
It is due to a confusion of the history of the region. Some of the Uyghur's ancestors were people who lived along the silk road, some of the ancestors were Turkic, some Turkic people lived along the silk road at some time, but phrasing it as the person did is inaccurate. You can just point to the section lower down which gives a fuller picture of the different people who formed the modern Uyghurs, so that sentence is redundant as well as dubious and misleading. It is important to point out to editors that the history of the region is very complex and often there is insufficient evidence to say something definite, and there are often conflicting points of view between many academics as well as different political and ethnic groupings, so Wikipedia should try to give as broad a view as possible. Simplistic statement about the ethnogenesis of the Uyghur people should be avoided, and best left out so it may be explained better in another section. Hzh (talk) 00:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The academic rank of Sinoplatonic papers is authoritative. Even though I can see the trouble, and I think you are right. The phrasing was misleading. It would be better to accentuate the multiethnic ethnogenesis of the Uyghur people. I have to rephrase that part. But I am away for some days, so I have to leave you alone till Tuesday. See you next time, bye. 11:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uigur Cämiyät (talkcontribs)

 : @Uigur Cämiyät: I think a common mistake is that because the Uyghurs currently speak a Turkic language, the assumption is that the ancestry of the people is entirely Turkic when they are in reality a hybrid people. Although the ancient Uyghurs arrived in the Tarim Basin in the 9th century, the people in the Tarim Basin still spoke two different languages as late as the 11th century. This is noted by Mahmud al-Kashgari who wrote that (see here) "The Uyghur have a pure Turkic language, and also another language which they speak among themselves", and that they had 2 different writing systems, also that the people of Khotan (who were recently conquered by the Karakanids) did not know Turkic well as they had their own language. So complete adoption of the Turkic language by the people of the Tarim Basin is a slow process lasting a few hundred years. Hzh (talk) 12:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the situation is even more complicated with two different anthropological areas in the Xingiang Autonomous Rep. The north is more characterized by Mongoloid with minor Caucosoid traits and the south is characterized by Caucasoid with minor Mongoloid traits. Another good example is Uzbekistan, the eastern parts of that country are generqlly Uzbek-Tajik bilingual Tajiks. So, in many cases its very hard to distinguish between original Iranic Caucasoids and original Turkic Turanids. What we can say for sure is that the Ughurs are made of 4 main genetic clusters, a Chinese/South-East-Asian, Iranic/Central+South-Asian, Turkic/Central-Asian+North Siberian and a Mongolian/North-East-Siberian cluster. 23:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Uigur Cämiyät (talk)

electrophoresis[edit]

you don't seem to be familiar with the relevant scientific literature. There are many papers, in high quality journals, about using gel electrophoresis to separate, say, latex plastic particles or bacteria befor you revert my changes, why don't you learn - say go to pubmed and look up articles by p serwer, a prof at univ of texas if i sound arrogant and annoyed it is because this is like the 100th time someone like you, perhaps well meaning, has reverted factually correct info to incorrect info which is why i don't really bother to do wiki anymore; to many people like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinnamon colbert (talkcontribs) 16:43, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

If you want to contribute, then add content with proper source. Please do not rant on article. It was your rant on the Gel Electrophoresis article that got it reverted, not the other content. It is also not for me to look up Pubmed, it is for you to add the source for you edit. On the article about agarose gel electrophoresis, there is nothing wrong with the statement, and I have no idea what you mean about the lack of charge, since agarose gels normally have charged groups (hence the part about EEO in the article). If what you want to say is actually that it has relatively few charges compared to other gels, then say so with source. In any case you are misreading the line, it is not about why agarose is used for electrophoresis, it's about why agarose is preferred over other methods that can also be used for the separation of nucleic acids in many laboratory procedures. Hzh (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account[edit]

Hi Hzh! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

@DerHexer: Thank you for letting me know about unified account. I have tried to do it with my account on English wiki, but there are a number of other accounts that are not mine on other languages (most appear to be unused). I have only one other account and that's in Wikimedia Commons with a different user name - it did not allow me use my English Wikipedia account when I tried to do it, so I created a different account there username Axb3). I assume that can be left as it is until it can be merged later. Hzh (talk) 21:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I've usurped all local accounts without visible edits. The two remaining ones will be renamed during SUL finalization till April 2015. Once you have a completed global Hzh account (and we stewards the account merge tool which is expected to be available by late January 2015), your both global accounts can be merged. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 12:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Foxtail millet[edit]

I have just finished re-ordering phrases in a list of names of foxtail millet in different languages to put the name before the language. (See discussion at User talk:Sminthopsis84#Foxtail millet.) I noticed that, before I changed the order, the word "usually" appeared before the Mandarin Chinese word. If I put the word "usually" before the word (right after the "bullet"), it will disrupt the uniform appearance of the list. I could put the word "usually" after the Chinese word, but I don't think that would look very good, either. I wonder if you could tell me whether you think the word "usually" is really necessary and ought to be there. Also, while you're there, perhaps you could check the Japanese and Korean words. (Do you think all that information about the connotations of the Korean word are necessary?) CorinneSD (talk) 20:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I will need to check this further because there is more to the terms used in Chinese (see here). It can get complicated if you want to explain fully, and I'm not sure if a full explanation is necessary for English Wiki. I think there is no problem removing the word "usually" even though xiaomi is a colloquial term, it is used often enough to be the common term. I'm tied up for a while with other things at the moment, so I'll have look into this tomorrow or later. The Japanese and Korean ones should be kept as it is for now. Hzh (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Herbal tea[edit]

I just started reading the article on Herbal tea, and I noticed that there are two "citation needed" tags in the second paragraph of the lede. I thought you might be able to find the references. CorinneSD (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Also in the second paragraph in Herbal tea#Popularity. CorinneSD (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I'm sure there are sources for some of the assertions, but how true the assertions are is another matter. Ancient writings for example extend a bit further than written records of herbs used as a drink - in China the record of some kind of tea is probably around the 6th century BC (could be based on older texts), while the oldest Chinese writing is probably around the 14th century BC, but there are claims of Chinese writings found that are a few thousand years older. The record of the use of herbs in ancient Egypt is probably around the 16th century BC (Ebers Papyrus) but the history of Egyptian hieroglyphs is a couple of thousand years older. Also liang cha is one kind of herbal teas from Southern China (see here), whether that is the generic term used for herbal tea I'm not really too sure (I've drank different types of Chinese herbal tea and they have different names). I would leave the citation needed tags there for the time being, or perhaps rephrase the lede. Hzh (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you for the explanation and links. CorinneSD (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 12 January[edit]

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

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) 00:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gweilo 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • to describe foreigners. For example, a seventeen century writer from Canton [[:zh:屈大均|Qu Dajun]]) wrote that Africans "look like ghosts", and ''gui nu'' (ghost slave) was once used to describe

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your work on 13 May incident (Malaysia)![edit]

I just wanted to take a moment to say that I really appreciate your recent edits to this article. Thank you! Dowcet (talk) 04:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You are welcome. The preceding events weren't well covered, and the event itself and its aftermath really needed expanding. However I don't have much time to spend on it, so I'll just add a few more sentences and leave the rest for the time being. I'm considering sections on analysis, interpretations and its effects on current Malaysian politics, but it might be touching some controversial aspects of the riots, so perhaps not. Hzh (talk) 13:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita[edit]

I thought you might be able to find a reliable source in Chinese that mentions the use of any part of the Cucurbita plant in traditional Chinese medicine. After the article had already been peer reviewed and, as of February 28, 2015, promoted to FA status, a discussion arose on content, wording, and sources in one section. See Talk:Cucurbita#Alternative medicine section. CorinneSD (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will have a look, but can't guarantee anything. It's not something I know anything about since I've never heard of its use in Chinese medicine, but if there are sources I'll put something in. Hzh (talk) 23:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
I saw what you added to the talk page. Thank you so much. CorinneSD (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
As it turns out, there are plenty of sources, more could turn up if I look for further. This seems to be an established fact, some people tend to delete things without checking further which upset others. It is also used in natural medicine, and appears to be used in some other countries such as Bulgaria, Turkey and Ukraine.[1][2].Hzh (talk) 08:53, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Hell's Kitchen and KCA[edit]

Hey.

Hey. This is AustinAndAllyFan. There's been a huge mistake. Some of my edits have actually been true like the KCA one and the Hell's Kitchen one I did last night. I got the Hell's Kitchen edit from another page and put it on that one. Also the KCA one was true as well as I saw it on the guide on my TV. I'm sorry about all those edits I did. I didn't know I was vandalizing wikipedia. I promise i never do that on wikis. I was just adding information. Honestly if you knew me at all I don't vandalize ever. Also sorry if I put this message in the wrong place. I couldn't figure out where to put it. I hope you forgive me. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinAndAllyFan (talkcontribs) 23:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

@AustinAndAllyFan: The KCA and Hell's Kitchen edits were reverted by someone else. I would assume the Hell Kitchen's edit was reverted because 1) it was copied from somewhere else, therefore it is a violation of copyright rule, which is not allowed in wikipedia, 2) it was excessively long, not the way wikipedia content should be written. I would assume that the KCA edit was reverted because it is unsourced. It doesn't matter if you think it is correct, you need to provide sources. I would recommend that you read the introduction on how to edit wikipedia page WP:HOW. You can find, for example, how to give sources or the right sources to use - WP:CITE, or the manual of style - WP:MOS. If you need help on editing you are welcome to ask me how to edit on wikipedia. What you should understand is that you should not add things without thinking, or adding false information. It is likely to get you blocked. Hzh (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh Ok. I Understand.

rowspans in filmography[edit]

This edit you reverted an edit that effectively added rowspans back in. In the future, rowspans do not belong in filmographies per WP:FILMOGRAPHY and WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Thank you. LADY LOTUSTALK 18:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Langkawi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Malaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 April[edit]

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

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) 00:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Edit disputes[edit]

Do not comment on my talk page about edit disputes. Instead, discuss them on the articles' talk pages. You have not cited any Wikipedia guidelines/policies to bolster your positions, so you yourself have ironically violated them by default.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]

Stop icon

Your recent editing history at Andrew Lincoln 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.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

You are clearly misusing the Edit Warring warning. We are meant to discuss the issue, and the fact that you ignore what I wrote in your talk page and the discussion opened in the Andrew Lincoln talk page suggests that you are deliberately using the warning to avoid any discussion. You are not meant to use the warning to circumvent discussion so you can get your way. Hzh (talk) 13:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. And stop posting on my page. Discuss your issues on the article's talk page. I will agree to your edits if you can back them up with better Wiki guidelines. You will get your way, but just prove your case.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
I find your attitude odd. You tell me not to comment on your talk page and do it instead on Andrew Lincoln's talk page here (a very odd request given that I had already done both long before your message), yet you felt free to do it in other people talk pages [3]. You really can't stop other people wanting to discuss the issue on your talk page when you did not reply to my points it in the article's talk page. The message on your talk page was there to make sure you know that there is an issue need discussing. You tell me not to revert without discussing, yet you do exactly the same thing, and refusing to discuss when I had already opened a discussion. Do you think the rules only apply to other people? Hzh (talk) 12:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Manchu[edit]

Hello, Hzh -- I was just reading the article on Manchu, and I made a number of copy-edits. I tried to improve the prose, but perhaps you could check to be sure I didn't introduce any errors. There is one sentence where I re-arranged the sentence a bit, but I think it needs to be checked. It doesn't look right now. I don't know if "Wang Gao" is the same person as Cungšan. The sentence is toward the end of the fourth-to-last paragraph in the section Manchu#Origins and early history. The sentence begins:

  • Tribal leaders such as Cungšan...

Thank you. CorinneSD (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the sentences still sound as if a non-native speaker of English wrote them, but since I don't know the history, I don't want to change too much. CorinneSD (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I'm afraid I have no idea what the sentence is trying to say either. Cungšan is a different person from Wang Gao. Wang Gao appears to be the maternal great grandfather (or maternal grandfather) of Nurhaci, while Cungšan is apparently also said by some to be an ancestor of Nurhaci, but that is uncertain. With no source, I don't really know what the sentence is trying to say. Personally I would just delete Wang Gao as it appears to have no relation to that sentence. I have some books on Chinese history, but right now I'm preoccupied with something else, so I'll have to check it another time. Hzh (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I see the original text is trying to say "Tribal leaders, such as Cungšan and Wang Gao, publicly plundered Ming's area." You are right that some sentences in the article are poorly written, but it could take a while to check what they mean, so I'll have to do it another time. Hzh (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Sounds better. But what is "publicly plundered"? How can someone plunder an area of a country in a way that is not public? Maybe it's a translation from some Chinese text and is not the best word. I look forward to your revisions when you get time. CorinneSD (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
It is just badly written I think, the person who added it may be trying to say "brazenly plundered Ming-controlled territories" (i.e. they are not afraid of Ming reprisals). If you feel that it is poorly worded, then by means change it to something that sounds better, maybe "raided Ming territories" or something similar. Unless it gives a source, it would be hard to check whether it is originally Chinese or not. Hzh (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
When you have time, could you review these edits? [4] CorinneSD (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Most of the edits appear to be supported by sources, except in part of one paragraph which is sourced to a Chinese book. Unfortunately I don't have the book, so I can't check. The wordings of some of the edits are poor. I note that the person who made the edits is Raajman who in my experience does not have the best judgment (he once relied on just one sentence in a book, the implication of which he didn't quite understand, to make wholesale changes to an entire article), but I don't see anything particularly contentious in this case. Do you have anything specific in mind? BTW, I've made some edits to the Atayal page, see if you think it reads OK. Hzh (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Jamie Dornan[edit]

FYI, please note this. Thank you and have a nice day. --Ebyabe talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 13:11, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Ebyabe: Thank you for alerting me. Stemoc appears not to want to give a valid explanation in the discussion, not sure what can be done apart from undoing his edits without resorting to intervention by the administrators (probably too early for that). Hzh (talk) 13:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the image yet again, I'm evil that way...do you have a problem with the current pic? If you do, undo me, i won't revert you..I generally prefer to keep the best HQ image of celebs--Stemoc 00:36, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
@Stemoc: Looks fine to me, probably the best of the ones available so far. If you found it yourself, then well done. Hzh (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Amur River[edit]

I wonder if you can help me with this sentence. I just made a few copy-edits to the article (didn't get all the way through the article yet). Now, I'm looking at this sentence again:

Some sources report also a Chinese presence during the same period on the middle Amur, with a fort—a predecessor of later Aigun—existing for about 20 years during the Yongle era on the left (northwestern) shore of the Amur, downstream from the mouth of the Zeya (opposite to the location of the later, Qing Aigun).

I had deleted a comma after "Qing" at the very end of the sentence, but now, looking at it, I see that it was a pair of commas, with "Qing" set off by the commas. But before I put that comma back in, I want to ask you about it. I guess it was to distinguish this Aigun from an earlier Aigun. However, earlier in the same sentence it says, "with a fort—a prececessor of later Aigun..." Now, is this "later" Aigun, the same Aigun mentioned at the end of the sentence? By adding "Qing" in the second instance, it suggests that it was even later than, and different from, the earlier mention of "later Aigun". If it is the same, perhaps "Qing" should be shifted to the first mention early in this sentence.

I don't know anyone else besides you who could help me with this. CorinneSD (talk) 17:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I would read it as there being two Aigun, an earlier one on the left bank, and a later Qing Dynasty one on the right. Aigun appears to have been moved by the Qing rulers. I had to read the sentence a few times before I understood what it is trying to say, so I think it might be better to rewrite the sentence (I would delete the predecessor part). Perhaps something like this - "Some sources report also a Chinese presence during the same period on the middle Amur - a fort existed at Aigun for about 20 years during the Yongle era on the left (northwestern) shore of the Amur downstream from the mouth of the Zeya River. This Ming Dynasty Aigun was located on the opposite bank to the later Aigun that was relocated during the Qing Dynasty." (I'm not an elegant writer, so rewrite it the way you think best). Hzh (talk) 19:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you! I used the sentences as you had written them. I couldn't see any better way to write them. After that, I was looking for information on the Orchons, but didn't find anything. In the course of my search, I came across an article on Ordu-Baliq. In the first sentence in the section Ordu-Baliq#Location, do you think "teppe" is the right word, or should it be "steppe"? CorinneSD (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, if you don't mind my bothering you with one more thing, in that same article on Ordu-Baliq, in the "Historical accounts" section, I changed a quote formatted with pull quotes to normal blockquote format, but I see the reference now follows a pipe at the end of the quote. I know that's not right but I don't know how it should appear. Can you fix that for me? CorinneSD (talk) 02:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
You are right, it is Steppe (seems like no one has spotted the error for many years, me included). I adjusted the quote format using {{quote}}. Hzh (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you think "steppe" really needs to be capitalized? Thanks for fixing the quote; I've learned something new. CorinneSD (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know, you can remove the capitalization if you think it looks better. Hzh (talk) 16:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Never mind, I've changed it.Hzh (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Do you agree with this edit? [5] CorinneSD (talk) 03:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Looks like vandalism and reverted.Hzh (talk) 10:26, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Khabarovsk Krai[edit]

I'm reading the article on Khabarovsk Krai and I've come across something that is unclear to me. It's the first sentence in the third paragraph in the section Khabarovsk Krai#History. If you read the second paragraph, you'll see that the Russians lost the right to navigate on the Amur River to the Chinese. However, the first sentence in the third paragraph begins with "Although losing the rights to navigate the Amur River, the Chinese Qing Empire...", making it seem as if the Chinese had lost the rights. If you agree, how about changing the adverbial clause to:

  • Although having deprived the Russians (or Russia) of the rights to navigate the Amur River,..."? Or can you suggest a better wording? CorinneSD (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: I think that sounds about right. I took the liberty to adjust the sentence, and merged the following paragraph because the next sentence is about Russian claim, so would fit better together. See if you think that makes more sense. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I added "thus" to tie the sentence better to the previous thought and made a few more minor edits. CorinneSD (talk) 15:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: I'm wondering about the assertion that Qing did not lay claim to the lower reaches of Amur River. There was a Treaty of Nerchinsk/Nibuchu (here and here), but I'm not quite sure what exactly was agreed on in the treaty mainly because I don't know what the names of the places referred to. There were a series of treaties later, like Treaty of Aigun, and the Treaty of Peking (Convention of Peking). I deliberately use the word "Russian settlements" because I don't know if Russian did get the lower part of Amur River in the Treaty of Aigun (it looks like they shared it). Might need someone to sort that out. Hzh (talk) 16:17, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Found a source, and I've adjusted the text, hope that is better. Hzh (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Good! It's a little clearer. I wondered about two things in this clause:
  • although controlled by Qing, was left undemarcated and the Sino-Russian border allowed to fluctuate.
1) I paused at "controlled by Qing". The "Qing" was a dynasty, right? So I think usually it would be "controlled by the Qing dynasty" or "controlled by the Qing" (where "Qing" means "Qing rulers"). I've never heard "Qing" (or "Ming", etc.) used by itself like that. Correct me if I'm wrong.
2) Normally I would not repeat the verb "was" when there are two past participles, but here I think it would sound clearer if "was" is placed before "allowed to fluctuate". What do you think? Rothorpe What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree; it's a bit jarring without it. Rothorpe (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD: Do make any adjustment as you see fit, adding an extra "was" do sound better. I think Qing China or the Manchus would be OK. I often use the dynastic name (such Qing, Ming, Tang, etc) as a shorthand for the government or country, but that may not be the standard usage. Hzh (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Adjusted some of the text, see if it reads better. Hzh (talk) 01:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Atayal people[edit]

Hello, Hzh -- I wonder if you could help me with some issues in the article Atayal people. As you'll see, I've made a few minor copy-edits. But then I saw some things that weren't quite right, but I'd like your advice or help.

1) In the section Atayal people#Traditional dress, the second paragraph isn't quite about dress. It mentions tattooing and teeth filing. However, tattooing is discussed in the previous section,"Lifestyle". I don't know if tattooing and teeth filing are considered part of "traditional dress" or not, but I don't think tattooing should be discussed in two different sections.

2) The section Atayal people#Lifestyle begins with the statement "The Atayal Tribe is a fairly advanced culture." I wonder if that statement is sufficiently supported, or even illustrated.

3) The last statement in the section Atayal people#Lifestyle, "Only those with tattoos...", follows statements about women, so it is unclear whether it applies only to women or to both women and men. If you think it applies to both, perhaps it should be moved. CorinneSD (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Looking at the page, I would in fact reorganize the whole page because information seems to be randomly scattered. For example we see information on tattoos in the sections on Folklore, Lifestyle and Traditional dress, some of them duplicated. My suggestion for its organization would be something like this -
  • Origin (some ethnological or scientific studies of ethnic origin/classification would help)
    • Folklore (origin according to folklore)
  • Culture
    • Lifestyle
    • Traditional dress
    • Body art/decorations (Tattoos and tooth-filing)
I would delete the "advanced culture" part, such things are often subjective judgment, but I would replaced it with "well-developed culture" or something similar if there are sources for it. As for the last point, from what I can gather, both Tayal men and women were tattooed before marriage, but that sentence only implies that the women did.
If you are interested, a rather nice Tayal folk tune I remember hearing - here. Hzh (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions and the link. I enjoyed listening to the music. CorinneSD (talk) 00:08, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
You are welcome. It might take a bit of work to reorganize the page, if you have any problem, I can do it when I have the time. Hzh (talk) 00:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Manchuria[edit]

I'm reading and copy-editing the article on Manchuria. In the section Manchuria#Etymology and names, do you think the section should start with such a long quote? I've never seen an Etymology section start with a quote, no less such a long one. CorinneSD (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I think I would actually delete the whole thing because I'm not sure how relevant most of it is. The last part is relevant, but it can be placed somewhere else. Might be worth discussing it in the article's talk page, or just be bold and delete it. Hzh (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Shamanism in Siberia[edit]

If you have time, would you look at this edit to Shamanism in Siberia? [6] The editor may have had something specific in mind, but the link now leads to a disambiguation page. On that disambiguation page there are two articles, and I don't know which one the link should lead to. CorinneSD (talk) 22:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

 :@CorinneSD: It's done. I'll get round to Atayal people page later because that may take a bit of work looking up references, but I'll get round to it perhaps within the week or a bit later. Hzh (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Commissary gallery[edit]

Hi Hzh. There is a discussion over at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language that you might be interested in. Regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:58, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Tibet[edit]

The last sentences in the Tibet#History section of the article on Tibet are as follows:

  • He was assassinated and Zhang Zhung continued its dominance of the region until it was annexed by Songtsen Gampo in the 7th century. Prior to Songtsän Gampo, the kings of Tibet were more mythological than factual, and there is insufficient evidence of their existence.

I think "Songtsen Gampo" is the same person as Songtsän Gampo. Do you see any reason why the two should not be spelled the same? If not, should the first one be changed to the second spelling? The only thing I wonder about is that the second one contains an umlaut or diaeresis over the "a", and since that's not English spelling, perhaps the one without the umlaut/diaeresis ought to be used. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 00:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I don't know anything about Tibetan history, but looking at Google Books, there seems to be 3 slightly different spellings of the same person - Songtsen, Songtsän and Songtsan. Songtsen yielded over 1,100 results, Songtsän and Songtsan together yielded around 670-680 (both spellings turn up when googling for either of them, but gave slightly different results). Since WP:UE recommends the use whichever that is most common, whether they have diaeretic marks or not, I would think Songtsen would be the preferred one. Hzh (talk) 09:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Just wondering if 1,100 results are enough. See the first sentence in the second paragraph of WP:UE. I don't know. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would think so. You are never going to get tens of thousands of hits with a name like that (actually if you look at it properly, it is going to be fewer than 1,100, Google has a habit of pulling up links which don't mention it), but given that it is largely limited to book sources, it would give a good idea about what is more commonly used. I think when it says "too few" it means only single digits or low double digits number of sources. Hzh (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thank you. But this change would mean changing the title of an article, Songtsän Gampo, and I believe there are certain steps that need to be taken in order to do that, aren't there? I'm not sure of the protocol. CorinneSD (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I have left a message on the talk page for Songtsän Gampo, we'll see what the responses are. There was a previous request for changing the article title some years back, but I'm not sure if that was done but reverted. It seems that a few people involved have decided by themselves that this is what it should be, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines. Hzh (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Reference[edit]

I reference my numbers I dont see any reference of your, :) Julio Cesar Modesto (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@Julio Cesar Modesto: Read the reference where it says pure album sales. Hzh (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Cumans[edit]

Hello, Hzh -- I was just reading the article on Cumans. I made a few minor copy-edits, but then realized that the entire article needs some work. If you look at it, you'll see that it has many huge paragraphs, some of them containing within them long quotes which should probably be block quotes and/or be pared down. I just thought I'd point it out in case you ever have nothing to do and feel like working on it. CorinneSD (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: Oh dear, this is the kind of articles that give me a headache when I read them. Yes, the paragraphs do need trimming, but it looks like a lot of work. I may have a look at them closely when I have the time (unlikely to be soon though), but I'm not really sure why it has such a big article. I'm wondering if it needs splitting. Hzh (talk) 04:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I want to ask you about two things in the article on Cumans:
1) I was looking at the latest edit, [7]. The edit itself is all right, but the sentence in which the edit was made is ambiguous. Here's the sentence:
  • The main weapons of the Cumans were the recurved and later composite bow, worn on the hip with the quiver, javelin, curved sword (a sabre, less curved than a scimitar), the mace, and a heavy spear for lancing.
It's not clear whether all the weapons following "quiver" are worn on the hip. If not, and the listed weapons are simply additional weapons, some kind of break needs to be placed after "quiver," to show that the list of main weapons is continuing, something like "as well as the javelin... or "and the javelin...", but even those would not completely clear up the ambiguity. Perhaps "worn on the hip with the quiver" should be placed in parentheses. What do you think?
2) Two edits before that one, [8], an editor corrected the spelling of the word "contained" and removed line breaks so as to put sentences together. However, I noticed that that paragraph, right after the [long] block quote, beginning "The study concluded...", goes on for quite a while before any reference is given. I wonder whether that's too much text before a reference, or not. CorinneSD (talk) 14:46, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
@CorinneSD:
1) One of the source quotes from here says:
"The Kipchak weapons of choice were a recurve and later composite bow (worn at their hip with the quiver), javelin, and curved sabre (not having as pronounced a curve as a scimitar)."
So you are correct, and adjustment to the sentence is necessary.
2) The genetic section is problematic in that the two big quoted portions may not be the most important conclusions from the paper, and most people don't understand the details given anyway. Unfortunately subscription is needed to read it, which makes it hard to assess what is most important, although some of the main points are given here (page 46) including a critique of the part of quote you mentioned. I'd hate to make edits without being able to read the source, so I'd need to think about that. Do make the edits as you deem suitable, that article is overly verbose and do need serious trimming. Hzh (talk) 15:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

China[edit]

Hello, Hzh -- I'm reading the article on China, and I have a question for you:

In the first paragraph in China#Etymology is the following sentence:

  • The traditional theory, proposed in the 17th century by Martino Martini, is that Cīna is derived from "Qin" (秦), the westernmost of the Chinese kingdoms during the Zhou Dynasty.

It's not clear what is meant by "the traditional theory". Traditional where? Traditional for whom? It's also not clear, considering the confident presentation of the etymology in the previous sentence, whether whoever wrote the sentence I've just copied meant to suggest that this theory is not only traditional but wrong. Then in the next sentence it goes back to early Hindu scripture, presumably (?) written in Sanskrit. Very puzzling. CorinneSD (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: The Indian references are to Cina, not Qin. It seems that a sentence has been inserted into the wrong place and messes it up a little. The first sentence refers to Cina which is widely accepted, but the interpretation of what Cina means originally is open to dispute. The Qin theory is traditional to Western scholarship, and I think still likely the most widely held view. There are however different opinions on that, I've read a few other suggestions before. I'll see if I can fix that paragraph another time. Hzh (talk) 02:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
O.K. CorinneSD (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 7[edit]

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

Chinese orchestra (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sino-Japanese war
Guoyue (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Sino-Japanese war

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Ainu people[edit]

I noticed a tag at the top of Ainu people suggesting that the organization of the sections could be improved. I looked at another article for a possible organizational structure – Indigenous Australians – and I wondered if you thought the organization and order of sections was a good model to follow for Ainu people. If so, I would attempt to re-arrange some sections in the latter article. If not, can you suggest a different order or a different article as a model to follow? CorinneSD (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: That would be a good idea, even though I'm not sure which part of the organization of the article that the person who added the tag is referring to, since the guidelines only gives a very rough outline. The Indigenous Australians article is certainly better organized, therefore a good model to follow. The Ainu article at the moment has too many sections that can be put as subsections under one section, for example, hunting, ornaments, and housing can be placed under culture or even in a broader category such as the Society, language and culture section in the Indigenous Australians article. The Geography section is nonsensical (no such thing as the geography of a people), it should be Geographical distribution. Hzh (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks. I was thinking along the same lines. I'll get to it in a little while. CorinneSD (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Little Mix obsessives[edit]

I sympathise with you – I have most of the Little Mix pages on my watchlist and they are the ones I spend most time correcting... fans who don't know the difference between selling enough copies to be certified platinum, and actually receiving a platinum certification. In any case, it's somewhat ambiguous: the platinum certification claims seem to be traced back to producer Duvall's comment on his Twitter feed which simply said "platinum" while holding a copy of the album... but as he was only responsible for producing one song ("Move"), it's not clear whether he is referring to the album or just the song, or whether he means UK sales, sales in another country, or combined. As you rightly say, unless the BPI says so, it doesn't count. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

@Richard3120: You are quite right, people often don't understand what certification means, and in this case, it is very vague as to which certification he was talking about, especially when the tweet said sales of 533,000 which should raise suspicion that it is not UK sales (I'm suspecting it's Europe-wide or worldwide). It is interesting that the certification plaques in the background of the picture posted, some of them have the UK flag, but the one he was holding does not, which perhaps indicates that it is not from BPI. In some cases, the artists themselves may have misunderstood, I have seen artists themselves tweeted that they have sold platinum when they haven't. Tweets are not reliable. Hzh (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Ket people[edit]

I saw this edit to Ket people: [9]. I don't know if this is correct or not, but there is no mention of "Mongoloid" in the article, and upon reading the third paragraph in the section Ket people#Culture (after the images), one gets the impression that they were not Mongoloid. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

@CorinneSD: I think we are venturing into a tricky area here. I have seen sources that says they are Mongoloid, but they also seem to be related to some Caucasian people. It is likely that, like many people in part of the world, they are a mixture of the Mongoloid and Caucasoid people. I can't say more than that. Hzh (talk) 19:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
O.K. I understand. Have you read this article before? Mal'ta-Buret' culture? See the section "Relationship to American Indians and Europeans". CorinneSD (talk) 23:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, User:Ogress has reverted this edit and a similar one at Nanai people. If you're interested, see the discussion on Ogress's talk page. I have a question for you about the Nanai people article. It seems to me that all those alternate names for the Nanai people above the infobox add clutter. If they need to be there, at the very least I think the alternate names are in a font that is too large. All the alternate names are given in the lead. What do you think? CorinneSD (talk) 23:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I would rather stay out of it. I do think Ogress is wrong in saying that they are archaic terms, because Mongoloid and Caucasoid/Caucasian are still commonly used in scientific literature, but it is not an argument I want to get involved in. I haven't come across Mal'ta-Buret' culture before, it looks interesting, and I'll have a look into it. Hzh (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
The articles on Mongoloid, Negroid etc. note that the terms have been abandoned by scientists; the reasons are mulifold and include 1. lack of parameter (what is "Mongoloid"? there's no type specimen), 2. race theory is abandoned as gross colonialist nonsense, 3. there are no races; no individual ever meets the description for "a race". It is used but sparingly in skull analysis as a weird a mildly creepy hold-over. BuzzFeed (believe it or not) has a useful primer on it: “Bones” Has Been Making The Same Mistake For 10 Seasons. Basically there's no race, there's no tripartite human skull ideals, and the reality on the ground is that things are way more complicated. DNA has significantly aided in putting the nail on the coffin of this situation as we learn that there is, for example, more genetic distance inside Africa than outside it and that phenotype is very, very malleable and not a particularly good marker. The categories don't mean anything: they kind of mean "looks Asian to me" and "looks black to me". Ogress smash! 01:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
@Ogress: I don't really want to discuss it, but the whole idea that race having been abandoned is something being pushed by some scientists wanting to pursue an agenda, and it is not universally accepted. It is something many scientists in genetic studies are still trying to work out, and it is not wise to take the words of some scientists as the opinions of all scientists. There are work that show you can determine from gene alone what the race of a person is. Hzh (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You are missing the part that is the issue: race. There is no race. You can work out someone's ethnic origins and likely appearance, but not their race. It's much too messy to describe the entirety of the human species in trifold appearance. We should not be classifying Eurasian nomads as "Mongoloid"; if we want to wade into it, we need to discuss their DNA, not what they look like to an observer. Ogress smash! 01:26, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
No, I did not missed that part, that is in fact what I am talking about. Some scientists are trying to get rid of the notion of race, but that is not something universally accepted in scientific circles. I certainly don't want to get involved in the classification of Kets, that would mean the need to wade through scientific literature, a lot of which I can't access anyway. Hzh (talk) 01:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Songtsen Gampo[edit]

I voted to move Songtsän Gampo to Songtsen Gampo; you should convert that into an official Move discussion for sure. Ogress smash! 01:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

@Ogress: I don't actually have a lot to contribute to that discussion apart from noting the Wikipedia guidelines on common usage. I simply thought it odd that it didn't use what's most common. I was hoping that those with understanding of Tibetan usage would contribute to the discussion. Hzh (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
FYI NGRAM says zero hits statistical irrelevance for the current title and an epic ton for Sontsen Gampo. Ogress smash! 02:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if it is an artifact of NGRAM search, but I can see a few results with Songtsän Gampo not using it, e.g. here. Hzh (talk) 02:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I should be more clear about the information, as "zero hits" was wrong. It's statistically irrelevant. Thank you for checking. As I understand it, briefly the early THL romanization flirted with ä. Now they note distinct ɛ with é, and there is no distinction before n# Ogress smash! 03:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited A Record of Buddhist Practices Sent Home from the Southern Sea, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Funan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Wat Phra Kaew 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • In the reign of King Taksin, Chao Phya Chakri (which later became Rama I)) the [[Vientiane]] and moved the Emerald Buddha from Vientiane to Thonburi where it remained till

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 24[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Wat Phra Kaew, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ayutthaya (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)