User talk:Hzh

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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Southcliffe/Sean Harris[edit]

I am requesting permission to use the photo you uploaded to Wikimedia on the actor, Sean Harris', page. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Southcliffe_TV_drama.jpg

I think it's fair use, but thought to ask.

Legaleze (talk) 15:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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.

Legaleze (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 17:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

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[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) 00:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

About Reliable source[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

American Kids[edit]

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)

Thanks for the information. I checked Amazon it says BNA, so I guess it is wrong. iTunes says only Blue Chair Records. Hzh (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of American Idol alumni album sales, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caleb Johnson. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

American Idol timeline[edit]

You don't like the change, fine, but how exactly did I mess up the chronology? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:55, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Because if you use year, then it is understood that the 2016 is there to mark the end of 2015, therefore the last year on the chart would be read as 2015. Translated into season, it would mean that the season 15 listed actually is there to mark the end of season 14, not season 15 itself. If you look at it carefully and want to change the chart to read "season", then it's from Season 0 to season 14, not 1 to 14. What you have done is to shift everything by 1 season, therefore messing up the chronology, and you confused yourself when you said there is no season 15. Hzh (talk) 18:05, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I concede your point about removing the 15th season, however I completely disagree about the "shifting" and messing up the chronology, but... whatever. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
All you need to do is to think more carefully about what you wrote when you said there isn't a season 15. Season 15 merely marked the end of season 14, so when you changed it to 14, you are in fact saying the next year is the first year Keith Urban and Harry Connick Jr start as judges. But if your assumption is that season 14 on the chart means the end of next season, then there is no season 1 on that chart (you need season 0 to see a bar for season 1). This is what I meant by shifting everything by one year, and you are confusing yourself. Hzh (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
What part of "I concede your point about removing the 15th season" did you not understand? I think you're confusing yourself. I understand my logic as well as yours. Do you? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 23:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Never any confusion on my part. When you concede the point about 15th season, you are also conceding about being confused, I'm merely asking you to think about why you were confused given that you still don't understand how that chart shifted everything by one year with one missing year (also how others would also be confused by the chart you produced). Hzh (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it never shifted anything. It merely cut off the end of the timeline. The so-called "shift" is how you chose to read the timeline. Here's my original edit (before cutting off the end) where NO data changed, except for replacing 2002 for 1, 2003 for 2, etc. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
You are still confused. This is the reason why I ask you to think about it carefully, why you said there is no season 15 in your edit summary in your second edit. You assumed that season 14 marked the end of season 14, it isn't. When you made that chart, you thought that it extended to season 14 (that was your intention, you didn't think it was truncated then), which made me wonder why you didn't see that Keith Urban and Harry Connick Jr only had one year on the show by season 14. The first edit was correct, but you were confused by the chart you made in the first edit (which is why it is confusing to use season instead of year - using year it is easier to see that the bar between 2015 to 2016 refers to 2015 only). Alternatively you can argue that it is premature to list season 14 in that chart, but that wasn't your intention when you made it. No matter, it's fixed now, no point in arguing about something already fixed. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Collapsing[edit]

It's not about the size. The top (or near the top) of an article is not the appropriate place for a timeline -- and the style of this one looks very out-of-place (compared with a wikitable) and not very attractive (it looks a little blurry). So, for those reasons it would be better to be collapsible. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Musdan77: I'm not sure why would think it looks out of place compared to a table. The reason it was chosen is precisely because of the terrible clunky tables that others kept adding there. This is smaller and more compact compared to the tables and is a more elegant solution. Having a collapsible table when the table does not take up a lot of space is more annoying because you need to click to look at it. Hzh (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
You just have to look The Voice to see where a table is hideous. Also a timeline is a timeline, and the only appropriate place for it is the section where it can be used to summarise the content of the section. Hzh (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, a table wouldn't really be better if it wasn't collapsible either. But, as it is now, it does not look good where it is (or, personally, at all -- because of the blurriness). Generally, an article (that's not a list article) should have its tables/lists in the latter part. And if the info is found in prose -- as it should be -- then the table/list may be collapsible. It's not "annoying" to click on for those wanting that info -- but it can be annoying to look at if it's not collapsed. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
First, there is no issue with the tables or lists being where it is, it is in the second section, and it is relatively small, there isn't really such as a rule as tables not being permissible there. Second, if blurriness is an issue, then it doesn't matter where it is, that is an issue to take up with whoever that wrote the script for the timeline table. I personally don't find it blurry, it's more of an issue with the font (probably fixable). Actually I prefer not to have a table there, but I put it there because others simply won't stop adding an unsightly table there (as can be seen in page for The Voice, and others have added worse looking table in the Idol page). It is the best of the compromise to me, hiding it to me is pointless, might as well not having a table there. So if you want to remove it, go ahead, just be prepared for someone else to add something more hideous. Hzh (talk) 23:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
On second thought, you can either remove it or hide it, doesn't really matter that much to me. Personally I would prefer it to be not hidden, but it's not an important issue to me as long as someone don't replace it with a hideous looking one. Hzh (talk) 00:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Well I was considering taking the issue to the article talk page, but I didn't feel it like at the time. Now, I'm not sure what to do. :) Decisions, decisions. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Discuss on talk page when there is an active dispute, at the moment I'm not bothered if you choose to hide it (it's just a minor personal preference to me), so no dispute as far as I am concerned. Hzh (talk) 10:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Coriander may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 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:
  • simultaneously may also be unable to detect the aromatic chemicals that others find pleasant.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=98695984 |title=Getting To The
  • To The Root Of The Great Cilantro Divide |date= December 26, 2008 |author=Josh Kurz |work=NPR ]</ref> Association between its taste and several other genes, including a bitter-taste receptor,

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 10:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Stub articles[edit]

I wasn't questioning that many people know of the song, but WP:NSONGS states that a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album. It could perhaps be moved to draft space, but stubs aren't by themselves enough to warrant song articles. Snuggums (talk / edits) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You should have a look at Google Books. There are many books that mentioned the songs, that means that it is not one of the "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs". It only requires that someone make the effort to expand the page. I wonder if you want to cite WP:NSONG, did you even look at the criteria for notability? You are creating a lot of problems for other people because you make such a wholesale change to so many articles, and given that there are so many articles that link to the song, that should tell you that it is a significant song in popular culture. And this also doesn't answer the question why you removing links in so many pages, creating a huge problem for people having to undo your edits. Please undo them yourself. Hzh (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

History of Chinese classical dance[edit]

Excuse me, I have opened the above new article for your excellent work so that it can take its place in the history of dance and of China and be accessed from many other dance articles. I hope you approve of this. Redheylin (talk) 03:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

@Redheylin: It's fine, thank you. However, I would say the the title of page should be simply History of Chinese dance, because it is a general history, not specifically Classical Dance. There isn't much of Chinese Classical Dance left in China, and a lot of what's left are folk traditions. I would expand a bit later on the section in the main article when I have the time. I will also add a modern era section to the History page. Hzh (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

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)