User talk:Hzh

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

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6

Re: Descendants of the Dragon[edit]

I decided to rename the article name primarily because the "Han Chinese" article has no any explanation about the term "Descendants of the Dragon". If you think this is wrong, just tell me a good reason and i'll consider undoing my edits. Daikage (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Daikage: I think it is a problem with some articles that are translated terms - they are not fixed in English, also they may have other meanings. I'm not that bothered about renaming it back, because the issue is marginal since this is not something widely known and it is about usage in another language (therefore its usage in English is debatable), so it is probably not worth the bother of changing it back. The explanation for the term is given in Chinese dragon. There are a number of other terms that could mean Han Chinese, and they are not always explained in the article on Han Chinese. Hzh (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I would just add that if you want to change an article's name that is about something in another language, it would be best to ask first unless you are absolutely sure that what you are doing is correct. Hzh (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

User:Snoopy012 (and disruptive edit at American Idol (season 15))[edit]

I remember when you were dealing with this editor at American Idol (season 15), particularly when they were adding a controversies section which involved only one source and one person talking about the change in voting procedures for that season (which was back around the end of that season in April 2016). Well, they are being disruptive again at that article, not with adding back that controversies section again, but with something they are adding to the lede of the article, highlighting the winner as another in a streak of WGWG (White Guy With Guitar) musicians who have won recent seasons of the show. They made the edit in September [1], and again twice in the last few days [2][3]. Now, an IP editor reverted the September edit [4], calling it "blatant racism", and thinking about it, I tend to agree—and it led me to revert the other two attempts to add to the article. Despite this being sourced as a controversy in the season 11 article (after Phillip Phillips became the fifth consecutive WGWG to win), it is an unnecessary highlight for any subsequent winner, as well as a neutrality issue in the article. I have warned Snoopy012 twice about it after reverting the two more recent edits. I'd like to hear your thoughts about this matter as well as this editor; plus I could use at least another pair of eyes to watch this article. Thanks. MPFitz1968 (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@MPFitz1968: I think it should noted that the reference to WGWG in Season 11 is in a section on controversy, and it is perfectly valid there as a description of media coverage on a particular issue that season. However, using such a term on the lead is unwarranted - it gives a false impression such a term has any kind of official status, and such loaded term should be avoided as it is not neutral (although I would not call it racism). I see no problem with your revert as the term is non-neutral as some might see it as pejorative, and if Snoopy012 continues to edit war, then there are appropriate place to report the editor. I'll put the article in my watchlist. Snoopy012 had previously been blocked for sock-puppetry, so keep an eye out for other editors might do the same thing as they might need to be checked if there is a consistent pattern of behaviour. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Diet (nutrition)[edit]

You said: So you know what spam is? And on what criteria do you dismiss it as unreliable given that it is an established magazine? Hzh (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SECONDARY. The source you used is not an authoritative nutrition source nor is it secondary for a nutrition article. --Zefr (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zefr: I know very well what WP:SECONDARY says, and you haven't shown how that is relevant. It is a general article in a magazine, and it relates more specifically to religion. You are giving spurious reasons for revert, given that you said that it is spam when it clearly isn't. I added the link because it was originally there, and someone else removed it because it had become a dead link, so I re-added it with an archived source. That source supports the statement, you might as well remove the entire statement if you don't want the source. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a difficult statement to source well given the section's content is generally soft and outside scientific reporting. Maybe this one would work better for the 'meat-eating' reference. --Zefr (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zefr: It does not address the statement in the article, so it is not a proper source for the statement. The Soul Curry article gave a fuller explanation. It is about religious practices, not a scientific statement about diet. There are in any case many books on the discussion of vegetarianism and meat-eating in Buddhism - [5], [6], [7], [8] [9] if you want to use them. Hzh (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I acknowledge those books as religious/cultural sources but they are not appropriate for a diet-nutrition article. Would you agree the entire religious section be deleted? It is not based on nor intended to be rigorous about nutrition. Please proceed if yes. --Zefr (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zefr: An article on diet is not necessarily about the scientific aspects only, since it is also about cultural practices. Unless you have a general article about diet that is entirely different from one on diet in purely scientific terms, then the religious and cultural aspect must stay. The word "diet" itself is a very broad term that covers how and what people eats. Hzh (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Hzh: this article is intended to be about the nutritional aspects of a diet per the title. I think the section under discussion is more appropriate for this article or this. Perhaps we should re-open discussions and a poll as have been done before on the Talk page to determine if the article should be merged or a major rewrite done to focus on nutrition. --Zefr (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Zefr: This is a general article on diet, it's how it was originally written (it started out as Diet). The word nutrition is there to differentiate it from other meaning of "diet", such as an assembly or parliament. If you want to have an article on nutritional science, then by all means create an article on the science specifically - Diet (food science) or however you want to name it. You must understand when a word has a broad general meaning in normal usage, then you'd need to address that, and that the main article would be on the general usage. For example, I was involved briefly in the article on Berry, and there was a discussion on how to proceed because the scientific definition of berry is different from normal usage of berry, it was then decided there should be a different article on the scientific term Berry (botany). An alternative way would to use the page Diet (which is currently a disambiguation page) as the general article, and use the Diet (disambiguation) page for disambiguation. I could see problem because diet has different meanings, and I would suggest that you propose this in the talk page of the article. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I see your point about context for the Diet (nutrition) article, and don't sense it's worth the effort to pursue merger or further disambiguation. As for the Soul Curry ref, I re-read it and it just smells like blog material. One of the books at your choosing seems a stronger ref. Thanks for the courteous discussion. --Zefr (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
@Zefr: The size of the article as it is probably not worth splitting, although I feel that the article can do with quite a bit of expanding, as there are a lot of material around on diet. Perhaps in the future when the article has grown too big, we can then consider a separate article on the science of diet, and revisit the question on the title and content of the current page or any article to be split from it. For the moment I'll add one of the sources, the dictionary on Buddhism seems to be the appropriate one. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A.R. Nayadu[edit]

Thanks for dealing with that disruptive editor. I don't think I've ever seen a more unconstructive person on Wikipedia than him/her. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tiger7253: You're welcome. You can report him to the vandalism noticeboard WP:ANV if such behaviour continues. Hzh (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Long Ya Men[edit]

Hi, the major updates you did for our history articles are good, something I wanted to start on earlier but never got around to. I briefly checked a few sentences that look familiar and one of the citation you provided (Miksic -I have it) does not support the description of 'Ban Zu' although the info is correct. There are other refs available so just need to change it. Shiok (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

@Shiok: Often the information I used is a mixture of other sources already given, for example the Paul Wheatley's book. The sentence on Ban Zu probably owes more to that book, and most of the information is there. Sometimes it's because I move information from one article to the another, adjusted the text, and didn't check if that particular source is most suitable. (I was also editing Temasek, Fort Canning and other articles, and more information on Ban Zu may be found there.) I'll add the Paul Wheatley one for that sentence, but let me know if there is any specific information you need a source on. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February[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) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]


Thanks for adding the listings for The Weekend (Brantley Gilbert song)! Keep up the good work adding references to articles!

Sadads (talk) 01:01, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sadads:You are welcome. Thank you! Hzh (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

George Winston[edit]

I am responding to the recent reversion you did to the George Winston article which cites the artist as New Age. This was purposely taken out of the chart because the artist has done many interviews stating that he was misrepresented as that genre of music and in reality performes folk and stride piano. How can we fix this article so that it accurately reflects the genre of music Winston performs? Eliminating the chart was one solution, but you did not agree. How can this be remedied? I see that the certifications of gold and such are referenced by the RIAA site, so for that, thank you. EllenZoe (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

@EllenZoe: Whether George winston thinks he is misrepresented is irrelevant. This is the chart, it gives whatever the Billboard chart lists his album chart rankings to be. It is not intended to represent his genre apart from what Billboard and his label chose to classify his music as. You can mention in the article what he considers his genre to be if you want, but don't remove perfectly-sourced information. Hzh (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. This is a challenge, for sure. EllenZoe (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks[edit]

Your comment from Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate: "You are plainly arguing from a position of ignorance, and refusing to see why the term is different (Genghis Khan indeed!)." Please refrain from personal attacks on me. Thank you. ʙʌsʌwʌʟʌ тʌʟк 17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else I can say when I have to keep explaining to you why the modern term is different, that it did not exist in the original language. You appear not to have even read what's in the article. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review[edit]

Hello Hzh, just a short note to let you know that I have undergone a name change. I was the guy who you previously helped doing the peer review. Secondly, I have made some edits on your Mulian Rescues His Mother article. Feel free to see to what extent these edits were useful.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Farang Rak Tham: Hello, the article was created by CWH, so it's not mine. Howver, the edits look good. Well done. Hzh (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Haha, sorry. Similar names... Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder[edit]

Hey, if you feel that User:Jax 0677 is being disruptive beyond reason, you can report him to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've encountered a few disruptive edits from him as well as few other users, but I have since retired from editing Wikipedia. But anyway, I just thought I would leave this reminder on your talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@Horizonlove: It's certainly something I'm considering. At the moment it looks to be a compulsive behavioral issue, and if he can't control himself, then others might have to intervene. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Malaysia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Javanese (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) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Re: Malaysian Indians[edit]

Hi. The statistics quoted are the most recently available quantification of the data discussed within the article. Please provide updated objective data before making such deletions, as the removal of this cited data does not seem justified.

38% was the figure noted in the last census provided in the citation list. I did not refer to the figure 28% in any of my edits of this page.

I have removed the 'citation needed' tag and replaced this with a cited source regarding breakdown of professionals.

The maintenance template was edited by mistake, and I thank you for reverting that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc7362bb8 (talkcontribs) 12:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mfc7362bb8: You repeatedly remove a citation needed tag on a data given where the figures "doctors (28.4%)..." are given. You need to clearly specified what date those data are from, as you edits appear to imply that the 38% figure is recent, when in fact it is more than 30 years old. You have also removed information about the declining proportion of Indians due to increasing number of Bumiputras, and that is clearly stated in the source. Hzh (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Missing citations have now been added. The source does not mention declining proportions of any racial group. Although the absolute numbers may be changing, any actual proportional change is not mentioned/documented thusfar. Please include any citations should this information becomes quantified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc7362bb8 (talkcontribs) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

@Mfc7362bb8: I'm surprise that you said that, especially when the source talks about the effectiveness of ethnic preferential policies, that "the percentage of Malays considerably improved" in professional and medical services between 1968 and 1984, and that between 1990 and 1999 the proportion of Malay professionals went from 20.7% to 28.9% while Indians went from 17.5% to 15.5%. Are you reading the same source? Hzh (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Reality Television Task Force[edit]

Reality Television Task Force
Hello Hzh! I noticed your contributions to American Idol, and thought you might be interested in the Reality Television Task Force, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Reality Television.

If you would like to participate, please visit the task force page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks and related articles. Thanks! WikiVirusC (talk) 17:06, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

@WikiVirusC: Thanks for your invitation. However, thinking about it for a while, I don't think I will be able to devote much time to the project as whole, therefore may not be useful as a member of the project. I will likely continue to contribute to American Idol and the occasional reality TV shows, but I'm not sure I can contribute much beyond that. Of course, I may change my opinion later as things changes, but for now I am more preoccupied with other articles. Hzh (talk) 13:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I understand. The project isn't that active right now, which is why I am trying to recruit some people. So if you do decide to change your mind in the future, there wouldn't be a big commitment to make, and you can still focus on only American Idol primarily. Thanks for your reply anyways. WikiVirusC (talk) 13:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. #History[edit]

Hiya, first I just wanted to say thanks for doing a load of work on the Spurs articles. I was wondering if you wanted to help to expand the #History section on the main article to include the main key points. I've been meaning to do more on it for ages but work and family do get in the way of doing much on wiki. I really would like the get the main article to GA standard. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks Govvy (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Govvy: Certainly, I was thinking of expanding the history section as it is rather uninformative at the moment. I probably won't do it immediately, but I hope to start in a week or two. I'm not sure what or how much to put into it yet, although my feeling is that the history section of other major clubs like Arsenal and ManU are a little excessive at the moment as there are already individual articles on their history. I guess we'll see how it develops. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Most of the work I did on history was moved into the separate history article, Govvy (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Excellent work on the article, I will likely incorporate part of it to the section. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on the history and WHL articles. I have a little follow up on the Jack Bell and the union issue. Both Bell and Cameron were involved in the formation of the union (campaigning against £4 max wage and for a role of the player in transfers). It was Cameron who left in pursuit of higher wages and joined Spurs. There is some background in these articles: Jack Bell and John Cameron. That site has some excellent football history articles (clubs, players, social issues), although Spurs is notably missing from the club histories (the author is a West Ham fan). Jts1882 (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jts1882: Thanks for the links. Looking at the source, whoever who wrote it probably meant Tom Bradshaw rather than Jack Bell, the unionisation issue is probably not worth mentioning as it is not directly relevant to Spurs. Just a note on the article itself - I've read a number of sources but there are differences in facts and figures, for example dates, the people or the events involved (sometimes written by the same author). I've tried to use as much as possible the official history as given by the club, even then there appear to be uncertainties and maybe inaccuracies. If you see anything that needs adjusting, then by all means do so, we can discuss any such specific point further. Hzh (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor formatting[edit]

Hi. For future reference, when you need to write something like this: ''Taste of Country'''s, can you do it like ''Taste of Country''{{'}}s, so it doesn't italicize the "s", among other reasons. I use the color coded editor and noticed if one doesn't use the {{}}, it makes the whole article purple. It's just so it knows that the italics should stop before the 's'. thanks. --Jennica / talk 06:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Jennica: I once did it for a while, but stopped as it seems that page can parse the formatting and display the result correctly. I have not noticed any issue before, but have no problem with doing it the way you wish in the future.Hzh (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of certain transliterations[edit]

Hi Hzh, I have noticed growing vandalism in certain Wikipedia articles recently. I believe we have a policy to insert the transliterations of a place's name in the only official languages only. I hope you understand my point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@ You are making up your own policy. See Wikipedia's guidelines on place name WP:PLACE. If you want to have only Malay and English for Malaysian articles, then start a discussion in there (there is a section on Malaysia, and there is no mention of official language only). You will see that for example in other countries, they may specifically deal with foreign names, for example Finland that specifically mentions minority languages. Hzh (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)