User talk:Hzh/Archive 2

Archive 1 / Archive 3 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 /

For all your hard work

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	For essentially creating and expanding the Battle of Peshawar (1001) article and all the work you've done expanding other articles on Wikipedia. This is long overdue. Kansas Bear (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited Emperor Tianzuo of Liao, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jin Dynasty (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) 11:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Discography of Adam Lambert

Make changes to the article Adam Lambert discography according to the article, I think it should correct because the article says that several positions are not true, ie is the # 1 (according to the article) but it is the poscicion # 15 (according to the discography).Ozkithar Salas (talk) 02:42, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

You don't make edits according to what other articles say, you make edits according to what the references say. If an article in wiki doesn't quote a reference when contradicting existing references, than it should be regarded as wrong. Anyone can say all kinds of nonsense without citing any references in wiki, which is why there are rules about citing sources. You copied edits made by a vandal. Hzh (talk) 07:58, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

I am putting this on your talk page per the Admins advice to notify a user of a dispute. I am surprised to see that you understand the need for proper references, and yet you edited my contributions, that WERE properly referenced, without any of your own reference links at all.

Unless you have verifiable sources for your assumptions, I suggest that you refrain from making edits or undoing other people's work. In the meantime, I suggest that you revert your latest edits and leave it alone until you have a legitimate source, like I did when I updated the sales numbers based on Soundscan reports this month in the Arizona Republic. At this point you are engaging in an edit war I want no part of. Since this is an ongoing problem with you engaging in edit wars, I will appeal to a higher power to sort you out. AllDone (talk) 00:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we don't blindly accept what any reference says. If there is an obvious problem with the numbers, then there is a good reason not to use that number. It is quite clearly stated in the page that we don't add the compilation and EP in the total (but only in the number in parentheses), so whatever your reference says, it is irrelevant if it does include compilation and EP which is clearly does according to Scotty McCreery's number. Hzh (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

we don't discount a legitimate news article because one editor doesn't agree with it. Nowhere in that article does it claim to include any EPs or compilation albums. If it did the total would be much much higher. Your edits are showing signs of bad faith and vandalism. AllDone (talk) 00:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It has got nothing to do with whether one editor agree with it or not. It doesn't matter whether the reference says it include EP or compilation album or not, because we can work out that it does in fact include EPs and compilation album. They don't mention this because it is normal for them to add EP and compilation album. The problem is entirely about the Idol Album page - we can't list too many albums because it would look bad, everything would be squashed (there would be 9 entries for Clay Aiken for instance, and there are many Archuleta's EPs). The solution now to remove EP and compilation album is just a temporary fix, a more permanent solution is require in a few years time when more and more albums are released. So if you are interested in having all albums + EPs listed so that we don't have to worry about whether a number includes EP or compilation album or not, then by all means think of a way to do it, and give suggestion in the talk page. Hzh (talk) 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

We don't accept speculation and "figuring out" as sourced material. More than once I suggested you get a legitimate source and then you can edit my work. Right now you are guessing and that isn't an option as a wiki editor. BTW, If we wanted to include all albums and EPs we would just move down to the next line and carry on.AllDone (talk) 04:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It isn't speculation to say that the figures given in the reference include EP and compilation albums, because I have clearly shown that it does. You should note that there is really NO source that separates out the EPs and compilation album from the total count if it isn't specifically stated (the default is to include all). The total in the page has always been done separately to address this problem, and why there is a separate number given in parentheses for many of the idols. Many of those numbers in parentheses also have legitimate sources, but we don't use them for the main figure. So you apparently think that your favorite is special and deserves special treatment which is denied to other idols on the page, but you favorite can't have special treatment, and it is you who has to show why you favorite must be different from the others, i.e. it is you who has to show that there is no EP or compilation album given in the figure.

You can't simply use a source blindly. If a page says it includes only entry for XYZ, you should not insist it should also include ABC because it has a source. The source is irrelevant in such cases. And, as I said before, there is really NO source that separates EP and compilation figures without it being specifically stated, which is why the main total count in the page has always been total count from the album listed in the page and does not rely on references. It is only when we are sure that the total numbers from a reference do not include EPs and compilations that we use them. Hzh (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

A further note to clarify that this page is not about any specific idol. If you feel strongly that the page is wrong in excluding that number, then the right way to do it is to try to improve the page by including other releases so that the number can be used. I do think having EP in there is not a good idea, however, compilations may be considered for inclusion, but I think the formatting of the table may need to be changed. You are welcomed to come up with ideas on how it can be improved; rather than focusing on a particular idol, the target is to make the page better. Hzh (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RE:American Idol

I replied on my talk page. Take a look here. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

RE American Idols 2012 box office data

There is no concrete rule. I never said there was. It is the correct way of presenting the data and is standard across Wikipedia. BobDylanFan1994

If there is no concrete rule, then there is no correct way of presenting the data. There is no standard, and you are just making things up. Hzh (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hzh. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Dougweller (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Raised this at WP:RSN#Wikisource as a source? and asked at the wikiproject for some input from Chinese speakers (or rather readers I should have said). You might still want to look at my talk page comments first. Dougweller (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you are carrying this too far. I don't see how anyone can question that this is a legitimate text written in the 18th century. Hzh (talk) 18:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Zhang Xianzhong

Although I want to be honest and say that I think you have an attitude problem, thanks for improving this article. Dougweller (talk) 10:50, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a page that should have more content because he was a significant regional figure, but most who can read Chinese probably don't want to edit this page because what written about the events is very unpleasant to read. I've tidy up some of the references, one of them I can't read because of encoding issue but I can gather what that is about, but otherwise it looks fine now. For the time being, there is only his biography part that needs expanding, once that is done I think I'll leave it. Hzh (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

American Idol

While I normally appreciate your edits, I certainly don't appreciate your latest actions -- just reverting all (3 - then 4) of my edits. I can understand not agreeing with everything, but to just nonchalantly (and seemingly lazily) reverting all of my work is disrespectful and, it seems, not willing to cooperate with fellow editors. I made edits for: filling in blank spots (so that the page isn't so long), improving captions per WP:CAPTION, debolding what shouldn't be bold per WP:BOLD, and others which include edits on the table that you removed (which I didn't think was very good - until I improved, then I didn't think it was bad).

Now, about the article structure, according to the MOS (and yes of course I read it -- though it had been awhile): While it's true that it mainly deals with fictional shows, the plot section is about the premise or what the show is about. Neither the History nor the Cast should ever be the first section after the lead, so in this case, the "Overview" and/or the Selection process would go there. Then, I thought that the Cast goes next, but I got that one wrong. But, nevertheless, the way it is now is not correct per MOS.

And, by the way, how do expect someone to feel that you are someone who deserves respect when you don't even have a user page (and thus have a redlink name)? --Musdan77 (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

That is an odd attitude. What does not having a user page got to do with anything? I don't have a user page because that is mainly vanity, what I do on wiki is all visible on edit history, and if anyone wants to talk to me, there is my user talk page.

I don't mind most of the edits until you put the table right on top because it is hideous, you also made other mistake like misplacing the image and misplacing other sections. Those mistakes suggest to me that you don't really know what's written in WP:MOSTV (and also don't have a sense of what looks right), and it annoys me when other people cite rules they don't really understand, especially when they are making drastic changes. I reverted the whole thing because you also made other changes in that edit like moving a section and it is hard to tell what changes you have made when an entire section is moved.

Anyway, there is the discussion in American Idol talk page so you can place your input there. Hzh (talk) 08:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I just want to respond to your first paragraph. A user page is not about vanity. What a person puts on their page is up to them. You can just put one word on it to make you not have a red name. Don't you realize that the majority of users with redlink names make bad, if not vandalizing, edits? So when editors, like me, see a red user name, we automatically think that it could probably be someone who is incompetent, or doesn't have experience or knowledge about how things work on Wikipedia. So, like it or not, a simple thing like a user page can make a difference in how an editor is perceived (at least initially). --Musdan77 (talk) 22:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

I have made over 12,000 edits, improving many articles, some from stubs to a few thousand-word articles. If you want to judge someone because the name is red, then so be it. Other people might use their user page for something more useful, that is up to them, but to me it is a vanity, I have nothing to say apart from what's in the edit history.

Note that you are free to make input on how to change the structure of the page in the American Idol talk page. I do not object to having the season's synopsis on top as you did, although many reality shows pages put the format on top because you can argue that there is really no plot for reality competition shows, but the format can be seen as the plot - it is what drives the narrative for what happens in the season. To me that this a more logical structure for Idol page - history, judges and host, format - these are the background, and establish the context of how things happen in the synopses. and in this reality shows are different from scripted shows, because the format isn't so important for scripted show. So to me these would go before the season synopses, but I should repeat, I don't mind other ways of organizing the page. I do however think the table is superfluous, either you have the table or the season synopsis, and I think the table should go (for now anyway). Hzh (talk) 10:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Idol, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages David Cook and Philip Phillips (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) 14:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

WikiThanks

Thank you for your contributions to Epigenetics! Lova Falk talk 13:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome. I just happened to read some articles on epigenetics in Nature magazine from a few years back, so added those information. Almost done now, just a few bits and pieces which I'm considering adding. Hzh (talk) 13:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hzh. You have new messages at Hahc21's talk page.
Message added 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— ΛΧΣ21™ 01:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kashgar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yaghma (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) 11:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

undo edits

obviously, you dont know how widely used FASTpp is ... :=) But this will change coming year with a huge number of citations ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.52.147 (talk) 10:37, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant. There are plenty more applications which more widely used than FASTpp and they are not listed there. Please don't use wiki to publicise your own work, however great you think it is. It is for others to decide what is important, not you. As it happens, I do work in protein science, so I do know what people use in lab. Hzh (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

AfDs in which you were a major contributor

Since you were a major contributor to both Karen Rodriguez and Jacob Lusk, I am informing you that both articles are up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Rodriguez and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Lusk respectively. Please feel free to add your opinions to the discussion. Aspects (talk) 22:53, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Query

Hi there, Hzh. I note that you've been around on WP a while, & done plenty of edits. My impression is that the content you've added / changed has been generally appreciated - so thanks for your ongoing efforts.

One little query though - I notice that you don't generally use edit summaries.

Would you mind my politely (I hope) asking why you tend not to use them?

If you'd care to reply here, I'd appreciate it, to keep the thread in one place.

Thanks in advance, Trafford09 (talk) 11:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In general, I should add an edit summary, that is what is recommended, the edit summary is there to let others know what has been added. If honest, the reason I don't usually add an edit summary would be partly because of laziness, although I should say that I do add an edit summary when it is important or useful to do so. For example, when I start on a large number of edits on a page, I usually give an edit summary at or near the beginning which would be applicable to at least some of the following series of edits, for example, here, here and here. I also usually give an edit summary when correcting erroneous facts or making significant changes to what other people wrote so that others would know why those changes were made, for example here, or why their edits were reverted.

I should also say that I don't trust what others put in the edit summary. I keep an eye on some pages, I check what are the exact edits made on those pages regardless of what the edit summary says, because they are sometimes inaccurate - people do sometimes slip in a significant change of fact, format, etc, when they say they are doing something else. In that sense they are only of limited use to me (I suspect that is true for many other people who monitor what goes on in other pages). However I do think I should put in an edit summary more often (an edit summary here at the start if the edits would be appropriate). I also think that it is unnecessary a lot of the times, clutters things up, and obscuring what the important changes are. Edit summary is only useful for telling others WHY the edits are being made, not what is being made (because that is obvious when you do a diff). In pages where the contents were mostly written by me I don't normally give edit summary. Hzh (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your calm - and thoughtful - response. You suggest there's a case for more ESs in your contributions, so it's time for me to bow out, methinks.

Just a couple of comments, though, on your interesting points re ESs. I too distrust some ESs I see, but at least if an editor has a pattern of no ESs, or false or misleading ones, then one can dispense with AGF that much sooner.

You suggest many ESs are unnecessary (I guess that's more so if the MINOR flag is used), that they clutters things up and obscure the important changes (you perhaps have a point, yet the guidelines recommend an ES for each edit, however brief & quick the ES).

You mention articles whose contents were mostly written by yourself - in my case, I want to encourage the highest standards in such pages particularly. We wouldn't want to drift towards ownership.

The problem here isn't so much with ownership, rather it's the lack of people who want to edit them. For many of these pages I only start editing because the pages were very inadequate or contained errors which stayed uncorrected for a long time, and after I rewrote them there are still very few significant edits from others, so the content of these pages ended up being largely mine. Hzh (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we all have possibilities - if we wish - to be future ADMINs, & I notice that the % of ESs we supply helps our case.

I doubt I want to be, or should be, an admin. I don't have the right temperament to be one (I can get too easily annoyed which would cloud the judgement), and probably lacking in diplomacy. For that matter, I don't think some of those who are currently admins should be admin either, a know of a couple of useful contributors who quit because of the heavy-handed way some admins deal with some disputes. A pity because in some fields there are very few knowledgeable contributors (probably one reason why some pages get so few edits.) Hzh (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, enough from me. Thanks for your time. Happy WP-ing & best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 12:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

American Idol edits

Hzh, I referred to your edits as careless because first you came to the article as well as my user talk page stating that I didn't support my edits with a source when I absolutely did, then you reverted my talkpage which is against Wikipedia policy. I've done numerous searches on how many seasons American Idol was the most watched show, all of which have explicitly stated an "8 year streak"; yours, however, which reads like a blog and has "chatter opinions" on it remains the odd man out. Contesting the nature of "one" of my sources doesn't change the fact that there are yet numerous other sources I've provided which also state 8 years. And by the way, there are more sources where that came from, I just chose not to completely clog the page with abounding sources as it seems you're the only person that needs such validation. To state 7 years would make the information in question "outdated" as the show has surpassed a 7 year long streak. Also, nobody has stated that the show is a game show, but a reality game show. There's a difference and it's what American Idol is classified as. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Btw, next time you revert the page, you will have violated the three-revert rule and will be reported. AmericanDad86 (talk) 14:44, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

American Idol is not a game show, reality or otherwise. No game is involved, it is a competition. Read the title of the section, it say competition/game show, not game show. It is nominated in Emmy as reality-competition show. Don't assert it to be true when you have no evidence whatsoever to support it when in fact what's written actually refutes it.

The "8-year streak" quote came from NBC press release bragging about coming on top, it is not an independent source. It in any case is vague enough for it to get away with not making the distinction between having part of the show at the top, and the show as a whole. This article is about American Idol as a whole, not just one part of the show. Hzh (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

A reality game show, a reality competition show, It's all the same thing. It's splitting hairs and is listed as the same thing under reality television as: reality game show. In fact, there's a huge section on American Idol, Dancing With The Stars, and other talent shows under reality game show. Your number 1 problem is you're getting too technical. If you are able to find a source that supports that "NBC has somehow skewed information as to it being 8 years", by all means do so and we can add it as part of the information. I would welcome such a find into the article if one existed. But you can't just use your own personal assertion that all the many sources that state 8 years are somehow part of a ploy for NBC to look good to the public as your support to state that 8 years is not actually the case. AmericanDad86 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Why are you claiming it is the same thing when it is not? Emmy makes the difference quite clear, it has separate categories for game and competition shows - Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game/Audience Participation Show and Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Reality-Competition Program; and separate awards for their host - Daytime Emmy Award for Outstanding Game Show Host, Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Host for a Reality or Reality-Competition Program.

The problem is that "NBC has somehow skewed information as to it being 8 year", that problem is that is not accurate. It is vague enough to true within the confine of the vagueness that it uses, it is however not appropriate for use when we want to use in a wiki article. Hzh (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, fyi, a television show can have more than one genre, sometimes multiple, not necessarily just one. And the Daytime Emmy Awards does not in and of itself decide the most proper name for a genre. As per WP:Commonname, the most frequently used name should be used. I'd be willing to switch the genre name to "reality competition series" as opposed to "reality game show." They're both described as the same thing under Reality television#Reality competition/game shows, but perhaps you see the use of reality competition series as more accurate. If you are questioning the veracity in this as well, there are numerous scholarly sources to support the show as a reality competition series as shown by the following: [1] [2] [3]. I've not often heard of a game/audience participation show and it doesn't even have an article on wikipedia or sources. The edit you were trying to instate used singing competition and incorporated that as well in my edit. AmericanDad86 (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are admitting your use of reality game show to describe American Idol is wrong? Another wiki page cannot be used as a source, and it is not the policy of wiki to use another wiki page to substantiate your claim, especially when that page itself doesn't give any source to justify that particular way of putting it (that section in fact has very few sources). Without proper sources, it may be just someone's idea of conveniently putting things together under a heading, nothing more. We are not discussing game/audience participation show anyway, I gave it simply as an example to show why game show and reality-competition are two separate things, and American Idol is classed under reality-competition.Hzh (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Taylor Hicks

Sorry. I got the information from the American Idol message board and someone said that he won one and then they wrote down a link to an article on Yahoo that says he collected a Grammy. In the article it says, "The 36-year old Birmingham, Alabama native garnered the award for his participation on Jimmy Fallon’s Blow Your Pants Off, which won for Best Comedy Album. The win was announced prior to the the 55th Annual Grammy Awards telecast". [4]

The only authoritative site for this is the Grammy own website - here, and only Jimmy Fallon is listed as the winner. Some people aren't careful with their news story, and write what is obviously nonsense in a news story, but we need to more careful with what goes into wiki pages. If you look at the webpage for Jimmy Fallon's Blow Your Pants Off (also here at Amazon), you will find many names listed, and Taylor Hicks name isn't even listed. Taylor Hicks only had a small part in one of the tracks, so I have no idea why the writer of the piece would think that he can win anything for that. Hzh (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.111.68.211 (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited American Idol (season 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Miss Independent (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) 21:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lee DeWyze, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triple A (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) 09:40, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wagon Wheel

Watch your work. The gold certification is for the Old Crow Medicine Show version, and the sales figure you added was for Darius Rucker's cover. For some reason, the RIAA database doesn't yet show the certification for Rucker's version, even though it's in platinum sales territory. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the same for you. There are 2 versions listed there - sales for Darius' cover is 429,000, sales for OCMS is 1,167,000. Next time you want to correct someone else I suggest that you read carefully first. Hzh (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see it because Old Crow Medicine Show was abbreviated. Moral: Don't edit when tired. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:08, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback 2

Hello, Hzh. You have new messages at Ipodnano05's talk page.
Message added ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Hzh. You have new messages at Ipodnano05's talk page.
Message added ipodnano05 * ^{leave@message} 07:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

May 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Miao people may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Great British Bake Off (series 3), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Madeleines (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) 11:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013

Hello, I'm APerson241. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to American Idol (season 13) because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. APerson241 (talk!) 21:46, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Hzh. You have new messages at APerson241's talk page.
Message added 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

APerson241 (talk!) 21:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Danielle Bradbery's singles sales

Hey, according to the show, Danielle performed "Maybe It Was Memphis" twice, how if in the Sales for competition week we change it to 99,000 because it sold 49,000 in the first performance and 50,000 in the second performance. What do you think? Satchikova (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure, does the second performance counts as votes? If it does, then perhaps give two separate sales figures (since they are separate week) and put a note underneath the table that it is the finale performance. The idea is that they give an indication of how the vote went, which is why it would be useful to list them as the sales for their respective week, merging them would defeat the purpose. If you think having two sales columns is too much, then remove one and just give the last known sales figure without any notes that it's for week or total, because there is no point in saying that it's for the competition week unless you do it for all those whose sales are known. Hzh (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yap it counts as votes. So, change it to 50,000? Satchikova (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There'll be 3 numbers (49K, 50K, 136K), 2 for each individual week in one column (just introduce a break then give the finale number underneath it with a note), then one for the total sales. As I said before, if you think this is too much then simply use the final known figure in only one column without adding any notes (I changed your edits partly because i thought having the notes made it messy and served no useful purpose if all of them don't give the competition week sales figure when they are known). Hzh (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Bai Juyi 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:

• |align=right|[[Posthumous name|Shì (謚)]]:||Wén 文 (hence referred <br> to as Bái Wéngōng (白文公; Pai Wen-kung in Wade-Giles)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Lumineers (album) 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:

• The Lumineers|autocat=yes|type=album|award=Platinum|digital=true |salesamount=1,343,000|salesref=<ref name="yahoo"}}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

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

• United States|type=single|artist=Fall Out Boy|title=Dance, Dance}}</ref> and has sold 2,170,000) copies in the US as of July 2013.<ref name="Yahoo 07-10-2013">{{cite news |url=http://music.yahoo.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Colonization of Siberia

"A milestone in the history of the region was the arrival of the Russians in the 16th and 17th centuries, contemporaneous and in many regards analogous to the European colonization of the Americas."

This sentence has been removed multiple times. I'm reverting back to original sentence. It seems that lots of people are not comfortable with the fact of comparison between Siberia colonization by Russia and America colonization by Europe.

References

-James Forsyth, 1994, A History of the Peoples of Siberia: Russia's North Asian Colony 1581-1990
-Steven Sabol, The Western Historical Quarterly, Vol. 43, No. 1 (SPRING 2012), pp. 29-51, Comparing American and Russian Internal Colonization: The “Touch of Civilisation” on the Sioux and Kazakhs Durianlover1 (talk) 19:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

History of Xinjiang

Please stop making biased and unsourced edits in Wikipedia. You deleted sourced content, and replaced with unsourced opinions. For example Marco Polo did refer to the Tarim Basin area as part of Turkestan, see here. The fact that you objected to Uyghurs calling the region East Turkestan and that somehow simply stating that fact is a pro-independence POV, suggests your bias. Wikipedia is not a place to push your opinions, and I note that many have previously complained of your recent edits, either being for pro-Chinese, or making original research edits, for example in here and here. There is enough evidence that your edits are not adhering to wikipedia policy per WP:POV, you can considering this a level 1 warning. Hzh (talk) 11:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, this thing will never end, the argument of POV. It proves my hypothesis that there is certain bias in Wikipedia. Inetad of debating on these articles, I'll throw my towel. AdiosDurianlover1 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

When multiple editors accused you of bias in different pages, then you have to accept that you are the one with the problem. Wikipedia is for a worldwide readership and it attempts to be as fair to everyone as possible by trying to be as neutral as it can. Merely stating that the Uyghurs prefer the term East Turkestan is not pro-independence, it is simply stating a fact. When you removed what the Uyghurs prefer to call Xinjiang, you are in fact trying to silence a significant point of view, which is an act that is biased towards the Chinese authority, and that is unacceptable. And that's before we even consider the fact that you used spurious and demonstrably false reasons to justify your deletion of content. Hzh (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Biophysics editing contest

Given your recent work on agarose gel electrophoresis and other articles, I wanted to let you know about a contest that WikiProject Biophysics is running at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biophysics/Biophysics wiki-edit contest. I think the work you've done already would be quite competitive, and if you happen to be a student or early-career person there are even monetary prizes for the winners. The deadline to sign up is July 15 if you're interested. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I probably can't do much on biophysics for the time being. There is a page that I think needs to be created and that's on three-dimensional NMR. There is already a page on 2D-NMR, but 3D-NMR is very important now as a technique for protein NMR and so should have a page of its own. However it is something that can take a long time to bring it up to a decent standard, I'm not sure if I can spend so much time on it, so if someone one want to start that I might contribute to it later. Hzh (talk) 10:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Gel electrophoresis definitely counts as biophysics. I certainly wouldn't expect you to create another new article in six days! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do know gel electrophoresis counts as biophysics, I just meant I can't do more of it at the moment. It feels more like work, having to check papers, reviews, and books. A couple of biophysics books I checked don't seem to give a good account of the theory of gel electrophoresis, so writing would take longer, and that might be the same for other topics. Hzh (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Home certification

Thank you for the revert since I see it is certified 4x Platinum, but I swear when I looked at the reference linked to the RIAA database right before I made the change that it still said 3x Platinum. I know it states that the certification date says July 15, 2013, but I know from personal experience that sometimes the database is updated a few days later. I just find it incredible that the database was changed in the minutes in between when I looked and when you made your reversions. Maybe I just misread it, so in the future I will double check before making these changes. Aspects (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Could be an old cached copy in your browser if the site is temporary unavailable. I think I saw its new certification some time yesterday I think. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Crystal Palace, London

Hi,

I've noticed a number of edits from yourself in regard to the crystal palace - if you get the time your thoughts on the area article for Crystal Palace, London would be appreciated on its peer review page. SheffGruff (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly I'll have a look. It looks reasonable at first glance, but has a few issues. Hzh (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Uyghurs

hi Hzh,

I have seen you are the most contributor of information about the uyghur people here in wikipedia. It really does upsets me when I see three uyghur girls from Hoten represents entire uyghurs on the image display frame while other ethnicity such as russians, uzbek and kazakhs have their famous one displayed on their own page. I think uyghur people deserves better representation on wikipedia. tell me what you think.

blackcohn

It doesn't bother me one way or the other whether who gets placed as the image. People can only work with the images available. If you wish to upload some pictures of well-known Uyghurs, then by all means do, but please note that there are rules about what kinds of pictures you can upload. Please check WP:Image use policy for further information. Hzh (talk) 02:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hzh,

thank you for saying that. since i am a new user, i can't upload a file to wikipedia. However, I will upload the picture which formed by multiple famous Uyghur scholars and writers once my status is approved. Meanwhile we really don't want to see those three uyghur girls from Hoten displayed back to the webpage. Blackcohn (talk) 03:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can upload images to wikipedia, you don't need approval. Click on the "Toolbox" on the left, then "Upload file". What you need to be sure of however is that the images you upload is allowable by wiki rules, and has valid rationale. Alternatively you can upload it Wikimedia Commons. There are already many images there, please check and see if you can find what you need here - Uyghur people. I have to go to bed now, so we can discuss it tomorrow if you need further help. Hzh (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2013 (UTC)