User talk:Hzh/Archive 3

Archive 1 / Archive 2 / Archive 4 / Archive 5 /

August 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Great British Bake Off (series 3) 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) 13:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gao (surname) 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:

• *[[Baipu]] ([百濮) people of [[Yunnan]] (雲南)

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

cui (surname) need text a summarize

cui (surname) need summarize of text, i wirte a old (surname), i think that is very law has position, just i wnat summarize, please help me?, thank man, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.149.150.229 (talk) 12:07, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

You can start by not undoing my edits when I actually tried to make articles better, for example in Liu when you removed correctly written sentences and replaced them with nonsensical ones. If you can't read Chinese well (you have made some mistake with Chinese words), then you should avoid editing pages that relate to Chinese words.

We need sources to check that what's written is correct, and you should give sources, or else it is hard to help you because some of what you have written is hard to understand. Hzh (talk) 12:35, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Liu page

i think real history, during the Han Dynasty, Liu origin is nothing, actual origin need as liu feng — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdod (talk • contribs) 16:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you think is the origin, what matters is the published sources for the information of its origin. You do not write your opinion or research in wikipedia, this is not the function of wikipedia. You write what other people have published (books, newspapers, reliable websites, etc.), which is why reliable sources are important. Hzh (talk) 17:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

non han-chinese?

non-han chinese meaning? (personal attack removed, Eyesnore Summer! (PC) 01:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.149.150.229 (talk) 00:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, what's the point of this question... ? Kirothereaper (talk) 02:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

stranger man

i guess, your stranger man, or you hate Qin shiHuang di?, or hate hata ? i know ture, just your love han chinese of Zhou, so your hate Qin Shi Huang di

by book of Korea, during the 4th century, Chinese Qin family emigrate to Korea with Kang, Lu family of Lu (state), they is people of Zhou Dynasty, they escaoe to Japan, thus Japanese hata is Lu family of Zhou Dynasty.

during the yesterday, old Japanese Aaya (Han) family claim as "We are royal of Han Dynasty", or Hata (Qin) family claim "we are royal of Qin Dynasty", but that claim didint a they Aya and Hata during the Modern

ture, Japanese Aaya is Han of Zhou, also, Hata is Qin of Lu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newdod (talk • contribs) 03:39, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Gao (surname), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ying (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) 10:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Gong (surname) 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:

• '''Gong''' ({{zh|t=鞏|s=巩}}, rank 370 in China

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

RE: American Idol (season 13)

Thanks for bringing that to my attention, sorry for the inconvenience! WikiRedactor (talk) 22:45, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

It's no trouble, as a redirect page for the official name would need to be created anyway, so your effort isn't wasted. Hzh (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese surname, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teochew (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) 10:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Music of Singapore, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teochew (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) 11:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

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

• her feet into the shape of the crescent moon and performed a lotus dance on the point of her feet).<ref>{{cite book |url= http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=2Ifj9h4Z4YQC&pg=PA164&f=false#v=onepage&

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:22, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Bake off

I have left the bit about favouritism etc. in because there is one reliable source per WP:BLP (The Independent.) I think you had better re-read it because sources such as the Daily Mail and Twitter should not be relied upon when making questionable statements. There were no "multiple major news sources", just the Mail and the Mirror, whose dubious fact-checking means they should not be relied upon unless backed up by other reliable sources. Harry the Dog WOOF 18:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are questioning the reported affair, this is actually widely reported, on both side of the Atlantic. I have no idea why you would object to it given that BBC itself feels the need to make a denial about is future as reported in The Daily Telegraph. No one actually denies that Hollywood and his wife has split up, his wife even made statement on this, but to give all the information would be excessive to this article, which is simply about the controversy related to the show. Hzh (talk) 19:08, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough and if that is the case, provide "multiple reliable sources" and not just the Daily Mail. I removed it only on the basis that it was a potentially defamatory statement that relied on a single, dubious source, per WP:BLP. I also note that it is mentioned neither in Hollywood's article nor in the article of the person he supposedly left his wife for, so it is a bit strange to mention it in an article about a show he participates in. Harry the Dog WOOF 19:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

October 2013

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. We always appreciate when users upload new images. However, it appears that one or more of the images you have recently uploaded or added to an article, specifically Titus Andronicus, may fail our non-free image policy. Most often, this involves editors uploading or using a copyrighted image of a living person. For other possible reasons, please read up on our Non-free image criteria. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Werieth (talk) 11:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Titus Andronicus

Hey. Thought you might like to know I've opened a discussion about the non-free images in the Titus Andronicus article, here, if you wish to contribute. Cheers. Bertaut (talk) 20:43, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hey. Just to let you know, I've made the suggested changes to Titus Andronicus, as per the discussion last week, if you fancy taking a look. I've included more quotes than is really necessary in the article, but I wanted to err on the side of overkill, as it were. I can simply remove a couple of them at a later date if needs be. I've left a note in the discussion as well. Thanks. Bertaut (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

It reads fine, good work finding the reviews, but I do think it could do with a bit of trimming. Some of the quotes can be shorter or omitted completely (you can just give sources for those who wish to read more). Hzh (talk) 21:19, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• //ctext.org/analects/yang-huo#n1554 |title=The Analects - Yang Huo |work=Chinese Text Project }}}</ref> where ''yayue'' was considered by [[Confucius]] to be music that was good and beneficial, in
• org/analects/wei-ling-gong#n1492 |title=The Analects - Wei Ling Gong |work=Chinese Text Project }}}</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shaw Brothers Studio may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. 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:

• Shaw studio in Shanghai produced one of the very first Chinese talkies, ''The Nightclub Colours'' (歌場春色]. In 1932, they teamed up with Cantonese opera singer Sit Gok-Sin ([[:zh:薛覺先|薛覺先]]) to make the

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about that

I would never do that again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.175.92.79 (talk) 02:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chinese music, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dizi (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) 09:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

What images would be good?

Hi why are these image bad for journalism? what images would be good? Cogiati (talk) 03:07, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It's mostly irrelevant to journalism, it's more about cosplayer. In article about journalism, I would expect images of serious journalism, rather than something lightweight which concentrates not on the journalists themselves. That is not to say that it has no place there, it is just that having two of them in a page without any other images seriously skewed it into something lightweight, which is only a small part of what the article is about. I would choose a better selection, for example, an image here of photojournalist at work (select the one with the photographers in the picture, the images there should be a public domain since they are from the White House), and examples of other forms of journalism. One of the pictures you choose might be used in the page as one of many, rather than the only ones there. Hzh (talk) 04:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Hmm I haven't thought about the serious/lightweight issue, you're correct that two lightweight images would be bad. I think one lightweight pic and some serious pics is good and I think you found a nice picture. One cosplay interview pic among many looks good as it shows journalists sometimes also do lightweight stuff, but you're correct two pics would skew the article, so thanks for the input it helps make the article more balanced. I'll also search to see whether I can find other suitable pics, but I think the article seems fairly improved with the images it has now. Cogiati (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

FAC comment?

Hi. Would you be interested in voicing your support (or oppose/comment) at the FAC page for the article Of Human Feelings? If not, feel free to ignore this message. Dan56 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I'll certainly have a look later, just a bit tied up with a few things at the moment. Hzh (talk) 08:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything you'd like to add at this FAC after my most recent revisions or is it still somewhat undecided on supporting or opposing? Dan56 (talk) 00:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Some of the points I made have been tackled, but I haven't really changed my opinion on the prose needing improvement. Personally I wouldn't recommended it for featured article on that issue, but it is marginal, so I won't object either if it is chosen. In this case it would be better for me not to comment on it further and leave it to others to decide. Hzh (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The Sound of Music Live!

Thanks for your contributions to the article. I am hoping a few experienced editors can come together here and expand this article to quality status. Much appreciated! --Another Believer _(Talk) 22:20, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome. I'm not sure however if there is a lot more that can be written about the show, but we'll see what happens. Hzh (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 2 January

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

• On the Our Version of Events page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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) 00:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Tea

I saw your recent edit to Tea in which you added a "citation needed" tag. I also read your explanatory edit summary. I just want to suggest that you put the comment that is in your edit summary on the Talk page of the article. The edit summary will disappear from view soon; in the future, editors will see it only if they look back in the revision history. An editor who knows the needed information will be more likely to see it on the Talk page. Just a suggestion. CorinneSD (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Will do that. Hzh (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

National Dish

(Nasi Kerabu) Even have only one citation, it is still remained as citation. Others country’s national dishes also have either limit citation or none. So, one of citation is enough as a proof for time being. Research is continuous. Because of only have one citation it doesn’t mean need to remove. Please don't be bias. If you concern for this matters, please remove all national dish that have one citation or none. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.139.220.23 (talk) 07:24, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

The one citation is not unbiased, and make false claim (for example that there is such as a thing as an official national dish), therefore is not a reliable source, and cannot be used. Please see the talk page of that article. Hzh (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Tea

I saw your recent edits to Tea. I am sure you know more about the subject of tea than I do, and about Chinese, but I do know something about languages and linguistics, and I just wondered about that phrase "were borrowed into Korean and Japanese". I don't understand "borrowed into". Usually, we say that a language has borrowed words from another language.CorinneSD (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

You can modify the wordings in the way you think best. It is simply an ellipsis (the words "from Chinese" are omitted because that is understood by the following "during earlier periods of Chinese history"), but if it doesn't read right to you, then by all means you are welcome to correct them. Hzh (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sanghyang Adi Buddha

Hi :) may i ask you a BIG favor please? :( I just finished Sanghyang Adi Buddha article. Please can you check my translation? i know i'd made so many grammatical errors, but i can't find it by myself. thank you very much Okkisafire (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I can do some proof-reading, but I don't think I can check the translation because I don't really speak Indonesian (I know a few words and phrases, that's about it). At the moment some of the sentences are unclear as to what they mean, but I'll see what I can do. I'm not sure what "ke-Tuhanan" means, I see that Godliness is translated some dictionaries as "kesalehan", is that what you mean? Or do you mean divinity or God? Hzh (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have found some sources, and I believe you mean "God" rather than "Godliness", so I have changed it, but do let me know if you think it is incorrect. Hzh (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means: "He is the Buddha who do not work" (itu adalah Sang Buddha jang tidak berkarya). Hzh (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Ow, I mean just check my English sentences :}} but thank you for checked the translation. itu adalah Sang Buddha jang tidak berkarya is an old spelling of Indonesian language, but the translation was right, I didn't want to change the direct sentences too much. It should be: "He (the Adi Buddha) is the Buddha (one from so many Buddhas) who doesn't work (you know, it's just like Oranos, Greek's sky god, only watch but nothing else after Kronos castrated him).

And about "Ketuhanan", that's an adjective, not a noun. I think "Godliness" is more precise than "God". How do you think? "Tuhan" is a noun, we translate it as "God". But "Ketuhanan", i think it has to be "Godliness". ::Thanks a lot :)) Okkisafire (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are saying. Godliness is a noun, so is God. I'm not sure if you know the definition of godliness, it has little to do with God himself. It means piety. Also I meant that the phrase "He is the Buddha who do not work" does not make sense in English. If it is some kind of Indonesian idiom, then you would need to write it in a way that would make sense to an English reader. Hzh (talk) 01:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

So, how is it? (︶︿︶) It confuse me as well. It is hard to translate "Ketuhanan" into English. Well, maybe "God" just suit it best. I'll ask my friend who live in Oz, how to translate "doesn't work". I'll fix it later. Btw, I just fixed my gratitute banner to you :) I copied it from 7&6=thirteen. Thank you again :) Okkisafire (talk) 10:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps "Belief in God Almighty" might do as a translation for "KeTuhanan Yang Maha Esa". It is similar to what is written in the page for Pancasila.

This line doesn't make sense - "In the same year of the heating of the controversy", it might be better to just state the year (e.g "In 1978, the Indonesian Directorate General..."). There are also a number of sentences that I am not sure of, but I'll see if I can make sense of them when I have more time. Hzh (talk) 12:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd read Pancasila article and the translation of the precepts weren't good. That's why I didn't use it. Well, I'm embarassed x_x my translation is so bad Okkisafire (talk) 05:06, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Hallo, Hzh :) I found it, at last, Ketuhanan has to be translated as Lordness. You can find it [here on page 3,4. Okkisafire (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should not be used, because Lordness is not a word in English, or at least, not a word that most people would have come across. I think the common translation "Belief in One Supreme God", or another one mentioned in the article "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence" should be used instead.

This translation doesn't make sense: "By call Buddha actually we already mention the Adi Buddha, bhanga the Pacceka Buddha and Gautama Buddha, too. Therefore the homage of a Buddhist simply by say: NAMO Buddhaya!" I'll see how to adjust it later. What does "Namo" means? Hzh (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm so busy lately -_- i didn't notice your message. I think "Recognition of the Divine Omnipotence" is the best translation, indeed. "Namo" is a sanskrit word which is mean "Salaam" (just like the Muslims use it) or "Shalom" (just like the Christians use it). I'm gonna change it :) thank you again for your help. Okkisafire (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

	Promoter of understanding and shared knowledge
	Congratulations on a job well done! May Sanghyang Adi Buddha smile upon you. Okkisafire (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

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

• Biology Association |date=page last updated October 2006 |accessdate=November 23, 2012}}</ref>) is a species of [[tree]] in the ''[[Artocarpus]]'' genus of the [[mulberry]] family (''[[Moraceae]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014

Please do not add unreferenced or poorly referenced information, especially if controversial, to articles or any other page on Wikipedia about living persons. Thank you.--John (talk) 10:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring points made and issuing warning instead is not good manner in wikpedia. Hzh (talk) 09:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to The Island with Bear Grylls 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:

• takes part in The Island with Bear Grylls reality TV show |date=10 May 2014 |work=York Press }}}</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Southcliffe/Sean Harris

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

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

• On the Cooking page, your edit caused an unnamed parameter error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

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

Hi! I saw that you have changed some of my changes on article Uyghur People, you wrote that "I did not provide reliable source" how do you mean that i did not provide reliable source for those i wrote in Population Problem, Education and some others, I have provided books that are legaly published and where these saying are came from, how are those book are not a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 01:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the parts that are sourced and relevant. Those that unsourced and not relevant have been removed. I have a particular problem with the population estimate from WUC. I have no idea how they derived the numbers, and without a clear idea it can be just a number invented out of thin air. Neither of the two new sections you have added have any sources, and even if they are sourced, we are required to write the content in a neutral manner. The English used is also generally poor. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so the basic problem here is that im not being neutral in these two sections that i have added, and i admit that maybe im not a flutent english speaker like you but can you then contribute to the page and write thos two sections with a more neutral manner? I will provide you sources for both of them. and what about the Education section that i edited? It was completly in neutral manner with fully reliable and relevant source, so how can that be something that needs to be removed, and the one with art is also cited with source and the source is a reliable good source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 02:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the population section should be there. There isn't a proper source that can be used, what you wrote in that section was just speculations and anecdotes which have no place in Wikipedia. I think there can be a section on the issue with Uyghurs in modern China (separatism, influx of Chinese people, perception of oppression, etc.), although it needs to be done very carefully because it is a contentious issue. I will think about how to add that. I trimmed the Medicine part, it doesn't need more details, and it is hard to distinguish whether some of the contributions were made by Uyghurs, Arabs or ancient people of the Xinjiang area (opium for example was first introduced to China by Arab traders). Hzh (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If the Population problem shall not be here, then there shall be a redirection to a new page of Uyghur Population problem, maybe you know it or not, it is a common problem in Countries which are trying to ássimilate a people will use false statistics on thier census to fool the world, And if we want to stay Neutral then we need to show both sides view (PRCs and Uyghurs) on various quistions, the population you are giving is not generaly accapeted by uyghurs, The census your wrote est 2009 is actully from 2010, and you said that the medicine part does not need more details, is not it true that Wikipedia wants more information on it not less information, the opium is truely intrduced by Arab merchants but the medical use of it is originaly from Uyghurs medicals says the offical statement the book i statet, the book is used by medical insititution of China. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolatjan (talk • contribs) 02:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not interested in speculations or conspiracy theories unless it is something widely discussed by reliable neutral sources. If any page on Uyghur population is created then it will most likely be deleted, simply for the lack of a reliable sources. If you can find a reliable source for the Uyghur population, then you can add it, but if it is from the WUC, then we would need to know how they got their numbers. Being neutral is not about giving equal weight to numbers given by both sides. We know China has census, so at least we know how they get their numbers, we have no idea how WUC can get any reliable number apart from a complete guess. Hzh (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

After reviewing other pages for other groups of people, I think I'll leave any section on contemporary issues out for the time being. Other pages don't have a special section on that, and some contemporary issues affecting Uyghurs are addressed in the history section and touched on in others, so it is not necessary. Hzh (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I will write it here so that it will look tidy in your page, you said two books, i have only cited one book on Education, by this i can see that you did not check the book properly and claiming for more details, i don't have so many time to check back my book and give you the specific page or chapter, please don't do like that again. Dolatjan (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

1) Blaine Kaltman - Under the Heel of the Dragon: Islam, Racism, Crime, and the Uighur in China

2) Chen YangBin - Muslim Uyghur Students in a Chinese Boarding School: Social Recapitalization as a Response to Ethnic Integration Hzh (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

American Kids

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

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

You don't like the change, fine, but how exactly did I mess up the chronology? Jauerback^dude?/_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. Jauerback^dude?/_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? Jauerback^dude?/_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. Jauerback^dude?/_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

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

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

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

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)