User talk:Hazhk/Archive 2

Klaus
Full support for your last editing. The whole nonsense could be even deleted. --Zbrnajsem (talk) 12:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Problem with signature
Hello, Peter. I see that your signature is not "Hazhk", but "Peter". You probably didn't realise, but unfortunately there is a user with the user name Peter, so using that signature is likely to be misleading. Can you please change it? Thanks. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Labor party
Plz, look at this section. --Vlade Krivachèine (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Favor?
About the Christmas article. I like your changes overall, and I respect that you believe in God, according to your userboxes; me, I used to believe but am mostly agnostic (although I can not rule out philosophically that God might exist so I guess I'm kind of wobbly overall). For me, Christmas is less religious and more commercial and family-oriented, and less Jesus and more about Santa. So I was wondering that if I expand the Santa section that I might run changes with you first? Also, I agree there are too many Santa images but was wondering if you might substitute in the first photo which seems more Santa-ish to me. Also, like you, I am a big believer in photos; I was wondering if I might ask your help on another article which needs better picture placement -- Loantaka Brook Reservation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Labour a Centre Left Party?
Hi. I noticed that you reverted what I edited. I cannot ever imagine Labour under Tony Blair and Mandelson as being centre left. The reference you mentioned says it is. Do you really think Labour is Centre Left? I would be interested to hear your opinions. After all, where we position a party can only ever be an opinion, can it not? I am rather hoping you don't consider the Conservatives as left wing. Wallie (talk) 17:27, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My opinions are irrelevant. We go by what political analysts and commentators say. To remove "centre-left" from the lead also removes all description of the party. I like the new wording you've introduced in the "ideology" section, but I think it's best to acknowledge that the party has positioned itself around the centre. -- Hazhk Talk to me 17:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

A message from zictor23
Hello Hazhk,

Thank you for the nice things you said about my additions. About transferring those reforms to the "Premiership of Gordon Brown" article, I think that is a very good idea. I think that I'll make the transfer either today or tommorow.

Also Hazhk, a while ago, I added a wide range of reforms introduced by the first two British Labour governments in the two articles entitled "First Macdonald Ministry" and "Second Macdonald Ministry." I thought that you might find them interesting to check out. I did quite a bit of reading on those two governments, and I thought it would be nice to share what I had learnt with other people.zictor23 (talk) 20:59:, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Cyril Smith
Hello Hazhk. I noticed your recent edit of the talk page. As an admin I'd been wondering if adding that category was correct. Since your removal is likely to inspire questions, it would be helpful if you could leave a brief note on the article talk page explaining your reasoning. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Balls image
Hey. The problem with the image on the Commons, other the having been uploaded by a banned user, is that the image permissions for stuff on e National Archives really isn't clear at all. If you follow the permissions stuff from the image the you'll see what I mean - it appears that specific permission is needed for images, other than those from Flickr with suitable licenses, to be used. I am unconvinced that Marquis de la Eirron has established this in the various What do they know requests that have been made - which simply provide the images without being clear that open permission is granted, I have significant concerns about the copyright nature of the image. Please take a look at the various permissions and let me know what you think - it may be that I'm missing an important nuance within the various files and linkages between permissions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the best place to address whether the image is copyrighted or free to use would be on the file's talkpage. I don't see any good reason for removing a perfectly good image if no problem has been formally raised about it on 'files for deletion' or the talk page (or has there?).

You may have a case about its eligibility- I know a few editors are wary about those National Archive and the "free for request" images. I assumed by your edit summary that you were removing the file simply because it had been added by a sock puppet. -- Hazhk Talk to me 22:01, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I intend to follow these images up in the Commons once I get more than an odd five minutes here and there to spare! Fwiw there have been maybe 7-10 red link photos of UK politicians I've come across in the last week or so - it looks like the Marquis has had a bunch of the same images removed again. Almost all of them seem to lead back to the same socks.


 * Specifically I have concerns about whether or not the request (which is that the images are released to the individual) really covers use here. It might do but it's at best ambiguous. And t'other image is also perfectly good you know... Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:39, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Wales map
The map used on Wales was changed. I reverted. Controversial changes should be discussed on the article talk page, rather than reverted back to the change (see WP:BRD). Your edit summary is mistaken: “The newer map is the standard used on all European country infoboxes”. Looking at Latvia, Germany Andorra and Ukraine, for example, an oval world map is provided, then Europe zoomed in with the relevant country highlighted. The map added back to Wales has no world view and, consequently, is different. Please self-revert and discuss on the Wales talk page. Daicaregos (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Will do. Cheers, Daicaregos (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Marmorkirken
Ok,i just intended to add an infobox to this important church in the Danish capital,cheers and greetings :) Wish you a merry Christmas and blessed holiday season.. Evangelidis (talk) 14:55, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Germany topics
if you are going to revert one, you might as well revert the others (see Special:Contributions/46.34.136.120). 174.56.57.138 (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

People, is this a new wikipedia-based inquisition for supressing all the decenting views? Aren't you ashamed of yourselves. If you hold a rational position, let's discuss, I'm very open to any discussion. I belive 'special rights' of any group shouldn't exist in Wikipedia, despite of it popularity and other factors. This is what's called objectivity. If you want to promote certain ideologies - find a non-neuthral site, please (not to you, but to people who want to threaten Wikipedia's objectivity).

This is my response:

Well, there is law, and everyone is equal before the law. All groups. Do you realy think, popularity is a reasonable basis for creating a special category in a topic? I don't think. And not only regards to this special 'rights', in regard to any issue. We don't state that God exists in Wikipedia, despite the vast majority of humankind believing it and all major religions being of high popularity and importance. This ignorance of public opinion and popularity is nececary for objectivity.

Well, I know you have a very different views than I have, there are lots of people, billions with thousands of different views, that's the reason there should always be a concensus, isn't it? I think, consensus is in deleting 'special' human rights of any kind. I'm not talking even about the biased nature of the whole 'human rights' thing, that's another topic.

Look at other countries, like Germany, France, there were no special 'rights', only themes dedicated to Law, until some biased 'enthusiast' changed it. Whasn't 'Law' good name for justice category? Why creating discputes and cofusion? People with different views can co-exist only if we don't divide ourselves on ideoligical basis.

I know there are some people, which want to expand certain ideologies, but why their platform for this should be Wikipedia, site, which is wholeheartidly dedicated to facts, and not promotion of ideologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.136.120 (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Hitler
Hi Hazhk. Sorry for editing so closely behind you last night. I was very tired and just wanted to get my edit saved before I turned in. I hope I did not make you feel like you were not welcome to edit the article. Everyone is welcome, of course, and especially people who find content that we can remove; the article is a bit too long and we are always looking for ways to trim it. Thanks for your interest in helping maintain this important article. -- Dianna (talk) 14:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Your edits on Mobile_phones_on_aircraft
Hi Haz, just to let you know I have (only partially) reverted some of your edits. This is because I have just completed a major copy edit on the article, and you took out a couple of things which I felt should stay in a little longer, the reason being that some of the major contributors seemed sensitive about "their" article being revamped. One was an unsourced sentence which I felt was important to the discussion, and which I expect will be sourced soon (I'll see to it if no one else does); the other was a hidden comment and the associated passage which I left in purely to explain to those previous contributors why that passage had been taken out. I plan to delete it (just as you did) later, but after say a month, to give those editors a chance to see it first. I trust you will understand! Regards,  David_FLXD  (Talk) 05:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Jinnah
Hi, FYI due to the requirements of featured article status, we are only using articles that are provably in the public domain. The ones you reinserted, we haven't been able to prove it yet, but we are leaving the commented out images in place so we can more easily reinsert once we get proof. Basicly, we're looking for proof of publication in British India pre-1946, or by a Raj employee. Thanks again for tweaking the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A Message from JohnxSmith referring to changes made to the WikiArticle on Denmark
Hi, you may remember you sent me a message claiming that 'proper' was the right word to describe Denmark rather than 'mainland' due to its islands. While I understand that 'mainland' may be an incorrect term, I think 'proper' is even worse as it implies that both Greenland and the Faroes are 'improper'. I will change it to 'continental Denmark' to avoid confusion or possibly even offensive takes on the choice of words. Many Thanks, Johnxsmith (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

LIst of members of the House of Plantagenet - merge proposal
You say the main article is too long, and admittedly it is long but how long is too long?

This list doesn't seem to add much so what in your view should be done about it?

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Aidan
If it's WP:PRIMARY then Saint Aidan can redirect to the article, rather than a full rename. Sure. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter Sellers
Hello. I note that you deleted some information from the Peter Sellers article as it was unreferenced. Although, in essence, this would be the correct thing to do, can I point out that this is a featured article and there are other editors who would have those references to hand. A tag would therefore have been best to use in this instance and the reference would have been added in due course. Second to that, a note on the talk page explaining the flaw would have flagged up our attention and we could have resolved it that way. To delete information from a featured article without the chance of a resolution from the main editors will just generate annoyance I'm afraid. Many thanks! --  Cassianto Talk    08:09, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: Template:Cmmunist Party of the Soviet Union
Elena Stasova, Yakov Sverdlov, Nikolay Krestinsky and Vyacheslav Molotov were never leaders of the Soviet Union.. The article, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (which I wrote, and nominated for FL), says it very clearly that the post was not synonymous with leader of the USSR or the CPSU throughouts its whole existence.. Secondly, the post of General Secretary was never ment to mean leader of the Soviet Union, the original intention behind the office was supervising the work of the Secretariat. According to Lenin, there was not suppose to be one leader of the CPSU - decision were to be made collective - but when Lenin died, Stalin won the power struggle, and controlled the party through his post as general secretary.... Stasove, Sverdlov, Krestinsky and Molotov were never leaders of the CPSU, you will never find a source which refers to these people as leader of the CPSU, never.. The post of General Secretary became synonymous with leader of the CPSU when Stalin consolidated power, and only then. --TIAYN (talk) 16:53, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Lenin was the informal leader.... the majority of sources refer to him as leader... He was the leader (however, there was never a post, legally, which was synonymous with leader of the CPSU)... Until its demise, the party continued stating that the party was ruled collectively (not by one man that is).. If you go by you're definition there was never a leader of the CPSU, since there never existed a legally office which was leader of the party... --TIAYN (talk) 22:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

cycling image
One change I'd like to question though is the image added to the 'cycling' section. I feel the former image (shown to the right) is far preferable, as it demonstrates the cycle-friendly nature of the city; and is clearly identifiable as Copenhagen, rather than a stranger on the cycle (as in the new image). Would you object strongly to me changing the image back?
 * No, not at all, was in doubt myself after I had done the edit, please go change it. However there are a lot of pictures that are simply cluttering up the article without providing any support. QuantoAltoPossoVolare (talk) 23:42, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

User:77.251.240.152
Hi Hazhk,

I saw your message regarding User:77.251.240.152. I am trying the softly-softly approach with him. He is Dutch and his English is poor, but since I can read Dutch, I have invited him to write on his Talk page in Dutch. When I respond to him, I will try to paraphrase what he has said. I have tried to assure him that I, like him, am in favour of the metric system, but that the way he is going around doing things is likely to antagonise people. (I have not looked at your preferences in the metric/imperial debate and at the moment I don't care - I think that we are both trying to keep things stable). Hopefully I can make some headway. At least he did not totally remove the last Talk page. Martinvl (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Removal
Not sure why this was removed ? The number of people with the disease right now is nearly equivalent to the number of people who have died from it. These are different numbers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:44, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

New Labour
Oops, my mistake there. I was planning to check it out just to be sure it actually supports what is being said as the user who added it has a history of dubious sourcing, but hadn't got round to it yet. I also hadn't realised I'd actually removed it. :) It's a bit late now, but I'll have a read through of everything tomorrow. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Mermaid
Someone just made vast changes to The Little Mermaid (statue). I haven't reverted it yet, but I can if you wish. I thought I would let you know as one of the main editors on the article. I was also wondering if we could include the statement by Elek Imredy that he intentionally did not try to copy the original for his Vancouver version in 1972. "I didn't believe we should have a copy of the mermaid (in Copenhagen harbour). She is rightfully a symbol of Copenhagen..." from this link Douglas Brown may have wished one but Elek did not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

List of the Members of the House of Planatgenet
Hi Hazhk, list has come up for merger again. Last time you objected on the grounds that the atrget article was too large - this has now been edited back to within good practice. Would you like to reconsider your view? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello
Hi, can help me to improve these items, thank you: Tríptico de Nava y Grimón, Museo Municipal de Bellas Artes de Santa Cruz de Tenerife.--81.34.255.96 (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus
Hello, I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name tothis list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds 20:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Re: Christianity and homosexuality
Mind describing what you changed? WP makes it difficult to tell (if you look at the diff you'll see why). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh I only rearranged the paragraphs to group the 'pro-' and 'oppose-' denominations together. I also shortened a few descriptions of denominations' stances. I've tagged that section because I see it's very US-centric; most examples appear to be an American mainline Protestant denominations, with the exception of a couple of Lutheran denominations. -- Hazhk Talk to me 21:45, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at it again, it's still not well-organized; there are more paragraphs than there are positions and it's not clear why some groups are in one paragraph instead of in another. What is your opinion on greatly trimming the section and letting List of Christian denominational positions on homosexuality cover it? Would that be removing detail that actually is important to the top-level article in this topic? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:59, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I would support trimming down the section to two paragraphs, yes. -- Hazhk Talk to me 10:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

June 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=560339601 your edit] to Flag of Germany 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * designated as the national German flag in the Weimar Constitution in 1919. {{cite web |url=http://www.documentarchiv.de/wr/wrv.html |title=Constitution of the Weimar Republic

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=561436400 your edit] to Protestant Methodist Church in Benin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just [{{fullurl:Protestant Methodist Church in Benin|action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+typo+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3ABracketBot%7CBracketBot%5D%5D}} edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The {{red|&#91;}} ethodist Church is organised into 15 Synods. It covers the whole country. Membership is 90,000 in

Navboxes on author pages
Since you are the leading registered editor in terms of edits at Hans Christian Andersen, you might want to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Novels regarding including navigation boxes for adaptations of and related subjects to an authors works on the author's bio page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

History of Denmark
Thank you for your contributions to the History of Denmark page. Since you may be an expert, and I am certainly not, I would like to ask if you know, or know who would know, more about the paragraph beginning "In the 1180s, Mecklenburg and the Duchy of Pomerania came under Danish control . . ."? I am trying to find sources that would have more detail about the church builders of Denmark who went to Mecklenburg in this period.

Thanks, Mswan57 (talk) 18:25, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

St Peter's Basilica
Thanks for your edits! I thought that the atmospheric picture of the facade at night was a very good addition as it shows an aspect of the building that many people see, generally out the window of a taxi on a rainy night when they have an 8 hour stop-over! I looked around for an appropriate place to insert it and I think it looks well. I expanded a wide view and pushed it down, so nothing has been lost, and much gained. Amandajm (talk) 05:16, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel
It's high on my list of "must fix" articles.

The pics are a mess. Can I have five minutes with it, please? Amandajm (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Toodle-oo! Amandajm (talk) 01:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Needs a bit more work on the content. Amandajm (talk) 02:15, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=569147382 your edit] to Saint Peter 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page]. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Psst
Did you mean to do this? It removed some material and also added material that already existed in the article. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The Pieta
I just found your addition in the St Peter's article that it was the only (known) work that Michelangelo signed. I removed it. You might wonder, since it's certainly true and you could reference it.

The reason is one of balance. Here we have one of the three most revered sculptures in the world, and the only one of the three that is venerated, rather than simply admired. Of all the things that could be said about it, the fact that Michelangelo signed it is not the major one. If we are looking at it purely in the context of his works, or the context of his biography, then that is a most significant fact. Relating to Michelangelo specifically, the we see the pride of the young man who emblazoned his name right across the chest of the Virgin Mary.

But in the context of St Peter's, that statement becomes a piece of Michelangelo-related trivia. It turns the attention towards the person of the artist, rather than the greatness, and the significance of the work. I would not write a caption that states (for those who don't know it already) "...widely regarded as one of the greatest works of the Italian Renaissance...'' or anything of that nature.  As a work of art within St Peter's, it surpasses that sort of comment.

On the other hand, the fact that St Peter carries the keys relates to the Papal descent, and the thorn in the toe of Faith is a deliberately political statement by its artist.

Amandajm (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message! Amandajm (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling
Good addition! Can I suggest you put the plan below it instead of above it? Amandajm (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Michelangelo
The article looks an appalling mess. I'll sort out the illustrations. Amandajm (talk) 03:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

August 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=570528639 your edit] to The Last Judgment (Michelangelo) 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 13:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The Last Judgment, or  The Last Judgement (  Il Giudizio Universale), {{cite web|title=The Last Judgement|url=

Sistine Chapel Ceiling diagram/plan
...and I replied there again. Begoon &thinsp; talk 12:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
 * ...and again. Begoon &thinsp; talk  12:47, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Sistine Chapel ceiling
I notice that the architectural image has disappeared and presume this is temporary.

The problem with the current pictorial scheme image is that it has shading around the sections which are unrelated to either the real or the fictive architecture. It's more pleasing to look at than the simplistic image that I created using Paintbrush, but its misleading.

The fictive architecture image is important because it was groundbreaking. An illusion of architecture had previously only been attempted on a ceiling on a small scale. This ceiling led to the painting of architectonic ceilings along the Vatican Corridors, and ultimately to the spectacular illusionistic ceilings of Rome's Baroque churches. (and elsewhere of course). Amandajm (talk) 04:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Images: I spend hours choosing them, cropping them (if necessary) and colour adjusting them.
 * Be warned that many images on the Google art project are much to dark and too intensely coloured. Also, the images that have been recently uploaded from Web Art (I think that's the name)  are all appallingly inaccurate because someone has run an automatic colour adjustment on them.  I have had some difficulty in explaining to people on Wikimedia Commons that Photoshop (etc) doesn't know what is in the mind of the artist, and cannot be relied on to get it right, on automatic settings. One of the things that Photoshop does is turn red chalk drawings on cream paper into black and white drawings on white paper (if you are so foolish as to tell it to "Colour correct".  However, if the original is just a little brighter, instead of going black on white, it will correct the same drawing to very bright red on very intense yellow, so a large number of recently uploaded drawings bare no resemblance to the original, colourwise.
 * Re the fictive image in the Sistine Chapel ceiling article, it had escaped my notice that someone had put the main ceiling image where it didn't belong, in the middle of the description of the commission and the project. I moved it, and changed it for the more complete recent image. I then realised that the photo is good enough to stand alone and deleted the "fictive architecture" as redundant. As long as nobody shifts the main image again, it's not necessary. Amandajm (talk) 00:54, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Re Adam: go for the image without the external clutter. The ignudi are not framing the scene in a manner that makes them part of the composition. The ignudi are frames to the small scenes, while the four large scenes are all essentially stand-alones.
 * As a matter of fact, I've just been reading an interesting little article on the problems caused by people digitally altering images, cleaning, fixing scratches and "improving" colours and then deleting the archival photo. It's an ongoing problem on Wikimedia Commons.
 * With Michelangelo, there is the additional problem that some editors have perceived the "restored" state as being preferable and truer than the "dirty" state, and simply uploaded the cleaned image over the top of the old one. This caused the loss of some valuable evidence of the damage done by the restorers.
 * I was looking again at before and after images of the young woman in green and white, in the spandrel, and wondering why no-one in the international community has taken that lot to court for their serious breach of internationally accepted conservation principles, and breaching their own contract.
 * I "fix" pictures fairly regularly. Which generally means firstly trying to get them back to their pre-Auto adjusted stage. Then I get out a range of printed images and compare the colours, which can vary a great deal in the print process. In older works that are heavily varnished, one must presume a slight yellow-brown haze over the whole painting, which is not simply a problem of artificial light. The varnish haze stays.  If the painting has been radically cleaned, then the colours need to be as close to the historically available paints as possible. The blues are one of the best indicators.  There are often two chemically-different blues in the same painting.  If the overall colour is adjusted to a point where one blue looks slightly mauve and the other blue looks slightly turquoise, then you can presume that the balance of colour is fairly close to the original. In a fresco, none of the colours should ever be very intense, as they are in the example left.  They are essentially watercolours, so should look transparent.
 * Amandajm (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Lancs Arms.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lancs Arms.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:


 * 1) Go to the file description page and add the text   below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing   with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
 * 2) On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Fanny Crosby
Category:Fanny Crosby, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.  Taylor Trescott  - my talk + my edits 11:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Muhammad Ali Jinnah

This is to let you know that File:Jinnah1945a.jpg, a featured picture you uploaded or nominated, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for December 25, 2013. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2013-12-25. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! U BS  17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

November 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=583174432 your edit] to Comforter 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 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A comforter is a type of [bedding]. Comforters are a type of blanket, filled with natural or synthetic [[thermal

Christianity
Thank you for this edit. However, I have tagged it as contradicting the previous section, which says "Armenia is considered the first nation to accept Christianity in 301 AD". StAnselm (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Vallenses
Hi, just curious why you deleted the the name "Vallenses" (in the lede), with corresponding reference, from the Waldensian article. For sure, it is not the most common spelling, but I have also seen "Valdenses". Seeing that you are an experienced editor I thought I would ask before undoing the edit. I cannot supply other references off the top of my head, but in my mind the referenced book would not be the only one to use that form. Thanks! Mikeatnip (talk) 23:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The lies we tell ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty
The report below has useful information but is hard to fit into an article about any specific denomination as several denominations sponsored it. Have you any suggestions?

The lies we tell ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty Proxima Centauri (talk) 09:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Premature obituaries
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your reasons for removing content from the List of premature obituaries. At the top of the article itself, it is stated that "This article only lists the recipients of incorrect death reports (not just formal obituaries) from publications, media organisations, official bodies, and widely used information sources such as the Internet Movie Database". I would agree that a Wikipedia edit is not a formal obituary, but it certainly is a widely used information source. This is evidenced by the fact that in both of the cases at hand, the person actually had to come forward and inform people that he was not actually dead. Your thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.172.153 (talk) 02:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If we're going to include IMDB profiles then I think a rename of the article to "List of people incorrectly reported dead", or something similar to that, should be considered. I still think that, even under the looser definition of 'obituary', vandalism to a Wikipedia article doesn't count. A direct link to a Facebook page (which could be fake for all we know) just doesn't cut it. Inclusion of material on Wikipedia usually requires it to have a degree of notability and unless this confusion over a Wikipedia edit received coverage in the media I don't think it's really notable enough. -- Hazhk Talk to me 12:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll be the first to concur that the title of the article should be changed to better reflect its content. In fact, I believe this was discussed at some point on the article's talk page but was never implemented. How do we get the ball rolling on this?
 * With regard to the question of notability, I accept your point of view but I honestly believe that if a person had to take the time to publicly declare that he wasn't actually dead, the case is notable enough to include.

Jesus
Dear fellow, you removed a lot of information related to Islam in the lede section of Jesus. You mentioned that I was not added by a proper discussion which is incorrect. You will find complete discussion about this topic onhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_122 .I have rescued the information that was removed due to a minor misunderstanding.Thanks.Septate (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. When I removed the text I wasn't aware there had been any discussion, so apologies for that. However, I don't find any particular consensus in favour of keeping the text (at least, in the discussion I found - was it raised in more than one section?). If there had been any consensus then I'm sure my complete removal of your text would have been challenged, but that hasn't been the case. Looking back at the edit I admit I was too quick to remove your text! I don't wish to downplay the important role Jesus has in Islam. The concern was about the length of the lead in proportion to the content in the article. Accordingly I have made some changes to the sentences which I hope you don't think are too much. -- Hazhk Talk to me 00:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit of "Eucharist" 10th May
Hi,

Just a quick comment to say that you deleted a complete sentence ("Many Presbyterian Churches, influenced by Philip Schaff's Mercersburg Theology, have adopted a High Church liturgy.") when you insertecd the citation needed tag. This may have been a mistake, in which case could you rectify it. Alternatively, if the removal was deliberate, I feel that the explanation "added citation needed tags" is inadequate in that your edit did more than that. Thanks! Jpacobb (talk) 01:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits of Little Mermaid statue
Thank you for tidying up my links, and see my explanation, on Little Mermaid Statue talk page, of what I was trying to get across with my "more mermaid-like" comment, which you deleted on grounds of its being an opinion. Maybe "more aquatic" would have been better, but maybe something else would be even better. I think the actual and imagined setting of statue (at the shore versus out in the water), and the fact that people like to climb on it, are important, should be treated as part of the statue's history, rather its vandalism.CharlesHBennett (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion would be appreciated
Dear Hazhk,

This article was deleted per Deletion proposal page. I have applied for this ruling to be reconsidered per Deletion review dated June 1.

Your comment/opinion/response there would be appreciated.

Thank you. --Jose77 (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Methodist Church Nigeria
Hello. You turned | this page into a redirect, but not everything has been blanked. Should the rest of the content be removed? - Warthog Demon  19:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just a mistake! I've corrected it now. Sorry for taking a while to reply. -- Hazhk Talk to me 17:08, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

David Cameron
I have started two discussions where you are involved. Please feel free to share your opinion.UmakanthJaffna (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

A Hundred Monkeys
Hi! I'm an employee of A Hundred Monkeys, a small creative team based in Berkeley. You flagged our page last year for reading like an advertisement. You left the following advice:

(Remove the worst POV sentences that read like promotion. Also remove the entirely unsourced list. Add a few links.)

Could I ask you to be more specific? We'd love to get the page up to Wikipedia standards, and your help would be greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tadoyle (talk • contribs) 19:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick reply. Your point regarding COI is taken and appreciated. I understand that Wikipedia strives to remain as neutral as possible. Given that the article is already in violation, however, I'm going to rewrite the article in hopes of making it more neutral. Editors can then decide whether the content meets Wikipedia standards. I'll definitely scrub out any jargon and provide as many sources as possible. Tadoyle (talk) 21:48, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

21 August 2014
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on United Kingdom. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. -TFD (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
 * Templating users unnecessarily may be perceived as intimidation. Rob (talk &#124; contribs) 00:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioned you in a good way
here, cheers. Thanks for all the edits. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OEC exports data
Please see Talk:Croatia, with regard to File:Croatia exports.svg. Thanks. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

edit summaries
In this edit, you appear to have changed the image caption of one of the pictures you were moving, without indicating so in the edit summary. The change also happened to be incorrect. Please pay more attention in the future. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 16 September
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Respect Party page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=625808360 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F625808360%7CRespect Party%5D%5D Ask for help])

Edit of Nazism -AlDaBeast24
You changed the Nazism page, correcting "Chancellor" to "Reich Chancellor." This would be incorrect due to him receiving the position from the previous chancellor, Paul von Hindenburg. The title Reich Chancellor would only be used to describe Adolf Hitler as both Reich Leader, and Chancellor which at the time of him receiving the position, it would only be labeled Chancellor Of Germany. Until he declared himself Führer of Nazi Germany. Although multiple titles have been, and are susceptible to argument, the politically correct term is used most often. AlDaBeast24 (talk) 14:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yoko Ono edit
I meant to say "I obviously thought it was relevant and I referenced it...."--Aichik (talk) 22:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

References tag on Criticism of the Catholic Church
Hi Haz, you've add the references tags in the artícle Criticism of the Catholic Church, since the the article has evolve significantly, with 136 referencias i would like you to reconsider the tag, or maybe alocating the references' tag to a more suited area,thank you.--;Euroescritor (talk) 23:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right. I'll remove the banner now. -- HazhkTalk 23:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Methodist chapel
Fallschirmjäger &#9993; 22:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to move Methodism work group to child project
You are listed as an active member of the Methodism work group, as such I'd like to bring my proposal to your attention WikiProject Council/Proposals/Methodism. Jerodlycett (talk) 13:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Quixotic plea
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. —  06:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Methodism
Thank you for your note and for finding a place for this piece of text. I agree with you that the committee doesn't seem to have made an earthshaking difference to anything much. It wasn't my idea to mention it. However, if someone has put something in, and it's referenced, and it's not arrant nonsense, I think it's best to leave it a while, or give due warning if you think it should really come out again. Normally such warnings are ignored and you can then go on and cut it with a smile, having "right" on your side! Rephrasing, on the other hand, is welcome any time. Anyway, I look forward to cooperating with you any time. I'm more into literary pages, myself. Best, Brian Bmcln1 (talk) 09:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage versus Same-sex marriage in the United States
You removed a quote section, and gave as your reason, " A list of quotes is not especially helpful and is not encyclopedic. I am taking several of these quotes and framing them in the other sections' prose. The studies referenced are international and do not 'deal primarily with the United States". Unfortunately, the Same-sex marriage page that you edited is 'not' United States-specific. The quotes may, or may not, belong there, but if you're concerned about Same-sex marriage in the United States, then please see that page. Since the reason given was invalid, I will be re-adding the quotes. Thanks. Knowledgebattle (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, gotcha. Thanks Pete. Knowledgebattle (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

---

Please reply on my talk page Olehal09 (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I oppose the renaming of the Category:Latter-day Saints portal
You caused me a lot of work with your renaming of the portal. But I supported this idea because I could see that people that do not know much about this topic, could get confused. But I oppose the renaming of this category. This category works fine and does not need a new name. A new name would mean a lot of work, which you perhaps do not want to do. I think that a renaming is not necessary.--Broter (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Honorifics in lists of politicians
Hi Hazhk. Since you've edited one or more of List of current members of the British Privy Council, British Government frontbench and Official Opposition frontbench in the last six months, I'd like to invite you to a discussion about the use of honorifics in those lists. The discussion is happening here, and I look forward to a helpful and robust discussion. DBD 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Canada
Hello !! I am not sure the small subsection is the best thing for an FA article...pls join me at Talk:Canada -- Moxy (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Greater London
Please review this edit at Greater London because it did a couple of things to the infobox that don't seem right, although I am not familiar with the details. First, changing official_name from "Greater London" to "London" has broken a calculation done in the infobox, with the result that Density is displaying [ convert: needs a number ]. Second, some new fields were introduced: population_council + density_council + statistics_date. Are they correct? A couple of them appear in the infobox code but I suspect they won't do much good as used. Johnuniq (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 30 March
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * On the Cuba page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=712597141 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F712597141%7CCuba%5D%5D Ask for help])

File:Talcott Parsons (photo).jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Talcott Parsons (photo).jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. User:Stefan2 (talk) 16:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

To hazhk
(Nonsensical, poorly written and copied text which is unneeded in the lead. Just a mess.) (undo | thank) This is the comment you posted. see I had contributed many articles, since there were many edits in wiki. it doesnt matter Criticism is an incentive. But stop comments as it shows your least contribution and unnecessary domination. Morever i could show the originality and proof.you cannot change the historical conversations because the context should convey accurate not manipulated message. stop unnecessary comments. wiki requires contribution alone and fine editing not disrespectful remarks.i think you dont know much about moses except his name so thats why  you make these poor comments   No comments.Manavatha (talk) 07:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Fourth Lee Hsien Loong Cabinet/Current Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Fourth Lee Hsien Loong Cabinet/Current Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries. Since you had some involvement with the Fourth Lee Hsien Loong Cabinet/Current Ministers of State and Parliamentary Secretaries redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Stefan2 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016
Hello, I'm Nihonjoe. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Japan without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 16:13, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from List of cities in New Zealand into Demographics of New Zealand. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 13:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

New Zealand Parliament
I nave removed some content you added to the above article which appears to have been copied from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/maori-and-the-vote/setting-up-seats. The material is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 New Zealand Licence, which is not a compatible license, so the prose will have to be re-written in your own words please. — Diannaa (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The same on your addition to Cabinet of New Zealand. Please stop doing this, as your edits constitute a copyright violation, for which you could be blocked from editing. — Diannaa (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Regarding your edit summary that the text was "apparently ... copyright", you should familiarise yourself with WP:Compatible license. Once you've done that, you would realise that 'obviously' would have been a far more appropriate word to describe the situation than 'apparently'.  Schwede 66  01:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Regarding the latter contributions, I had thought the text (which I did reword to an extent and place within a larger paragraph) was sufficiently changed enough to avoid copyright violations. Since it was prose, rather than an image, or data, I wrongly treated the issue of copyright too lightly. It is clear that any changes were too minimal and I hold my hands up and admit I messed up. It was a complete lapse of judgement; I have edited many articles before and have avoided any copyright issues. I won't be editing the above articles in future... -- Hazhk (talk) 01:40, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Black Mass Article Review Required by Hazhk
I believe you should review some of the Satanic information depicted before deleting. A black mass proposed by the Church of Satan in the United States was also avoided recently due to Christian activism. Please repair the template. Twillisjr (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

IPA for Theresa May
Hi, just wondered how you decided to add /r/ after /ʒ/ : "Brasier /ˈbreɪʒrər/" with. Looks like a typo but thought I would ask before reverting. Thanks, C679 17:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite
Hi. The WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 09:02, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Tony Blair
How is File:Tony Blair, UK Prime Minister (1997-2007) (8228591861) cropped.jpg a picture of him pulling "a silly face"? For one minute I thought you were talking about the ghastly 2014 picture of him with his teeth protruding, not the 2012 image of him pulling what I would call a reflective, listening face. The previous image was long-standing because nobody had bothered to crop or take a better image of him. I requested the creation of the 2012 image, and I am amazed that you regard it "unfitting for the infobox". Your summary was extremely vague. It hardly made much sense, either.--Nev&eacute;–selbert 21:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe the summary was adequate and I maintain that the 2012 image is inappropriate for the infobox.--Hazhk (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

National symbols of New Zealand
You put a citation template on National symbols of New Zealand. I brought some citations. Do you thing it's enough?

Please notify me when you answer please.

Steve92341 (talk) 20:46, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Huntly rail bridge bombing
Mifter (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Methodist family tree
I have provided a vectorised version of the Methodist family tree diagram, as suggested elsewhere:

File:Methodist Family Tree Diagram Vertical.svg. Hogweard (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Mary, mother of Jesus lead image.
Well, it has been in place for over a year, which is more than long enough for such a remarkably ugly image. On this of all subjects, we are spoilt for choice. you claim there was extensive discussion on talk about it - please point me to this. To me it looks like Tahc replaced your own unsuitable choice (all frame with a small figure) without any discussion whatsoever. The current one is also very tall & narrow, which causes problems on many screens & settings. Johnbod (talk) 01:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No response? Well, I will proceed. Johnbod (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry, I completely missed this message! I must have skipped past it a few days ago. I stand corrected on the length of time the image has been present in the infobox. It seems like only a few months ago that I chose it! I don't feel strongly enough about the issue to oppose your replacement of the image. I personally would select a different image, but I think your choice is adequate.--Hazhk (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Toast sandwich


DoctorWho42 has given you a Toast sandwich! Bread (🍞), toast (🔥), and bread (🍞) promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day better. Toast sandwiches are wonderfully delicious! They are made by putting a thin slice of toast between two thin slices of bread with a layer of butter, and adding salt and pepper to taste. Its origins can be traced to the Victorian years. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a toast sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of toast sandwiches by adding {{subst:Toast sandwich for you}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 18:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

New Zealand Barnstar

 * Thank you! Much appreciated. Hazhk (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Denmark
I moved a chunk of text to a new article Health in Denmark. I don't think it helps to duplicate the content. Do you? Rathfelder (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Creator of Apple Pie
Hello Hazhk,

I noticed that you overturned my edit to the page, Apple Pie. And you stated that that is not the creator. But when you Google who created it, it states Geoffrey Chaucer., and it sometimes references Wikipedia un-ironically. So, who is the creator of Apple Pie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviartm (talk • contribs) 17:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you read further in the same article it states that Chaucer printed a recipe in 1381. However there is no suggestion that he "created" the apple pie. On a separate note, I see you've been inserting a large number of links into articles, but many of those links were unnecessary. See WP:OVERLINK. --Hazhk (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Hazhk, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AHazhk added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!  Schwede 66  19:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Orders, decorations, and medals for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Orders, decorations, and medals is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Orders, decorations, and medals until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Re5x (talk) 10:06, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Orders, decorations, and medals listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Orders, decorations, and medals. Since you had some involvement with the Orders, decorations, and medals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Re5x (talk) 15:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

RfC
Who'da thunk that the RfC would turn into such a heated debate, eh? Makes me wish I'd just kept things between me and you! Only kidding, I understand that it's an important topic, given the number of page views that article gets, and I've actually learned quite a lot in the process, so I'll be much better prepared for any future discussions. It is rather exhausting though! <b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 23:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I feel bad for opening up the can of worms, but if I hadn't reverted another editor would have! --Hazhk (talk) 10:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't beat yourself up, it was me that started the RfC. I only popped in here to have a little giggle about it. Luckily nobody batted an eyelid at the other 16 articles where I swapped out the image. I think I'll keep those edits under my hat! <b style="font:1.3em/1em Trebuchet MS;letter-spacing:-0.07em"><b style="color:#000">nagual</b><b style="color:#ABAB9D">design</b></b> 12:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Bahá'í Articles
It's nice to see more contributors. <b style="color:#AF7817">Cuñado</b> ☼ - Talk  20:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:New Zealand Labour Party membership
Template:New Zealand Labour Party membership has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. &#123;&#123;3x&#124;p&#125;&#125;ery (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Bob Hawke image / MOS comment
What MOS page were you referring to when you said "The MOS for biographies of living people recommends using recent photographs in the infobox, when available" ? I can't find such a recommendation. Adpete (talk) 00:21, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * You're right. I was genuinely under the impression that the MOS recommended that a "recent" photograph be used in infoboxes concerning living people. I know that it is a widely-observed principle in other biographies I've edited, and I do recall other editors (incorrectly) citing the MOS. I apologise for the misleading edit summary – blame my overzealousness. I think the recent Hawke photograph can be defended on its own merits. It's a better quality photograph than the previous images IMO, and I think there is a lot to be said for using up-to-date portraits at the first instance to illustrate living people. (Apologies for the lateish reply).--Hazhk (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

NZ Wine
Hi - cheers for the review, can you point me at a good example of an opening paragraph? I've been thinking about rewriting the lead for a while, but I've been concentrating on stemming the bleeding throughout the rest of the article :-) Jon (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Writing better articles is worth a read and contains an example (peer review).  Schwede 66  14:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, I appreciate the improvements to the article. I would contribute but New Zealand viticulture isn't an areas I'm particularly knowledgeable in. Ideally, the lead should summarise every major section in the main body of the article. As well as the guide Schwede linked, I would model a lead off Wine in Australia and similar articles. --Hazhk (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Excellent help - cheers, I shall have a go :-) Jon (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peter - can you have a look at the new lead, and perhaps comment on Talk:New Zealand wine. Cheers Jon (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth II
At least 2 of the then most fervent pushers of showing all the countries in the intro, are no longer bothering with the topic. Kinda hoping, you won't start up these arguments again. Wikipedia isn't interested in righting wrongs. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not about "righting wrongs". It's about upholding standards and proper procedure for introducing major changes in Featured Articles.--Hazhk (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Including all the countries was creating more problems, then solutions. The real world sees Elizabeth II first & foremost as Queen of the United Kingdom. So let's leave it at that. GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Will you PLEASE stop pushing your personal preference on that article's intro & respect how the real world view her. We're not interested in an edit-war. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I would rather contain this discussion to Talk:Elizabeth II.--Hazhk (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

That was my third & last revert. Getting fed up with these types of PoV pushing. We're not suppose to be working for the Monarchist League of Canada. -- GoodDay (talk) 17:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Anyways, I'm gonna step back & allow others to tackle this head on. Don't know if another Rfc will be required. Will participate in another Rfc, if one is held. GoodDay (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

PS: My apologies, if I came across at the article as being a tad heated. These UK and Commonwealth realms vs UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc etc disputes (which I've been in many of, across Wikipedia) tend to get frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher
You are invited to join the discussion at WikiProject Conservatism/Assessment/Margaret Thatcher. --Neve~selbert 00:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

NZ National
Do you have a source for classical liberalism? The one I added was for economic liberalism. --Jay942942 (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, my mistake. I will try and dig some sources. I have self-reverted. --Hazhk (talk) 22:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Food
Hello! After the successful pilot program by Wikimedia India in 2015, Wiki Loves Food (WLF) is happening again in 2018 and this year, it's  going International. To make this event a grant success, your direction is key. Please sign up as a volunteer to bring all the world's food to Wikimedia.here. Danidamiobi (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

"Central Denmark Region" page
Hello Hazhk. I would like to ask if you have authority to move pages?

I know you have been active with pages related to Denmark. There have been some problems with the Central Denmark Region page recently. It was moved to "Mid Jutland Region", which is a wrong designation. I wanted to move the page back to its original and official name, but I don't have authority to move wiki-pages. If you are unaware of the regions of Denmark and the specific problem with this particular page, please see the TalkPage of Central Denmark Region. Thanks. RhinoMind (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I can't move the article either! I think the problem is that the page has been overwritten and the former article location has since been amended. I would request assistance from an admin. I agree that the article should be titled "Central Denmark Region". --Hazhk (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the quick answer. How do I find an admin with those rights? (sorry to ask, but I really don't know much about these aspects of Wikipedia) RhinoMind (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a process I'm very familar with. Per WP:RMTR, it seems the page move has to be requested on the talk page of the article. --Hazhk (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Enoch Powell
Please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Comonwealth
The Balfour Declaration of 1926 uses the form "British Commonwealth of Nations". Our article links to the full text. DuncanHill (talk) 18:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. --Hazhk (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I wouldn't have known myself if I hadn't noticed your edits and gone and looked it up! DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, likewise. I shouldn't have been so quick to revert. I apologise! --Hazhk (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

John Key GA status
Thank you for the notification that you're inviting discussion on the article's GA status. Akld guy (talk) 20:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)