User talk:Hazhk/Archive 3

Jackie Trad
Theres no need to add another language into Australian politician's profile. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.48.90 (talk) 10:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

BlainQuelle
I did take it to the talk page. What good ignoring other users  CatcherStorm    talk   06:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, where you stated your intention to plough ahead and change the headings despite any consensus to do so.... --Hazhk (talk) 06:42, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Dashes
Can I just say- it'd be helpful if you acknowledge your initial error on the matter of dashes rather than getting patronising with people on edit summaries. Long dashes are never used for sentence breaks: yet you introduced them twice into the article, finally getting it right with the shorter dash. - ක - (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Either is acceptable—refer to MOS:DASH.--Hazhk (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet only one is used on Wikiproject:Sri Lanka articles by convention. This is why quoting policy doesn't make one a decent editor. - ක - (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to share your opinion
Hello, I have put a straw-poll on Talk:Knesset due to a disagreement between me and another user, I invite you to share your opinion of what you believe is right. --Social Studies Rules (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Exhortation to use the talk page
If you are going to tell people ''This has been reverted a couple of times already. 'Zealand' is not a common word; however I would appreciate a discussion on the talk page because I am also sympathetic to the removal of the pronunciation and "Zealand" is not a common word. A pronunciation is advisable and should not have been removed without discussion first'', you could at least start a talk page discussion on the topic. If you ask people to use the talk page, but do not use yourself, it says there is one rule for all of you, and another rule for me. This does not go down well. But do not worry - a discussion has been started at Talk:New Zealand-- Toddy1 (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair point. Still, I would contend that it is the impetus of the person proposing a change to bring that change to the talk page. --Hazhk (talk) 20:14, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Encouraging disruption
You should be helping to discourage disruption, not encouraging it. DrKay (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Surely removing content that is, as far as I can see, accurate is more disruptive? --Hazhk (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not when it's trivial crap, sourced only to images, no. DrKay (talk) 12:59, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think your reversions were heavy-handed. --Hazhk (talk) 13:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Montage for City-state
Hi, this has been argued before and a few years back there was image in the same place for a long time, maybe 1-2 years. I understand the issue with using the country infobox, but Singapore is also a city (as in city-state) - one of only a few, so to be fair the city should have one like everyone else, and placing it below the main infobox should not be an issue. If you are adamant, We can put it up for opinion forum, mediation etc settle amicably. Shall we do that? Shiok (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

To viceregal or not to viceregal.
Just to clarify. It matters not to me, if 'viceregal' is in all the 15 Commonwealth governor general articles or not. I'm more anxious that all 15 are consistent. Either all 15 have it or don't. GoodDay (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I sympathise. I have started a discussion on Talk:Governor-General of New Zealand, which can be cross-referenced to the Governor General of Canada topic.--Hazhk (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Past experiences, tells me you'll have no problem getting viceregal placed in the intros of 14 of those aforementioned articles. However, I suspect you'll be in for a long...long...long discussion with an editor at the Governor-General of Australia article. The individual refuses to accept that the Australian monarch is Australia's head of state. GoodDay (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lancaster university logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lancaster university logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ★ Bigr   Tex  01:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Wellington cathedral
Hi Hazhk. I would if you could remove the automatic redirection from this title to "Wellington cathedral of St Paul" and perhaps instead do a proper disambiguation page which provides links to both wellington cathedrals. The title "Wellington Cathedral" is only used by the small number of people connected to the church. The title otherwise generally causes confusion. I can assure you that in Wellington where I live its use would always lead to another question. "Which cathedral?" Disambiguation pages are meant to remove such confusion. I would be grateful if you could do this as it is beyond my present competence. Kind regards.Emendment (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The redirect is "Wellington Cathedral" (noun), not 'Cathedrals in Wellington'; there is no evidence that the Catholic cathedral is referred to as Wellington Cathedral. --Hazhk (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Zealand Labour Party logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:New Zealand Labour Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Greenland
Portal:Greenland, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Greenland and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Greenland during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Wesleyan-Arminian theology
Hello User:Hazhk, I noticed you moved Wesleyan-Arminian theology to Wesleyanism. In your edit summary, you stated that the term isn't used in sources but it is actually used more frequently than "Wesleyanism". Please do a search of the term. Churches usually state that they adhere to "Wesleyan-Arminian theology" or "Wesleyan theology" rather than "Wesleyanism". I have never heard the term "Wesleyanism" being used, in fact. It makes more sense to have an article on Methodism, which talks about ecclesiastical structures, and Wesleyan-Arminian theology, which talks about the theology these Churches uphold. This would be akin to the article about Catholicism and its corresponding Catholic theology article. You will note that the website of The United Methodist Church refers to its theology as "Wesleyan-Arminian theology": "In our Wesleyan-Arminian theology, as in all mainstream Christian theology, salvation still isn't ours to possess." God's Bible School and College, a prominent institution of the Holiness Movement, also references "Wesleyan-Arminian theology": "Hybels describes the Wesleyan-Arminian theology of entire sanctification". "Wesleyanism" and "Methodism" are usually synonymous terms so it doesn't make sense to have an article titled Wesleyanism. I would appreciate if you could kindly revert yourself. If not, I would probably start an RfC. An alternate compromise is to move the article to "Wesleyan theology" though I prefer the term "Wesleyan-Arminian theology". I hope this helps. With regards, AnupamTalk 17:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I fully support a move to Wesleyan theology. --Hazhk (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Hazkh, thank you for your reply. Please go ahead and move the article to "Wesleyan theology". Kind regards, AnupamTalk 18:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll have to request for the article to be moved. --Hazhk (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, this discussion belongs on the article talk page. This is the wrong place to start a discussion on the naming of an article.  Schwede 66  19:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree. I will create a section on the talk page. --Hazhk (talk) 19:42, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Wellington
Hey man, I thought I'd give you heads up on the Wellington wikipedia article- I think it's appropriate to keep the info about Kupe (I've made it clear now that he was legendary- although some sources dispute this, there was probably a Kupe-like figure he was based off) in the headlining paragraphs, because it's a very important part of Wellington's history. If you think there's a lot there, believe me, it isn't; I could've put a vast amount more detail there about Wellington's history, but I trimmed it down to this. So I really don't think it should be reverted, and we should just keep what I've written as it is. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved the information to the History section. --Hazhk (talk) 10:56, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You should discuss this on the talk page. --Hazhk (talk) 10:58, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I just don't know what you want anymore
Please stop your disruptive reverting of my edits. It's come to a point where you're not even reasoning why you're reverting them, and it's upsetting me and other editors. You're continuously using your editing privileges for poor choices, and it's getting out of hand. I changed the conversational tone. I changed the "tourist brochure language". Spelling errors. Too much content. Everything. Yet you still want me to kowtow to you and stop my editing? Really? I understand why you think my work should be located in the history section, but I moved so much to there, and I think it ruins my whole intention on expanding the headlining article (the majority of what people read). So pleaseGive it up, man. I've had enough; consider this a warning, and please stop reverting my edits (which are all completely necessary to this article, with good faith intact), or I might have to report you, and I don't really want to have to do that. Leavepuckgackle1998 (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Multiple editors have reverted your changes. Reply on the article's talk page, not here. --Hazhk (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

collapsed infobox section
That’s a great feature. Thanks for adding it.  Schwede 66  16:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

New Zealand
What a post at the help desk asking to fix the text sandwich at New Zealand,,,,thinking its best you take care of it...all I did was tag the problem.-- Moxy 🍁 15:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if you can create a section on the talk page and suggest which images you believe should be removed. I believe the galleries in the geography section are a target. Do you think that there are too many pictures in the History section? --Hazhk (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup 3 maps with very bad resolution should be removed....and geo section overwhelmed with images no need for 8 for 3 paragraphs. As for the media sources being complaining about I think we can swap those out easily.-- Moxy 🍁 18:28, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Shortly before you commented I made some adjustments that I consider to be reasonable. The map in the history section illustrates the text alongside it, regarding Cook's mapping of the NZ coastline. --Hazhk (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

RE: Māori history
Kia ora, Hazhk. I'm actually working on condensing the History section of Māori people right now. Should be done either today or tomorrow. Feel free to do some trimming yourself too if you'd like. Ngā mihi. – Liveste (talk • edits) 02:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Project Arminianism
Hello. For your information I reactivated the WikiProject Arminianism. Besides, I proposed "Arminianism" to be part of the vital articles of Wikipedia, Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/4, can you have a look and forward this request to other people who may be willing to vote for it ? ---Telikalive (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

List of recent Arminian theologians
I answered your question "Why?" on the Arminianism talk page and now I'm waiting for your reply. ---Telikalive (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Burnley
Hi Hazhk, Thanks for your contributions on Burnley. It had not occurred to me previously that using the same infobox image on both articles was an issue, but now you point it out, I agree. One small problem however, is your choice of image to replace it. Not a terrible choice, but unfortunately that bandstand was dismantled recently as part of refurbishment of the pedestrianised part of the town centre. I've been having a dig trough the possible alternatives and nothing is leaping out at me. So as it is a nice day I going to pop into town and try to get a suitable replacement. All the best. TiB chat  11:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm glad you agree with the change. I have no objection to selecting a different image - even better if it's a photo taken by yourself! Thanks. --Hazhk (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Neverland Ranch article
Noting Talk:Neverland Ranch here just in case you didn't get the ping since your username redirects to your talk page.

On a side note: Be aware that there are issues with Jackson fans at the Jackson articles, which is why I took the matter to WP:AN, and it resulted in this and WP:General sanctions/Michael Jackson. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Alert
qedk (t 桜 c) 22:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

March 2020
Hello, I'm Paleontologist99. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Lost Generation, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Paleontologist99 (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I simply corrected a typo; I didn't add the content. --Hazhk (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Bellamy's
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Premier House
Congratulations on derepair. Would you please expand on the "lifted text" Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I caught my typo and corrected it before I saw your message. I removed a portion of text was apparently copied from this page that I have now cited. --Hazhk (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have never seen the L T McGuiness page. May I politely suggest they copied the passage from me. Cordially, Eddaido (talk) 13:41, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that you had written the passage. Since the section was unreferenced (where did you find the information?) I understandably assumed that it was taken from the page I found. Feel free to reinstate your text, provided you cite your sources. --Hazhk (talk) 13:48, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Evidently the text was present on the L T McGuinness page in 2010, before it appeared in the article. --Hazhk (talk) 13:54, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's blown this editor out of the water hasn't it. 2014 But why omit the information in it? Eddaido (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The text was added by an IP user so I assume you're not responsible for it. That is unless you're the IP user. (Incidentally, it appears that I am guilty of the same behaviour on a separate article from five years ago). Regarding your question: when I removed most of the text I did add a short sentence to try and convey the essential points of the text. Feel free to add more information yourself, or take this discussion to Talk:Premier House. Have a nice day. --Hazhk (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Source for claim (Danish Realm)
Hi Hazhk. In this edit back in September 2015, you added the following text to the article Danish Realm:

"Despite this principle of unity among the three territories, some commentators consider the Danish Realm as a federation or a sui generis legal construction. In the opinion of Bogi Eliasen, the Kingdom of Denmark is not a unitary state "but a structure with some federative elements of divided power". Danish justice Frederik Harhoff states that the Kingdom of Denmark is "neither a federation (since it lacks a treaty to this effect), not is it a confederation""

As source you gave the |Denmark Regulations Handbook, but that does not back up the claim (it is about business regulation). Do you have the source you originally found the quotes in? ― Hebsen (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That was several years ago and I'll be honest, I don't recall where that information came from and I do not have any sources to hand. If the text can't be verified then I recommend removing it from the article. Sorry I can give little help. --Hazhk (talk) 11:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found it now. It is from The Arctic Promise: Legal and Political Autonomy of Greenland and Nunavut, page 44. The text in the article is very close paraphrasing of the text in the book, and needs to be removed for that reason. I need to look into various copyright policies, to see if more needs to be done. I know this was added years ago, but I remind you that close paraphrasing is not acceptable on Wikipedia, and ask you to be more careful about this in the future. Also, I have previously had to remove some text you added in April 2016 of the very same reason (added diff 1, added diff 2, removed diff, source).  ― Hebsen (talk) 13:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate that I have no memory of adding those portions of text, and I ask you to bear in mind that the revisions are from a few years ago. (I don't usually contribute to Denmark-related topics these days.) I guess I supposed that the text was modified to an extent that it wasn't a copyvio – but needless to say I'd recognise differently today. I'm now familiar with WP's copyright policies. In fact, as evidenced in the section above, I now go out of my way to locate and remove text that has been copied or closely paraphrased from other sources. I apologise for the inconvenience, and if you need to take this further then I understand and acknowledge that. This isn't a pattern in my current editing.--Hazhk (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was also what I supposed, so good to know that is the case. I have looked further into it, and concluded that nothing more needs to be done. The text in question was not very long, so from a copyright-perspective it would have been okay if it was a quote. So it is not a problem that it can be found in the revision history. The problem is more that there were no attribution, and that it was not presented as a quote. But now the page history give attribution (although in a suboptimal way), so that is something. Plus, the only other option is WP:REVDEL, which would cause issues with attribution on the ~250 revisions in the meantime. Have a good day. ― Hebsen (talk) 14:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Revert to Government of New Zealand
Hey there! I saw your revert of my contributions to the article. While I appreciate your dedication to having as much information in the article's infobox as possible, is explicit in the fact that it should only be used for government structures, not entities. My edit also brought the article in-line with the template consensus and other Wikipedia articles about executive governments. Beyond that, the only information that was removed is that the Prime Minister is ceremonially installed by the Governor-General, the fact that NZ has a Cabinet and a Parliament, and that the executive government has offices at the Beehive (for which there is no evidence that I could see that the Beehive is the actual headquarters of the executive government - it appears to only be the offices of high-raking ministers, likely because it's close to parliament). I must also say that your rude and condescending edit message isn't appreciated - everyone gets some []m:Wikistress]], but please, let's keep some civility and respect for the fact that we're all making good faith edits :) ItsPugle (talk) 01:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and updated the article again, this time with the template. It has all the details of the previous Infobox, plus I've added some additional information and included citations. Let me know what you think. ItsPugle (talk) 02:31, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi. I apologise for my edit summary, which I see came across more aggressively than was intended. That was a misjudgement. I think the new template looks fine and covers the information comprehensively. Thanks. --Hazhk (talk) 07:46, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All good! I was a bit taken aback, but as I'm sure you're aware, tone doesn't always travel so well on the internet. I'm glad you like the new template :) ItsPugle (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nah, I wasn't being hostile. Evidently my tone was a bit sharp, but no offence was intended.--Hazhk (talk) 08:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Jacinda Ardern's portrait
Thanks for you edit, Hazhk, but don't worry, if you consider File:Jacinda Ardern, 2018.jpg better than "my" one, we can use the previous one :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Heh, that's good to know. I thought better of my edit because I didn't want to start contesting it. I'll probably revert back to the previous version. Thanks for notifying me. --Hazhk (talk) 12:41, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Many thanks. I'm happy to be appreciated. --Hazhk (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Soy-mun Jo-zuff Brud-juzz
How is it vandalism??? PapaLazarou69 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Your revision has been reverted by two editors. If you really want to contest this then the next step is to take it to the talk page. --Hazhk (talk) 11:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Labour Party logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Labour Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 00:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

SVG image
I've now reduced the fidelity of the SVG version of the Labour Party logo, by first down-converting it into a low-resolution raster, then auto-tracing it back into a new, less accurate SVG. I hope this addresses your concerns about excessive resolution. -- The Anome (talk) 13:50, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * that seems appropriate. I have no objections to that. Thanks. --Hazhk (talk) 14:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) coat of arms.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) coat of arms.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Jacindamania
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Jacindamania&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Cairo2k18 • (talk)  •  (contribs)  01:22, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monarchy of New Zealand
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monarchy of New Zealand you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of 202.166.50.188 -- 202.166.50.188 (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:New Zealand Labour Party logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:New Zealand Labour Party logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. HapHaxion (talk / contribs) 20:37, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Broken link
Something went wrong with this edit. Could you have another look, please?  Schwede 66  16:29, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've corrected that now. --Hazhk (talk) 20:55, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand Barnstar of National Merit
Thank you very much! I appreciate the recognition. --Hazhk (talk) 17:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I second the recognition!  Schwede 66  20:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Salford
Hi Hazhk hope your doing well. I've added a cite from British History website confirming Salford as a township and town. It references town on a paragraph and I'm sure a few others. I'll allow you to run the check but it definitely is a town if British History which records the town and roads confirming it. I'll let you do further research to clarify it. RailwayJG (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Removing God save the Queen audio file
Hi Hazhk

I don't understand why you keep removing God Save the Queen from the Infobox. I recognise what you have done but we must keep in mind the God Save the Queen is still one of New Zealand's anthems. As editors, we can't change the fact that it is still one of the aforementioned country's anthem and we have responsibility to bring that fact to the people. See Canada's article for example, you can't change the fact that it is still one of the anthems despite of its low status there. Maybe you and the other editors at the talk page leave politics at your doors (Yes. I am questioning your political inclinations in respect with your editing capabilities). We have responsibility to bring facts to people. To have them become informed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miramax110599 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're going to presume I am acting out of bias or a political agenda then I don't wish to engage with you here. I suggest that you take this to Talk:New Zealand since you are the one proposing a change. --Hazhk (talk) 13:32, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

New Zealand edits
Hi, First of all, I am new at this, so pardon me if I am not communicating correctly. You commented on my Talk page, apologizing for using the word "ignorant" which I did not even see anywhere. Although you did reverse my edit on the New Zealand page, your explanation of WHY you did it sounded like you were talking about a different edit that you reversed. Anyway, thank you for the apology, although I assure you there was no offense taken. Pollstart (talk) 13:31, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Methodism
I was disappointed that you deleted an edit I made on Methodism and then claimed I was misrepresenting the source -- yet your edit was then style and made little material difference to the article. Also lower in the article, my edit was supported by further sources.

Your behaviour has completely put me off editing the article. I come across it quite regularly on Wikipedia, that people think they own the article or are some type of Chief Editor, with the final say of any edits. I feel this attitude is detrimental to both goals, spirit and quality of Wikipedia. Please think before you continue to behave like this towards other editors 86.14.189.55 (talk) 16:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monarchy of New Zealand
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Monarchy of New Zealand you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 09:20, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

February 2021
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Monarchy of New Zealand
The article Monarchy of New Zealand you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Monarchy of New Zealand for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chipmunkdavis -- Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Paul the Apostle
Hello @Hazhk, would you mind telling me why you reverted the page [] to a previous version after my edit? Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Can you highlight which of my edits you are referring to? I am not aware that I have reverted any of your revisions. It appears that the most recent reversions are by two other editors. I haven't visited that article in 10 days... --Hazhk (talk) 17:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Apparently, you reverted my edit to that page - The Professors of the University of Oxford who produced a publication called the Encyclopaedia Biblica, a concise but detailed work of church criticism, were also critical of Paul the Apostle. In that work it is stated that "The principal Epistles cannot be the work of Paul",[203] and, with respect to the Pauline Epistles in the New Testament, “there are none of them by Paul." "Neither fourteen, nor thirteen, nor nine or ten, nor seven or eight, nor yet even the four so long universally regarded as unassailable. They are all, without distinction, Pseudepigrapha."[204] Thanks Adam Davis 83 (talk) 17:46, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Here is the revision history for you to review. I don't see where I reverted your edit. Evidently you are confusing me with a different editor. --Hazhk (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

report bug
Hi, The headphones article has a technical problem and does not link to other wiki languages. Please check and fix the problem.--مهدی بهرامی مطلق (talk) 10:51, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Why are you informing me? --Hazhk (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I found you by accident. I'm not English-speaking and I do not have much activity here, and I did not know any of the managers. If you are kind enough to inform the managers, or if you know, check to solve the problem, thank you. مهدی بهرامی مطلق (talk) 13:16, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I apologise. I was just confused that I was tagged, because I don't think I have ever edited that article. I have checked the Wikidata page and there appears to be only four articles in other languages. For me the links to those articles are displayed in the sidebar, so I can't find the problem. --Hazhk (talk) 21:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Dominica
Hi Hazhk - Hope you are well!

My first edit to Wikipedia so hope I am using it correctly!

I am a citizen of Dominica and just made a small correction to the page about Dominica. The official name of the state is “Commonwealth of Dominica”. This is similar to Commonwealth of The Bahamas, Commonwealth of Virginia, Commonwealth of Kentucky, (and also Commonwealth of England during the brief period when England was a republic under Oliver Cromwell)

My guess is that, although it’s true Dominica is a republic, Dominica chose the official name “Commonwealth of Dominica” rather than “Republic of Dominica” in order to minimize confusion with the Dominican Republic.

As you may know, confusion between Dominica and the Dominican Republic is a major problem for Dominica and I often email newspapers to correct them for mixing up Dominica and the DR. They are of course two different countries. My guess is that’s why the Commonwealth of Dominica chose that title (in Spanish: Mancomunidad de Dominica, which sounds nicely different from Republica de Dominica which sounds confusingly similar to Republica Dominicana).

I just wanted to let you know in case you wondered why I had reversed one of your changes. It’s the only one I changed!

Best Oliver (BeholdDominica)

🇩🇲 🇩🇲 🇩🇲 BeholdDominica (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your message. I failed to spot that the country name had been changed from "Commonwealth of Dominica" to "Republic of Dominica" by an anonymous (IP address) user before I made my edits; I was not the one who made this change. Thank you for correcting it. Dominica looks like a beautiful island and it deserves a good Wikipedia article! --16:44, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Hazhk (talk)

MPD article and City of London
I see you have updated the MPD article for a less contentious version. Fully aware it is not part of the MPD but neither is it a county in the sense of the rest of England. The City of London is a sui generis unit of local government. It is unique, that was the point I was making in reverting your original edit. But happy with your last edit. Thanks Bowchaser (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The City of London certainly is a county. However, pleased that we can avoid an edit dispute. --Hazhk (talk) 16:49, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Requesting some article expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting your visit to Draft:Intellectual discourse over re-mosqueing of Hagia Sophia and article expansion help if you find your interest in the topic.

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 13:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Canadian provinces and territories labelled map
Template:Canadian provinces and territories labelled map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shenzhen administrative divisions
Template:Shenzhen administrative divisions has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Clarifying the description of Ukraine's poverty,
Hi. Regarding to the following senetence in Economy of Ukraine section: "However, Ukraine remains among the poorest in Europe and most severely corrupt countries in the continent". Can you change hyperlink under "the poorest" from "List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (nominal) per capita" into "List of sovereign states in Europe by GDP (PPP) per capita"? This indicator is way more common when it comes to describing country's wealth. Thank you. NeonFor (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Protestantism
Dear User:Hazhk, I hope you're doing well! The Protestant denominational families are not an "exhaustive list of denominations", but rather a brief listing of the historic major Protestant theological traditions delineated here. As such, we don't have to worry about this being an "exhaustive list of denominations". The lede of the article should summarize the major Protestant theological traditions that exist and while traditions such as the Plymouth Brethren might be numerically smaller (in a relative sense), they have influenced evangelical Protestantism as a whole, e.g. dispensationalist theology. The same can be said about Quakerism. I hope this helps. Thanks for your understanding. With regards, AnupamTalk 18:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into another page. 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, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,. 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. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. DrKay (talk) 11:28, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If this relates to my creation of John Wesley bibliography, I followed the above procedure and placed a copied on the talk page of the new article. --Hazhk (talk) 11:36, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is copied from Pains and Penalties Bill 1820. DrKay (talk) 11:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. I didn't realise that the same attribution was required when copying images and image captions between articles. My mind was focused more on the image itself than its caption. It was a genuine oversight / ignorance on my part, so I apologise. I will be more careful to attribute everything I copy from articles.--Hazhk (talk) 19:14, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Shadow Cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn
Template:Shadow Cabinet of Jeremy Corbyn has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest 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/List of living former members of the New Zealand Parliament elected earliest until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished. Surtsicna (talk) 10:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Charles III requested move discussion
There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:50, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Leader of the Opposition (New Zealand)
I have found numerous sources stating that the title is His/Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. DDMS123 (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Actually every one of those sources uses the term "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition", but not the title of "Leader of His Majesty's Loyal Opposition". The last source even shows that the Hansard simply refers to the leader as "Leader of the Opposition". Even if the Official Opposition may be formally styled as "His Majesty's Loyal Opposition", it doesn't necessarily follow that the leader of the Opposition's title includes that long-form style—in the same way that the prime minister is not referred to as "leader of His Majesty's Government". The office of leader of the Opposition isn't established by law, so I'm not sure there is an official title as such; we can only reflect what sources say. --Hazhk (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Rfc - Richard D. Gill and Kate Shemirani
There's an ongoing RfC at Talk:Richard D. Gill of relevance to a page you have edited on (Kate Shemirani). Structuralists (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Conservatism in New Zealand
Greetings!

You seem to be an expert at the culture of New Zealand. I wondered if you’d be interesting at writing a section about conservatism in New Zealand in the main article on Conservatism under the heading ”National variants”. It would be added after the section on Australian conservatism. Just some information about (for example) the major party, prominent exponents, common themes, successful elections etc.

I was thinking of doing this myself, but it’s even better if it is done by someone with authoritative expertise on the topic. New Zealand is a small country, but I do believe it deserves representation in the article! Trakking (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Proclamation of Frederick X of Denmark
Hey, A user called @Peter Ormond, redirect these article to the main article Abdication of Margrethe II, and i want that you can separate both articles so that the article that I create is independent and of utmost encyclopedic value, please brother. Lmpesantezt (talk) 06:14, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Portal:Methodism
Portal:Methodism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Methodism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Methodism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Schierbecker (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Lent
Dear User:Hazhk, I noticed that you moved the wikilink for "Methodist". The source in the article discussed more Methodist conferences increasingly starting to observe Lent, indicating that many churches and conferences still do not. In the United States, many United Methodist churches do observe Lent, while it is less common among other United Methodist parishes, in addition to certain Free Methodist churches, as well as the Bible Methodist Connection of Churches, etc. There is a distinction between denominations where the practice of Lent is universal (such as Roman Catholicism, Lutheranism and Anglicanism) and those that have recently began the practice, such as the Methodist and Reformed Churches. For much of history, as the United Methodist Church notes, Methodists did not observe Lent and John Wesley removed this from the prayer book. The publication titled The Epworth Era of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South noted "As Methodists we do not observe Lent, but the tradition and early usage of the Methodist Church require that we should annually bring to mind the precious lessons and incentives to faith and self-denial that the early experiences of our Lord's humilation offer to devout meditation and prayer." Of course, the liturgical movement brought the observance of Lent into Protestant denominations, including the Methodist church, which is why many Methodist churches do observe it now (though it is still not universal). I hope that this provides an explanation of the adjustments made to the article. Thanks, AnupamTalk 20:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * There must surely be a distinction between historic practice and contemporary practice. --Hazhk (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I quote from one of your cited links, "Today millions of Christians around the world have begun a season [of Lent]. United Methodists are among these millions." [My emphasis added] "But it was not always so for Methodists". The clear interpretation being that Methodists now observe Lent but this not formerly always the case. The second reference to a long-gone denomination is not really relevant.--Hazhk (talk) 20:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that is one Methodist denomination, the United Methodist Church, which tends to have more high church tendencies than other denominations and still, in many Midwest and Southern UM parishes, it is not rigorously observed. We need to take into account Methodism as a whole. The reference I supplied from the Methodist Church in Singapore did state that "Over the last 25 years, more and more Methodist local conferences have been observing Lent, the 46 days before Easter." AnupamTalk 20:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but this is apart from historical practice. --Hazhk (talk) 21:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Hazhk! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.