User talk:Hzh/Archive 7

Re: Descendants of the Dragon
I decided to rename the article name primarily because the "Han Chinese" article has no any explanation about the term "Descendants of the Dragon". If you think this is wrong, just tell me a good reason and i'll consider undoing my edits. Daikage (talk) 21:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it is a problem with some articles that are translated terms - they are not fixed in English, also they may have other meanings. I'm not that bothered about renaming it back, because the issue is marginal since this is not something widely known and it is about usage in another language (therefore its usage in English is debatable), so it is probably not worth the bother of changing it back. The explanation for the term is given in Chinese dragon. There are a number of other terms that could mean Han Chinese, and they are not always explained in the article on Han Chinese. Hzh (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would just add that if you want to change an article's name that is about something in another language, it would be best to ask first unless you are absolutely sure that what you are doing is correct. Hzh (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

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


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

Diet (nutrition)
You said: So you know what spam is? And on what criteria do you dismiss it as unreliable given that it is an established magazine? Hzh (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SECONDARY. The source you used is not an authoritative nutrition source nor is it secondary for a nutrition article. --Zefr (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I know very well what WP:SECONDARY says, and you haven't shown how that is relevant. It is a general article in a magazine, and it relates more specifically to religion. You are giving spurious reasons for revert, given that you said that it is spam when it clearly isn't.  I added the link because it was originally there, and someone else removed it because it had become a dead link, so I re-added it with an archived source. That source supports the statement, you might as well remove the entire statement if you don't want the source. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult statement to source well given the section's content is generally soft and outside scientific reporting. Maybe this one would work better for the 'meat-eating' reference. --Zefr (talk) 16:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It does not address the statement in the article, so it is not a proper source for the statement. The Soul Curry article gave a fuller explanation.  It is about religious practices, not a scientific statement about diet.  There are in any case many books on the discussion of vegetarianism and meat-eating in Buddhism -, , ,   if you want to use them.  Hzh (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I acknowledge those books as religious/cultural sources but they are not appropriate for a diet-nutrition article. Would you agree the entire religious section be deleted? It is not based on nor intended to be rigorous about nutrition. Please proceed if yes. --Zefr (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * An article on diet is not necessarily about the scientific aspects only, since it is also about cultural practices. Unless you have a general article about diet that is entirely different from one on diet in purely scientific terms, then the religious and cultural aspect must stay. The word "diet" itself is a very broad term that covers how and what people eats. Hzh (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * this article is intended to be about the nutritional aspects of a diet per the title. I think the section under discussion is more appropriate for this article or this. Perhaps we should re-open discussions and a poll as have been done before on the Talk page to determine if the article should be merged or a major rewrite done to focus on nutrition. --Zefr (talk) 23:10, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is a general article on diet, it's how it was originally written (it started out as Diet). The word nutrition is there to differentiate it from other meaning of "diet", such as an assembly or parliament. If you want to have an article on nutritional science, then by all means create an article on the science specifically - Diet (food science) or however you want to name it. You must understand when a word has a broad general meaning in normal usage, then you'd need to address that, and that the main article would be on the general usage. For example, I was involved briefly in the article on Berry, and there was a discussion on how to proceed because the scientific definition of berry is different from normal usage of berry, it was then decided there should be a different article on the scientific term Berry (botany). An alternative way would to use the page Diet (which is currently a disambiguation page) as the general article, and use the Diet (disambiguation) page for disambiguation. I could see problem because diet has different meanings, and I would suggest that you propose this in the talk page of the article. Hzh (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I see your point about context for the Diet (nutrition) article, and don't sense it's worth the effort to pursue merger or further disambiguation. As for the Soul Curry ref, I re-read it and it just smells like blog material. One of the books at your choosing seems a stronger ref. Thanks for the courteous discussion. --Zefr (talk) 17:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The size of the article as it is probably not worth splitting, although I feel that the article can do with quite a bit of expanding, as there are a lot of material around on diet. Perhaps in the future when the article has grown too big, we can then consider a separate article on the science of diet, and revisit the question on the title and content of the current page or any article to be split from it. For the moment I'll add one of the sources, the dictionary on Buddhism seems to be the appropriate one. Hzh (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

A.R. Nayadu
Thanks for dealing with that disruptive editor. I don't think I've ever seen a more unconstructive person on Wikipedia than him/her. Tiger7253 (talk) 16:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You can report him to the vandalism noticeboard WP:ANV if such behaviour continues. Hzh (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Long Ya Men
Hi, the major updates you did for our history articles are good, something I wanted to start on earlier but never got around to. I briefly checked a few sentences that look familiar and one of the citation you provided (Miksic -I have it) does not support the description of 'Ban Zu' although the info is correct. There are other refs available so just need to change it. Shiok (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Often the information I used is a mixture of other sources already given, for example the Paul Wheatley's book. The sentence on Ban Zu probably owes more to that book, and most of the information is there. Sometimes it's because I move information from one article to the another, adjusted the text, and didn't check if that particular source is most suitable. (I was also editing Temasek, Fort Canning and other articles, and more information on Ban Zu may be found there.) I'll add the Paul Wheatley one for that sentence, but let me know if there is any specific information you need a source on. Hzh (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 February
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) 00:37, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * On the Founding of modern Singapore page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=764401805 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%2F764401805%7CFounding of modern Singapore%5D%5D Ask for help])

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

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


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

George Winston
I am responding to the recent reversion you did to the George Winston article which cites the artist as New Age. This was purposely taken out of the chart because the artist has done many interviews stating that he was misrepresented as that genre of music and in reality performes folk and stride piano. How can we fix this article so that it accurately reflects the genre of music Winston performs? Eliminating the chart was one solution, but you did not agree. How can this be remedied? I see that the certifications of gold and such are referenced by the RIAA site, so for that, thank you. EllenZoe (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Whether George winston thinks he is misrepresented is irrelevant. This is the chart, it gives whatever the Billboard chart lists his album chart rankings to be.  It is not intended to represent his genre apart from what Billboard and his label chose to classify his music as. You can mention in the article what he considers his genre to be if you want, but don't remove perfectly-sourced information. Hzh (talk) 00:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. This is a challenge, for sure. EllenZoe (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks
Your comment from Talk:Kara-Khanid Khanate: "You are plainly arguing from a position of ignorance, and refusing to see why the term is different (Genghis Khan indeed!)." Please refrain from personal attacks on me. Thank you. ʙʌ sʌwʌʟʌ  тʌʟк  17:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what else I can say when I have to keep explaining to you why the modern term is different, that it did not exist in the original language. You appear not to have even read what's in the article. Hzh (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Peer review
Hello, just a short note to let you know that I have undergone a name change. I was the guy who you previously helped doing the peer review. Secondly, I have made some edits on your Mulian Rescues His Mother article. Feel free to see to what extent these edits were useful.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, the article was created by CWH, so it's not mine. Howver, the edits look good. Well done.  Hzh (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Haha, sorry. Similar names... Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (talk) 22:28, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Just a reminder
Hey, if you feel that User:Jax 0677 is being disruptive beyond reason, you can report him to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I've encountered a few disruptive edits from him as well as few other users, but I have since retired from editing Wikipedia. But anyway, I just thought I would leave this reminder on your talk page. Horizonlove (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's certainly something I'm considering. At the moment it looks to be a compulsive behavioral issue, and if he can't control himself, then others might have to intervene. Hzh (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 15
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Demographics of Malaysia, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Malay and Javanese. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

The maintenance template was edited by mistake, and I thank you for reverting that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc7362bb8 (talk • contribs) 12:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You repeatedly remove a citation needed tag on a data given where the figures "doctors (28.4%)..." are given. You need to clearly specified what date those data are from, as you edits appear to imply that the 38% figure is recent, when in fact it is more than 30 years old.  You have also removed information about the declining proportion of Indians due to increasing number of Bumiputras, and that is clearly stated in the source. Hzh (talk) 13:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Missing citations have now been added. The source does not mention declining proportions of any racial group. Although the absolute numbers may be changing, any actual proportional change is not mentioned/documented thusfar. Please include any citations should this information becomes quantified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfc7362bb8 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm surprise that you said that, especially when the source talks about the effectiveness of ethnic preferential policies, that "the percentage of Malays considerably improved" in professional and medical services between 1968 and 1984, and that between 1990 and 1999 the proportion of Malay professionals went from 20.7% to 28.9%  while Indians went from 17.5% to 15.5%.  Are you reading the same source? Hzh (talk) 13:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to join the Reality Television Task Force

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

Tottenham Hotspur F.C. #History
Hiya, first I just wanted to say thanks for doing a load of work on the Spurs articles. I was wondering if you wanted to help to expand the #History section on the main article to include the main key points. I've been meaning to do more on it for ages but work and family do get in the way of doing much on wiki. I really would like the get the main article to GA standard. Any help would be greatly appreciated, thanks Govvy (talk) 11:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly, I was thinking of expanding the history section as it is rather uninformative at the moment. I probably won't do it immediately, but I hope to start in a week or two. I'm not sure what or how much to put into it yet, although my feeling is that the history section of other major clubs like Arsenal and ManU are a little excessive at the moment as there are already individual articles on their history. I guess we'll see how it develops. Hzh (talk) 12:11, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of the work I did on history was moved into the separate history article, Govvy (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Excellent work on the article, I will likely incorporate part of it to the section. Hzh (talk) 12:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Nice work on the history and WHL articles. I have a little follow up on the Jack Bell and the union issue. Both Bell and Cameron were involved in the formation of the union (campaigning against £4 max wage and for a role of the player in transfers). It was Cameron who left in pursuit of higher wages and joined Spurs. There is some background in these articles: Jack Bell and John Cameron. That site has some excellent football history articles (clubs, players, social issues), although Spurs is notably missing from the club histories (the author is a West Ham fan). Jts1882 (talk) 08:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the links. Looking at the source, whoever who wrote it probably meant Tom Bradshaw rather than Jack Bell, the unionisation issue is probably not worth mentioning as it is not directly relevant to Spurs. Just a note on the article itself - I've read a number of sources but there are differences in facts and figures, for example dates, the people or the events involved (sometimes written by the same author). I've tried to use as much as possible the official history as given by the club, even then there appear to be uncertainties and maybe inaccuracies.  If you see anything that needs adjusting, then by all means do so, we can discuss any such specific point further. Hzh (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Minor formatting
Hi. For future reference, when you need to write something like this: Taste of Countrys, can you do it like Taste of Countrys , so it doesn't italicize the "s", among other reasons. I use the color coded editor and noticed if one doesn't use the –, it makes the whole article purple. It's just so it knows that the italics should stop before the 's'. thanks. --Jennica ✿ / talk 06:47, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I once did it for a while, but stopped as it seems that page can parse the formatting and display the result correctly. I have not noticed any issue before, but have no problem with doing it the way you wish in the future.Hzh (talk) 13:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Regarding deletion of certain transliterations
Hi Hzh, I have noticed growing vandalism in certain Wikipedia articles recently. I believe we have a policy to insert the transliterations of a place's name in the only official languages only. I hope you understand my point. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.224.159.47 (talk) 14:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are making up your own policy. See Wikipedia's guidelines on place name WP:PLACE.  If you want to have only Malay and English for Malaysian articles, then start a discussion in there (there is a section on Malaysia, and there is no mention of official language only). You will see that for example in other countries, they may specifically deal with foreign names, for example Finland that specifically mentions minority languages. Hzh (talk) 14:14, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Revolt of the Three Feudatories
I understand that way, and I am Chinese, also I know the history. So, I am here to ask you what do you think that means and why do you think like that? 邬山 (talk) 09:37, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * If you understand Chinese and you translate 制 as "be against", then that is a deliberate mistranslation (the word means "control" or "regulate", therefore "govern" is a valid translation). If you don't fully understand Chinese text, for example you said the text in Zhang Xianzhong as meaningless (it is perfectly understandable if you are educated in classical Chinese), then you should not make such edit. Hzh (talk) 09:45, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you give me another example in traditional Chinese using 制 to mean "govern" instead of "be against"? 邬山 (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you just check some dictionaries? Like here or here (we are not here to do work for you, but I'm pointing you in the right direction and hope you will stop making wrong translations in wikipedia). I should also say that if you don't know Chinese well enough to have to ask me this question, then you should not be trying to make translation. Wikipedia requires a degree to competence to edit. Hzh (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. 邬山 (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Suppression of peer-reviewed references, Hounding and personal bias.
YOu are engaged in WP:HOUNDING on the talk page of User:Boundarylayer along with the suppression of peer-reviewed scientific publications on the following articles Mutagenesis, Hermann Muller and Linear no-threshold model.

Further Gish galloping antics, hounding, along with the deletion and use of weasel wording, to downplay the significance of of the statements made in the peer-reviewed material, material that you personally do not agree with, due to some kind of loving belief that you're on a first name basis with "Hermann", will result in admin actions.

Boundarylayer (talk) 16:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to refer the case to the administrators if you feel hard done by. Hzh (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

List of massacres in China
I think it's true that there were no reliable figures, but that's common in Chinese history. The process when things happened matters.
 * Wikipedia cannot be used to present original research per WP:OR, and you are presenting original research. We are not interested in your estimate, but estimates by experts based on reliable sources.  There are plenty of sources that suggest such exaggerated figures you gave are wrong. Hzh (talk) 07:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Please give out a sources that contradict with the given estimates, for example, 3,000,000 during 1578 AD and 1685 AD. I understand that you want a specific number given by a specific writer who was good at this history. But, I don't think many people outside my province even care, thus in that time after the war, when it was totally possible to do so, no one did. Now, when people do care, they found they can only rely on statistics which doesn't really match the time of the massacre. Thus, I understand that there must be deviations existed in the numbers. 邬山 (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * So I tried my best to give out at least specific number of people and a specific time when the research of population had been done. for this example, I used data from "清,龙文彬 Long Wen Bin in Qing Dynasty,明会要 Important events in Ming Dynasty". You see, even the writer is living in Qing not Ming, but he wrote the data from 1578 AD, referencing from the official sources of 明史, history of Ming. The history is written afterwards, which sucks in scientific point of view. But, that's the only possible approach to such a matter. I cannot be responsible for those who have died.I can only try my best to recover what we have known, you see? 邬山 (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * As have already been explained, we are not here to give original research, we only report what other authors (particular modern scholars who have investigated the history events) in reliable sources. As had already been shown, the figures given official Chinese history may not be accurate, for example in Zhang Xianzhong, Ming Shi claimed 600 million deaths in Sichuan which is impossible (some people suggest that the number means 600,000). Modern historians would examine the evidence and give an estimate, and the only modern modern historian quoted gave a figure of a million in Sichuan. Other sources also discussed why the number of deaths cannot be very high, for example Zhang Xianzhong only controlled part of Sichuan which is Chengdu and the surrounding areas.  He lost Chongqing before the massacre began. Hzh (talk) 07:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Can you also explain that you said "Please note that many of what you have written is not properly supported by sources and have been removed.".So compare with this version "1645-46 " and my version "1645-1681  "邬山 (talk) 08:01, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You appear to be talking about different events. The only sourced figure is for the one referring to Zhang Xianzhong.  Again you are conducting original research per WP:SYNTH. I read the source you gave (Cambridge History of China) and it has no relevance to what you wrote. Hzh (talk) 08:06, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I see your point, you think the only right reference is one that contain the total information which is stated here; it is wrong to list different studies of, for example, the begining and end of such an event, and giving out the event, which would be considered as my own interpretation. Even about estimate, if a paper estimated as so, and I reference it as it is, like 1 million lives, that would be OK. But if someone founded two begining and ending numbers and did his/her estimation, he/she still needs to publish a paper to intergrate all the reference to be a new referencible source, right?邬山 (talk) 08:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In this case, you are talking about a massacre event (or a series of massacres conducted within a specific context). When you want to put together different numbers, you have to be sure that they are referring to the same thing, otherwise it is original research per WP:SYNTH.  For example, you might give 2 different sourced numbers, say, 1 million - 2 million for a massacre, then you can give two different sources if they refer to the same event, although ideally you should give an independent sources that collated both figures.  Note also that the sources have to reliable one, in some Chinese media sources you get ridiculous figures getting bandied about, and they should not be used because they are not based on academic studies. Even in academic studies you get widely varying numbers, but they can be used if properly sourced. Hzh (talk) 08:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I can accept that. Btw, Why don't you put Mongol Invasion into List of events named massacres. 邬山 (talk) 08:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because of the title of the article "events named massacres". You really need to find good reliable sources that name the massacre as a specific event (and considered by historian as such). And "named" means something independent named, not something you named yourself. You named the massacres First and Second Sichuan massacres which appear to be original research. The Mongols conducted a series of massacres in China in their conquest, therefore how you add that is tricky because they are not a single massacre or even closely together. If you can find a good reliable source by modern historian that discusses the massacre of Sichuan by the Mongols, then that will be fine, although the sources are more likely to talk in terms of particular cities being sacked. I'm also dubious about the one given in the List of massacres in China page (because it is very broad), and if someone else wants to delete that, then I won't object given that there were lots of massacres in the transitions between dynasties.  Hzh (talk) 09:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Drmargi
I've dealt with her in the past, and I've noted that she has a habit of bludgeoning other editors and being horrendously crass to those with whom she disagrees. If she continues to edit-war with you, you should probably report her to the edit-warring noticeboard. p b  p  04:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Same experiences here, Hzh, and I agree with Purplebackpack89 on taking her to the appropriate noticeboard when the time's right (which could be now, actually). She gets away with a LOT of name calling, denigration, tendentious editing, and bullying. The bullying part has always been amusing to me since she's usually pretty quick to pull the bully-card on others when not getting her way. Just beware: she does have a fan club and they flock to her side to rally about her when she finds herself in hot water over her poor behavior choices. Whatever report you file, do it thoughtfully and with care, making sure you have everything in order to make your point as succinctly as possible. She's pretty crafty, and so is her fan club. Good luck.  -- ψ λ  ●  ✉  13:27, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've only ever dealt with Drmargi in a few articles and every time the experience is the same - aggressive reverts, followed by a demand for discussion but then refusing to engage in meaningful discussion. Typically she would invoke WP:STATUSQUO (which is an essay, not a policy or guideline), but would ignore actual guidelines and policies. It appears to be a long term issue that is damaging to a collaborative editing environment in Wikipedia, and I expect only the administrators can deal with that. However, a warning has been issued, and the ball is now in her court, and what happens depends on what she does next. Hzh (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would also add that because it appears to be something habitual, other such unreasonable reverts by her should be dealt with as soon as possible, and should be taken to the administrators after a warning has been issued. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The next time she reverts you, report her to AN3RR. The next time she demeans you, report her to ANI.  I warned her against bullying other people, and she reverted me.  Classic IDHT.  Classic DICK  p  b  p  19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears Drmargi has moved on to "bigger and better" things, namely edit-warring with other people. I've warned her to stop, though if past trends continue, she'll ignore the warning, remove it, and claim SHE's being picked on.  LOL.  Now there's somebody who could really use a 1RR restriction.  p  b  p  23:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I've made a comment at ANEW, but we'll see what happens next. Hzh (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Mail me p  b  p  02:24, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Two ygms = two separate emails p  b  p  05:21, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Whiff of greatness / Great scott
Hi there, curious about this diff. What makes you think they are related, you may well be right, but what you noticed might be different from what I just noticed here. FYI Whiff of greatness was blocked Sockpuppet investigations/Kauffner, but a checkuser wasn't carried out because at the time it was assumed all other socks had gone stale. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm simply noting an overlap in the pages they edited - for example similar edits here in China (Whiff of greatness)  (Great scott), and both contributed to the talk page of Insular Government (Philippines) . Because they had edited relatively few pages, the overlap is unusual, especially in the talk page of a minor article like Insular Government (Philippines), which made me think they might know each other. Hzh (talk) 10:33, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Kauffner typically runs two or three socks at the same time. Similarity of names, similarity of edit content and edit overlap: Insular Government (Philippines) Talk:Insular Government (Philippines)	Gook	China	Viet Cong suggests there's something there. As does Great scott blanking your question as to a connection between the two accounts. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It is possible they are both socks of the same person, but as I had few interactions the editor, I didn't feel the inclination to report the editor, but others may feel different. Hzh (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, wouldn't expect you to. Anyway I've given the results of the interact tool to admin Favonian, he's familiar with the case history, so will process it if needed. Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:59, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Your recent revert on Sabah
Hello Mr. Hzh, in response to your recent revert in the article. Can you explain how it could be a mistake by the author? Regards. Night Lantern (talk) 08:30, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You should read the Genghis Khan article, there is no mention of him ever going down so far down. Actually the book was wrong in citing Gibbon, read what Gibbon said here -  It would seem that the writer had mixed up Kublai Khan and Genghis Khan.  In any case what Gibbon wrote was inaccurate, it was about Kublai's failed invasion Java (Java is under the Equator/equinoctial line, not Borneo - the Equator bisects Borneo), in 18th century England they didn't have the most accurate information on the history of the Far East. Hzh (talk) 09:11, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for presenting the link! Yes, you are right as many books also mentioning about the invasion of Java, though Borneo is used as their temporary transit giving the location of the island in north of Java. Night Lantern (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The Black Swan, Oldstead has been nominated for Did You Know
— Maile (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language
Hello, Mr.Hzh ! Please don't try to vandalize the page or article which is known as 'List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language' by removing Tamil language as an official language in 3 countries. Hindustani languages are only has official status in 2 countries, which is in India and Pakistan. Don't try to replace Tamil language with Hindustani languages which is considered vandalizing or editing false sources in that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JudeBob123 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You have deliberately misrepresented the issue, since Fiji Hindi (a form of Hindustani) is an official language in Fiji. You gave no source at all for Tamil. Since you have consistently refused to add sources for your edits despite repeated request to do so, removal of those edits are valid. It is for you to justify your edits with sources. Hzh (talk) 13:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * First of all, you should check and search for Tamil language in the Wikipedia. At the information of Tamil language article in the page, you will find with sources that Tamil is an official language in Indian states of Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Sri Lanka and Singapore. All where edited and given with many sources. At the same time, you also should go and search by looking for Hindustani language. It will only shows it is an official language in India and Pakistan. I will also add those sources to the 'List of languages by the number of countries in which they are recognized as an official language' page which totally proves that Tamil has offcial status in those 3 countries. I will also remove Hindustani languages immediately from that list if there is no sources to prove that it has an official ststus in Fiji (including India and Pakistan). Thank You !
 * Odd that you should mentioned pages in Wikipedia, given that it gives Fiji Hindi as an official language of Fiji, yet you choose to delete it. Your action does not suggest you are interested in what is true or not. There are plenty of sources that show Hindustani is an official language, as it is specifically mentioned in the constitution of Fiji - . Hzh (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, Hzh. I checked now about few seconds ago. You showed some sources that Hindustani languages (Fiji Hindi) is an official language of Fiji. I will re-edit that again. At the same time, There were also plenty of sources that shows Tamil is an offcial language of Sri Lanka, India and Singapore. I added those sources correctly. You also should not erase or remove the sources which I made it few minutes ago on that pages. I already showed plenty of sources that Tamil has offcial status in those 3 countries (Sri Lanka, India and Singapore). Thank You !
 * No, you haven't shown Tamil is an official language of India. You have given links that show Tamil is an official language in individual state within India, not the country of India. Hzh (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * For your kind information, India has no national language or a single offcial language. According to the Eighth Schedule of the Constitution of India, as of 1 December 2007, it lists 22 languages (including Tamil and Hindi) are official languages of that country. Tamil is the one and only offcial language of Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Same goes to the other 21 scheduled languages, including Hindi. So, this shows clearly that Tamil is an official language in India including Hindi and other 20 scheduled languages.
 * Whatever the case may be, it is for you to show that. If you want to take it further, then you can start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to work out what is an official language or not. Hzh (talk) 17:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Tang
Do you agree the content was out of topic, it's country, not people's name. I rework and improve it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 10:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Tang is not people's name, it is the name of a dynasty, and here it is used as an adjective that pertains to the country of China, therefore you can have Tang Mountain 唐山 meaning China, and Tang Country 唐ぬ國 in Japanese also meaning China, or Tang people 唐人 meaning Chinese people.  All it needs is to make this clear, we don't need the extraneous things you added about "strong and benevolent rule, successful diplomatic relationships", poets and whatnot.  It violates a few Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:VERIFY (see also WP:PUFF). The text as it currently is explains why the word is used by Southern Chinese to refer to themselves. You did not improve it, you made it worse. Hzh (talk) 11:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I said I will re-edit it again? Do you agree most of the content are irrelevant to the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 12:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They are relevant, they simply expanded from the notion of Tang = China. I have adjusted and added references (you can read from one where it explains why the Cantonese used Tang to mean China). Please do not add anything without sources. Hzh (talk) 12:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you dictating others? Aren't wiki open to all? It's not abt cantonese. You don't get it. Topic about name of country, should stick to it and not bring in other stuff. The page is so long and muddled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murugen (talk • contribs) 14:30, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not dictating, merely telling you that there are policies and guidelines on how to edit, and if you wish to edit, then you should follow the rules set down. Those who do not follow the policies and guidelines may be blocked from editing. Yes, the article is about the various names for China, and Tang is commonly used to mean China by Southern Chinese (not just Cantonese), therefore it is one of the names for China and a valid part of the content. If you have a problem with the content of the page, then you can discuss them in the talk page of the article. Hzh (talk) 15:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Old Dominion (band)
My bad. I was trying to undo 's overzealous and unnecessary [citation needed] spamming, and accidentally undid your edits too. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:35, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Old Dominion (band)
That is literally the only source I've seen mentioning Devin Malone and John Henry Trinko as members of the band. Literally no other sources corroborate it. Also the page says at the top that it's an unofficial fanblog, meaning it's not a reliable source. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that show both to be members of the band, for example here -, (this one, complete with picture, shows that John Henry Trinko stayed in the band at least until 2013). However I don't particularly object to you removing it, it's a matter of how to introduce the information and how to source it. Hzh (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The former link isn't really a "source" since it's a directory listing. The second one may be fine, though. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hello Hzh. Your account has been added to the " " user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk. The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator.  Anarchyte ( work  &#124;  talk )  02:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
 * Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
 * Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

New Years new page backlog drive
Hello, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Announcing the NPP New Year Backlog Drive!

We have done amazing work so far in December to reduce the New Pages Feed backlog by over 3000 articles! Now is the time to capitalise on our momentum and help eliminate the backlog!

The backlog drive will begin on January 1st and run until January 29th. Prize tiers and other info can be found HERE.

Awards will be given in tiers in two categories:


 * The total number of reviews completed for the month.
 * The minimum weekly total maintained for all four weeks of the backlog drive.

NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. — TonyBallioni (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2017 (UTC)