This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

[1] Geographyinitiative ( talk) 13:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Geographyinitiative: I have no idea why you address this to me, someone else added deliberately wrong coordinates to the article, pointing to somewhere near Mongolia. I simply adjusted it to Khotan since I have no idea where Dandan Oilik actually is and only know that it is near Khotan, and added a note as to why other people have added the wrong coordinates. Hzh ( talk) 14:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

I address this to you because your edit includes the words, "coordinates of Khotan given to avoid unwanted intrusion into an as yet incompletely investigated archaeological site". The coordiantes for Khotan are on the Khotan page. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 00:56, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@ Geographyinitiative: Which I have already explained. Really. Harrumph. Hzh ( talk) 09:58, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand that you are saying that did not seek to mislead. In light of that, as a person interested in the area, I would like to invite you to take a look at my recent work on Hotan Prefecture-related geography pages. Thanks for your time. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:27, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:R-5128468-1385280450-6261.jpeg edited-small.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) 19:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. Could you please provide further rationale for Special:Diff/940332698? My rationale was not based on WP:SNOW, but instead on WP:COMMONNAME which this dicussion is clearly in violation of. The WP:SNOW covers only the exception to having to wait 7 days before closing a discussion. Particurally, could you address: 1. Why is this not violation of WP:COMMONNAME? 2. Why is recent consensus (multiple previous move discussions) for current name being ignored? 3. How is the quality of supporting votes any better than 'Change because I don't like the current name!'. I think it would have been far more appropriate to contest the closure via WP:MOVEREVIEW process, but as you also appear to be an uninvolved editor I will not take further action to revert your reversion in the spirit of WP:3RR. Thank you. Melmann 23:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Melmann: The reason is very clear, you should close early only if you are an admin, and you should also indicate that it is a non-admin closure. Are you claiming you are an admin? If that is what you are suggesting, then getting other admins involved examining what you did would be interesting for you. WP:COMMONNAME is an irrelevance to closure in this instance, because you are closing early in error of closing guidelines, and you should not close ignoring the opinions given in the discussion. Although I did not comment on the proposed move, I happen to disagree with the move, but that is entirely irrelevant. Hzh ( talk) 23:06, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Hzh: Hence why the closure is supported by WP:SNOWBALL (and to a lesser extent WP:IGNORE). I am justifying skipping the 7 days mandated in WP:RMNAC because it is clear to me that the proposal has snowball's chance in hell. You're keeping the discussion open on a technicality when the discussion is in clear contravention of multiple policies and is wasting everyone's time with a proposal which no reasonable reading of WP:COMMONNAME could support and discussion around it violates the letter and the spirit of WP:CONCENSUS. Melmann 23:23, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Melmann: I'm sorry, you cannot close a discussion early unless you are admin, and it looks like you are pretending to be an admin doing what you did (closing early and without indicating that it is a non-admin closure). There is nothing more for me to discuss; if you wish to discuss the right or wrong of this issue further, try asking an admin, I'm sure other admins have something to say about someone taking on the role of an admin without being one. Hzh ( talk) 23:37, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Hzh: Can't help but notice that the dicussion was speedy re-closed by another non-admin on substantially same grounds as mine and the close appears to be standing firm. While I applaud your boldness to implement edits you see as improvements, I would also like to invite you to consider being more willing to assume good faith instead of persisting in the bad faith claim that I was somehow trying to impersonate an admin (I did omit the non-admin close template, and that is my mistake, but the non-inclusion was an oversight, nothing more). I hope you do not see this message as gloating, as is not meant to be that. I just hope we can both do better next time we find ourself in a situation similar to this. Farewell. Melmann 19:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Melmann: Before I noticed it, someone else said they wanted to WP:MR, so I left it at that. It was also easier to revert yours because you did it completely wrong. I really don't care a jot if you think whether it might be considered gloating. Hzh ( talk) 19:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Hzh. I saw you chiming in on the closers talk page (and I'll admit I'm not that familiar with the process, so that was helpful info to me). I wanted to ask you though what you thought was wrong headed about the move proposals - ie which kind of moves you'd suggest, or whether you'd suggest to keep the current title?

Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 09:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Sean Heron: Personally I would have preferred to wait a while first (even for a week or two) before deciding per WP:NAMECHANGES, and I don't think bundling the SARS-CoV-2 discussion with COVID-19 in the discussion is a good idea. I also feel that the acronym is too unfamiliar with the public to be used as a title per WP:NCACRO, therefore a long form " Coronavirus disease 2019" may be preferable to COVID-19. Google Trends does not suggest COVID-19 is used significantly at the moment [2]. Perhaps a discussion first on which title to use first may be better before deciding on a move discussion. None of that is relevant in the current situation since I think the move proposal was inappropriately closed, therefore a MR may be necessary regardless. Hzh ( talk) 10:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@ Sean Heron: Just a note that if you want to start a MR, then do it sooner rather than later. Hzh ( talk) 21:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer on opening the MR sooner rather than later, and I've just made a suggestion (at the Move review) very similar to what you have been saying here - to get talking about which of the possible titles would be best (rather than arguing a specific one vs the current one). I'd only skimmed your reply here previously, so apologies for that! Regards Sean Heron ( talk) 09:37, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hzh,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

As a token of gratitude for enagaging constructively with me on the Coronavirus Talk page, here is a witty piece of black humour I have picked up from the BBC news website today, a reader's letter commenting on the spread of the virus in London. 31.49.197.109 ( talk) 16:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

"I think people should stay away from airports, it's a terminal illness."

• @ 31.49.197.109: Thank you, a bit light humour in a grim situation never go amiss. Hzh ( talk) 18:00, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Per your comments at Talk:2019-20 Wuhan coronavirus outbreak:

• It isn't really true that IP editor participation will be scrutinised, given that recent discussions have been closed (or attempted to close) by non-admins who did not do such scrutiny, one did not even know how to present a valid argument for closing. The concern is that some are disrupting the discussion, and judging from what they write, they are not newbies, and likely to be people who already have an account for many years. Hzh ( talk) 11:34, 14 February 2020
• We have already seen IP editors trying to disrupt other people's discussion. A simple matter for them to register if they are not attempting to double !Vote as a sock. Hzh ( talk)

As you've brought up those concerns, per valid notification, there is an ongoing AN/I related to such charges that may be of interest to you. Sleath56 ( talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spanakopita, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mint ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:48, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I wonder if you give me a favor and leave a comment on this discussion.Thanks! Saff V. ( talk) 16:22, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Saff V.: Sorry I forgot to reply, and the discussion seems to have disappeared into the archives. I'll have a look later and see if any of the edits needs adjusting. The one about Mahan Air does not appear to be a criticism but a claim. It could be added but needed something else. Hzh ( talk) 18:11, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I really appreciate you. Because of wp:3rr I am not allowed to edit the section, Can I ask you to give a try on this section. For example, fringe theories about Mahan published by the unnatural source like Radio Farda has nothing to do with that article. Or NPOV about keeping shrines open needs to be rewritten by natural words. Anyway they are my ideas and suggestions!maybe i was wrong! Saff V. ( talk) 14:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Saff V.: It's something I need to think about. I probably need to check to see if there are other independent sources on the claim (at the moment, the claim is not really that noteworthy as any criticism), and see how it could be rewritten. Failing that, I can start a discussion on that another time. Hzh ( talk) 15:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This image has been in the article for some time. [3]

Please keep an eye on WP:3RR. You will need consensus to remove it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Doc James: I have no idea why you address this to me, I did not at any time remove that image, or edit anything in the section on education. Hzh ( talk) 16:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Okay apologies :-) Got you confused with User:The Huhsz... Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

While editing the page about the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, I happened to notice that the latest edit was made by a vandal named "India bangladesh sri lanka pakistan". The edits this user made consisted of altering the dates and places of origin: [4].

What should I do if this user (or someone else) strikes again? I'm new to this! Victionarier ( talk) 15:50, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Victionarier: The claim of the 17 November date is being discussed Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#I don't like the SCMP source of nameless government documents and Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Pandemic starting date, there is a discussion tag in the History section. You can voice you opinion there. The date as such it is not vandalism, although it is partly wrong (it was identified in late December, although the first case happened earlier). The question of origin is the latest attempt by the Chinese government to shift the blame to somewhere else. There are a number of ways you can deal with it, and everything depends on the circumstances and what the editor does next. It is still too early to warn the editor; if the person re-add that, then request first that he or she discuss the issue. If this continues a couple more times within 24 hours, then issue a WP:3RR warning. There are other options, but they are all too early. Hzh ( talk) 16:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Feinoa ( talk) 20:24, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@ Feinoa: I'm afraid you wrong there. You have already reverted 3 times, therefore per the WP:3RR rule, the next time you revert an edit you may be blocked. I have only done it twice, so I'm still OK, you are wrong to issue an edit-warring warning. Hzh ( talk) 20:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Would you please explain why you add a ref that says

<ref>{{cite news |url=“Beware of a second outbreak started by foreign garbage.”

here? - MrX 🖋 12:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@ MrX: That was a mistake - it was suppose to be the English translation of the Chinese article title given above - https://www.chainnews.com/articles/556168214603.htm (the same article is also found in https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/8PbJjsRueJllEt9t3tzO1g ). Hzh ( talk) 12:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You seem to be making several mistakes. You removed content about a petition that was properly sourced, then you removed the source. This is a very visible article so you need to be very careful with your edits, especially when removing properly sourced material. - MrX 🖋 12:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

@ MrX: Just trying to tidy up the article, sorry if there are mistakes along the way. For that one, I didn't scroll far down enough to see that. So apologies. There are way too many citations in the article already and the article is getting too big, and it is getting very unwieldy. I would however encourage you to trim the article and remove unnecessary citations and trimming the text if you feel you can do it better. Hzh ( talk) 12:27, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I just wanted to suggest a bit more caution. - MrX 🖋 13:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Dear fellow editor. The world is struggling to stay safe from the harms of a some tens of nano-meters sized virus. I wish you and your dear ones full safety from the dangers of this unilateral love! Saff V. ( talk) 10:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

@ Saff V.: Thank you, and the best of health to you too. Hzh ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

(-:

Tiger7253 ( talk) 15:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Doug Weller talk 19:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

A community discussion has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to coronavirus disease 2019 ( COVID-19).
The specific details of these sanctions are described here.

Broadly, general sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 19:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Great British Bake Off (series 7), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page This Morning ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver).

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 11:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hzh,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, fine. I have just found, though, that that kind of inline attribution keeps people who aren't so good at reading footnotes from slapping {{ fact}} on the sentence and then starting angry, confrontational talk page discussions. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

@ Daniel Case: Well, the problem is that it is sourced to a student's master thesis than work from an established academic, personally I would have preferred the sources used in the thesis rather than using the thesis itself. I think crediting a student in a Wikipedia page is to give undue prominence, this is in addition to the fact someone can challenge using the work of a student as a source. If someone do start questioning the fact stated, then it would be better to find an alternative source. Also, is the surname of the author Tong or is it Chen (Chen is the more common Chinese surname rather than Tong)? Hzh ( talk) 18:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

My feeling, as someone who's written a master's thesis, is that it's as serious as any other academic work we consider reliable ... you get plenty of professorial oversight, and it does get published; after all you're getting am advanced degree for it. The point is that in writing a thesis, you are not only preparing yourself for writing papers as a career, you are signaling that you are ready to do so. Work by grad students is often cited in other academic work, even by tenured professors.

The sources he cites may not meet our definitions of RS, and what I sourced his article for is not those facts but his interpretations, as a secondary source, of those facts.

As for his last name, I suppose we would have to see it in Chinese. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

No, being available on the internet does not mean that the thesis is published. You do get some student theses that get published, but that is not the standard. A master thesis is also not a PhD thesis, which would be more reliable, and many student theses aren't really that good. Anyway, I'm not the one to convince here, if someone wishes to challenge the source, then maybe ask for advice on RS talkpage. As far as I am concerned, naming a student on a Wikipedia page is excessive unless the student has achieved something notable. Hzh ( talk) 19:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP says that master's theses are not acceptable unless they have had "significant scholarly impact". The one I cited seems only to have been cited one other time, so I agree with you now that it would be better to cite the same sources, in particular the work by this Caroline Chen, which appears to be cited more widely (in, well, other Chinese graduate students' theses and papers at North American universities. But who else does scholarly work about this? At least in English ...)

I was able to get that Caroline Chen "Grandma's World" paper from academia.edu; apparently she's doing a post-doc at UCSD, which I guess is more acceptable. So I will soon be swapping her paper in as the source (And actually thanks for giving me the prod to do this ... there is more scholarly work out there than I was aware of when initially writing the article! I may be able to incorporate some of it as well). Daniel Case ( talk) 02:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a notification, in case you are no longer watching that page, that an RfC you recently responded to at Talk:Daily Mail, has been closed and re-filed with a different question. BorkNein ( talk) 19:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi hzh,

A cendol photo post is remove. May i know what is the point that we make mistake that happen you remove the photo?

Pls advise

Thank you Dd993f2 ( talk) 10:33, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Dd993f2: That section is about selling cendol, the image you put there is not about selling. You can see that the images in that section are all about those who sell cendol. Hzh ( talk) 10:38, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok, your information is very helps. Will redo and contribute again

Thank you Dd993f2 ( talk) 10:43, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

• @ Dd993f2: To put an image elsewhere, find one that shows cendol rather than the person at the table. The same image will likely to be removed since it focused more on the person than cendol, so it is also inappropriate. Hzh ( talk) 10:50, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:33, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Hzh. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, Hzh. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 06:54, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you watch the first three episodes? I watched them on Prime and thought it seemed too promotional, wasn't raw enough. I liked the Sunderland till I die show on Netflix more! heh. Govvy ( talk) 11:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

I haven't really watched it, only part of the first episode. I guess it is still too recent to feel entirely objective about it, as I dislike Mourinho as a manager and thought Pochettino unfairly dismissed. Will get round to it at a later date. Hzh ( talk) 11:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It makes Mourinho more human, I didn't know how religious he was, there were quite a few scenes of him praying, thought that was interesting. A few funny bits. Govvy ( talk) 11:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The reviews do suggest that Mourinho is the star of the show, personally, it's more his style of football that I dislike, it's not the Spurs way. Even if he wins something, it's not the way it should be won. Hzh ( talk) 12:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Following up on this, how about the style of football which beat United 6-1?? Govvy ( talk) 11:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

@ Govvy: I don't know if this is the result of bad Manchester United form and tactics (some blamed Solskjær, others blamed the players), or if something has fundamentally changed with Mourinho's game plans. It is also possible that it's due to Son and Kane playing very well this season. The recent results have certainly been very encouraging, and I guess we shall see what happens to the rest of the season, whether he retreats back to parking the bus. It is certainly interesting, I'll be keeping an eye on it, maybe I'll start watching the show to see what it says about Mourinho's tactics. Hzh ( talk) 11:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you know the usernames for the previous vandals? We'll need that for a sockpuppet report. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@ Sundayclose: The page for the sock master is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002, so just enter Никита-Родин-2002 at WP:SPI. He or she is very prolific, and only some of the socks are listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Nikita. I normally wait for a while before reporting to see if any more turns up before reporting, but you can do it now if you want to. So far there are two suspected socks - Skgr6 and Markstark888, and you can report them. Hzh ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll wait to see what happens. I think we're OK with all the eyes on those articles. Sundayclose ( talk) 18:19, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Никита-Родин-2002. Sundayclose ( talk) 01:08, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:American Idol logo XV.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) 17:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hzh. Just a courtesy note: In May 2018, you added the sentence Randomized controlled trial determines the efficacy of a particular treatment, while other trials may be preventive intervention with a reference to [5] to the article Experimental_epidemiology. The article came across my radar at Wikipedia:Contributor_copyright_investigations/Wikisanchez. Unfortunately, it looks like every sentence in the article (except for yours!) has been copy/pasted from the cited sources, so I've deleted the article under WP:CSD#G12. Since your sentence was the only salvageable part, I figured I'd drop by, give you your sentence back, and let you know. If you'd like to re-create the article, I'm happy to give you a list of the sources that were previously in it. Otherwise, I hope all is well during these crazy times. All the best, Ajpolino ( talk) 20:38, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, TVSGuy ( talk) 05:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC) is here.

I am here to check things and so far that the update has gone up to Season 3 (season 4 for partially up until the audition part); but there are still 11 American Idol seasons to have to change the color templates to fix up consistency. I would recommend to set a small task force and update to all other versions of Idol as well.

@ TVSGuy: That is probably not a priority for me at the moment. I found the new color scheme garish, and had intended to change it to something more visually appealing, but it is a lot of work trying to fix so many seasons, and given the risk of edit-warring because others might prefer the original ones, I'm not sure I want to put that much effort into it. I am content to leave it as it is for the time being. Hzh ( talk) 14:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Hzh: I got it, but do the readers want a very consistent display of articles? Well understand your decision, but I want to find a way to entice editors to help with the work (i.e. such as putting up notice from a dashboard about help). Thanks for the reply, but because BroJam and some editors had not yet made any progress up to the point so far, and double the fact I was busy in real-life. TVSGuy ( talk) 14:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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 {{ NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 01:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Misinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Read WP:BRD. You're supposed to discuss, not keep reverting. Viriditas ( talk) 01:36, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@ Viriditas: The point is more that you should not remove a tag about something that is under discussion (and discussion is the whole point of the tag, you should not tell me discuss it when this is what I am doing). Wait until it is finished and we have a clear idea as to whether it is dubious or not before removing that. Hzh ( talk) 01:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese orchestra, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nanguan.

( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 06:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hello Hzh,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III ( talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill ( talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 ( talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 ( talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG ( talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany ( talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven ( talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra ( talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren ( talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes ( talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Please stop adding the video back in. As I've already explained in a previous edit summary, the video contains spam as it's promoting the creator of the video as it predominately displays his name in it. If you have some way of removing that, then I'd be all for it. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 16:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

@ Jauerback: What evidence do you have that it is in fact a spam? How does it fit the definition of a spam? The two videos are different, the second one has nothing but a small note at the end that noted the person who uploaded it. While Wikimedia tends to prefer that things like watermark not be there, it is not in fact spam. Hzh ( talk) 16:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Lion dance shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)