Hzh

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12

here is some tea

please enjoy it MisterN1C022 (talk) 20:31, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Hzh (talk) 21:57, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Hzh,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The_Storm_Before_the_Calm#Euro_label

@Hzh: Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.120.130 (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Can't say that I have anything significant to add, since I don't know what the label actually is. If Epiphany is not the actual label as argued by someone there, then it should be given as something else. Hzh (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Man Of Constant Sorrow

@Hzh: I'm not sure why you reverted the addition of a disambiguation hatnote pointing to another song of the same name. WP:HATNOTE doesn't say anywhere that the other topic in question must have its own article- the guideline simply states "Mention other topics and articles only if there is a reasonable possibility of a reader arriving at the article either by mistake or with another topic in mind." That's certainly the case here- I came to the article myself searching for the HMHB song and was quite surprised to discover that there's another song of the same name. Even though there's no article on the HMHB song, the article on the album it's from mentions the song, so would be an appropriate place to disambiguate the reader to.

I'd also mention that it's commonplace for disambiguation pages to point to topics with no article but which are mentioned in broader articles. For example four of the seven topics at Space Oddity (disambiguation) don't have dedicated articles. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Given that the full title of the song is "Man of Constant Sorrow (With a Garage in Constant Use)", too dissimilar to the song, and if someone knows that it's a Half Man Half Biscuit song, they would not go to "Man of Constant Sorrow", which is far more well-known. It is unlikely that someone would make the mistake of coming to "Man of Constant Sorrow". Hatnote can direct to another article that has a similar name, not to something only half similar mentioned in another article. You should create a redirect of that name to the album, so that if someone is searching for that song, the song title will pop up and they can go that album, rather than "Man of Constant Sorrow". I wonder why you tried to disambiguate only for this song only, "The Announcement"? "Terminus"? Or add a hatnote for Checkatrade if you think yo can do it for half a song title? (And why is Checkatrade linked to EFL Trophy in that article?) Hzh (talk) 22:23, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a pretty clear difference between "half of a song title" and a song title which happens to have a section after in brackets- it is very much conceivable that someone might not type the brackets when searching for the song. There is precedent for this in the fact that the Moving Out disambiguation page links to Movin' Out (Anthony's Song): it is not expected that the reader will inevitably type the entire song title when searching for it, as there's a good chance they won't.
I added the hatnote for this song simply because I came across the article when browsing wikipedia looking for information on the HMHB song and got very confused by an unrelated song coming up- as you mentioned, were I looking for information on the song "Terminus", I really don't think it would be unreasonable to add that to the Terminus#Music disambiguation page section (and in fact I would be inclined to do so now unless you have some reason to object to that too?) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

"Man Of Constant Sorrow" is not a disambiguation page. The hatnote is there to disambiguate another article, not to disambiguate something partly mentioned in another article (WP:HATCONFUSE certainly doesn't indicate you can do that, good examples given in that page are all about other articles, the one that mention the content of another article is given as an example of improper use in another context). If you create a redirect for "Man of Constant Sorrow (With a Garage in Constant Use)", the whole title will pop up if you just type "Man of Constant Sorrow" or even shorter because it forms part of the search, you don't need to type out the whole thing to search. You can add Terminus to a disambiguation page. Conceivably you could consider starting a disambiguation page for "Man Of Constant Sorrow" given that there are similar articles like A Maid of Constant Sorrow and "Gal of Constant Sorrow" ("Maid of Constant Sorrow" for example is the title of a version of "Man of Constant Sorrow"), but that is still debatable. Hzh (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it would be possible to list things like that on the existing Man of Sorrows (disambiguation) disambiguation page as it's similar enough, and put a hatnote at Man of Constant Sorrow saying "For other uses, see Man of Sorrows (disambiguation)". Would that sound acceptable to you? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 02:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not really close enough to require a disambiguation link on that article. Hzh (talk) 08:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

The folk song is already listed in the "see also" section on that article. I could remove it if you think it's not similar enough. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 09:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

See also is intended for titles that are similar but not the close enough. Stop talking as if hathote and disambiguation page are the same thing. Hzh (talk) 12:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

My point is that if Man of Sorrows (disambiguation) has a "See also" link to Man of Constant Sorrow thanks to title similarity, I don't see any reason why Man of Sorrows (disambiguation) shouldn't also have a "See also" link to Man of Constant Sorrow (With a Garage in Constant Use), again thanks to title similarity? It's already been established that parentheses in a song title don't make it so completely different that it isn't worth a mention. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

You talked about adding a hatnote about Man of Sorrows (disambiguation) to Man of Constant Sorrow. I was simply reacting to that. I don't really care if you add Man of Constant Sorrow (With a Garage in Constant Use) to the "See also" section in the disambiguation page. Good to see that you have created the redirect. You can do that for the other songs, it's commonly done. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Will do, thank you. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 14:31, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Hzh:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2400 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Sound of Freedom (film)

It's possible you're confused about how WP:BRD works. In any case, it's a pretty clear-cut policy to have quick summaries in the lead that summarize large sections of the body, so I would avoid removing that sentence from the lead. Fred Zepelin (talk) 14:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The problem is given unwarranted attention to a single issue out of many in the article, when it is part of a larger response to the film. The film became part of the culture war (as mentioned in the reception), and any mention of QAnon would need to be given in that context, not doing so would be pushing the POV of one side of the argument. The discussion can continue in the talk page of the article, not here. Hzh (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Wouldn't putting it in that context be pushing the POV of one side of the argument? The sources don't do that, they don't tie the two together that closely. A conspiracy theory isn't a valid political opinion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:11, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of sources do explicitly state that the film's success was due the culture war and mention QAnon as an element in the film, and culture war is already mentioned in the article. I've given some links to that in the article talk page, and that's where the discussion should be conducted. Hzh (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

And how do you get from there to QAnon being only a culture war thing? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say that QAnon is only a culture war thing. The sources that mention culture war and the film talked about QAnon, very prominently here - [1]. The sources made the link, not me. Hzh (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The source you point to here has this line in it: "It was Caviezel who cemented the film’s connections to the notorious QAnon." Interesting example to use while you're attempting to REMOVE the reference to QAnon in the lead, wouldn't you say? Fred Zepelin (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Don't know why you want to still talking about it, but that line has got nothing to do with the sources I gave in relation to RS on QAnon link. I already explained it in the discussion, the Guardian attacked the film, and as an opinion, what it said has to be attributed per WP:RSOPINION, you can give it as an opinion but it is not RS for statement of fact. Go and read neutral RS, for example this BBC one [2], it clearly stated that the QAnon link as an allegation. You cannot state an allegation as a fact. Learn the basics of how to edit in Wikipedia in a neutral manner. Hzh (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Girandole, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Candle holder.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Third Opinion

This edit is to notify you that I have added our discussion to the list of requests for a third opinion over at WP:3. Peter Folsaph (talk) 21:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Quote

Regarding [3]. If you read the two articles, you will see that Li Xiuzhen does not dispute the quote from the BBC article: she did say "We now think the Terracotta Army, the acrobats and the bronze sculptures found on site were inspired by ancient Greek sculptures and art" [4], so this quote stands in its own right, and she was probably recorded on tape saying it. What she specifically claims in the China Daily article after that is that some of her other points were left out by the BBC, specifically the fact that she disputes that "a Greek sculptor may have been at the site to train the locals" [5]. That's all: it does not contradict the first statement at all, it just completes it. She is certainly not claiming that the BBC lied about her initial statement: it was properly and accurately reported. We shouldn't fall for the propaganda from "China Daily" and its sensationalistic title ("...refutes BBC report") and insinuate that she disowned her statements to the BBC, because this is clearly not the case when you actually read the two articles. To be fully accurate we should simply report what she said to the BBC and what she said to the China Daily. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 12:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

No, the sentence specifically reads that she "acknowledged possible Western influence but insisted on Chinese authorship", the "Chinese authorship" part is not in the BBC source. She specifically said that the BBC overstated their case and ignored the points she made in her interview, so it is inappropriate to use a source that she is disputing, especially when the sentence stressed Chinese authorship. Hzh (talk) Hzh (talk) 13:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

ChinaDaily is hardly considered as a WP:Reliable source, and should only be used carefully and taking into account its nationalistic and propagandistic approach [6]. On the contrary, the BBC is WP:RS and should have priority on Wikipedia. There is a very high probability that the ChinaDaily reporting here is tainted by nationalistic considerations. Li Xiuzhen was probably reprimanded, and had to backtrack by saying something like "not all my arguments were presented by the BBC", and ChinaDaily spinned it into "...refutes BBC report". Given the poor record of the ChinaDaily, we should at the very least present the BBC reporting, and only cautiously balance it with the ChinaDaily reporting, without adopting its partisan spin. The fact is that Li Xiuzhen courageously did not retract her statements to the BBC about foreign inspiration, so they stand. On a different plane, she only added complementary statements about final manufacturing/authorship in the ChinaDaily interview, which, adroitly enough, does not contradict her initial statement about influences. पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 13:47, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

You are making a few errors there. I'll come back to that sentence, which is about possible Western influence but also Chinese authorship. As written, there is nothing about Chinese authorship in the BBC source, therefore using it to support the two points made is wrong. Also as written, it is presented as if it is a single quote when originally there were from two from different sources, and that fails WP:SYNTH because no such quote existed. If you use China Daily as the only source, then the entire quote is there. In any case, the older quote also changed the China Daily quote to make it appear like a single quote, which makes your complaint about not changing quote odd, because you reverted it to something that is not in the source.

If you don't like the China Daily source, then you can delete the entire sentence. You cannot use the BBC source alone because she disputed what the BBC said, she was in effect saying that the BBC misrepresented her by using only selective quote and conflating it with someone else's view that's not hers. It is not up to you to say whether she was reprimanded or not, because that would be OR. Hzh (talk) 14:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

It's simple, and I think we can find some reasonnable common ground: BBC is WP:RS so we can follow them. As for ChinaDaily, their progandistic interpretation is not RS, only the statements by Li Xiuzhen can be taken at face value. The following sentences become a bit cluncky, but should reflect our concerns and leave aside the political polemics by simply stricking to the facts:

In a BBC interview, Li Xiuzhen, senior archaeologist from the Mausoleum Site Museum, acknowledged possible Western influences, stating: "we now think the Terracotta Army, the acrobats and the bronze sculptures found on site were inspired by ancient Greek sculptures and art". In a later ChinaDaily interview, she also insisted on Chinese authorship, asserting that "the terracotta warriors may be inspired by Western culture, but were uniquely made by the Chinese", and that she "found no Greek names on the backs of Terracotta Warriors, which supports [my] idea that there was no Greek artisan training the local sculptors".

पाटलिपुत्र (Pataliputra) (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no attachment to the statement, just noting that you were wrong to revert the edit by someone else (they did not change any quote, only deleted the BBC quote as appropriate to how the sentence was written, and corrected the China Daily quote). It will always be problematic if you consider China Daily unreliable, and in this case, you cannot use BBC alone without China Daily because how she disputed how her quote was used by the BBC. I would also shortened her later response to "she later clarified that". Hzh (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Orphaned non-free image File:L'estate sta finendo song cover.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:L'estate sta finendo song cover.jpeg. 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, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Hzh,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

ARTIFICIAL INTELLGENCE TOOLS ANALYSIS OF SINGH ET AL'S RESEARCH ON SINHALESE GENETICS

Singh et al's article was downloaded as PDF from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

And uploaded to chatpdf.com for AI to analyse and interpret the research findings.

www.chatpdf.com is an AI Tool that can accurately scan the PDF document and highlight important points. This was its conclusion

"1. The study analyzed the genetic data of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, revealing a close genetic affinity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, irrespective of their linguistic differences. 2. Genetic analysis indicated a significant genetic homogeneity between the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, likely due to long-term geographic proximity facilitating substantial gene flow. 3. The research identified traces of common genetic ancestry between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population, suggesting shared roots through fine-grained genetic analysis. 4. Despite linguistic distinctions, the genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population adds a significant chapter to the genetic landscape of South Asia. 5. The study highlighted the presence of excess sharing of smaller genetic segments between the Sinhalese and the Maratha, indicating a deeply rooted common genetic ancestry. 6. While the D statistics test showed non-significant results, the genetic data supported a closer genetic relationship between the Sinhalese and the Maratha population. 7. The genetic analysis of the Sinhalese population provides valuable insights into the population history of Sri Lanka, showcasing a unique genetic heritage. 8. The study emphasized the need for more ancient DNA research and Y chromosomal sequencing to determine migration timelines and further understand the genetic history of the Sinhalese. 9. The genetic homogeneity observed among the Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils challenges conventional notions of genetic differentiation based on linguistic affiliations in South Asia. 10. Overall, the research underscores the complex interplay of genetic, linguistic, and historical factors shaping the genetic landscape of the Sinhalese population in Sri Lanka.

The following question was also asked to the AI tool

Q. does this research indicate a higher gene flow to Sinhalese from northern India or southern India?

AI's answer : - The research indicates a higher genetic affinity of the Sinhalese population with North Indian populations rather than South Indian populations. Genetic analysis of the Sinhalese suggests a closer relationship with North Indian populations, supporting the hypothesis of a North Indian origin for the Sri Lankan Sinhalese

PAGE 3, SINGH ET AL 2023, 4TH PARAGRAPH https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10514440/pdf/main.pdf

" However, we have found slightly higher gene flow (but non-significant) from some North and Northwest Indian than the South Indian populations"(Table S2)

Based on the findings stated by Singh Et al i 2023 research, META79 is incorrect stating higher South Indian gene flow to Sinhalese in the genetics section of Sinhalese people.

'THE ARTICLE IN WIKIPEDIA ON SINHALESE STATING THERE WAS HIGHER GENE FLOW FROM SOUTH INDIA TO SINHALESE POPULATION IS INCORRECT. PLEASE CORRECT THE GENETICS SECTION AND THE INTRODUCTORY SECTION TO REFLECT HIGHER GENE FLOW FROM NORTH INDIA

' Gabrielasirwatham (talk) 06:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Don't write the same thing here and in the talk page of the article. Response should be given there. Hzh (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)