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

Happy First Edit Day! Hi Hzh! On behalf of the Birthday Committee, I'd like to wish you a very happy 15th anniversary of the day you made your first edit and became a Wikipedian! Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Hzh,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2019. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2019. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are almost caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply to let us know not to send you any more. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The New Page Reviewer's Iron Award
		For over 360 article reviews during 2018. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2018. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We have just caught up with giving out deserved barnstars. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. 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.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I created the Magic Management page. The company was a Canadian music management company. I can't find another other examples of Canadian music management companies in Canada here. Anyway, it has been nominated for deletion. OK, what ever happens may happen. The concern I have is that the nominator and the first person to vote to delete it are grossly inaccurate and by their own admission have only glanced it over. If you look here, the nominator says they can't see the page numbers. I Have been through the refs and I can see them fine! I explained with some ref links, "All you have to do is press, Control+F, press Enter and then the Box comes up. Just type in "Magic Management" and then press the downward arrow and you'll see the article plus the page number."

Then the first deletion voter says Delete likely a promotional article to boost GSearch ratings, who knows, if they're even still active... No sources, GNG not met.
Well that's a strange accusation and reckless. Then says no sources. Well at the time there were. So it seems that this person may have just glanced over ... "Oh yeah, delete".

Then the second deletion voter says Delete Major WP:SIGCOV issues here along with WP:REFBOMBing. I didn't go through all of the references, but most that I did review are trivial mentions where the company is namechecked once in articles about other subjects - I thought I had enough refs and the two below are good
* RPM Weekly, Volume 19 No. 1 - Page 4 Kearney, Truck, Good Bros. Moving for Magic

• RPM Weekly, Volume 25 No. 12 - June 19, 1976 - Page 14 Slic Brothers article

  But looking at the edits that seem to only go back to 23 September 2022, is the user that experienced enough to make that kind of judgement? OK, if by the rules hasn't at this time got enough sizable articles to make it a stand alone article then I accept that. In that case I think the history should be preserved at it go as a redirect to either Peter Francey or Christopher Kearney who had a long association with the company. What do you think? Cheers

Karl Twist (talk) 09:20, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thankyou for your common sense knowledgeable approach to things. Also for the tidy up. Cheers Karl Twist (talk) 09:18, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hzh,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Les Compagnons de la chanson, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Riders in the Sky and Here's to You.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hzh,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding ((subst:Happy New Year fireworks)) to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 02:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hzh,

Backlog

The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.

2022 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!

Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)

New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js

Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.

Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hi - you may be interested in the WT:WikiProject Songs#Cover_songs_that_should_be_split discussion - would appreciate your thoughts. -- DarylKayes (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hzh. My name is Phil and I work with Hillhouse Capital Group an investment group. In compliance with WP:COI, I'm trying to request a few changes to the page at-a-time on the Talk page. I was hoping you might be willing to review a few suggested changes at Talk:Hillhouse_Capital_Group#Requested Edits (under the Requested Edits discussion string). If you have a minute, your time as an impartial editor would be greatly appreciated. Best regards. Phil2600 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil2600: I have no problem making these edits, the only question I have is can you explain more clearly how you see #2 as undue? Unimportant as far as Hillhouse goes? I won't do it just yet, but will do it some time soon. Hzh (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hzh. Thanks so much for taking a look! To answer your question, I think the GaoTeng partnership is WP:UNDUE, because it is cited to a 5-sentence blurb in a niche publication that's likely just a summary of a press release. I imagine not every internet blurb should be aggregated and such blurbs do not really infer any fact-checking from the journalist. I defer to you of course and only mean to answer your question (not to argue).

For the list of 2021 investments, I was able to find a citation for them in Bloomberg. Let me know if I can of any other assistance. I have other changes I'd like to ask for too if you are willing to stick around. Phil2600 (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Back in 2016, Diannaa notified you of the requirements for copying within Wikipedia. You probably don't remember, but you'd added material from Thomas Heatherwick to UK pavilion at Expo 2010, and while you'd noted in your edit summaries at the Heatherwick article what you were doing, you didn't note it at the article on the pavilion. Unfortunately I've discovered that the text you copied from the Heatherwick article was a copyvio of at least one of the cited sources. You weren't to know and did nothing wrong in assuming good faith that the text was the work of other editors, but I'm about to make a post on Diannaa's talk page reporting the copyvio and asking for a revision deletion. I will be pinging you there, but I'm letting you know in advance that I'm not blaming you. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 March 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lee San Choon, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i see you reverted the information added to article "Unchained Melody" stating concerning the music genre, but it does i believe not actually have a genre as such, or that i can see, it is classified as a "standard", as it also states in article because it has been recorded by so many people and it can not fit into one specific category, as you wrote yourself, i could be classified as simply a pop song, an easy listening song or The Righteous Brothers version a blue eyed soul song — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.10.178 (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not sourced, not in the text or anywhere else, don't add unsourced genre in the infobox as specifically stated there. Hzh (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im sorry but it is. sourced, in the text and actually in the very first section paragraph, it states "the song has since became a standard and is one of the most recorded songs of the 20th century, but anyway i did not change the music genre in the infobox, as per your request, so it is still listed as "easy listening" on the majority of artists versions. except the pop version's by Elvis Presley and Gareth Gates and as blue eyed soul by the Righteous Brothers, please take care, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.106.10.178 (talk) 06:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not sourced, you can check by read the cited source. It is also not sourced for the others; blue-eyed soul is generally considered to be the Righteous Brothers' genre, but no source is given there specifically for that song. Hzh (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | May 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 May, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of redirects patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Article patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here! There is a possibility that the drive may not run if there are <20 registered participants. Participants will be notified if this is the case.
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) 17:12, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't understand why you wrote this edit summary. That sounds like something you might say if you were replacing a score in the table when there are already 10 scores present, instead of adding one when there aren't even 10 scores in the table yet. It's not as if I or anybody was neglecting to use it, it simply had not been added yet, and so it's not like you need to defend your decision to add it. Also, when you update Metacritic or AnyDecentMusic? scores, please update the access-date to show the source still works and that you re-accessed it (which you obviously had to to know the score had changed). Thank you. Ss112 02:01, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ss112: Not replacing a score, replacing a review in the text. I realise people use lesser-known publications when there are few reviews, but it's always better to use more well-known publications when there are more reviews. No one really care about the opinion of a reviewer from a lesser-known publication unless it is exceptional, and people need to be selective about reviews, not putting every available reviews out there in the article. At the moment I also see reviews from NME and Rolling Stone, those are the reviews that needed to be put in. Hzh (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 June 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article George Winston, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 05:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Hzh,

Backlog

Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.

Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.

Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.

You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.

Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).

Reminders

• Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord and #wikimedia-npp ^connect on IRC.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Hello Hzh,

The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.

Reminders:

• There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the new editor, as he has broken the WP:3RR, I am right now reporting him to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. The edits he did is clearly simply taken from an amateur youtube video Danial Bass (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor is likely to be Adamahmad95 since both edit the same pages. The person is likely using the IP address to continue edit-warring. If the admin at the edit warring board doesn't do anything, then he/she can be reported to the sock puppet investigation. Hzh (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I also brought up the IP address in the report. Looks like the editor's blocked for 24 hours. Guess we can revert everything back now? (Btw, your wiki edits are good, I come across them alot). Have a good one Danial Bass (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, restore the pages to the earlier state. We'll see if they return to the same pages after 24 hours. They often do, so be prepared to report them again. Hzh (talk) 19:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2023 Backlog Drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Articles will earn 3x as many points compared to redirects. 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) 09:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Go woke, go broke 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; read about 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. Raladic (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pleae refrain from pushing a WP:POV of the article and cherry picking things to suit said WP:POV. The statements by experts [1] in the cited article is made about companies in general dealing with such boycotts, it does not need to mention every single company by name to be reliably sourced consensus.

Your removal such as this is also problematic as it is agreed on, with multiple sources in the linked main article that you could pull in instead of claiming that none of the sources have said so. Raladic (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: What is WP:POV with saying that the statement given doesn't equally apply to the cases mentioned in the lede: Target, Disney and Bud Light when it is written as though it is? Go read the sources on Target again, none of them mentioned what is claimed there - what is said is something different, which is laws on child protection. The claim of "falsely" is particularly egregious. Where has that been discussed? Discuss it if you want, but don't claim there has been discussion on that when there hasn't. There is also no clear resolution in the discussion on the lede. That article has always been problematic, the whole thing may need to be TNT. Hzh (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The sources that the claims were false are in 2023 Target Pride Month merchandise backlash, your outright refusal to even have tried to look for one of the many sources that have refuted claims by certain media shows that you may have an WP:AGENDA in advancing a certain WP:POV that removes any refutation of the phrase of the article.

The lead has to try to neutrally show points and counterpoints when the whole catchphrase by itself is that of an opinion, in this case by right-wing politicians. We can try to write the article about the existance and use of the phrase as it is a matter of current political affairs, but we cannot advance the opinion that the phrase carries as fact, as it very clearly is not - it is a catchphrase of opinion of politicians. The list of claimed examples in the lead is also just a non-exhaustive list which the words "such as" suggest. That does not mean that every expert opinion needs to exactly match this list in points made. Raladic (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: No, article that makes a claim needs to have sources supporting it. That sources may be found in other places is irrelevant. Note that transgender-friendly product does not make it "sexually-themed" which has an entirely different connotation (which is ironic when you accuse others of not reading the article when that article said nothing about "sexually-themed"). So what's written even with your source is still essentially OR. Stop making accusation and address the point made in the talk page. 17:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't hold opinion on anything apart from writing as neutrally and as accurately as possible. Trying to make a sweeping definitive statement out of specific cases is neither neutral nor accurate. Hzh (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the whole article is basically that of an opinion, a political catchphrase opinion and as you said, the whole thing may not be safeable as it is just and endless listing of claimed pro and counter points, which by themselves can further be considered opinion (even with some experts chiming in in various directions).

So, with that I have just nominated the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Go woke, go broke as an opinion piece under WP:NOT. The phrase itself is already encyclopedically covered under Woke capitalism, most everything else that is in the current article is basically just opinion pieces for and against. Raladic (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could have just said you were wrong to revert my edits, and save all the drama. Hzh (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Oliver Anthony, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Rich Men North of Richmond" by Oliver Anthony was the first single to chart at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 with no previous chart history for its artist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Anthony. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Oliver Anthony), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 September 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rich Men North of Richmond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that "Rich Men North of Richmond" by Oliver Anthony was the first single to chart at number one on the Billboard Hot 100 with no previous chart history for its artist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Anthony. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rich Men North of Richmond), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,554 views (917.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of September 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what skin or resolution you're using, but on both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022, the images are badly sandwiched. It looks bad and has looked bad for years. Can you not see it here in these examples? Left 3 are Vector 2010, right 3 are Vector 2022. There are also multiple instances of images breaking section headers when placed on the left, which is to be avoided per MOS:IMAGELOC. WP:STACKING applies to instances where images combine badly with block quotes and other elements to create big swathes of white space, which I didn't do, so invoking that here is irrelevant.

• File:Mcqueen sandwich 1.png
• File:Mcqueen sandwich 3.png
• File:Mcqueen sandwich 5.png
• File:Mcqueen sandwich 2.png
• File:Mcqueen sandwich 4.png
• File:Mcqueen sandwich 6.png

♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Sandwiched is when you have two images directly facing each other as given in WP:SANDWICH and the example looks bad because both images are wide, so the text in the middle gpt squeezed. The images in the article are staggered, and not wide. There is some overlap, but it still looks OK. You should capture how it looks in your edit - the Plato's Atlantis image is weirdly distorted, and the Angels and Demons image got pushed entirely into the company section (and other images are also pushed out of their sections). The page simply look terrible. If you want to keep all images on one side, adjust the image size, and remove the long images. Frankly though, an article on a fashion designer without a fair number of images of their work is not that useful because fashion is visual (see Karl Lagerfeld, readers have absolutely no idea about what his works look like). Another thing that could be done is the increase the text, for example, a number of collections aren't described at all. Or use a gallery. Hzh (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opposition to using numerous images in an article, but the placement as it stands is not attractive and violates the MOS in multiple ways. Sandwiching does not apply only to images that are exactly opposite each other. That would be a very silly interpretation and not at all what the practice is - any time I've had images overlapping at FAC, it's been called out as sandwiching. The middle section with the Bowie coat is particularly egregious as the image on the left overlaps two separate images on the right and breaks a section header, and the Blade Runner coat on the right overlaps with the next image on the left, for a 4x sandwiching combo.

The distortion you're talking about on the Plato's image is likely a result of your cache not being purged after I cropped the image more tightly, and has nothing to do with the image placement. Per MOS:SECTIONLOC, it's fine for images to go below their section (in fact, this explicitly stated to be better than them being placed early). But given that you're complaining about it, what is Horn of Plenty doing way down in "Accomplishments", when it has nothing to do with that text?

As a side note, the image you added of the two Natural Dis-Tinction dresses is redundant to the one of Camilla Belle wearing almost the exact same dress with the exact same print, so at a minimum that ought to be removed regardless of anything else. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: I would rather remove the Camilla Belle image because it is not an interesting or attractive one. The Horn of Plenty was just here to give an indication of the diversity of his design, delete it if you want, but it's not an argument for pushing Angels and Demons image down. MOS:SECTIONLOC merely indicate the image should be placed in the correct section, too early an placement meant that the image won't go anywhere the paragraph where it is mentioned, that would be similar for a displaced image. It's merely mentioned elsewhere that an image may get pushed down, that is all. Whatever you think, you edit produce a far more unattractive article than what it was. Stacking of images is just as unattractive as sandwich (which it really isn't here if you don't use the full width of the screen), if not more so, because you get a long line of images, a lot of which have no relevance to the sections they are in. Just avoid using the long images if you want them all donw one side, or use only very few, you can put the rest in a gallery. Hzh (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: By the way, when you trim an image so much, use a new file name rather than uploading it to the same one to stop the image becoming so distorted. It is unreasonable to expect others to know that this is what you have done. Hzh (talk) 07:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are objectively wrong in your interpretation of the MOS regarding images here, both in terms of the sandwiching and the header breaking, and I wish you would let go of "your" version of the article and be willing to see that. My version wasn't perfect, but it's not blatantly breaking two separate MOS areas the way the current version is. For the record, I am using a full width screen, and I provided screenshots which indicate that the sandwiching issue exists on both Vector 2010 and Vector 2022. It's clearly not an issue with my display, but with your refusal to accept what image sandwiching is.

Per c:COM:CROP, there is no reason to use a brand-new upload just for tightening an image crop. Clear your browser cache - the image isn't distorted, I have experienced this before when viewing images that have been adjusted and I haven't cleared my browser cache. Here's a link to the image, in case you want to click onto Commons and check: File:McQueen, Musée des beaux-arts - 59.jpg. It's skinnier, because unfortunately the human body is a rectangle rather than a nice tidy square, but it also shows the actual clothing much better because there is less wasted empty space on the sides. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:06, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Stop the talking already, do what you want, just don't stack them so much, a solid column of images just look ugly af. (I have already given you suggestions on how not to stack them). I'm actually saying that if you don't use full-width screen (which I rarely do when I use a computer with a high-resolution screen, because all articles look weird), you will see the images are clearly staggered.

Are you the uploader? If it is not my images, then it is courtesy to upload a new one if I trim a substantial part of the image. You did trim a substantial part of the image (it is now less than half the size of the original image, over half has been trimmed), it is not a minor adjustment, it is a major change, and per the guideline you gave, any major change requires a new file. Hzh (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the uploader, but Liliana is fine with me making adjustments to her McQueen images considering she took them all at my request. Either way, it's not a major change per that guideline if it's just a crop to remove blank space, even if that blank space was quite large. It feels like you're moving the goalposts on me now just to continue arguing - previously you were complaining that it was distorted, and now that I've explained that that is a cache issue, suddenly it's a problem that I cropped the image.

I don't know why, but it seems like every single significant change to this article has to be a fight with you. I wish it wouldn't, we obviously both want the article to be its best self. We had the same back and forth with the lead as well last year, and now it's about making changes to the images. You're the one who keeps arguing with me here, so I'd appreciate it if you don't tell me to "stop the talking" as if I'm the only one perpetuating this conversation. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: Jesus, this is getting tedious. I already said ages ago that you can change it, just don't stack the images. That is all. Why you keep going at it is beyond me. And if you removed more than half the image, that's a major adjustment, not something minor. It's you cropping the image that resulted in the problem with the cache, problem which would not arise if you use a new file. A casual reader is not going to care or know about the cache issue, they are just going to see a weird distorted image. Have some consideration for other readers when you make a change.

And the lede is now significantly better. And that's credit to you. Hzh (talk) 15:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The caching issue is only a problem when you've already been looking at the article and there is something in your browser cache from the old version. For any other reader, there would be no cached version, so the image would not appear distorted in this way. Please don't accuse me of being inconsiderate when it's a minor technical issue temporarily affecting one or two people at most. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Premeditated Chaos: You just blithely dismissed those affected by it. Whatever, I shall say no more, and won't reply to you further. Hzh (talk) 15:58, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're clutching at straws here trying to make me the bad guy, and I don't appreciate it and cannot let it stand without a response. I'm being accused of "blithely dismissing" the invented victims of my supposedly inconsiderate action, which was to crop an image in a perfectly standard way, which no one but you has found to be a problem any time I've ever done it. I hope at some point you can take a step back and see how unreasonable these bad-faith accusations are. I would far rather work with you on this article than fight about it. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:30, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Sniggering at a reply from someone "considerate". People don't exist if they don't complain. The astonishing arrogance.) Hzh (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hello Hzh,

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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 1900 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 - [2]. The sources made the link, not me. Hzh (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [3], 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Regarding [4]. 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" [5], 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" [6]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ChinaDaily is hardly considered as a WP:Reliable source, and should only be used carefully and taking into account its nationalistic and propagandistic approach [7]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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".^[1] 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".^[2]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]