User talk:Keahapana/Archive 13

Daoism-Taoism

Hi. I hope you get the primary point in our difference on the lede. You have introduced something completely absent from the body. I'm sure you are perfectly familiar with the lede function and do not need me to go over it with you. The best approach, if you feel a change in the message of the page is needed is to completely overhaul the body dealing with the origin of the dichotomy. I imagine, if taking on that task, it will rapidly become clear that introducing Wade or Giles or both really contributes nothing at all to the analysis. Indeed, it is more a distraction likely to confuse or overcomplicate a very simple matter (one only barely worth a page more than one line in length in any event). sirlanz 00:12, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll copy this and answer on the article Talk page, where our discussion might be of interest to other editors. Keahapana (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you have now abandoned the idea that there is any sort of dispute or difference of opinion about the use of D or T for the word, will you agree to change the article title? And, if so, what title do you suggest would better describe its subject? user:sirlanz:sirlanz 03:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, I haven't abandoned any idea and remain more concerned with the article's content than name. In August I suggested changing the title on the Talk page, where we can discuss it. Keahapana (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sirlanz

Hi,

With regards to behavior on pages like Daoism–Taoism romanization issue and such by Sirlanz, there is now - Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Sirlanz

Thanks Minimax Regret (talk) 00:25, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

About Shijie

First of all, sorry. I didn't notice that my browser's extension converted texts in the text box again. It is an issue with New Tong Wen Tang and long wiki texts, and the extension wrongly converts long wiki texts which were unloaded sometimes even if the option "Disable TextArea conversion" is on. I am really sorry about this part. It happens rarely. I never intent to do so, and I thank you for you undid it. However, Your wordings like "anomalous" really hurts my feeling. Some of them are not even "obsolete", for example, 爲僞 are Mainland China standard traditional Chinese. If you check the latest standard of Mainlnad China which is the Table of General Standard Chinese Characters (通用规范汉字表Tōngyòng guīfàn hànzì biǎo, literately the Table of Widely-used Standard Han Characters, PDF, Wikisource), you could see that my edits (even though I did it unintentionally) on 爲僞 weren't "obsolete and anomalous". I absolutely agree to undo my unintentionally changes on Chinese characters, but please do not judge me and what I use in a such mean way. --Wargaz (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wargaz, I sincerely apologize and didn't mean to hurt your feelings. As far as I know, anomolous doesn't have derogatory connotations, for instance, writing "丨" for 十 or "⺢" for 水 is anomalous. Here's a suggestion for avoiding this kind of character-encoding mistake in the future, preview all your complex edits on a WP:SANDBOX. Also, I don't know much about graphic editing, but do you think it would be possible to use something like Photomontage that wouldn't make characters look too far apart? I was never good at calligraphy but understand basic 方塊字 layout. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 00:41, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

Thanks for reviewing Women in Daoism, Keahapana.

Unfortunately Boleyn has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This needs tagging for referencing concerns.

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Boleyn (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Boleyn:, A glitch with using "Page Curation (more footnotes)" is that it ignores basic WP:IC and WP:HARV conventions. Keahapana (talk) 23:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ways to improve Women in Daoism

Thanks for creating Women in Daoism.

A New Page Patroller Boleyn just tagged the page as having some issues to fix, and wrote this note for you:

This would benefit from WP:INLINECITED refs. At the moment, it is a long article and its referencing is unclear to the reader.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can reply over here and ping me. Or, for broader editing help, you can talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]