User talk:Hillgentleman/20070520231516
試下先 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
I think moving the Template:taxobox is very bad idea, I would not stop you (important decision like that should be discussed first). However, I do ask you to make sure it works because so many articles depending on it. Thank you very much. --WikiCantona 2007年5月25號 (五) 14:41 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Sorry to say it so fast, you have not actually moved the Taxobox yet. Anyway, make sure it work well, before moving. my apology again.
--WikiCantona 2007年5月25號 (五) 14:45 (UTC)
I agree. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Yes, it works. To check that it works, see: [2]
This is how redirect is useful. The move was based on template talk:taxobox. It is important for wikipedia to be en:WP:BOLD. And so can you object. They are all parts of the process in the flow-chart on WP:CCC. --* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十五號(星期五), 格林尼治標準 20點11分03秒
P.S.呢段討論同時包括（transclude）響你我兩頁。你可以響你自己頁就地回，（記住撳個「新評論」掣！）我都睇到。
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
I understand the redirect. But as happened to me before, something with the template:diambig... something don't work well. I have to manually change every page with that template. I don't want something happen before.
Moving something that important should be your initiation of a talk about the move, not my responsibility to object something yet to happen.
BTW, your new creation are very cool and useful. --WikiCantona 2007年5月25號 (五) 22:41 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Also, consider how your new gaget works in an article - I love to read it.
--WikiCantona 2007年5月25號 (五) 22:42 (UTC)
In an article? You mean the en:main namespace? 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 但維基百科一般唔畀主空間名用 subpage function；你可去英文維基學府玩；嗰度 main namespace 都用得子頁。
想知多的，睇下en:v:Threaded discussions with NavFrames. --* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十六號(星期六), 格林尼治標準 04點39分27秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
I mean your comment adding system on both users, you may consider to write an /doc or article under your user subdirectory to explain how it is done or how to use it (as now it is quite good).
--WikiCantona 2007年5月26號 (六) 05:40 (UTC)
How it is done; see my talkpage/preload how to use it: seeen:v:WV:THREADNAV 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：How it is done: 關鍵係user talk:hillgentleman/preload嘅呢兩句：
*[{{fullurl:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|action=edit&preload=User_talk:Hillgentleman/preload§ion=new}} 新評論：]
{{{{{subst|}}}{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>NAMESPACE}}:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>BASEPAGENAME}}/{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>REVISIONTIMESTAMP}}|subst={{{subst|}}}}}
。 睇下en:v:THREADNAV。 而家未寫得/doc住；件嘢重砌緊；
- How to use it: 你可以過去 en:v:WV:THREADNAV
、en:v:THREADNAV睇下。
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十六號(星期六), 格林尼治標準 14點04分12秒 2007年5月26號 (六) 14:04 (UTC)
The reason was that we changed the variables, not the pagename. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： And that time I did change every page that linked to it. And then I added the variables back. And it was indeed discussed.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十六號(星期六), 格林尼治標準 04點42分42秒
Okay. The pagename was discussed but the wasn't discussed much. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： It was my oversight. I am sorry about that.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十六號(星期六), 格林尼治標準 05點06分29秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Do we have any Template to tell user something like this:
『唔該，加返啲資料嘅來源，維基百科唔係 forum，講嘢要有跟據。』
Template:nothanks could be modified, you may make one.... Thank you --WikiCantona 2007年5月28號 (一) 23:17 (UTC)
個模自己寫 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 唔清楚；或者去category:信模度睇睇。若無，你自己寫個模，照寫你頭先講嘅；記住要指個編者去相關嘅政策頁，或Wikipedia:五柱－若果有時未有啱用嘅政策頁，暫時指去英文都得；但好尐嘅做法係拉過來譯，或自己整。
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月二十九號(星期二), 格林尼治標準 00點43分30秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
It is not Living person as such but it is about an organization - a school. Same standard applies?
--WikiCantona 2007年5月30號 (三) 08:12 (UTC)
But a school is made up of living persons. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： In any case, the accusations are towards two or three individuals.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月三十號(星期三), 格林尼治標準 08點24分17秒
No, not true, it does not use the name of a person. Also, the living person stuffs should not apply to an organization ( I could be wrong, I have no time to read that yet. ) To apply to the organization because school is made up of living person is simply false. To accuss an organization something is not the same as to accuss it part something. You may hear that expression: The whole is larger than the same. To say one person is a good person does not even make sense to say his or her cells are good cells even the cell make up that person. The moving parts of a clock is moving perfectly does not necessarily imply the clock is working perfectly --WikiCantona 2007年5月30號 (三) 09:46 (UTC) 新評論：
You are right, but that is not the point; the accusations are towards individuals 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： A school consists of all the students and staff. The accusations are not about the whole school. They are about a small number of individuals, and the principal in particular. Whenever we are talking about living persons, every detail must be verifiable.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年五月三十號(星期三), 格林尼治標準 11點56分19秒
Details matter 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
That depends on how the texts were written. The detailed accusations toward named individuals must be sourced. The current text written by me has been avoid all the specific mention of names and details that could identify the individual. The details should leave to the cited sources (if there is any).
Also, be very careful with using this Living Person deletion. Let say, there is organization X being critique for its position on Y, If you push along, the organiztion X must be headed by someone, made up with some individuals, By applying to the Living person criteria, all critiques could be removed. We don't want that, right ?! What if it is a tradition for the organization to do Y, it is a pattern, rather than person's doing. Of course, cited sources should be provided.
Whether to delete something or not cannot simply by citing some policies. Sometime they are judgement calls - not simply a clear-cut, black and white issue when coming to written text.
I will remove the paragraph in that article if no reliable sources are cited in one more day.
A discussion is needed 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Hello, I agree you what you said on 『咁樣合理啲； template:translation係開始譯時用嘅』. But the way you did it creates confusions, disrespects other's practice and ignores the wiki process. Template:translation and Template:translating pretty much the same things - use interchangably. Such practice may not be right and may be problemic, however, it has been done, a practice with history. But, you cannot make it right by changing the template while affecting tens if not hundred of articles using the translation templates. The new template may make the article confusing. Since the article has been translated into half way, now the template translation really confuse the reader about the article. Is it translating or just what I need to do. The modification of the template:translation change the rule of the game entirely. It is not fair to reader and author of articles whose intend only to say it is translating.
One way of looking at it, changing a widely used templates disrespect other's practice (which may not be a most logical one), hence, disrespect to other and entire wiki process based on community consensus. Another way of looking at it, it is good for you bringing up the illogical practice before but rather in an unwiki way.
--WikiCantona 2007年6月10號 (日) 09:22 (UTC)
What I did was fine. Check :special:whatlinkshere/template:譯緊 - there is nothing. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Wikicantona, The message on my page Cellular automata was wrong. Thus I changed the redirect. I checked the special:whatlinkshere/template:譯緊 before the edit. No page was actually using the redirect. Nobody has used it. Perhaps never. And I was the only author.
If we don't change it now, it would create confusion in the future. Thus en:Wikipedia:Ignore all rules and en:SNOW. --* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年六月十號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 09點30分12秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Sorry, misunderstanding. I was not talking about template:重譯緊 which is fine. The problem is with Template:translation. You changed template translation created confusion!!!, Many links to that [3]. The change you made is this one [4] which I feel problematic.
I am not saying that because it's always been and then should not be changed. Changes should also be considered the consequences of it. That is, the confusion introdues into the tagged article. At the least the changes should follow the wiki process (to reach consensus, for this one I believe you have the right move). At least one can do, when changes that template, make a note and correct the page links to it... anyway...
--WikiCantona 2007年6月10號 (日) 10:01 (UTC)
Please be specific. Where is the problem? 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： I did only two things: 1. introduced the variable. 20070714072006 - see m:help:variables for its use; 2. deleted two redundant words 積極.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年六月十號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 10點08分56秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Since the article may has been translated into half way, now the template translation really confuse the reader about the article. Is it translating or just what I need to do. The modification of the template:translation change "the rule of the game in the middle of it". It is not fair to reader and author of articles whose intend only to say it is translating.
e.g. 英國國籍法與香港 the template:translation is intend to say "translating" since the use of translation is the same as translating before you make the changes. The problem is introduced by your changes. Wikipedia:問 after pressing the link...the blank page is confusing... Pages with these problem are many. okay.
--WikiCantona 2007年6月10號 (日) 10:54 (UTC)
This is due to the edits by user:shinjiman after mine. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： The cause is this edit [5] and thereafter.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年六月十號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 11點26分45秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Thank you for your info. I will ask Shin... Sorry for bothering you.
I know what you mean. Proposed solution: new template 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Let us have a new template, called template:translate, and revert this to the old one. I cannot read Zhong Men at this moment.
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年六月十號(星期日), 格林尼治標準 11點31分29秒
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 回if you are unintelligible to Cantone
可能有啲難明。unintelligible係聽唔明，睇唔明咁解。已經跟你句嘢改。
--HenryLi 2007年6月12號 (二) 03:20 (UTC)
原句subject 同object倒轉咗。 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： O.E.D:
1. Not intelligible; incapable of being understood. 1616 BULLOKAR Eng. Expos., Vnintelligible, which cannot be vnderstood. 1647 COWLEY Mistr., Womens Superstit. i, Or I'm a very Dunce, or Womankind Is a most unintelligible thing. (1908) I. 454 Coleridge..had the tact of making the unintelligible seem plain.
1765 JOHNSON Shakespeare's Plays I. p. lxviii, Homer has fewer passages unintelligible than Chaucer. 1841 LANE Arab. Nts. I. 113 Where, taking a little of its water, she pronounced over it some unintelligible words. 1884 Solicitors' Jrnl. 8 Nov. 29/2 The prisoner..having an impediment in his speech, which made him unintelligible and unable to read it.
--hillgentleman1 = hillgentleman 2007年6月12號 (二) 03:36 (UTC)
康煕字典 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Hello, I have things like to hear your opinions. A recent article 康煕字典 in which the info is totally contradict the conventional 康熙字典. I really have no idea how to manage it, a quick deletion seems to be out of the quesitons. I might be wrong that there is such thing as 康煕字典. Any suggestion?
--WikiCantona 2007年6月12號 (二) 08:23 (UTC)
I have not heard of it. We should ask the author. I cannot believe that it is genuine. I only know 慈禧太后, not 慈熙. 編輯
--* :)---Hillgentleman | 書 , 二零零七年六月十二號(星期二), 格林尼治標準 08點37分38秒
- Hi, I am 果嗰 "author" - I wrote the article just in case 1 day a movie use the "idea" so I can claim as the "genuine" provider of it. 森理世さん 2007年6月13號 (三) 08:03 (UTC)
re: 香港哺乳動物 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
香港哺乳動物篇嘢，文法我就執到，但內容我真係唔熟，都唔知點執好- Hardys 2007年6月13號 (三) 06:21 (UTC)
哩度、呢度、果度、邊度?? 編輯
山君 ： 其實我咁耐都唔係好sure，有無文引?多謝!! 森理世さん 2007年6月13號 (三) 07:58 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
--森理世さん 2007年6月14號 (四) 08:05 (UTC)
正嘢 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 你睇左邊欄度就有項正嘢。
據我理解，正＝四正，靚也。問user:HenryLi，佢知多啲。
Another question Sir 編輯
- 好嘢 = 正嘢 ?
亦或係
- 好嘢 = 淨嘢 ?? 森理世さん 2007年6月14號 (四) 08:05 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
--森理世さん 2007年6月15號 (五) 01:01 (UTC)
問user:Shinjiman,版權渠熟啲。 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 問user:Shinjiman,版權渠熟啲。
歌詞版權問題 編輯
山君： 我響Cyndi Lauper文章度 丕入咗一段相信凡係識得英語啲人都聽過嘅歌嗰段歌詞，唔知有冇侵到權!!?? 森理世さん 2007年6月15號 (五) 01:01 (UTC)
Thank you and questions 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
1.Thank you very much for that. {{special:prefixindex/User talk:Hillgentleman/20070520231516/}} very useful. But, can I put it in the format I use before...
2.Somewhat (or not) related question, I am working on 當年今日's index page [6]. The code look like this. You may see it is basically a list of item n+1 for 1 to 29 (or 30).
{{Wikipedia:當年今日/5月1號}}
[[Wikipedia:當年今日/5月1號|睇吓]] -
[[Wikipedia talk:當年今日/5月1號|討論]] -
[http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:當年今日/5月1號&action=edit 編輯] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:當年今日/5月1號&action=history 記錄]
----
{{Wikipedia:當年今日/5月2號}}
[[Wikipedia:當年今日/5月2號|睇吓]] -
[[Wikipedia talk:當年今日/5月2號|討論]] -
[http://zh-yue.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:當年今日/5月2號&action=edit 編輯] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:當年今日/5月2號&action=history 記錄]
----
Is there a way to roll out all the repeat units with a few line of code ? (for next loop?) , thank you.
--WikiCantona 2007年6月16號 (六) 14:10 (UTC)
Loop - Yes. see meta:template:countdown, http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=template:rule_30_long&action=history. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Yes. First learn this: meta:template:countdown Then I can explain this: http://en.wikiversity.org/w/index.php?title=template:rule_30_long&action=history
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
呢度有個字識寫 編輯
hi - Hillgentleman!
艾今日終於寫佐日本女靚森理世啦! 想喺文章度話佢頂桂冠"閃閃發-另-菱-靈邊個字啱?
Thanks & Ciao !! 森理世さん 2007年6月19號 (二) 13:49 (UTC)
「呢」定「哩」 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
你好，我想問下，究竟「這個」的「這」廣州話係寫「呢」定「哩」啊？--瓜皮仔 2007年6月20號 (三) 18:21 (UTC)
--瓜皮仔 2007年6月20號 (三) 18:21 (UTC)
哩同呢都有人用，我用「呢」，覺得渠好睇啲。 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 哩同呢都有人用，我用「呢」，覺得渠好睇啲。
喺講嘢時、唔同人講嘢習慣嘅分別 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
「呢」係 N 音，「哩」係 L 音，我睇係喺講嘢時、唔同人講嘢習慣嘅分別。我講嘢時，兩個都有用，寫就呢，因為打時方便啲。
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Riyo Mori張相 編輯
- 唔駛憂，今朝翻過，除咗英文版(正 horrible look)，各語言都用緊版頭嗰張相，相信如果拎走會好多人發MN憎。 森理世さん 2007年6月22號 (五) 11:54 (UTC)
多謝你嘅歡迎 編輯
多謝你嘅歡迎。唔好意思，一開始手快快，將人地嘅頁面誤以爲係自己嘅用戶頁改錯咗Tim。--Yacht 2007年6月28號 (四) 15:19 (UTC)
死人霸生地 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
生人霸死地 = Living person occupies the land. 呢句嘢話啲人生勾勾去霸死嘅地方，做乜鬼。有諷刺嘅意味，話啲人乜啲霸一餐。I really don't know to explain in English. 先到先得 points to the person to take "the land" (the article title), 係係都𥅈咗先。very funny.
Neutral terms 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Hello, you have be kept reminded us that the NPOV is about the balance of point of views. What about the use of words. Many words has a position (i.e. 詞係有、貶、褒、中肯幾種). Is there any policy/guideline/quote/essay on this the use of "neutral term" (if there is such thing).
--WikiCantona 2007年7月2號 (一) 03:03 (UTC)
fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate/Debates within topics are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： en:WP:NPOV:
As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral; that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Debates within topics are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from asserting which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. When editorial bias towards one particular point of view can be detected, the article needs to be fixed.[2]
Fairness of tone 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：en:WP:NPOV#Fairness of tone
If we are going to characterize disputes neutrally, we should present competing views with a consistently fair and sensitive tone. Many articles end up as partisan commentary even while presenting both points of view. Even when a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinion, an article can still radiate an implied stance through either selection of which facts to present, or more subtly their organization.
We should write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically. We can write with the attitude that such-and-such is a good idea, except that, in the view of some detractors, the supporters of said view overlooked such-and-such a detail.
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
未得呀，啱啱用咗 fullurl, 未有 time 搞, thank you 先, I will take a look on your template later.
乜乜份子 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
「極進份子」 「活躍份子」點解係同皆級抖爭有關，有冇慘考呢？
--WikiCantona 2007年7月7號 (六) 06:21 (UTC)
無，我唔識「分子」呢個詞嘅etymology, 但呢個詞語成日會alienate人，慎用！ 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
對唔住，無，一時亦揾唔到。 照字面，分子= faction。我唔識「分子」呢個字嘅etymology，但懷疑來自階級鬥爭；無論如何，人就係人，教徒就係教徒，乜叫分子？好似你係正常人，渠就唔正常（「正常」呢度係中性嘅，活躍分子即係唔正常咁活躍嘅人）；呢個詞語成日會alienate人，慎用！
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月7號 (六) 06:39 (UTC)
my understanding 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
當講一個組職時，裏面啲唔同部份時，就係份子，好似「中堅份子」、「活躍份子」、「恐暴份子」、「搗亂份子」... 呢個乜乜分子都幾常用，有好有壞，冇錯人係人，我自己由細聽啲人就咁講，所以唔覺有啲 alienation 嘅問題，『將人擬物』係文學上嘅方法，至於呢種講法嘅時代背境係乜，唔知，至於係唔係 out of fashion 都唔知，係唔係 political incorrect 唔清楚，可以做下 research？
--WikiCantona 2007年7月7號 (六) 09:49 (UTC)
人好少叫自己做「乜乜份子」; terrorist = terrorism-->ist = 恐怖主義者。 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 人好少叫自己做「中堅份子」、「活躍份子」、「恐暴份子」、「搗亂份子」。其實terrorist = terrorism-->ist = 恐怖主義者。你舉呢啲都係其他人叫嘅，有好多時有「佢係 我唔係、劃清楚河漢界」嘅涵義。 Thus, alienation.
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月7號 (六) 15:09 (UTC)
『恐怖主義者』又唔係人哋加畀佢嘅 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
都唔係呀。『我係「中堅份子」』、『我呢個會係「活躍份子」』... 不時有人會咁講喎，唔算 alienation 呀。邊會 terrorist 邊會叫自己做『恐怖主義者』㗎，佢哋認為自己係 liberalizer, freedom frighters, god's army...，『恐怖主義者』又唔係人哋加畀佢嘅。I told you before terms are carrying point of view. Neutral terms are hard to come by.『乜乜份子』唔係問題，點寫句嘢先重要。
--WikiCantona 2007年7月7號 (六) 16:22 (UTC)
I say what I mean. Terrorist= 恐怖主義者. 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： I do not use the term "terrorist". And when other people use it, I never translate the term into "terror faction member".
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月7號 (六) 16:28 (UTC)
分子、份子 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Yesterday I went to the library to check 分子，and found out that the term appears in the ancient time. Exact quoting I don't have, but if you it, I will find it. Two ancient meanings: "descendent of a clan", "spliting money." 分子 is wrongly translated into fraction (派系), it should be "element" or "particle", or just people belonging to a group. It appears to be a very neutral terms - with good or bad.
I understand why you think 分子 have something to do with class struggle. The term 知識分子 is a group being 抖 in the "Cultural Revolution".
--WikiCantona 2007年7月8號 (日) 23:28 (UTC)
"People belonging to a group" is a phrase which sometimes leads to bias; use it carefully 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Thanks. However: A man can belong to a group but a man is more than a member of a group. A man can carry out "an act of terror" without belonging to any group. A man can do something without joining (either explicitely or implicitly) a group which does it. In anycase, terrorist =/= terror group member.
--Hillgentleman | 書 2007年7月8號 (日) 23:42 (UTC)
Agreement 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
I agree with you very much. I will take your advice in heart. I have been so worry about the neutrality of the words. I guess this is interesting example to illustrate my point. Words do carry point of views. Thank you for your advice.
List all new article 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Is there a command to show/list all the articles I've ever created? Thank you.
--WikiCantona 2007年7月10號 (二) 12:04 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
--Shinjiman ⇔ ♨ 2007年7月10號 (二) 13:27 (UTC)
- 有嘢講：/Comment：
Special:Newpages cannot display all the pages I have ever created, only a few pages I have created recently.
--WikiCantona 2007年7月12號 (四) 05:21 (UTC)
唔知... meta:request for query? 機械人? toolserver? 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： 如果你識mySQL，或者可試下去meta:request for query，查下資料庫？或者要揾下有無機械人做？近排德國個toolserver斷咗；唔知渠地有無。。。
--Hillgentleman | 書 | 二零零七年七月十二號（星期四）格林尼治 05時50分55秒。 2007年7月12號 (四) 05:50 (UTC)
多謝你嘅支持 編輯
希望唔只係精神上嘅支持啦，仲希望你可以多多指點當中嘅錯誤！哎～～～，其實我之前響中文維基都翻譯咗唔少哩啲文章嘎，不過因爲後來上唔到，所以一直更新唔到。本來希望可以從中文嗰邊摞過來翻譯，但係無奈大陸上唔到，只好從英文重新翻譯……>_<，但係依家英文又退步，譯得好辛苦……--Yacht 2007年7月13號 (五) 15:59 (UTC)
多謝你嘅幫助！！^_^--Yacht
簡/繁字體 編輯
唔係我想引起爭抝，但係唔知哩度有無哩個問題。雖然大家都係講粵語，但係香港人、澳門人用繁體，大陸就用簡體。唔知道可唔可以簡繁並用，定係淨用一個字體？亦或者加上簡體、繁體轉化功能。我知道廣東人都識得繁體字，但係寫（打）嘅時候，可能會不方便，又或者會選錯字（特別係一啲多個繁體字對應一個簡體字嘅時候，譬如，我分唔清繁體嘅雞、鳮、鶏、鷄等）。定係以香港用字為標準？--Yacht 2007年7月14號 (六) 07:20 (UTC)
--Yacht 2007年7月14號 (六) 07:20 (UTC)
簡筆-繁體嘅大約共識 編輯
- 有嘢講：/Comment： Yacht, 呢件事都傾過幾次，唔記得上次喺邊（可能條話題重喺城市論壇）你可問下user talk:shinjiman，渠負責入檔。而家大約共識大約係：
- 自動轉換系統 － 等中文維基百科嘅轉換系統上軌道先
- 寫－任你用乜字都好，但我地可能會改做繁體字（其中一個理由係未見正式簡體廣東字標準）
- 睇－user:sl用javascript整咗繁簡顯示轉換器
- Sl/wiki/hks2u.js
- Sl/wiki/introductio
- Sl/wiki/sim2trad.js
- Sl/wiki/trad2sim.js
- Sl/wiki/tradsim.js
- Sl/wiki/utoolbox.js
我有時會轉簡筆字做繁體，因為我用javascript轉國語字做廣東字之前咁轉好似好啲。
- 其實大家都同意：內容最重要。
--hillgentleman1 = hillgentleman | 二零零七年七月十四號（星期六）格林尼治 07時47分20秒。 2007年7月14號 (六) 07:47 (UTC)
- P.S.若你想覆信，就地撳下面個「新評論」掣就得。
- 新評論：