User talk:Suppasi

Hi - I wanted to say thank you for your recent edits to Chonmage! :)

I also wanted to say - I notice you've repeated the same reference in full twice. In the future, you actually only need to write it out completely once in order to reference it again - here's how, as an example:

"Geisha first began to wear haori in the 19th century, afer geisha in Fukugawa popularised the trend<ref name="Dalby Geisha"/>{{cite book...}} (...) Over a series of decades following World War Two, the number of geisha with danna decreased steadily over time.<ref name="Dalby Geisha"/>"

See what I did? By using the ref name template, I can call back to the same reference without clogging up the article when I'm writing it.

(If you're looking at this through the edit function, the tags are just so I can show you what it looks like when written out, without it being recognised as an actually written-out reference.) You can also use the ref name feature for different page numbers each time, but it looks slightly different. This is great for sources that cover a lot of content that an article might rely on: "<nowiki>{{r|Dalby Geisha|p=X|q=Y}}"

You would write out the original reference with the <ref name> function, but call it back again using curly brackets, not pointy ones. The "q" here is for quote - it's optional, you don't have to include it if you just want to reference a page number.

I hope this helps. Thank you for editing Wikipedia! --Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

Hello, would you mind revisiting your edits from today and checking out the dates in the references as they need translating into English. For example |date=一九八四年十二月七日 gives a cite date error. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 14:27, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider rewriting some of the content you had edited.

First of all, thank you for your hard work on Wikipedia. However, there are some issues I have noticed on your editing recently. For example, you never write rhetorical question on an encyclopedia like this: "Would we call this a break from tradition? No, we don't."[1], which is clearly against the rule of WP:SELF. Also, please keep in mind Wikipedia is not a place for original research. You are writing a page of an encyclopedia, not dissertation or paper work. You don't do any analysis and write your own opinion on any wiki page. You should only write exactly what the references have said, or else you will violence one of the main wiki policy WP:OR. Thank you and have a nice day.--No1lovesu (talk) 10:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was accidentally copied from someone elses post on a other site. (Note the lack of references on it) All the stuff before that that part is sourced and not OR.Suppasi (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

Ancient Chinese clothing (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tungusic and Nanai

Chinese nobility (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tungusic and Nanai

Hanfu movement (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tungusic and Nanai

Manchu people (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Tungusic and Nanai

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]