Welcome messageEdit


Hello, welcome to Wiktionary, and thank you for your contributions so far.

If you are unfamiliar with wiki editing, take a look at Help:How to edit a page. It is a concise list of technical guidelines to the wiki format we use here: how to, for example, make text boldfaced or create hyperlinks. Feel free to practice in the sandbox. If you would like a slower introduction we have a short tutorial.

These links may help you familiarize yourself with Wiktionary:

  • Entry layout (EL) is a detailed policy documenting how Wiktionary pages should be formatted. All entries should conform to this standard. The easiest way to start off is to copy the contents of an existing page for a similar word, and then adapt it to fit the entry you are creating.
  • Our Criteria for inclusion (CFI) define exactly which words can be added to Wiktionary, though it may be a bit technical and longwinded. The most important part is that Wiktionary only accepts words that have been in somewhat widespread use over the course of at least a year, and citations that demonstrate usage can be asked for when there is doubt.
  • If you already have some experience with editing our sister project Wikipedia, then you may find our guide for Wikipedia users useful.
  • The FAQ aims to answer most of your remaining questions, and there are several help pages that you can browse for more information.
  • A glossary of our technical jargon, and some hints for dealing with the more common communication issues.
  • If you have anything to ask about or suggest, we have several discussion rooms. Feel free to ask any other editors in person if you have any problems or question, by posting a message on their talk page.

You are encouraged to add a BabelBox to your userpage. This shows which languages you know, so other editors know which languages you'll be working on, and what they can ask you for help with.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wiktionarian! If you have any questions, bring them to the Wiktionary:Information desk, or ask me on my talk page. If you do so, please sign your posts with four tildes: ~~~~ which automatically produces your username and the current date and time.

Again, welcome! (Pls don't forget that Chinese translation need traditional, simplified (with pinyin), in this order). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To Anatoli T.: Sorry but I am not familiar with that and have to leave the task to others who are willing to complete it.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:44, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
OK. You may start by adding a Babel table to your user page, so people know what languages you're familiar with.
What I was referring to is, instead of @silo e.g.:
It should look like this (if you know the info):

--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

To Anatoli T.:Thank you for your advice.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You're still adding just the simplified form. You need to add both. It's a standard requirement.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
To Anatoli T.: Sorry but I have already given my explanation. I am not familiar with Traditional Chinese Characters and have to leave the task to others who are willing to complete it.Huhu9001 (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi. There are many online dictionaries with both sets of scripts, converters, Pleco dictionary for mobile devices. You're just making someone else fix your edits, which is time-consuming. This is the policy page: Wiktionary:About_Chinese#Translations_into_Chinese_languages.2Fdialects.2Ftopolects. Quote: "The traditional precedes the simplified version if they are different and the transliteration is provided with the simplified version." --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 13:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

and Edit

Please see User talk:Kc_kennylau. The different modern-day pronunciations of 茶 and were from different, but related Old Chinese pronunciations. does not derive from . Cantonese is not derived from either; it is from . Wyang (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

to Wyang: Why, with both being /*rlaː/? is thought to be from because 來 is still used in some dialects where occupied in MSM. This conclusion was drawn from The Sino-Tibetan Languages by G. Thurgood and R. LaPolla, page 92.Huhu9001 (talk) 05:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
to Wyang: Not mentioning the reconstructions of OCH itself is far from being accurate, only several possible pronunciations are given rather than a single "correct" one. Instead a more reliable clue comes from the rule of vowel shifts /a/ to /u/ in OCH.Huhu9001 (talk) 05:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Reconstructions are reconstructions. I don't think there can be a single "correct" one unless we have a time machine. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
/*rlaː/ generates Middle Chinese /ɖˠa/, which gives cha2. All the developments were regular. However, the tu2 pronunciation of 荼 is from Old Chinese /*l'aː/, and is hence not valid as a word comparandum obeying regular sound changes. The reference in Thurgood is not convincing; compare the passages on 了 and 來 in Schuessler (2007) "ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese" - 來 is evidently not a contraction of 了 + 也, which is what is claimed in Thurgood. The etymologies need to be backed up with references, and when multiple references exist, by consensus amongst them. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
to Wyang: ABC did not deny that 了 is from 來, but only 來 is from 了 + 也, which is not a conclusion but a suggestion in Thurgood's book.Huhu9001 (talk) 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's look at this in more detail. I was able to find the following references which had analysed the use of 了 in medieval literature and commented on the origin or development of this particle.





沈陽,玄玥(2013).“完結短語”及漢語結果補語的語法化和完成體標記的演變過程.Breaking Down the Barriers, 553–576页.










上述公式说明“V+O+了”中的“了”是事态助词“了”的直接来源。我们认为“V+O+了”中的“了”并非事态助词的唯一来源 。在$2.2.2中我们已经指出,某些“V+了”中的“了”除了看作动相补语以外,其中有些也可看作事态助词。










The consensus in the literature is that the sentence-final 了 had developed from the perfective marker 了 via either one of the following sequences:

V + O + 了 > V + 了 + O (aspect particle) > V + 了 > sentence-final modal particle
V + O + 了 > V + 了 (aspect particle) > V + 了 + O > sentence-final modal particle

In this process, the last step may have involved the fusion with sentence-final 也 in certain northern Mandarin dialects, resulting in distinct pronunciations of the two particle uses of 了.

This is very far from what you had added in , which says 了 is derived from 來 without any other context given. Before it can be demonstrated by a thorough review of the literature supporting one's hypothesis that 了 is derived from 來, this is an unsubstantiated view which is inconsistent with the consensus on the origin of the modal particle 了 in the literature. Wyang (talk) 09:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

  1. ^ This survey is primarily meant to get feedback on the Wikimedia Foundation's current work, not long-term strategy.
  2. ^ Legal stuff: No purchase necessary. Must be the age of majority to participate. Sponsored by the Wikimedia Foundation located at 149 New Montgomery, San Francisco, CA, USA, 94105. Ends January 31, 2017. Void where prohibited. Click here for contest rules.

Preview of referencesEdit

Arabic personal pronounsEdit

Hi. In {{ar-personal_pronouns}} you wrote: "Furthermore, -ū of the masculine sound plural is assimilated to -ī before ـيَ ‎(-ya) (presumably, -aw of masculine defective -an plurals is similarly assimilated to -ay)." It is difficult to understand without examples. Specifically, these two phrases: -ū of the masculine sound plural, and -aw of masculine defective -an plurals is similarly assimilated to -ay. Someone is asking for clarification at Talk:هم. —Stephen (Talk) 04:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

To —Stephen: It was copied from w:Arabic_grammar#Personal_pronouns.Huhu9001 (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
You left out a lot of text from w:Arabic grammar#Personal pronouns, leaving {{ar-personal_pronouns}} incomprehensible. For example, in the sentence that you added that begins with "Specifically", you left out the words that precede that, and those words are necessary. Without them, what you added makes no sense at all. Do you know Arabic? If you don't know Arabic, you should just revert your edits to {{ar-personal_pronouns}}. If you know Arabic as well as English, then you should revisit your edits to {{ar-personal_pronouns}} and fix it. —Stephen (Talk) 19:37, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
To —Stephen: I believe you need to improve your skill of comprehension before accusing me of anything. However you can just still do what you want to the template. I don't care and won't bother to stop you.Huhu9001 (talk) 02:03, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

(Sorry to write in Engilsh)


Do you have anything to say about the matter itself, rather than a nasty comment? Wyang (talk) 11:54, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Huhu9001, edit warring doesn't help. Here's loads of evidence that supports Wyang's edits:








❶形容人群没有严密组织而临时凑合,如群乌暂时聚合。《晋书·慕容廆载记》:“廆曰:‘彼信崔毖虚説,邀一時之利,烏合而來耳。’”《资治通鉴·晋元帝太兴二年》引此文,胡三省注曰:“飛烏見食,羣集而聚啄之,人或驚之,則四散飛去;故兵以利合無所統一者,謂之烏合。“《三国演义》第十七回:“術兵雖衆,皆烏合之師,素不親信。“清采蘅子《虫鸣漫录》卷一:“﹝謝嗣鳳﹞散家財,結同教,招亡命,烏合數千人,揭竿而起。“ ❷指暂时凑合的一群人。清侯方域《上三省督府剿抚议》:“不若移一旅之師……隨宜撲翦,聯樓結寨,漸次燒除,兔窟既破,烏合焉棲?”参见“烏合之衆”。












Please provide evidence for your edits. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:08, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 18:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Reminder: Share your feedback in this Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 01:34, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia surveyEdit

WMF Surveys, 00:43, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

算術 and 算數Edit

I have reverted your changes to these entries as homophones (in Mandarin) are already listed in the pronunciation box. Please refrain from such edits in the future. Thank you. ---> Tooironic (talk) 06:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

changes to 凝華 and othersEdit

Hi there. Please note that we haven't used that formatting across 1,000s of Chinese 词 entries for synonyms and antonyms. Instead, we have kept that data and the definitions separate to each other. This still allows us to specify which sense is being referred to. Please help us maintain consistency. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tooironic: This vote technically allows both formatting styles to coexist. 凝華 isn't really a case where the "new" formatting is improving anything, but with many entries, it seems to be a better choice to avoid repeating glosses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 05:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing that vote my attention. I wasn't aware of it. If I had known about it I would have voted against it, but it seems like the majority of the community support it anyway. Mixing the definitions space with synonyms and antonyms information looks bad and makes it harder for users to find definitions, quotations and usage examples. It also suppresses important information like pinyin and qualifiers. It's true we have to manually add a sense gloss, but that's a very small task that takes only a couple of seconds to complete. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: If you really want to change it back, at least use {{sense}}. Do not leave Syns/Ants with unclarified senses there. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Is there a rule that a sense tag is required even if there is only one definition, or if the syn/ant refers to all senses listed? ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Because you don't know whether some neological sense will be add in the future. Also you failed to distinguish the physical sense and the psychological sense in 升華. I hope you read an entry carefully before editing it. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough. But why revert? You could have just added one word to the sense tag. Now we've lost the pinyin information that was there originally. ---> Tooironic (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I don't know why pinyin is necessary there. Those who want the pinyin of 凝華 can just go to that entry. But if you really want it, {{ant|zh|{{zh-l|凝華}}}} -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Like I said earlier, separating the syn/ant information from the definitions allows us to include pinyin and qualifiers which is useful to users. And we are, after all, a dictionary first and foremost and not a thesaurus. So why put them together? What benefit does that provide? In the thousands of Chinese entries - plus tens of thousands of English entries - we use the original formatting. Why not maintain consistency? ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I simply don't see why this makes Wiktionary "less like a dictionary". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. I understand. Thank you for your effort. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
@Tooironic: Also if you are referring to traditional dictionaries, I would like to say that traditional dictionaries, when providing "see also" (including Syms/Ants) information, usually only give a bare entry name for readers to look up. They put pinyin or any other things in the main entries rather than give them beside the "see also" information. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
As we often say, we are not a paper dictionary, so we don't have to worry about too much information on the page. The pinyin information does not require additional input by editors - it displays automatically - so I don't see what the benefit would be of turning that feature off. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

False accusation and unfair block from User:WyangEdit

This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Huhu9001 (block logactive blockscontribsdeleted contribsedit filter loguser creation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Admin User:Wyang accused me of "Adding copious amount of incorrect translations and other content": No evidence given. In fact I almost merely copy from Japanese dictionaries recently.

If possible, I would like to call for the removal of this user from administrators for his constant abusing of power. Having him remaining in his place is quite harmful to Wiktionary. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm having trouble understanding what this is all about: on the one hand, I see corrections by others on only two of your edits this month, which doesn't look like what I would expect from a repeat egregiously bad editor. On the other hand, I see corrections by others on only two of your edits this month, which doesn't begin to justify your angry outburst on Wyang's talk page.
As for "I almost merely copy from Japanese dictionaries recently": Wyang isn't commenting on your Japanese, but on your English. Unless you're copying word-for-word, which would be copyright violation and/or plagiarism, the phrasing of your definitions is your work- and your responsibility. The phrasing of that sentence doesn't show the best command of English, so that may be the kind of thing he was referring to. I don't have time right now to go through your edits to see if Wyang has a point regarding content (if it's even the kind of thing I'm qualified to judge), but as far as his characterization of your attitude, I have to agree with him. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Because this admin has harassed me before in 彈頭 and as far as I see he has been always ill-attituded towards who dissents him. In fact I have tried my best to avoid him for quite a period of time as I hate to engage in a conflict with such an admin, but still he and the trouble came for me, which was the thing that really frustrated me. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:34, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: More. I am interested in neither the bureaucratic things of Wiktionary, nor Wyrang himself, but I did observe him once playing some tricks like blocking himself in order to earn sympathy of the community (chiefly other admins I guess) and to get rid of the then accusation of abusing admin rights over some other users. I don't know what you think of it but I would take this as hypocritic performance and it would be quite a dismay to think about having to endure such a person, who I must admit is quite good at reinforcing his own position and power by this kind of performance, when participating in Wiktionary in the foreseeable future. This is another reason of my angry outburst. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Please see User:Wyang. Would you mind me asking what is the story behind this admin? His behaviour just seems irrational. Also, don't you think it is a bit questionable to install such a user as an admin? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:49, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

In case it changes, the user page above reads:

Please remove all of my rights.
烏煙瘴氣. This site will always be a kludge. Let it 自生自滅.

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Excuse me. Can anyone tell me what's the story behind User:Wyang?Edit

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Rights removed as he requested. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Thank godness you finally have this tumor removed. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 19:14, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights SurveyEdit

RMaung (WMF) 17:04, 4 October 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits on MOD:zh-pron. I was wondering if there's a way to move the more/less button up in the main section (part 1 and 2). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: Made a change. Is that what you supposed? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Yup, perfect! Thanks a lot! — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@Justinrleung: I have a question. Is there any possibility to have class="collapsable" (the HTML class that caused the trouble this time) to function on the mobile site? I noticed there are still other Chinese templates using it like {{zh-dial}} and {{zh-x|collapsed=y}}. Are we supposed to wait for future improvement of this class or just abandon it altogether in these templates? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 04:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
We can't really do anything because it's a Wikimedia problem. I think there's a Phabricator issue for this, but I don't see it being fixed in the near future. If I remember correctly, the issue is that there's a bunch of code that's not in the mobile site to reduce the download size for mobile users. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


Thanks for the minor edit at 扼する (yakusuru), however the bigger issue is the {{ja-suru-i-ku}} template for single-kanji verbs. Can you take a look at this if you have the time? ~ POKéTalker) 08:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Poketalker: It seems to be this edit by @TNMPChannel that is responsible for the situation. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
If you're not aware, the template discussion is still ongoing: Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2019/October#Template:ja-suru-i-ku. ~ POKéTalker) 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

放物線#Japanese and 抛物線#JapaneseEdit

I've reverted your edits at 抛物線#Japanese.

  • Your edit removes useful information from the entry that is not easily found elsewhere.
  • Your edit comment says "reduce redundancy". However, your edits instead introduced redundancy, by effectively saying "see 放物線" twice.

I've also reverted your edit at 放物線#Japanese.

  • Your edit removes useful information from the entry that is not easily found elsewhere.
  • Moreover, some of the information you removed is sourced, while the information you added is not. This kind of edit is discouraged, especially without discussion.
→ Do you have any source clearly indicating that the Japanese term came from Chinese? Or perhaps a source showing the Chinese term 抛物線 in use in Chinese before the 1880s? If so, please add the source. When doing so, please do not remove the mention of the first date of appearance in Japanese.
  • Furthermore, some of the information you removed is information that you yourself have advocated for addition (the mention of 代用字).
→ Could you explain why you removed {{ja-daiyouji}}?

TIA, ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: "introduced redundancy"? Come on. Are you kidding me? I have left the etymology section just because I had not determined whether to remove it altogether. But now I think I should have done so. Do you just copy the etymology section from economics to œconomics and say it is "useful information from the entry that is not easily found elsewhere"?
Chinese 抛物线 is in 华英萃林韵府(1872). It was brought there by US missionaries. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Re: introduced redundancy, your edit resulted in the following wikicode:
See {{m|ja|放物線}}.
This produced the following rendering:

See 放物線.

For pronunciation and definitions of 抛物線 – see the following entry at 放物線.
[noun](geometry) a parabola
(This term, 抛物線, is an alternative kanji spelling of 放物線.)
We have two instances of "see [this other entry]". That's redundancy right there on the page. I'm not sure what's confusing about that for you? (Serious question, no snark.)
Re: the etymology, thank you for that additional detail. Do you have a source link? If not, no worries, at least we have a title. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Don't you think it is ridiculous to have t:ja-see and all those stuffs to get all contents moved to the lemma entry, but then on the other hand manually have some of them moved back? In other words, the entry looks redundant after my edit, just because it has already been redundant before my edit. In fact I had tried to remove redundancy and my biggest mistake is having not removed them entirely so that I can prevent these stupid accusations. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm confused. Prior to your edit, the entry at 抛物線 has no redundancy: the information on the page does not repeat itself. What redundancy are you referencing? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eirikr: "Redundancy" does not only includes "repeating itself", but also "repeating other pages". If this is still not clear enough, I don't know how to explain that for you any further. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:50, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, as I mentioned separately over at Talk:放物線 in this edit, I came to realize that you were probably intending such redundancy between entries, rather than just within a single entry (as was my initial understanding and focus). FWIW, my primary perspective is often usability for readers -- is the relevant and necessary information for this entry easily available and clearly understandable to the reader? As such, my focus is more on how the page renders, rather than where the data lives. I don't care so much about data duplication, so long as the site is usable for readers. If there is an approach that addresses both usability and data-deduplication, such as @Dine2016's development of {{ja-see}} and {{ja-see-kango}}, I'm all for it. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit at 呉音#JapaneseEdit

Curious about this edit. Do you have any source stating as much? Japanese sources like the KDJ instead just describe this as related to the ancient kingdoms of Wu and Han, which seems to fit with the dialectal pronunciation information we have for Middle Chinese and descendants. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eirikr: Hmm, maybe saying "misnomer" is wrong. "Misnomer" is mainly because some writers said the origin of goon is unclear or miscellaneous, like this: https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/nihongonokenkyu/11/3/11_KJ00010156161/_pdf/-char/ja
The "kan'on supporter" story is here: http://daijirin.dual-d.net/extra/kanjion.html
-- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Module errors after your edit to Module:jaEdit

I would guess that at least half of the 40 entries currently in CAT:E are there because of your edit. I have no clue whether your edit is wrong, the entries are wrong or it's some combination, but this needs to be addressed. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Possibly also MOD:ja-headword. Have these edits been discussed anywhere? I don't think the formatting of the headword templates should be changed radically without consensus. A major problem I see is that the ruby aren't aligned properly for many cases. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Working. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Please look at this ruby-related problem. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:29, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: In the kana text, there are 2 spaces between "いる" and "と". Reduce them to 1 space, or insert 2 spaces as well in the kanji text. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
As I said before: "I have no clue whether your edit is wrong, the entries are wrong or it's some combination, but this needs to be addressed". My purpose wasn't to criticize your coding skills, but to point out an instance where something that was working last week stopped working after your edits, so you could deal with it. I fix a lot of obvious minor errors (I had no clue how to fix this particular one, though), but when there's a possibility that there may be larger issues, I bring it to the attention of the person most likely to need to understand that there's a problem. In this case, it looked like you were unaware that this was related to your module edits, and it might be something you needed to know about. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Thank you. I had already been fully aware of that error and its cause before you told it to me. But I had been thinking I was not supposed to edit someone else's comment. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
Letting a module error sit there isn't good practice: the added clutter in CAT:E makes it harder to spot new errors.
If you think about it, the change in the module had already modified the comment- for the worse. Deleting a single space to make it display pretty much exactly as it originally did is more like restoring the translation (not really a comment, strictly speaking) than changing it. You have to ask yourself whether @Atitarev would have felt you were putting words in his mouth or second-guessing his formatting choices. Also, if you're polite about it and make it clear through an edit comment what you're doing and why you're doing it, you're unlikely to offend anyone- even if they disagree with your edit.
If you still don't feel comfortable making the change, the other option is to let the person know about the problem and either ask permission to make the change or ask them to make it. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I want a template editor's rightEdit

@TheDaveRoss I want to edit t:ja-go-u to add ウ音便 stuffs. I am familiar with these. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Please make this request at the Beer Parlour. - TheDaveRoss 12:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Changes at 訓読みEdit

Hi Huhu9001, in your recent revert, you unfortunately reintroduced various issues that I'd been trying to fix, including outdated formatting, unclear text, grammatical errors, and mistaken headers.

Reading your edits and edit comments, I confess that I'm uncertain what your main concern is. Your current text now says that kun'yomi is:

a kind of Japanese kanji readings that is not based on the kanji's original pronunciation borrowed from Chinese

This description would include 慣用音 (kan'yōon), which are much more commonly treated as a type of 音読み (on'yomi).

I've had another go at the entry, fixing the formatting and grammatical issues, and adding a usage note to address the exceptions that you mentioned in your edit comment. To expand upon my own earlier edit comment, the key distinction between on and kun seems to be whether the word as pronounced is regarded as originally Chinese (on), or as natively Japanese, also including nativized terms (kun).

Please have a look and let me know if you see any outstanding issues. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

@Eirikr: On means "sound" and Kun means "meaning". That's good enough. I don't know why you just keep inventing a however still inaccurate definition stating it is "native". -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Native, or nativized, as opposed to borrowed from Chinese. This is essentially what it says at w:ja:訓読み; I'm not inventing anything. Why the accusation?
And your edited text is still incorrect English. I'll fix it in a moment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: "nativized" is obviously an invention. It is absurd. What is "nativizedness"? Is it how long the word had been in the language? Then I would definitely say 非道 is more "nativized" than 酷い, let alone 莨. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: For the ja.wiki article, I would suppose the definition written there is that kind of typical "traditional grammar school teachings". It is flawful. It even contradicts the contents written in the same page. But people do not really have a motive to change it because it is the status quo, and its problem is rather trivial for practical use. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: As for the revert, I only tried to revert the definition. I was just copying the source from an older version when I clicked the submit button on the wrong page. Sorry for that. I have no words on those outdated formatting, mistaken headers or whatever. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Re: nativization, I am surprised by your apparent vehemence and upset. I certainly mean no offense.
"Nativization" it is an admittedly broad term with various dimensions. The core sense that I intended for "nativized" is "regarded and treated as a native term, subject to native sound shifts and inflection patterns". This use of the terms "native" and "nativize" (and derivatives) is not uncommon in discussions of loanwords. See also this post on the Linguistics Stack Exchange, discussing the terminology to describe the process whereby foreign words are brought into a language.
Nativization is something of a continuum, or matter of degree; while a Japanese speaker would never call bed a Japanese term, they might call ベッド (beddo) a Japanese term of foreign origin. Meanwhile, they would probably recognize 非道 (hidō) as a Chinese-derived Japanese term, but at the same time, they might not even be aware that 酷い (hidoi) originates from a Chinese term.
For some examples in English, most speakers are not aware that arrest is from French, while mousse is more commonly thought of as a loanword. Another fully nativized borrowing is aspirin, originally from German.
I hope that helps clarify my use of the term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: Sorry, I had been upset for something else. But "nativized" is still a term too vague for a definition. As you have stated, it even depends on the might-be ignorance of individual speakers. Such phrasing should be avoided. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I entirely agree, but I am happy to leave it out of the 訓読み entry, especially as we have found other ways to explain the meaning and usage. Cheers! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
@Eirikr: That looks too much, and resembles what you have formerly accused as an "encyclopediac style". A better place for them is ap:Japanese glossary. Then you can simply leave a link to ap:Japanese glossary#kun'yomi in that entry. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Ah, good suggestion! Simpler is good, so long as it's not ambiguous. :) I'll make that change now. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Actually, now that I look again at the entry, I'm not sure which portion you're describing as "encyclopedic". Perhaps the usage notes? I am loath to force users to click through to other pages to get information about the term, and right now, the ap:Japanese glossary#kun'yomi entry doesn't have information about exceptions. If you're very concerned about the size of the 訓読み page, I suppose I could be convinced to move the exceptions info to the glossary entry, and link to that from the usage notes section. I'll hold off on editing the entry for now since I'm not sure what would be best. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
The entry and the appendix both look good, thank you! ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)