User talk:Huhu9001

Welcome message
(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.:


 * Chinese:
 * Mandarin:
 * It should look like this (if you know the info):

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

茶 and 了
Please see User talk:Kc_kennylau. The different modern-day pronunciations of 茶 and 荼 were from different, but related Old Chinese pronunciations. 了 does not derive from 來. Cantonese 仲 is not derived from 總 either; it is from 重. Wyang (talk) 04:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * to Wyang: Why, with both being /*rlaː/? 了 is thought to be from 來 because 來 is still used in some dialects where 了 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...) 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.

吴福祥（1998）．重谈“动+了+宾”格式的来源和完成体助词“了”的产生．《中国语文》第6期．452–462页．

"“了”先在“动+了”格式里虚化为动相补语，然后带上宾语就形成了“动+了+宾”格式，即[动+了]+[宾]>[动+了+宾]，最后，”动+了+宾”格式中的动相补语”了”进一步虚化变成完成体助词."

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．

"'完結短語”假設是在生成語法理論框架內提出的關於漢語虛化結果補語的理論，認為虛化結果補語在動詞短語內部投射為主要謂語動詞的內部體“完結短語”. 依據這個假設理論，可以解釋漢語完成體標記”了”從結果補語到虛化結果補語、最終發展為體標記的語法化過程，並在句法結構上支持動詞後存在兩個不同的“了”."

宋新宇（2013）．敦煌变文中“了”的语法化考察．《山东大学》．

"本文运用语法化动因和机制的相关理论，对书中”了“的语法化等级进行了动因和机制的阐释. ”了“的语法化等级产生的动因主要包括语法、语义和语用三方面的因素，主要体现在：”动+了“的句型是”了“语法化的基础，”了“的动词语义从表示动作过程的结束到表示状态完成，呈现出的逐渐弱化的趋势体现和促进着”了“语法化等级的发生，而”了“的在”动+了“句式中的高频率使用等因素也是”了“语法化等级产生的动因. ”了“语法化等级的发生机制主要体现在弱化和类推：弱化就是”了“呈现出的词义和语音的弱化，类推主要表现在”了“与有界动词到无界动词再到形容词的搭配扩散，在扩散中完成了”了“的语法化过程."

梁银峰（2006）．”V+了+O”格式来源的再探讨——兼论事态助词”了”的来源．《语言研究集刊》．

"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."

曹广顺（1987）．语气词“了”源流浅说．《中国语文》第2期．

"近年来，不断有同志撰文介绍，在一些北方方言中，“了2”的语音形式受到“也”的影响，可能是“了也”的合音. 因此，不能排出“了2”的形成过程在不同方言区发展不平衡的可能. 也就是说，可能直到元代，在部分北方方言中“了2”的使用仍不很自由，其处于句尾时仍须“了也”连用. 这种方言差别反映到史料中，造成了宋元两代文献里“了”和“了也”用法的差异. ……从“了2”形成的整个历史过程看，“了”字的发展一直是沿着从不自由到自由，从实词到虚词的轨道前进，元代的情况，只是这个历史进程中一个小的曲折. 入明以后，“了2”的使用又逐渐回复到南宋的情况，“了也”也重新消失了."

刘勋宁（1985）．现代汉语句尾“了”的来源．《方言》第2期．128–133页．

"《祖堂集》里的”了“字依出现位置可分三类，但依语法性质，实际只是两类. 这两类句式与今天现代汉语的两种”了“字句是严格对应的，而现代汉语的语气词”了“则来源于近代汉语的C式句. 我们采用近代汉语的“了也”并合而成为现代汉语句尾“了2”的说法，不只是因为“了也”的语法位置与今天的“了2”相对应，而且可以很好地说明我们在上一节所揭示的句尾“了”和“也”的平行的音韵关系."

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 in 了, 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 survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

-- 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? ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 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. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 10:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

False accusation and unfair block from User:Wyang
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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 Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

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

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

 * Why is he still kept as an admin even if he looks quite self-abandoned now?

-- 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 Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

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

Reminder: Community Insights Survey
Share your experience in this survey

Hi ,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. [mailto:surveys@wikimedia.org Email us] if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

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

zh-pron
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...) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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...) 19:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 and . 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...) 04:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the minor edit at, however the bigger issue is the template for single-kanji verbs. Can you take a look at this if you have the time? ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 08:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It seems to be this edit by 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: Grease_pit/2019/October. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 17:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

放物線 and 抛物線
I've reverted at 抛物線.


 * 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 at 放物線.


 * 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 ?

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


 * "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.


 * This produced the following rendering:

 See.


 * 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)
 * 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  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)
 * "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, 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 's development of  and , I'm all for it.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 02:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Your recent edit at 呉音
Curious about. 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)


 * 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

そして、既に流布していた南方音に基づく字音を「呉音」（南方の訛った音の意）と呼んでこれを退けた.


 * -- Huhu9001 (talk) 06:58, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Module errors after your edit to Module:ja
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...) 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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 right
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
Hi Huhu9001, in your recent, 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, which are much more commonly treated as a type of.

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)


 * 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 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)
 * "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)
 * 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)
 * 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 a Japanese term of foreign origin.  Meanwhile, they would probably recognize  as a Chinese-derived Japanese term, but at the same time, they might not even be aware that  originates from a Chinese term.
 * For some examples in English, most speakers are not aware that is from French, while  is more commonly thought of as a loanword.  Another fully nativized borrowing is, originally from German.
 * I hope that helps clarify my use of the term. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 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 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)
 * 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 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 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)

IP block exempt (User:Huhu9001Bot)
I am an IP block exempt. This is my bot. I want an IP block exempt right for it. Thank you. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Done, but you'll have to go through the process at WT:BOT before you can use it for anything but the required test edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Collapsing etymology sections
Hello Huhu9001, after seeing to fold away the etymology details, I found myself agreeing with your apparent move to visually streamline the entry, but also unhappy with the columnar formatting currently enforced by.

So I started a related thread at Grease_pit/2021/March to ask about collapsible template formatting, and even whether it might be possible to have  sections collapse automatically, like quotes already do. Please have a look when you have the time. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Why would you want to write such long glosses for those idioms? They should be in their own pages. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Idiom glosses are a separate issue, no? In the Grease Pit thread, I'm talking specifically about folding away the etymology details in a collapsible section.
 * About the idiom glosses specifically, I generally haven't felt comfortable building out full entries for these, in large part because of past community confusion over the years about whether we should even include such entries, and if so, what part of speech to use, what formatting to use, etc. I found it easier to just have the idiom and gloss + explanation under sub-headings of other entries, rather than building out full entries when those might just get deleted again later.  This confusion seems to be coming to a head again, prompting the thread over at [[Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2021/March]].  I am hopeful that this latest round of discussion might arrive at a working consensus.  ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:00, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

糟糠の妻
I add 糟糠之妻 as an alternative in 糟糠の妻 since this dictionary list it as an entry and a yojijukugo. Is there a way to mention this form without making the template goes wrong? --TongcyDai (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Editing Module:zh-glyph/phonetic
Hi I am wondering how to edit the data at Module:zh-glyph/phonetic? I sometimes notice some simplified characters mistakenly included, such as 鳏. ChromeGames (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I removed 鳏. If you want to edit this protected module by yourself, consider applying for the template editor user group in wt:Beer parlour. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing that so quickly, and I appreciate the suggestion. Do you know if there are general requirements to become a template editor on Wiktionary? I didn't really see much mention of the matter. I feel that I have a decent amount of editing history and am moderately comfortable with programming in general but I don't have as much experience with editing templates specifically. Thanks, ChromeGames (talk) 05:45, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know for sure what the requirements are either. But I think the most important point is to have some editors with whom you have worked before support you. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 13:13, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, I appreciate it. I have posted a request at the beer parlor so I hope it goes through, or at the least receives some helpful feedback or comments. ChromeGames (talk) 19:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ja-noun for multiple counters
Hi, there are many nouns which have more than one counters (for example, can be counted with,  or ). Is it possible to show more than one counters in ja-noun? Also, do we need a classifier-by-language category system for Japanese? --TongcyDai (talk) 09:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I suggest you ask these 2 questions in the Beer Parlour. I don't feel confident enough to decide. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:06, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the suggestion! --TongcyDai (talk) 10:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Block
The way you are behaving is genuinely unacceptable, because it is disruptive, mean-spirited and bad faith. Please stop. It just makes life harder for everyone - including you. Go cool off, and come back tomorrow. Theknightwho (talk) 09:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

unblock request
This block happened when I initiated a Grease pit discussion (Grease_pit) over the usage of some functions in mod:string utilities created by User:Theknightwho. Unfortunately, User:Theknightwho has a long history of being largely emotional, uncooperative and ready to resort to personal attacks. This user soon took this personally and began to attack me. I even have to beg him to stop when I am posting the results of some my own tests. This user cursed me using the word "arsehole".

While I absolutely admit the profound technical contributions this user has made on Wiktionary. I sincerely question the necessity of posing this user as an admin, since this user is generally unstable and confrontative. As we know editing modules or templates does not need admin rights and this user will do more benefit and less harm to the community if this user were to contribute as a normal user.

Please review the ban for the reason stated above. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

-- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Hippietrail, SemperBlotto, Mike, Stephen G. Brown, TheDaveRoss
 * @EncycloPetey, Jusjih, Chuck Entz, Paul G, Dvortygirl


 * This is a completely unreasonable request. You were being vindictive, and now you're being dishonest and manipulative. If anything, this is likely to result in your block length being increased. Calling me "unstable" borders on abusive. Theknightwho (talk) 09:58, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Please reconsider your stance on this admin whether supporting this user or not. I believe this user's administration has become a substantial unstable facter to the community. This user can still make good contributions to Wiktionary without admin rights and I think it is also for this user's own good. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:21, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huhu9001 You were completely out of line in that thread. Vininn126 (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO this is a fairly bad block, since the blocking admin was involved and wasn't much less needlessly rude than Huhu9001 was. &mdash; S URJECTION / T / C / L / 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree it could have been handled better. Vininn126 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify - I think Huhu was definitely the worst instigator and escalator and should have backed down several times - knight could have handled the conversation differently, but I think even this massive wall Huhu has written is a bit of an overreaction. Vininn126 (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer that I not be pinged for issues like this, and mass-pinging folks for this when it doesn't look good on you either... does not help your case at all. I agree with Vininn & Surjection, and to be frank, I've been frustrated with Theknightwho too with changes to the language modules as Korean & Jeju have been broken for weeks on end (still broken at !), and wish that he'd add more documentation, but that does not excuse the language/attitude that you've used as well. AG202 (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @AG202 I will just say that the issue of is a nontrivial problem! I have actually spent quite a large amount of time on that particular issue, because it's a symptom of a much more significant underlying problem. Theknightwho (talk) 12:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Theknightwho I am aware of this, but as I've said before, I wish that you had documented and tested the changes that went in beforehand. The entries weren't broken for years before your changes and now they've been broken for almost a month. The breakage was caused by you, and while I emphasize with the fact that they aren't easy to fix, it is a problem that you yourself brought about. It's not a symptom of some third-party breakage that just happened to happen. If this is not fixed soon, I'd push for some reverts because this is starting to get out of hand. I've been patient, but I can only be so patient. (CC: @Benwing2) AG202 (talk) 13:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @AG202 I can do a fix that specifically works for Korean and Jeju, but I want to emphasise that this situation isn't anything to do with not testing: it's the fact that I made the (as it turns out incorrect) assumption that transliterations for bolded text would never be affected by the surrounding text. It's not something I could find anywhere (and I did look!), and it's not something that comes up very often.
 * I had been hoping to find some way of fixing the underlying problem without needing a sticking plaster, but I don't think it's possible. In any event, we've been over this before. Theknightwho (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I still think TKW needs to hold back from using admin tools in disputes he's involved in, but for what it's worth I don't really disagree with him about your attitude in that discussion (especially vs. Benwing) and drumming up a crusade over a one-day ban comes off as puerile. Sorry. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in a case like this, where the behaviour Huhu was blocked for was clearly seen by other admins who were not involved in the dispute (happening on a page a lot of other admins clearly watch and edit), and where AFAIK Huhu has not been long-term problematic (am I mistaken? perhaps he mainly edits areas I don't), I don't think the one admin who was involved in the dispute should've issued a block. Where possible, admins should avoid issuing blocks about disputes they're involved in; it's better to just step back and let other admins decide whether anything blockworthy has happened. (Perhaps the best thing would've been to walk away and hope other editors weighed in on the substantive question of whether X or Y change to the module was a net positive or negative, but it doesn't seem like many other technically-adept editors have time or inclination to weigh in.) - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the other admins, as an admin involved in a dispute you should not initiate a block of the other party unless there's an exceptional reason. Benwing2 (talk) 21:27, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, Huhu9001 has removed two comments which were particularly critical, supposedly on the basis of "vulgarity". However, this does not apply to much of the material removed. This appears to be yet another instance of dishonesty. Theknightwho (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the record, Huhu9001 has removed two comments which were particularly critical, supposedly on the basis of "vulgarity". However, this does not apply to much of the material removed. This appears to be yet another instance of dishonesty. Theknightwho (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Errors in prefix
Hi Huhu9001. I am seeing "Lua error in Module:languages at line 791: The function getByCode expects a string as its first argument, but received a table." when I use template:prefix. You appear to have edited modules here recently, so I hope you can fix this problem!

For example:

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Not me. I only changed inline comments in that module, that is, no actual change. And I am also not the last one to edit mod:languages. See special:history/mod:languages, special:history/mod:links. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I will look into the bug later when I have time and if the bug is still there then. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:31, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So I should ask user:Theknightwho about it then? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Change now reverted for now and error has disappeared. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Warning
If you cannot edit in a mature fashion, you will merely end up getting blocked again. That means you need to engage in discussion, instead of passive-aggression. Theknightwho (talk) 06:06, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Vote
Just dropping you a line to let you know that the desysop vote is now open since some of the evidence concerns Theknightwho's engagement with you. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

About your Japanese conjugation table
Hello. I found this page Module:User:Huhu9001/000 and this is 'kind of' something I was looking for to implement our current tables on the pt.wikt (e.g. pt:Predefinição:conj.ja.gu). My plans for my home wikt is to create a more complete table and then automatically create the conjugation pages with my bot there. Well, my question is: is this table complete or in process? And, is it being used somewhere on the en.wikt or is there a plan? Jesielt (user talk) 06:35, 26 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your recognition. This thing is only half-made and I do wish to finish it in the future. However I have met with many difficulties, mainly objections regarding some of its styles from the en.wikt community, so I am very uncertain about when I can finish it. It is not used anywhere on the en.wikt now. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 07:21, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Please explain one of your Module modification
See the original question at Module_talk:Jpan-sortkey. Modification you did on the Module does not make sense to me and it does throw errors when executed (outside of MediaWiki servers, so the Scribunto like environment may not produce the same result, I cannot know as I have not access to MediWiki errors). Nevertheless as the code cannot be understood by a reasonable dev, it should be changed (at least for maintainability reasons), even if, by miracle it produces the expected result for an unknown reason. Please explain me the intended result, and I'll see how to fix this. Dodecaplex (talk) 07:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)


 * I replied your question. I want to add a few more here:
 * MediaWiki modules are not responsible for errors outside MediaWiki.
 * Your question can be easily answered by yourself if you do a bit test in some sandbox pages, or use to do some debugs and see what the actual output is, instead of just guessing.
 * I don't know what you meant by saying "have not access to MediWiki errors" ("have no access to MediWiki errors" or "have not accessed MediWiki errors"?). Anyway this is not a valid excuse. Scribunto errors are visible to everyone in cat:E.
 * 2&3 show that you are not "a reasonable dev" as you have claimed. Try to be less hasty when running to a conclusion next time.
 * -- Huhu9001 (talk) 09:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Stop arguing and just fix the code, please. At the very least, it is a nonstandard function, so requires some explanation in the code. Theknightwho (talk) 12:11, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh boy. This admin locked mod:Jpan-sortkey to prevent me from editing it. But now all of a sudden he commands me to "just fix the code". I can't tell whether he is poking fun at me or just not thinking straight. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 12:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I can obviously unprotect it, but only on the condition you don’t reinstate the change that only you wanted to make. Theknightwho (talk) 12:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Why are you so distasteful? Just an answer their inquiry without attacking their person. — Fenakhay ( حيطي · مساهماتي ) 13:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * 1. I know and I don't ask you to produce something that will work in my setting, just to explain me what you intend to do with this program (so that I can decide on a correct course of action)
 * 2. Easily seems to be a very relative term. The behaviour you are relying on is not documented anywhere and the semantics of the Mediawiki and Scribunto does not support this usage which is entirely implementation specific.
 * 3. I don't have time nor willing to become a specialist of all the arcanes of MediaWiki or English wiktionary, I work with 23 languages editions, hence 23 differing usages and traditions... and I only have one lifetime.
 * 4. Maybe I was too harsh in my wording, as the question did not get any answer after several days, but I can assure you that this code could certainly win the "will sooner or later blow in your face" award. And I maintain that nobody can understand this without a very deep knowledge or long experience of the intricacies of current MediaWiki implementation.
 * Additionally, I have nothing to do with your personal wars and don't want to be part of it. Dodecaplex (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a necessary response to "as the code cannot be understood by a reasonable dev". Normally people do not use themselves as an argument, and I indeed prefer that way. But since User:Dodecaplex has already done it that way, I have no choice because I can not make my case without talking about the person when the other party has already brought it up as an argument. It was that user that made the discussion personal, not me. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Huhu9001 It's a completely reasonable argument: you yourself repeatedly used it when asking (demanding) that I document modules myself. Telling someone else that they must figure it out themselves because it's now your turn to document code is a bit ridiculous. Theknightwho (talk) Theknightwho (talk) 14:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ, the very culprit that has obstructed me from writing any documentation in mod:Jpan-sortkey just can't stop harrassing me, can he? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I was waiting for you to agree to my condition. When you do that, I'll unprotect it. Theknightwho (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Bad faith removals
Don't do things like. You're just trying to start a fight again. There's nothing about it which needs consensus. Theknightwho (talk) 01:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

ガイジ
This term's is never originated from the sense limited only in intelligent disorder. Also physically disabled people and children with multiple disabilities in wheelchairs attending schools for the disabled can be called "ガイジ". There are some examples which describe the usage of the term that is not limited in mental: --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Shueisha (2022): "例を出せば、「ガイジ（障害児）」「池沼（知的障害者）」「自宅警備員（ひきこもり）」「ナマポ（生活保護受給者）」といったネット言語があります. "
 * Bunshun (2022): "たとえば、ネットで広まった言葉に「ガイジ（害児）」がある. もともとは障害児に由来するらしいが、今は「嫌な奴」「むかつく奴」という意味合いでつかわれる. "
 * Shimosuwa town, Nagano (2011): "私が小学生の頃、一時期こんな言葉が流行したのです. 「ガイジ」「シンショウ」意味が分からないと思います. 「ガイジ」は障害児. 「シンショウ」は身体障害者を表します. "
 * These examples are not conveying meaning. Is there example where this term is actually used against physically disabled person, or figuratively physically weak person or the like? Usage examples I can find exclusively refer to (figuratively) "insane, crazy person". It only makes sense if it is derived from "mentally disabled" sense.

パチンコ屋って挙動がおかしいガイジ多すぎやろwwwww

飯屋を運動場と間違えてるガイジ家族や椅子で片膝ついて食べる奴らってどういう教育受けてきたんやろうか.

見なけりゃいいのに勝手に頭から肥溜めに突っ込んで挙げ句溺れる真のガイジどもやろマジで怖いわ
 * -- Huhu9001 (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "カエルに噛まれて人差し指の第二関節から先が無いけど質問ある？　ガイジになってもたわ "
 * "身体ガイジ手帳は鉄道も半額になるのに、精神ガイジ手帳はならないのおかしくない？😢"
 * "ガーシーとかいう性の喜びおじさんが入ったN党は人格としてガイジが多いし　れいわは身体のガイジだし "
 * --荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Your edit is inapropriate. shohgaisha.com is managed by one company which is not authoritative organization to decide how terms are used. I presented usage examples by major media and municipality, that is more authorized than one company which don't run news media.

And also "知的" is never "mentally", that is only used to refer "intelligent", mentally disorder is "精神障害" in Japanese. The comprehension you've done is misinterpretation from the beginning, or medically inapropriate. Disorders which make people insane is never limited in intelligence disorder (知的障害 / IQ under 70), also mental disorder (精神障害) and developmental disorder (発達障害 / in narrow sense, not including intelligent disability), and even also personality disorder (人格障害), which is not disability under Japanese law, can make them insane. The sort of disabilities is not fixed form the first. They all can make people who's called "ガイジ", and to fix decidedly from made by one company, which can include misunderstandings, is not good.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Slangs are not subject to "authoritative organization to decide how terms are used". Also pathological discussion is off-topic because the semantic shift of a slang is not so scientific. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * : Wiktionary is a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not authoritative sources (see our Criteria for inclusion. That means we go to whatever place has the usage (not the definition- that's a mention, not a use). We also document the way a term is used- even when it's used in harmful or awful ways. We do our best to let our readers know when a term will offend people, be considered wrong, or will be interpreted in certain ways- but we still document it as it's used. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Excuse me. I am a bit curious. Did you noticed this thread because you saw it in Recent Changes, or for some other reasons? -- Huhu9001 (talk) 00:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have you on my watchlist, but I make a point of keeping out of most discussions on most of the user talk pages on my watchlist because they're none of my business. I occasionally will weigh in on some kinds of general topics that aren't specific to the user whose page they're on, or in cases where I think I can be of help. In this case I may have misjudged what the discussion was about, exactly. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The "Criteria for inclusion" you said says:
 * “Attested” means verified through
 * clearly widespread use, or
 * use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year (different requirements apply for certain languages).
 * My presentation fulfills the criteria above, while his assertion according only one company's website doesn't. Don't you think so?--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 01:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * These rules are applied to terms themselves and their individual senses, not to etymology theories. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Not only that, if your assertion is right, I will can grant this source below which is totally made by a private group of internet users:
 * "知的障害児、精神障害児、発達障害児、身体障害児の略称であり、蔑称. 害児. ただし昨今では本義から離れた、ネット上での誹謗中傷の用語としてよく見られる. "
 * What do you think about? The part "知的" did never contribute to the shortened term anyway, and that part is also interpreted as "精神", "発達" or "身体" according it.--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 01:52, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * This etymology is already in the entry, namely the first etymology theory. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 01:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I said that it is not fixed in "知的" after all even if we accept such type of sources. If you didn't understand Japanese sentences well, I'd like to apologise to you because of my badness of explaining foreign language in English without any translation though...--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The first of the 2 alternative etymology theories in ガイジ does not claim it is "fixed in 知的" either. Isn't that agreeing with the source you mentioned?
 * I fully understand Japanese. There is no such worry. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 02:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That is problem of how to display and interpretation. Since that is related to the rule of wiktionary, not only we two's. It's better to ask someone for how to do in this case. Okay?--荒巻モロゾフ (talk) 03:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sure. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I love seeing two argue only for both of them to suddenly dissappear (more concerned on Aramaki though). Chuterix (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are talking. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @荒巻モロゾフ suddenly disappeared in autumn of last year. Chuterix (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem with it. Wiktionary is a toy. When people get no more fun from it, they leave. -- Huhu9001 (talk) 16:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I see (/s) Chuterix (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2024 (UTC)