User talk:Johnny Shiz

Archives
User talk:Johnny Shiz/Archive 1

Well...
It looks like my second attempt at getting unblocked on Wikipedia has failed. (Unless my UTRS request is successful and I get talk page access again) Johnny Shiz (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Update: An admin has requested that I complete the standard offer again. Well, see you on Wikipedia in 6 months! (December 8) Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm back!
I'm back from vacation, and I can finally have the time to edit Wiktionary! That's not all: in about a week, it'll be six months since I edited Wikipedia. Hopefully this time the admins will be willing to understand that I'll be a constructive editor. I've been trying to get myself unblocked for about two years now, so this time things better turn out well. (From my original account, of course)Johnny Shiz (talk) 18:53, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

𣦼 and 𣦻
I reverted your edits here mainly because you're changing the info in the translingual section, which is totally wrong. As to which one should be considered the variant form, different dictionaries treat 𣦼 and 𣦻 differently: many traditional dictionaries (including Kangxi and Taiwan's 教育部異體字字典) treat 𣦼 as a variant form of 𣦻, but Hanyu Da Zidian treats it the other way around. , do you have any thoughts as to which one we should put as the main form? — justin(r)leung { (t...) 00:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a Shuowen radical. Radical no. 131 is /, which has, , , listed under it. This radical is also the phonetic of , . Curiously, radical no. 132 is  itself, but all characters listed under this radical contain  instead. Because , ,  (containing ) are listed under Shuowen radical no. 131, I would prefer for  to be the main form, consistent with interpretation of traditional dictionaries. By the way, I'm not pleased with the swapping of the Translingual section. KevinUp (talk) 01:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Where did you even get the idea that is an ancient form of ? (See this 2016 edit). If you're not familiar with historical sources/dictionaries and archaic characters, then kindly refrain from editing such entries. Do not add your own original research. KevinUp (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not original research. I used an online Taiwanese database on variant characters. Johnny Shiz (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * May I know which database you are using? You seem to have some difficulty interpreting Chinese texts. To test your proficiency in archaic Chinese characters, would you mind translating the definition for on this page?
 * 假若您的中文水準未達標，需依靠谷歌翻譯才讀得了這個句子，本人還是不鼓勵您繼續編輯罕用中文字.／假若您的中文水准未达标，需依靠谷歌翻译才读得了这个句子，本人还是不鼓励您继续编辑罕用中文字. KevinUp (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I used this website. Johnny Shiz (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay. I looked it up here, here and here, here. Nowhere does it say is an ancient form of.
 * 康熙字典之「奰」字翻譯好了嗎？等著您的回覆.／康熙字典之「奰」字翻译好了吗？等着您的回覆. KevinUp (talk) 05:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not the best at Classical Chinese. I'll stop editing about them. Johnny Shiz (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC) (OT: It means "anger", I think.)
 * Close enough, but that's out current definition on Wiktionary. There are two meanings for : The first is strong; the second definition is to be angry while not drunk.
 * I think you can work on edits such as adding missing compounds from Xiandai Hanyu Cidian (in traditional form, don't add if you're not sure) or adding links from Chinese Wikipedia to existing entries. Try not to modify or remove information from existing entries if you're not sure of it. You may ping other editors on the talk page instead. This edit, for example, is slightly incorrect. KevinUp (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Exactly! Got your point. Johnny Shiz (talk) 21:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

etymology templates
I prefer to  because it is less intrusive. We don't have any reason to believe that more intrusive page notices attract better effort in etymologies than request-category membership. Similarly,, , and are less intrusive than , , and  or.

Some of the more intrusive request notices like and  serve to warn users of possible problems that someone has notice with the entry. DCDuring (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Sure thing, thanks. Johnny Shiz (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe someone could add the missing feature to . I thought that there was exact correspondence of the substance between the two. DCDuring (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, there ain't none. Johnny Shiz (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

They told me to wait, so I will.
I can wait till July 10. Apparently, sporadically making minor edits while logged out also constitutes block evasion. I shall not do so again. Johnny Shiz (talk) 10:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for being inactive lately
School can be tough. Johnny Shiz (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)