User talk:Purplebackpack89

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:
Purplebackpack89
Archive
Archives

Category:en:Named roads[edit]

I don't know if you noticed, but Category:en:Roads is supplied by a {{topic cat}} subtemplate, so you don't need to hard-code it into the category itself. I only removed it after it became redundant.

Using the sub-template method means that the appropriate category is present in categories for all languages, not just in the categories you hard-code it into.

Hard-coding categories into entries that have {{topic cat}} in them makes it harder to change categories down the line, since you end up having to go to all the [[Category:<language code>:Roads]] categories to change the hard-codings.

Chuck Entz (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell didn't you TELL me that in your edit summary? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, why the hell didn't you ASK? —RuakhTALK 23:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
And why did you not examine the effects of Chuck's edit more closely, rather than just undoing it? And why didn't you leave an edit summary yourself? —CodeCat 23:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ruakh and User:CodeCat, stop trying to shift the blame to me. CodeCat is the one who screwed up by not leaving an edit summary clearly explaining her actions, and she should be admonished for that. Instead of an edit summary, I explained, which also does your ASKING, Ruakh. At the time I edited, the module was broken, and the category wasn't showing up. We'd probably be better off if people didn't use modules. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I didn't think my actions needed explaining, as I was just reverting a bad edit. What confounded me is that you then reverted me, implying you thought the page was actually better the way you left it. —CodeCat 00:00, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Didn't you read what I said about the module? It was better, because the category wasn't appearing. Using rollback implies that you think I'm a vandal, which is clearly not the case. Your edit did need explaining, and if you hadn't realized that by the second time you reverted, you frankly have no business with the rollback tool or the mop. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how you come to the conclusion that you're a vandal just for having been reverted. I think pretty much every editor on Wiktionary is a vandal by that criterium. And I kept reverting because you kept reinserting content that shouldn't be there. Which still confounds me, because I figured after the first time you'd look more closely at what you were doing, instead of pressing on. —CodeCat 00:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
For the third time, the module was broken and the category wasn't showing up! What part of that don't you understand? And what part of, "you shouldn't use rollback unless it's vandalism or other types of bad-faith editing" don't you understand? If you had done what you did on Wikipedia, even if the other person was unambiguously wrong (which I'm not), you'd have lost rollback. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
A broken module does not justify inserting things into pages that don't belong there. What it justifies is fixing the module, which was done. And what part of "you shouldn't use rollback unless it's vandalism or other types of bad-faith editing" am I supposed to understand? I happen to disagree, and in disagreeing I follow established practice, that doesn't mean I don't understand. Wikipedia is completely irrelevant. —CodeCat 00:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You and you "established practice" are wrong in this case Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
You're free to hold that opinion. But unless you follow established practice, there will be continuous friction between you and other editors, and could result in an eventual block. So I suggest you work with us (Wiktionary editors), rather than expecting all of us to work for you. —CodeCat 00:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
How can I work with you if you treat my good-faith edits like vandalism? This all comes back to you asserting that it's OK to use rollback on good-faith edits. Even if it's technically acceptable (which I believe it isn't), it's highly discourteous and you, a) should admit you were wrong to do it, and b) avoid doing it in the future. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "This all comes back to you asserting that it's OK to use rollback on good-faith edits": Or rather, it comes back to you asserting that it's not. Which makes you a hypocrite, since you used it in the revert-war under discussion. (You're also a hypocrite for participating a revert-war to begin with, given your insistence upon Wikipedian rules. See w:WP:3RR.) —RuakhTALK 04:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Ruakh, it's clear you have no intention of punishing CodeCat. Therefore, you can't punish me either. I have started a pump thread to force use of edit summaries except in cases of vandalism. No one has as of yet said why that is a bad idea. That's probably because it actually is a good idea. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:55, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not "punishing" you, I'm just pointing out your hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is not a punishable offense, and even if it were, CodeCat can hardly be accused of hypocrisy for failing to abide by your rules. (And "pump thread"? Seriously? I know you know what site you're on, I'm starting to think you might be trolling us . . .) —RuakhTALK 05:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If we had half the resources of Wikipedia, we would have time for all the niceties and formalities practiced there- but we don't. If you don't like it, register a complaint to the Wiktionary ArbCom... if you can find one... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
We can use edit summaries with the resources we have. Having less members than Wikipedia is not an excuse for not using edit summaries. Besides, all we'd have to do is get Twinkle, and that's not a HARD thing to do. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 00:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblock[edit]

Ambox blue question.svg
This blocked user is asking that his or her block be reviewed:

Purplebackpack89 (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

1) One month is far too long an amount of time when my longest previous block is three days.
2)It's not symetrical, as I was blocked, but the editor who edited warred with me was not blocked
3)The blocking editor's comment that I "basically don't do any useful work here and everyone knows it." is inaccurate. I've added over half a dozen definitions in the last 48 hours

Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 01:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • Even if Equinox's blocking summary was accurate, it's highly inappropriate as worded. He also failed to leave a message here explaining WHY he did what he did. All in all, a bad block that should be overturned, or reduced to a period of 72 hours or less. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 03:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Signature[edit]

Since I get to see your signature increasingly often, I would like to ask you to consider changing the yellow parts of it to some much darker color for better legibility. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC) I'm thinking of completely revamping my signature after that ridiculous thread against me closes. For now, I've swapped out the yellow for orange. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Not much better. Are you using dark background? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
No. I picked gold and orange for the SYMBOLISM, not for visibility. I think a lot of it has to do with the font being not bold and in superscript. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Expect a different font later this week, one that's easier to read (assuming that people see sense and vote down that pedantic month-long block) Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What about this? Still too gaudy for my taste, but already approching legibility requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Red would suggest a redlink, I fear. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As a curious bystander interested in usability issues, might I suggest something like Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker), using the gold and the purple together? @Dan Polansky: are these legible for you? Is one better than the other? (Note too that I swapped out obsolete font tags for span tags with style attributes.) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank you for the suggestion, Eirikr. However, if I may be perfectly candid, it's not something I'm greatly concerned about. I'm really concerned, that, in spite of your suggestion that I remain allowed to edit, I'm going to lose my rollback and be blocked for a month on reasons that are highly dubious. Could you help me with that now? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 23:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    • @Eirikr: These are legible but look awful. Interestingly enough, the overwhelming majority of editors have no problems creating a simple, functional, legible signature, with minor cosmetic tweaks. And then there are some whose signature is, ehm, less than desirable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
      • My signature will change when the stupid block proposal resolves. If it resolves in my favor, I will edit under the new signature later this week. If it resolves in Ungoliant's favor, I will edit under the new signature when the block expires. My new signature will probably be borrowed from one of the signatures in my signature gallery on my Wikipedia user page. It will probably be the bold one with the purple and the pink and the yellow 89. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 19:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I really don't think it's important that "(Notes Taken)" and "(Locker)" be all that readable, given that the text is not really meaningful, either. The relationship of the link-text to the link-target is figurative at best. And that's fine. (Now, if the username were illegible, I'd be totally on-board with a request to fix that. But that's not at issue here.) —RuakhTALK 04:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

What I think[edit]

O.K., I see that you are having some trouble here. That’s no big deal to me; I’ve had some trouble here myself whiles ago. I’m not sure what your age is (hormones cannot be ignored) or what’s going in your life, but I can offer some advice if, and only if, you are willing to take it into consideration, and my advice is this:

Stop taking Wiktionary seriously.

Now, I know what you might be thinking: ‘But this is a dictionary! We’re so supposed to be super serious and formal and polite and business suits and stuff!’ and while that might be true for something like the Oxford Dictionary, hardly anybody takes Geektionary seriously. There’re few formal rules, people labour when they want, not on any particular schedule, virtually nobody’s heard of us (we are almost always confused with Geekipedia), and as far’s I know, we’re not academically endorsed. It’s relaxed here. Now, does that mean that we can vandalize all we want? Only if we have good edits to balance it out. Sure, if all of my contributions were joke entries or joke edits, I wouldn’t have lasted long, but I also make some acceptable or innocent edits, so people are at least hesitant to block me.

If you feel like somebody’s insulting you, my advice is: laugh. Even if it feels artificial, try to laugh. Letting their remarks get to you ain’t gonna do nothin’ good. If somebody requests you to do something that you are hesitant to do, ask yourself: is it worth fighting? This is just a dictionary. Or a playground. Or both. Any works, really. Some of the practices here may suck, but if the project is (generally) more good than bad to you, you gotta compromise. You can propose why your way is better in the Beer Parlour. If you succeed, great. If you lose, you may learn something, and that may cause you to respect the practice more.

But suppose for a minute that you were permabanned from Geektionary… so what? You can make a private dictionary (the simplest way is using Notepad). Hell, you could even start your own website if you really want. If you decide that lexicography i’n’t for you, attempt to find something that is. Meditate on it. The decision is yours.

Basically, if nobody is going to take the project seriously, why should you? --Æ&Œ (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right that there's some combination of everybody breaking the rules and no rules. I just seem to get more flak for this existing than everybody else. Purplebackpack89 19:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
It’s a jungle out there, boy, but you gotta make the most of it. --Æ&Œ (talk) 03:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
O.K., supposing for a moment that that's true . . . why do you suppose that it is? —RuakhTALK 06:41, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Who cares why it is? The point is it shouldn't be. People shouldn't be allowed to get away with low-level personal attacks, then turn around and ask an editor be blocked for disliking said attacks. Even when an editor does something questionable, that's not an excuse for a personal attack, particularly if it's clear said attack would be unproductive. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Who cares why it is? The point is it shouldn't be": If you want something to change, it usually helps to understand it. You cannot change things by sheer force of will; the solution to a problem is not independent of the problem. —RuakhTALK 19:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
And I thought for a while you actually wanted this project to be taken seriously, did you not, Æ&Œ? Keφr 07:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Keφr, for a while I did, but since I don’t like my mother tongue, I don’t value this project much. Perhaps I should reupdate my userpage. --Æ&Œ (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
It's hard to take the project seriously when low-level digs (a form of personal attack), deletion of entries for the slimmest of reasons, and reversion of good-faith edits without any explanation is the norm. But, rather than throw my hands up in disgust and leave, I've decided to stay and try and ameliorate the situation. I've proposed policy changes that I think would solve this "jungle" atmosphere. I've also created new categories, definitions and entries. Purplebackpack89 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Purplebackpack89 I think you don't get enough flak here. You tell people they're not even allowed to have opinions. I think your weakness is total unwillingness to learn. Like the issue of capitalized common nouns. Are you unable to read up on it? I doubt it. Are you unwilling? Clearly. Your solution to every problem you face is ignorance and strength of will. I think you should think about that. Do you think ignorance is the best way forward for this wiki? Renard Migrant (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant:, I don't recall say that people aren't allowed to have opinions. Nothing close. As for reading up on it, I did read up on it. As for ignorance and force of will, it's generally in response to somebody else being forceful in the form of an unexplained revert or removal. It took asking "why is this a common noun?" about 10 times before I got anything approaching a cogent answer. It should take 1 time. And this is hardly the first time somebody's not given me a clear explanation of why they're reverting me. I get way too much flak, as far as I'm concerned, when I should be getting crystal-clear explanations of why people do stuff. Instead I get reverts (in one case the deletion of an entire definition) without the ghost of an explanation, as if they were vandalism. This is not all my fault, Renard. Ungoliant and other editors bear some blame for the way they interact with me, particularly since Ungoliant has made it clear that one of his missions here is to drive me off the project. Purplebackpack89 22:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

television show[edit]

Pursuant to the RfD discussion, I have restored television show. As you supported this restoration, please improve this entry through the addition of citations supporting the definitions provided and any other materials that would demonstrate its value to the corpus. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

More mainspace, less Beer parlour[edit]