User talk:Purplebackpack89

User talk: Purplebackpack89
Archives
2012/2013 2014 2015 2016/2017/2018 2019-present

Unblock

This blocked user is asking that their block be reviewed:

Purplebackpack89 (block log • active blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • user creation log • change block settings • unblock)

---

Request reason:

Metaknowledge using a block to resolve a content dispute. Unacceptable. Also, my entry is correct...there is indeed an Algonquin word called "Paumanok". Also, am formally requesting an interaction ban between Metaknowledge and myself, as Meta has repeatedly demonstrated that they have a grudge that impairs their reaction toward me Purplebackpack89 00:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Request for interaction ban with Metaknowledge

I believe Metaknowledge has repeatedly made up rules that don't exist, deleted or modified entries I have created without a valid reason, and now has branched out into inappropriate blocks. As such, I formally request an interaction ban between them and me. Purplebackpack89 00:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

• Regarding Paumanok, I found one source, Evan T. Pritchard, Native New Yorkers: The Legacy of the Algonquin People of New York (2002), p. 305, stating that Paumanok is a term in the Renneiu language indicating "land of tribute", but I can find no other source specifying the origin of the term (and one blog post discussing Pritchard's assignment of meaning without particularly endorsing it). It would be most helpful if, rather than reverting the removal of contested content, you would provide the sources from which you determined the asserted language origin. That said, I don't think this rises to the level of a block, and would advise User:Metaknowledge to remove the block imposed. bd2412 T 01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

  My reasoning is here: User talk:Metaknowledge#Paumanok. I would not block someone for committing an error; we've all done that, and usually we learn in the process (here, the lesson would be not to add entries in a language you know so little about that you cannot even tell whether it is a language or a family). The blockable offence is being informed about the error, acknowledging it, and then proceeding to reinstate the same error. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I can't provide linguistic evidence to support or oppose the entry itself on this particular case, as I'm not knowledgable in the Algonquin languages at all. However, I do know that the behavior here, PBP, on your part, is unwarranted. Metaknowledge is not harassing you or personally attacking you, as we've been over time and time again. When will you stop saying everyone is harassing you and that the system is out to get you? Someone else, @SteveGat, who is apparently knowledgable on the subject, has told you that you were wrong, and you basically ignored him. What you would normally do in this situation is provide evidence that he is incorrect and that you are correct, which you have neglected to do. Instead, you continually reinstated the entry and ignored rebuttals. A short block for this situation is warranted IMO. You should know not to do this again. EVEN IF you are 100% correct, when someone disputes your claim you should back it up, as well as you can. Preferably an agreement can come between the two of you in the dispute also; if not, you should reach out to the community for consensus on the matter, for example in the Tea room. Don't readd things that have been reverted unless a dispute is resolved, or there is a consensus to do so, or at the VERY LEAST, until you have given some solid evidence that you're right.

On another note, you also should have put the "Algonquin" header below the "English" header and not above it, per WT:ELE.

I oppose the interaction ban and I also oppose the unblock request. PseudoSkull (talk) 02:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull I stand 1000% behind the claim that Metaknowledge is harassing me. They have never edited in the Algonquin language except to undo my edits, and their edits are closely timed with a comment on this entry on my page. Clearly not coincidence. And there are previous examples of Meta trying to make me follow rules that don't exist or harassing me in other ways. Purplebackpack89 03:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

When I reconsidered, I don't believe there's an error. If anything, I think the error is with how we've been using the Algonquin language template...it seems ridiculous that the Algonquin template can be used on some Algonquin languages but not others. It would be like having an English template but not allowing it to be used on Canadian English or Australian English entries. As for sourcing, the most common claim for where the word is is...Algonquin. Purplebackpack89 01:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that you are unable to recognise your own errors. You would benefit from reading Algonquin language and Algonquian languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge I can find no evidence that you've ever edited in Algonquin before except to undo my edits to that one page, which you did immediately after there was a comment on the entry on my talk page, strongly suggesting that you stalked my page, then stalked the word. What evidence is there that you're some expert? Purplebackpack89 03:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)