User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 3

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

Hi[edit]

I don't agree with you on most things, and think your methods are rather frustrating, but I do completely sympathise with you on being the target of so many people's scorn. And I admire you for standing up for what you believe is right, despite the constant abuse, opposition and personal attacks (including from me). That is one thing I think we have in common. I hope this encourages you at least, to not let bullying get to you. Just put it aside and work on Wiktionary, make it better, and to hell with "community". —CodeCat 18:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Purplebackpack89 18:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is just cheap. CodeCat did nothing to help you when you were in trouble, AFAIK, unlike other members of the community that CodeCat expressly scorns above (Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2014/June#Purplebackpack89). Your trouble was caused by CodeCat repeatedly unjustly edit warring with you and by CodeCat's great admirer Kephir (as per the previous link) who open declares his anti-consensus stances. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kephir vote page[edit]

Please consider adding diff to your Kephir vote page; this is astounding! --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think User:Kephir fully comprehends what he's done in a stroke. I could now create an unsourced neologism, and there'd be nothing that could be done with it. Or I could close every single RfD and RfV as keep, because there's no policy to delete them right now.
I don't think there's much of a consensus for anything from that vote, and, much as I don't like CFI as written, there certainly wasn't consensus to completely throw it out. Had that argument been put to a vote instead of what User:Renard Migrant posited, there would have been at most 9 supports and 7 opposes, which isn't quite enough to do anything. What I interpret the vote as saying is that people are unhappy with CFI as written and they believe things other than CFI should be considered in RfD discussions. The upshot of that isn't obsoleting CFI, it's demoting it to a guideline, something that can be used in an argument but is not a be-all-and-end-all, and can be disregarded in particular instances by community consensus.
Looks like it's time for me to comment at BP or TR or one of those about this. Purplebackpack89 15:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I posted Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2015/February#Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion. I expect an admin to revert his diff soon; if not, then the moon people have taken over the refuge place this time around.
I and multiple other editors recognize the principle of consensus; Kephir does not which disqualifies him from being an admin and from editing WT:CFI either. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kephir desysopping and preliminary support[edit]

I edited User:Purplebackpack89/Wiktionary:Votes/2015-01/De-sysoping Kephir to add a preliminary support section, to gauge the scope of support that there may be. Please revert if you disagree; it is your page. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, although you may have to re-sign it when it happens. It's almost there; not sure if we're counting the CFI diff as the straw that broke the camel's back. Purplebackpack89 16:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to have a prelimiary gauge before the actual official vote starts. I have never supported Kephir adminship in the first place, but other potentially supporting editors may need even more evidence of bad behavior than so far presented. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. Not entirely sure how those editors will find it; perhaps a preliminary oppose section as well? I'm pretty sure we have at least one oppose on this in addition to the dude himself. Purplebackpack89 16:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those monitoring recent changes may notice the page; if they don't, they don't. We don't need an oppose section: there are many opposes available, and that is not in question. What is in question is whether, because of all the abuse and objectionable editing, there are actually some supports. Since I believe many admins don't give a damn. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dan Polansky: The de-sysop request should now be considered on hold because Kephir has not been a regular contributor for some weeks, but should he resume editing in the controversial manner he did in 2014, the request will be re-activated. Until then, it should remain in userspace, and editors are allowed to add additional diffs. Purplebackpack89 15:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring other people's posts[edit]

Replacing deprecated syntax is one of the few valid reasons for refactoring other people's posts.

PS: You did nothing wrong here. Kephir was wrong to delete the talk page thread and block you rather than simply saying what I just said.

--WikiTiki89 14:14, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. FWIW, you might have noticed Kephir took things a few bridges too far...after I pointed out it was inappropriate to delete a good-faith thread as vandalism, he deleted that comment and tried to block me for six months. Dude seems to have a vendetta against me. Purplebackpack89 14:17, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call it a vendetta. A vendetta implies that he seeks confrontation with you, which he does not. He is just annoyed at you and can no longer deal with your interactions with him. --WikiTiki89 14:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, Wikitiki, his remedy is ham-handed blocks it's clear the community doesn't support. If he wants me gone, he should at least have the common sense to try something other than ham-handed blocks. He also shouldn't consider everything I say to be vandalism, which he's been doing for the past nine months. As for seeking confrontation, the diffs I've provided in the nom include diffs of him removing content I posted to third-party talk pages and community noticeboards. What's the explanation for doing that? Purplebackpack89 14:48, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kephir-Purplebackpack89 interaction ban[edit]

FYI, I have enacted an interaction ban in diff as per community consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I may ask you, please don't respond to Kephir or his supporters in Beer parlour today any more. I know, the interaction ban only starts tomorrow. The recent Kephir post to Beer parlour (diff) attacks your basic freedoms by proposing to rob you of all editing rights whatsoever, including right of posting to your talk page. By doing so, the Kephir post is all too likely to incite a response from you that you are going to be sorry for. Therefore, my best advice is to act as if the interaction ban already started. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to see it's been enacted. Hope you come to bat for me if somebody runs with the torch of indeffing me. Purplebackpack89 12:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion archives[edit]

Should go on the talk page, not the main entry. DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your seemingly unattestable recent creations[edit]

I have added a couple of these to RFV. Please help cite them, and if you are unable, you should take this as a very clear sign not to create such entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chillax, dude. One of the complaints in the RfD was that the entries were malformed. I created the logical full set of entries; I don't see why I'm the boogie man in this scenario. Also, you should also talk to User: IQ125, as he's the guy who created the original entry. Purplebackpack89 12:58, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Metaknowledge, it's worth noting that there is a Wikipedia article on this topic. Not sure how we find durable URLs for HuffPost and CNN's articles on this term. Purplebackpack89 13:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't intend to "chillax" when you think it's okay to create entries without checking whether they're attestable, regardless of who else created related entries. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Metaknowledge I think you're overreacting. There was a problem with the way the initial entries were created. I fixed it. The fix required creating additional entries. Purplebackpack89 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you want people to check attestability before creating ALL articles, you've got a lot of RfVing to do (of 80-90% of the entries here). You also probably should go to BP and start a vote about forcing all entries to have the 3 citations immediately when they're created, which is the only way to back up your demand with policy. Purplebackpack89 00:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't get it. Most entries are easily attestable, even trivially so. In a case where there are zero hits on Google Books, it's a wholly different matter. I don't feel like arguing any more, so here you go: if either of the two entries you created fails RFV, and I find that you have continued to create unattestable entries after this warning, I will consider that to be disruptive behaviour and there will be consequences. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no requirement that one has to look on Google Books before creating an entry, and you should not be foisting one upon me. I stand 100% by the creation of those entries.. Also, I consider it hideously disengenuous that you are complaining about the entries I created, but you are not threatening User:IQ125 with similar actions. It's also premature to be discussing all this as we haven't even determined whether they pass or fail. You shouldn't be threatening me at all, Meta, but at a minimum, you need to wait until the RfV has failed before claiming the creations are disruptive. Purplebackpack89 04:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Metaknowledge I hope you realize I did find a citation for flag jacker Purplebackpack89 21:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's funny that you'd want to defend these, considering that they're set to fail RFV (a month has passed without requisite citations being found, even after some of our best and brightest have gone looking for them). I would close it myself, but to avoid the perception of bias I'm waiting for somebody else to close them. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've claimed that they were completely uncitable; which doesn't seem to be true. You've also claimed that I knew they were uncitable, which I didn't...I wasn't sure whether or not they could be cited. Purplebackpack89 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

{{unblock|reason=Why was I blocked for three days? Can't I vent my frustration without being blocked? I admit that [[okolehao]] wasn't perfect when I first created it, but I feel like I'm being browbeat for ''creating an entry''...and does feeling browbeat justify a block of any length? '''<font face="Verdana">[[User:Purplebackpack89#top|<font color="#3A003A">Pur</font><font color="#800080">ple</font>]][[User talk:Purplebackpack89|<font color="#991C99">back</font><font color="#CC33CC">pack</font><font color="FFBB00">89</font>]]</font>''' 21:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)}}

Gross hypocrisy. Whenever you make a bad, messy edit, or insult someone, you're full of excuses to plead your angelic innocence. And yet your entire modus operandi on this project is based on accusations toward others of "bullying" and trying to drive you off the project. One rule for them, one rule for you. Everyone's basically just sick of it. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is it necessary for people like Ungoliant to say something along the lines of "Purplebackpack sucks as an editor" in an edit summary? Wouldn't it be better if he just said "This entry would be better if we did X, Y or Z"? And Ungoliant has made no secret that he wants me driven off the project. Purplebackpack89 21:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I said was hardly along those lines, and using quotation marks around it is an outright attempt to mislead administrators. You are not going to get out of this hole by using misleading statements. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're just delving into semantics at this point, Ungoliant. You have made a number of edit summaries that disparage my editing. While they do not say, "Purplebackpack sucks", that's the message they are trying to convey. They are clearly problematic, they are not improving the community, and they should be stopped. Purplebackpack89 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your equivocations are just outrageous. His edit summary was milder than your "dumbass", but I suppose you've got some typical Purple excuse for that? Stress from the workplace? Too much "bullying" from people cleaning up your bad edits? Equinox ◑ 21:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is he blocked? No! Then why should I be? Do you think he's completely without fault? Don't you think he could've been kinder in his summary? Calling another "dumbass" probably was inappropriate, but people haven't tended to be blocked on this project for mean edit summaries, so why start now? Purplebackpack89 21:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This whole mess has been really painful to watch. I have to agree that the edit comment that started this should never have been made, and that most of the accusations against you have been off target: it's hard to accuse someone of bad faith who sincerely believes he's right, and who sincerely believes that he's just standing up for his rights- even if he's almost completely wrong. On the other hand, you aren't an innocent lamb being led to the slaughter, either.
The problem is that the matter of good faith is a distraction from the real issue: a wiki is a community, and that requires getting along with, and working with, other people. It's not enough to stay within the letter of the rules if you end up making everybody hate you. If you have to cite a bunch of rules to force people to let you have your way, you've already lost the war, even if you win the battle. If you have to DEMAND to be respected IN ALL CAPS!!!, you've already lost any respect you might have had to start with.
Yes, you've been the target of irrational and unfair attacks, but the real question is, how did it get to this point? Why are otherwise sane, rational people lining up to spit on you? Here's how:
  • You've made a career of assuming that those who disagree with you aren't just wrong, they're out to get you- and everything they do is in bad faith.
  • You've consistently steered toward confrontation over persuasion
  • You've made it abundantly clear that you don't care what anyone else thinks, as long as you get your way.
  • You've gone out of your way, at times, to rub it in when you win an argument.
  • You've acted as if your contributions and your feelings are all that matter, and as if the entire project revolves around you. The fact is, you're not unique: everybody here is a volunteer. Every one of us is donating our time, effort and expertise to improve the dictionary. Some of the people you're picking fights with contribute more to the dictionary, on a good week (maybe even on a good day), than you have. Ever.
In sum: good faith isn't enough to make it around here. Aside from competence, it takes an open mind, willingness to compromise, tact, and at least a little empathy. You've shown very little of any of those. You can't keep breaking down the community like this- it's the only thing holding you up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz, you've got mail. Purplebackpack89 06:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings[edit]

You have blocked by Daniel Carrero for 3 days; he has been kind to give you so short a block. Bear in mind that you will be blocked, for longer periods of time, if you continue to engage in the behaviour that has caused so many problems. This includes, but is not limited to:

  • Edit warring
  • Calling other editors by offensive names like "dumbass"
  • Creating obviously uncitable or incorrect content

As a community, we can no longer assume good faith on your part, and your unwillingness to improve the quality of your work and ability to interact raises serious concerns; boldness is no excuse for consistently poor edits. I ask @Daniel Carrero, Chuck Entz, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, Equinox, Chuck Entz, CodeCat, Wikitiki89 and other administrators to help me enforce this. I will not respond any further on this topic, but I'm sure someone among those I've pinged will be willing to respond, if you want to discuss this. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that I've never done #3 (remember, that while you were not able to find citations for flag jack, I was), I don't even understand why that was on there. I also find the claim that you can no longer assume good faith on my part to be an unacceptable charge. You should always assume good faith. Also, why did you ping editors such as CodeCat and Ungoliant who are clearly hostile to me? They should be disengaging from me. Purplebackpack89 21:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Furthermore, I consider my claim that I am "unwilling" to improve the quality of my edits. Maybe I make mistakes, but I don't tend to make the same mistake repeatedly. For example, the reason I made a mistake on okolehao was because I'd never edited in Hawaiian before. Also, if you're going to ping admins, ping as many of them as you can: @SemperBlotto, Leftmostcat, -sche, Angr, ObsequiousNewt, Liliana-60 Purplebackpack89 21:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people hostile is clearly not an assumption of good faith. —CodeCat 21:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Remember when I said above that you should be disengaging from me? Why do you think engaging here would result in anything productive? Don't you have templates to move or something? Purplebackpack89 21:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, CodeCat, remember when I said you don't understand what's good-faith and what's bad-faith? Just because I think you're hostile to me doesn't mean I think you should be indeffed and all your edits undone. The edits I consider bad are the ones you've made on my talk page now, and Ungoliant's page earlier. Contrast with Ungoliant, or Metaknowledge above, who seems to think that anything I do is in bad faith. That's painting with far too broad a brush. Purplebackpack89 21:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your snarky comments here are not helping your case. The entire discussion on Ungoliant's talk page was unproductive, but it didn't keep you from starting and contributing to it. And I don't think you can recognise your own bad faith behaviour, which is actually a very large part of why you butt heads with people so often. To be honest, it makes it kind of laughable when you try to educate others on their behaviour. As I said before, clean up your act and stop complaining. —CodeCat 21:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't unproductive to justify a three-day block! Purplebackpack89 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think anything anyone ever does to you is justified. —CodeCat 21:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anybody blocking me is justified. I certainly don't think this block is justified. I don't have problems with people improving entries I create, provided they give sensible reasons for doing so and don't insult me in edit summaries. Purplebackpack89 21:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a reasonable request if you started with a blank slate. But your slate is far from blank, so people respond to you based on prior interactions with you. Ungoliant is clearly fed up with you, and as you said, it's fine to vent sometimes. —CodeCat 21:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ungoliant's fed up with me, vented, and isn't blocked. I'm fed up at the two of you, vented, and am blocked. Disengenous much? Purplebackpack89 21:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only one annoyed by Ungoliant's behaviour. But many people are annoyed with yours, as you well know. —CodeCat 21:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we do the same things, we should get the same punishment, regardless of who "likes" us and who "doesn't". This a Wiktionary, not a homecoming court. Purplebackpack89 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Liliana-60 please stop bailing him out. He’s annoying everybody and his behaviour is continuous. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 21:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was a bad block, Romanophile. You don't block people's talk page access or email like that. Also, being annoying isn't a reason for a block IMO. There are lots of things that annoy me that haven't been blocked. There are lots of things that annoy me that I just brush off. Purplebackpack89 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not "continuous". There are times when I go weeks or even months without posting on talk pages or Wiktionary. To claim that I all I do is annoy other editors is ridiculous. Purplebackpack89 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your entries today[edit]

Don't take it personally that I RFD'd them, I just truly believe we shouldn't have them. I was actually tempted to just revert/delete them, but I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. --WikiTiki89 03:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that field goal/free throw percentage might be at the line, but I felt it was something this project needed. Frankly, glad it was you and not somebody else. Purplebackpack89 04:58, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving your talk page[edit]

I would like to make a gentle proposal (or hint?) that you archive your talk page like I or SemperBlotto do, per year. It creates a nice, predictable archive structure that has proved to work well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:17, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a full 2014 and a full 2015. 2012 and 2013 were too small, so they are together. Purplebackpack89 13:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your archives look nicer now. I've done the same, inspired by that hint. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The coolest users, however, don't archive their talk pages at all. --SimonP45 (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you referring to users who a) have bots to do it, b) blank it from time to time, or c) just leave everything ever posted? Purplebackpack89
There's also d) Get indef-blocked, (often having your talk page deleted because you're indef-blocked) then switch to a new user name. This is just the usual WF silliness. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no plans of doing that one. I know some people have a habit of comparing me to WonderFool, but continual socking coupled with high-volume creation is not something in my wheelhouse. Purplebackpack89 19:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, creating a large number of correct entries is not exactly something you do, so a comparison with WF wouldn't be very apt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but consider how few entries I have created that have been deleted. Then look at how many WF and his myriad of socks have created that have... Purplebackpack89 22:18, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Hat collecting"[edit]

Your edit comment prompted me to look at your edit history. Your rollbacks categorize as follows:

  • 4 reversions of vandalism by IPs (one of those had you as the target, but it counts)
  • 2 apparent errors (you undid them in your next edit)
  • 2 against admins as part of disputes

That adds up to exactly 4 (%50) of your rollbacks that were used for the intended purpose of the tool. Not that great of a track record, especially considering that it averages out to less than one good rollback a year (less than two a year total). Chuck Entz (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz You only got 8 uses? I got 10, and at least six instances of vandalism (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6), using this and searching "revert". Also, the "one good rollback a year" number is a bit off, since I've only had rollback for two years. As for "appropriate use", loads of admins use rollback to remove good-faith edits from their talk pages, so not sure you can use the "as part of the dispute" as errors. And I again say, "when was the last time I misused it?" The last time I used it for something that wasn't unambiguous vandalism was in June, and it was on my own talk page, where I have a great deal of latitude. There's not really any point in taking it away, because there's not a widespread enough pattern of abuse...and that's assuming there is even such a thing as abuse, as we don't really have any guidelines for use. And why are we discussing this anyway? It's completely irrelevant to the deletion discussion where Ungoliant brought it up. Ungoliant may be accusing me of "hat collecting", but he's more guilty of the opposite, "hat stealing", trying to take away privileges in an effort to make me look bad and generally piss me off. Why is he so obsessed with taking away my user rights? Purplebackpack89 19:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chuck Entz Sorry if I came off as angry earlier, I'm just perturbed at Ungoliant's incessant drumbeat of trying to embarrass me off this project. Happy Thanksgiving. Purplebackpack89 21:45, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Deal[edit]

Hello! You added a definition for "Deal" in February (https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=deal&diff=prev&oldid=31966363 - sorry, don't know how to make a proper link) as a unit of firewood. I am about to remove it, because I guess it was based on the WP article w:Deal (unit), which I am also about to suggest for deletion, because I believe it is entirely bogus. Please check, and let me know (I'll watch here) if you know of any other basis for this. Please see my comments on the original source here: w:User:Imaginatorium/Cardarelli#Deal. Thanks Imaginatorium (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Imaginatorium Before you take any action here, I think you may want to familiarize yourself with the rules and such of Wiktionary. On Wiktionary, we have entries that can be proven to have been used three times in a period of a year or more. The term "deal" for a unit of wood has been used at least once, in Cardarelli, so one would only need to find two more uses for the entry to be kept. If you believe those two uses do not exist, I suggest you start a request for verification on this entry. Purplebackpack89 15:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Imaginatorium I now have the three citations in reference to deals that would be required to pass an RfV on this project. It appears that deal is an archaic term for a board between 12 and 14 feet long, traded as a commodity and likely used in shipbuilding. Purplebackpack89 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy! I know there may be no way of easily answering this question, but are we sure that this definition shouldn't fall under etymology 3 which already contains:
  1. Wood that is easy to saw (from conifers such as pine or fir)
  2. A plank of softwood (fir or pine board)
I could see how the sense of a length of board could stem from either etymology. What do you think? —JohnC5 16:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JohnC5 Yeah, you're probably right. You can move it there. Purplebackpack89 17:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Done! :) —JohnC5 18:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"troll" edit war[edit]

Sometimes Equinox does cross the line in the heat of a dispute, but I don't think that's the case here (at least in the core of the dispute). What he said, basically, was that you keep repeating the same argument even though your argument had no merit, so either: a) you don't understand or b) you're pretending not to understand and saying it anyway, which would be trolling.

Without going into whether there's validity to of any of those points, the statement as a whole wasn't an attack (it was basically of the same type as your reference to his "silly analogy"), and you overreacted to the mere presence of words that have been used to attack you in the past by posting a topic at the BP about it demanding immediate action, and posted a similar and quite obnoxious topic on Equinox's talk page, then edit warred with him about his removing it. The whole "fumigate" bit was wrong, but that's a side issue.

Faced with you repeatedly posting angry demands on his talk page, he gave you a one-hour block. Such ultra-short blacks are, in my experience, never used as a punishment. Usually the purpose is to either get someone's attention, or to stop them long enough so they can cool down and think about what they're doing.

Looking at the whole thread that started this, you responded to a rather mundane discussion about where to put a particular paragraph with an arguably off-topic rant about slippery-slope arguments in general, with the usual buzzwords from your personal ideology. From there, it spun out of control into an escalating cascade of overreaction on both sides. Singling out Equinox as the only bad actor in the whole mess was unfair, IMO. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chuck Entz One small point of order: I didn't "edit war" on his page; each post on his page was different. I may have over-reacted to his use of the word "troll", but IMO the word "troll" is used far too cavalierly on this project, particularly by Ungoliant and Equinox. The two of them know I despise the use of that word, yet neither seems to have enough common sense to stop using it. The problem with what Equinox is saying is coming far too close to say, "either you buy into my logic, or you're a troll". That doesn't seem right. And why has it become "obnoxious" to ask that people stop using the word troll? Why is it considered over-reacting to ask that it not be used? You say that I singled out Equinox as the only bad actor, but IMO, he singled out me as the only bad actor. Purplebackpack89 20:39, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok[edit]

Nothing Eran hammer (talk) 22:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

second division[edit]

"The half of the standings containing the teams with the worst records." Really? I've not come across this, where is it used? Renard Migrant (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive_3&oldid=37576538"