Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 1, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Petey, what it says now is more erroneous. Not all gargoyles are for gutters. My edit clearly doesn't say that all water spouts are gargoyles. Purplebackpack8922:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
While that would be interesting, I'm just asking about this noun - is it mostly used with a capital letter, without one, or a fair mixture of the two. Not looking for a hypothetical debate on the subject, but rather the actual evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
zot
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Yeah, I've found a book mentioning it now (the anteater sense). You can imagine it was a bit hard to believe without the explanatory note associating it with a specific university. I've added a note in the entry. Equinox◑18:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Not clear why you think that. If it's true, why aren't these people nominating prostitute and whore for deletion? More likely they just haven't seen the word. Equinox◑02:50, 9 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Re: "directing us to ginger beer for the translations is very UK-centric": having two separate copies of the translations makes double the work for editors to keep them synchronised. They just happened to be at one entry first. I am pretty sure we have a policy that says "don't edit just to favour your regional spelling", which is basically what you're doing here. Because it also produces extra work in this case I am reverting. Equinox◑14:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. Keep/delete votes aren't appropriate at RFV. RFV is for finding verification. It's only RFD (deletion) where consensus comes into play. Equinox◑21:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
In "Shaker furniture", (deprecated template usage)Shaker functions as an attributive noun. Wiktionary does not create adjective sections for attributive nouns, in part because almost every English noun can be used attributively: "computer table", "coffee cup", "library shelves". If you don't understand why an edit was undone, it's best to ask first, rather than to assume the other editor is an idiot. Please read WT:AGF. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Clearly you either didn't read or didn't understand what was written above. You have been blocked for disruptive edit warring; reinserting bad content; and failure to engage in discussions about the problems of your editing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I see no reason why we can't have attributive nouns; especially for something like "executive" that already has adjectives. This seems yet another example of a silly attempt to artificially restrict the number of definitions in this Wiktionary. The claim of disruption is unwarranted; all my edits were made in good faith whereas yours and Semper's are removing content without giving a reason (violates WP:CIVIL at best and is disruptive at worse) Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)21:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Just doin' what everybody else is doing. All contributions were made in good faith and 3RR was observed. What discussion? There was no discussion, not even edit summaries
3RR doesn't apply here which suggests you need to review some of the policies. And here you can see discussion in an edit summary: Equinox◑21:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
I even linked you to a useful page just above, but it seems you haven't read it as you're quoting Wikipedia policies as a defence of your actions. —CodeCat21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Garbage contributions are not kept, even if they were "in good faith". We don't keep additions simply because they're not vandalism; they must add to the content of an entry, not contain errors, and be formatted correctly. You repeatedly reverted the removal of duplicate information and incorrect information, despite the fact that it had been correctly removed by an experienced admin. You then bullied the admin over "incorrect procedures" that actually were correct, and continued to revert him. Your appeal to policies used on the English Wikipedia are irrelevant, as this is not Wikipedia. The policies on the English Wikipedia do not apply to Wikipedias in other languages, much less to other projects. Wiktionary has its own rules about reverts and edit summaries, and they are not those of the English Wikipedia. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 11 years ago22 comments6 people in discussion
And I quote:
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but a digital encyclopedia project. Other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page, there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover, nor the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done, which is covered in the Content section below.
Is it imperative that you spend so much time bashing the way I vote at RfD and RfV? I'm entitled to have a different viewpoint than you are; I'm also entitled to create articles as well. Plz spend less time attacking my stance and more time creating articles Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)17:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Your votes are useless and counterproductive. Every time I see you vote "keep" without any justification — and please note that "NOTPAPER" is not justification for keeping something that should be deleted — I have to suppress the urge to reflexively vote "delete". And no, you are not entitled to create entries that shouldn't exist. —RuakhTALK17:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
We don't just want more articles. We want good articles. Quality is at least as important as quantity. I hope you realize that MG is not the only person around here who's very frustrated with you. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds17:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
You guys shouldn't be, though...all I do is create articles now and then, and vote now and then in RfD. I don't vote in every RfD, I don't vote keep in every RfD I vote in. Nothing wrong with that. What is wrong is Mgloves' constant HOUNDing of my every move. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)17:30, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think 'disagreeing' is a form of attack. If it were, wouldn't you also be attacking me as you disagree with me as much as I disagree with you. Anyway, do you see my point? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
That deletion policy trumps NOTPAPER? I guess, although I continue to believe that SOP should be dispensed with. I'm not saying disagreement is attacking, I'm saying responding "No, you're wrong" (in a few more words) to anything and everything is HOUNDing. HOUNDing need not be a personal attack to be wrong 18:18, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
It's really not that difficult to trump something that doesn't exist. Also my point is, from the text above, it wouldn't even trump the Wikipedia page w:WP:NOTPAPER as it says "there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Note also that we vote according to policy, not what we wish policy was. If we disagree with policy, we try to get consensus or a vote to change it. Many users disagree with WT:COALMINE, but we still keep entries that pass only because of it. There was a vote to overthrow it, and it ended in no consensus, so nothing changed. That's how it works around here. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds05:10, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
We'll disagree, and vote against it if it comes to a vote. At least I will. However, I won't yell at you, and if you accept the results of discussion or voting, I will be satisfied. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds16:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I don't think disagreeing counts as yelling. I can't see any nasty comments in this thread, maybe you're overreacting a bit. Judging people's emotional states based on Internet comments is hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
(Jumping in) This issue, IMHO, is being approached as a false dichotomy. "Anything goes" isn't the only conceivable inclusion policy other than "no SOP terms at all." I sympathize with PurpleBackpack on this matter to a certain extent, because while things like Christmas card and television show often get nominated on SOP grounds, there's nothing that clearly rules out their inclusion in WT:CFI (the "fried egg test" part, in my interpretation, actually allows their inclusion). Which is to say I think it needs to be spelled out more explicitly in CFI what makes a term SOP, because, as it stands, there's room for some level of personal interpretation on that front.
There's a difference between broken chair and Christmas card. Broken chair is simply adjective + noun, and there's an endless number of possible adjective-noun combinations in English, which obviously don't warrant an endless number of entries. But a Christmas card is a specific object used for a specific purpose. That specificity might not always be easily derived from the term's components alone, especially not to people who wouldn't immediately connect a holiday to the greeting card sense of card because sending out greeting cards isn't traditional where they live. Astral (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes. I have recently used Christmas pudding as an example of a multi-word term worth keeping (because it isn't just any old pudding made at Xmas); whether this is the same as your Christmas card is possibly arguable, because a Christmas card isn't much more than a card (they are just generic greeting cards, possibly with Jesus or a Santa, or possibly not), whereas a Christmas pudding has specific ingredients. My objection to Purplebackpack's view is that he/she seems to want to "reject SOP", which must mean that he/she doesn't understand it, or else he/she would have to support entries like big chair and purple door. Equinox◑23:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I do understand it, and as I said earlier, if the price of getting some of the less nonsensical SOPs as entries is having some of the more nonsensical SOPs as entries, I'd pay that. Or we could replace SOP with something better. It's time for you and Mglovesfun to stop acting like I'm an idiot Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Astral that SOP needs work, but since there appears (wrongly, IMO) to be a working consensus for SOP, I am not nominating it for abolishment. I am contenting myself with requesting the undeletion of television show and asking that silly laundry list arguments (like the blue ceiling one above) be discouraged Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)15:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
What needs to be discouraged is you weighing in with unevidenced, baseless votes and failing to read or understand any of the logical objections raised to them. Equinox◑16:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
I deleted it because it's not transcluded on any pages (did you actually look at any of them?), and does not need to be kept. And because you created it wrong. You complain that people treat you like an idiot, but then you keep demonstrating that you don't know what you're talking about . . . which would be fine (every editor has some things they're clueless about), except that (1) you seem to be clueless about everything (except perhaps the policies of one of our sister projects), and (2) you don't seem to realize that you're clueless about things, so you keep getting in the way of the editors who actually know what they're doing. —RuakhTALK16:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Um, why didn't you say that in the edit summary? I dispute that I created it wrong, because if you had tested it on a page (it was transcluded on tabernacle before your last edit to the page), you'd see that it came out exactly the way I wanted it to. I dispute that I am clueless about everything; I do, however, believe that the way the elites of this project have crafted policy and templates is not in the best interests of the casual editor. Some of the things you claim are cluelessness are actually disagreeing with things I feel should be different then the way they are, and often with good reason. For example, why would anybody look for "by extension" in the context template? You never here the phrases "in a by extension context", or "in the context of by extension", the way you would with "in a sports context", "in a card game context", "in an archaic context", etc. I personally believe that shoving everything into the context template is confusing to the casual editor, and it would be better if some things (by extension being one of them) had their own templates, or no templates at all. Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)16:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
It was more important to delete it quickly than to try to craft a hundred-character explanation of what's wrong with it. I believe you that you were happy with how it looked, but that's hardly a selling point, since you have a standing policy of disagreeing with all standard practices here. As for the name 'context', you've hardly offered a reason that someone would think to try {{by extension}}, either. 'Context' is not a great name, but anyone who edits here learns it quickly. —RuakhTALK19:50, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
"Since you have a standing policy of disagreeing with all standard practices here." That's inaccurate and nearly a personal attack. It's also acceptable to disagree with the few standard practices I disagree with (and there aren't that many), because I usually give good reasons why I do. I don't see any reason at all why it needed to be deleted quickly, without discussion, as it wasn't breaking anything, nor was it taking up a place where something better belonged. Would it kill you to explain yourself before willy-nilly deleting something, and assume good faith towards me? And you want a reason why people would look for it? If I'm looking for a template that contains "some words", the first place I'll look is Template:Some words. I believe most other editors operate the same way. There's really no point in make it 10x more cryptic than it has to be Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)20:07, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
I do assume good faith on your part. But I do not assume cluefulness. You make many mistaken claims, borne of not understanding what you're doing, when a sensible person would instead start asking questions. And when you say that you assume that a template is named Some words rather than (at the very least) some words, you again demonstrate that you are a Wikipedian, with no true interest in this project. (BTW, regarding your edit-summary at my talk-page: the template says to remove it once I've seen it; so, that's what I do. When the most recent edit does nothing but add that template, the quickest way to remove it is to click 'rollback'. Fear not, this does not imply that I consider your edit to have been vandalism or bad faith. That template is annoying and I find your use of it excessive, but I don't really hold it against you.) —RuakhTALK20:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
Why is thinking like a Wikipedian a bad thing? In the case of templates, there really isn't a compelling reason for Wiktionary to have diverged from Wikipedia as much as it did, and therefore Template:Some words could exist as a redirect to Template:some words. And if I have "no true interest in the project", how come I keep adding definitions? I do have a true interest in the project, I just feel it would be improve by templates being more straight-forward and/or redundant, and by words like television show being kept. Saying I have "no true interest in the project" is wrong (and assuming bad faith too) Purplebackpack89(Notes Taken)(Locker)20:34, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
