User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4
Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 4, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
| User talk: Purplebackpack89 |
|---|
 Archives |
Congratulations!
In the course of your interactions with P Aculeius, you've managed to have been accused of most of the same things you've been criticizing others for in the past. I haven't sorted through the relative merit of your accusations vs. his accusations, but I hope this chance to see things from the other side will give you a little more understanding and empathy for your opponents of the past. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Well, if other people can do those things with impunity, why can't I? FWIW, I've decided to be less of a hard-ass on people like Ungoliant, FWIW. So long as nobody calls me a troll or wants me blocked, I'm mostly just going to let it roll off me. Purplebackpack89 17:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- And yes, @Chuck Entz, I can understand why people think Aculeius is a mirror of me. Purplebackpack89 18:18, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not particularly happy about User:DCDuring seemingly being bound and determined to get rid of liberal Republican and conservative Democrat by hook or by crook. Purplebackpack89 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Chuck Entz has just accused you of being himself in all the most technical possible sense. @Chuck Entz: "loudly criticising others and almost never admitting your own mistakes" and "clearly-identifiable personal attacks" indeed. Do not "tl,dr", nor "grok", nor "skim", as it were, the following. Set aside the time and read the denotation of this message in every detail with careful attention to logic and evidence, without substituting mere knowledge of pragmatics, rhetorical devices and how the general tone and sentiment of each message in several conversations interacts with the status, sentiments and connections of each person involved. Neither "You don't like me, I got it" nor "110.55.4.50 is being a troll again" are adequate understandings of this message. Do not, in short, substitute your undeserved importance and nonexistent social intelligence in place of actually understanding the content of this message. As for your "congratulations", keep your obsequious sarcasm to yourself. You've accused others of being, among many other things, hypocritical and assured of their own nonexistent infallibility, when in fact those characteristics belong also or entirely to yourself. On these and your other characteristics, you, Chuck Entz - how do I put this mildly and in a family-friendly and civilly terse manner while currently refraining from impolite fictions so as to reserve them for your likely, but not something so close to "unavoidable" as "inevitable", show of lack of both humility and self-respect alike from which I am attempting to deter you - are an unmitigated, consummated, self-righteous, unprovoked or under-provoked, hypocritical (not so authorized nor legitimate as to be "ironic"), archetypal biter (as in WP:BITE) with allies that are completely loyal to your epic, manifest arrogance, irrationality and personality cult, that discuss your bite victims like they're not there, tell lies of commission about them and erase content disputes from where they belong in an almost minitrue-like manner. Furthermore, the reason why Pete's message granted me the right, and imposed on me the obligation, for an attack is that you deserved being attacked with the truth about your own public conduct. You have far more to apologize for than the minor, but due to the lack of the most basic civility and rationality whatsoever that you've repeatedly demonstrated in some other offenses, intolerable, offenses such as snarking at Adjutor101, Kibi78704, and Pete and possibly mistaking someone for an ableist. Strangely, you are actually capable of apologizing for something, which makes your unapologetic outrageous troll behavior all the more avoidable. You've failed to publish any course transcripts whatsoever. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt on this one point and assume that you are not an Essjay case. No one cares or believes that you are not fluent or expert in any one area. You've thoroughly abused and exceeded the power, status and "right to exercise power given by ... academic knowledge of an area" given to you due to your admittedly great but also tragically misused proficiency and hard work, and you have likely mistaken your academic authority as being analogous to the "right to exercise power given by the State", if there is such a thing. You've likely used your academic authority as if it were state-analogous authority to labor under the false premise that your trolling is not trolling, that it is organizationally similar to trolling, but is legitimate under the further, also false, premise that there are several important differences. The only important thing that you and I have in common is that we are both Anglophone Wiktionary readers with no right to exercise power akin to that given by the State, whatsoever. While I do not and did not troll, should I begin to do so, I would be entirely proficient in doing so. Despite your through experience in biting, I would be more proficient in trolling than you and all your allies combined. But as unlike you and Ajax as described by Iomenedes in Sophocles' play Ajax, I have good judgement and there is also much else to be found sufficient in me as well, for I do not, in fact, have a vile temper. Instead of a vile temper, I had a situation in which you provoked me into telling an inconvenient truth: that you are, in short, wholly unfit for, and undeserving of, your command, however informal that command may be. I strongly recommend that you stop acting like a troll in all but name, that you stop treating those that are not trolls like they are trolls, and that you not lash out against this very post. If you act like something and treat others like they are the thing, then it is only a matter of time before they act like the thing. However repugnant that may or may not be, it is an inevitable consequence to anyone with your conduct. Trolling is just one of those things, and if you and I were to go troll-to-troll, then my victory in "the coming battle", as it were, will be overwhelming. That I have more important things to do than sort through your misconduct is too true for me to be a past or current Forum Warz player as such, and too false to tolerate any further misconduct of yours, sir. You are incapable of inheriting any of the significance of this message as significance of your own. This is not a joke, a metaphor or an exaggeration. This is not an insult. This is not a flame bait. This is not a provocation, nor is this a love letter so we can foe yay or have any other sort of romantic or sexual tension whatsoever. It is a warning and, in that a warning could ever be advice, it is the most or among the most implementable, eloquent, enlightening and just plain profound advice you shall ever find regarding your conduct as a Wiktionarian. 110.55.4.50 06:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Wow! That's an awful lot of verbiage to dump on an unsuspecting third party's talk page- but then, for you, everything always revolves around you, and everyone else doesn't matter. You come up with your own peculiar definition of mercenary and all the dictionaries of the world have to immediately change to conform to it. You don't get your way, so you heap verbal abuse on the person who stopped you. That person stops listening to said abuse, so you drag in third parties, like hostages ("If you don't listen to me, I'll talk them to death"). Whatever my differences with Purplebackpack89, he doesn't deserve this. Get a life! Chuck Entz (talk) 07:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Chuck Entz: THAT WAS ADDRESSED MOSTLY TO YOU, NOT TALKING PURPLEBACKPACK TO DEATH, YOU INATTENTIVE LIAR. YOU SHOULD TRY READING BEFORE YOU TROLL. What is wrong with you? Also, I am overwhelmingly not attempting to take Purplebackpack hostage. I was supporting them by delivering against you the condemnation you deserve. In conversations with me, Pete and so on, you're not very attentive. Furthermore, the only reason this is not on your talk page is that you archived the conversation in which I found it necessary to participate and I don't edit archives. It says right there, don't " mere knowledge of pragmatics, rhetorical devices and how the general tone and sentiment of each message in several conversations interacts with the status, sentiments and connections of each person involved". How about we have some more of those apologies you gave me when Pete and I told you off? @Purplebackpack: I was not, and am not, taking you hostage, nor was I, nor am I, attempting to do so. Nor am I talking you to death. I am merely weighing in on the conduct dispute on behalf of a stranger in a public forum, and defending the character of Wiktionary against this biter that would bring Wiktionary into disrepute. How Chuck Entz comes up with any of this stuff is not clear. Lack of research would leave undefeased the presumption that condemnation of this severity is an impolite fiction, but if you would kindly refer to the conversations cited, it would be clear to you that I am not making up any of this alleged "verbal abuse", and that Chuck Entz was the first one to turn it into a conduct dispute. Specifically, this started when I stroked his ego by affirming that his proficiency shows in his tone, and offered for him to show off, but he flew into an unprovoked rage; even more specifically, I said "you don't sound like you're making any of this stuff up, so by all means, demonstrate that you are not", and he flipped out, saying "by the way, using my own words against me would only work if you made some sense. Otherwise it just shows you know you're in over your head and you're desperately trying to come up with some kind of gimmick to divert attention from the losing battle", under the then-false premise that I was using his own words against him, that I was gibbering, that I was in over my head, that we were in a battle, that anyone was losing, and that I was looking for a gimmick to divert attention from anything. In an unsuccessful attempt to defuse the situation in everyone's favor, I told him these premises were false. When the attempt failed, he'd made a distinction between assertions and evidence while making no attempt whatsoever to explain the difference, thus making a distinction without a difference in all but the most technical possible sense, and even in the most technical possible sense it is likely still a distinction without a difference. The final straw, as it were, was when he told me my world was not real and that I became a caricature. After that, I used his own words against him by summing up the conversation thus far and discussed the conduct of him and fellow Wikimedia project members, and his allies erased my report from the bulletin board where it belongs. He's gone on record, explicitly mistaking me for one other person in another post. I was about to retaliate on his talk page by going troll-to-troll by interweaving poetry-like prose accusing him of a narrow vision in linguistics and having no application of the methods of the natural sciences with that which is not profanity as that to be found in Q1353155 but with that which is still unmitigated vulgarity accusing him of everything short of evil. As I would not do that on a talk page other than the one of the person being thusly counter-insulted without the permission of the talk page's host, I must request your permission to thusly inveigh. If and only if you grant this permission, I will thusly inveigh. Unlike many others on Earth, I only ever ask for real permission, so therefore I will not retaliate against rejection. As a linguist, surely he is no stranger to verbiage, but he is treating eloquence and precision as a terrible crime, asserting that for me, everything always revolves around me, and that no one else matters to me. This assertion is also overwhelmingly false. The universe is run by impersonal forces beyond the control of any one person. I am not a follower of the Great Man theory of history, I follow no personality cult, and while the individual is responsible for most or all of their choices, which have consequences for them and those around them, they are not quite the master of their own destiny. Even among individuals, I am not that significant. I hereby show the humility to say that in other matters unrelated to this dispute, I have blundered, but I do not apologize to this troll. His claim that I am the only person that matters to me is both false and is not supported by any evidence on this forum, making it un-falsifiable in practice. 125.212.120.155 10:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Purplebackpack89: Chuck Entz has just accused you of being himself in all the most technical possible sense. @Chuck Entz: "loudly criticising others and almost never admitting your own mistakes" and "clearly-identifiable personal attacks" indeed. Do not "tl,dr", nor "grok", nor "skim", as it were, the following. Set aside the time and read the denotation of this message in every detail with careful attention to logic and evidence, without substituting mere knowledge of pragmatics, rhetorical devices and how the general tone and sentiment of each message in several conversations interacts with the status, sentiments and connections of each person involved. Neither "You don't like me, I got it" nor "110.55.4.50 is being a troll again" are adequate understandings of this message. Do not, in short, substitute your undeserved importance and nonexistent social intelligence in place of actually understanding the content of this message. As for your "congratulations", keep your obsequious sarcasm to yourself. You've accused others of being, among many other things, hypocritical and assured of their own nonexistent infallibility, when in fact those characteristics belong also or entirely to yourself. On these and your other characteristics, you, Chuck Entz - how do I put this mildly and in a family-friendly and civilly terse manner while currently refraining from impolite fictions so as to reserve them for your likely, but not something so close to "unavoidable" as "inevitable", show of lack of both humility and self-respect alike from which I am attempting to deter you - are an unmitigated, consummated, self-righteous, unprovoked or under-provoked, hypocritical (not so authorized nor legitimate as to be "ironic"), archetypal biter (as in WP:BITE) with allies that are completely loyal to your epic, manifest arrogance, irrationality and personality cult, that discuss your bite victims like they're not there, tell lies of commission about them and erase content disputes from where they belong in an almost minitrue-like manner. Furthermore, the reason why Pete's message granted me the right, and imposed on me the obligation, for an attack is that you deserved being attacked with the truth about your own public conduct. You have far more to apologize for than the minor, but due to the lack of the most basic civility and rationality whatsoever that you've repeatedly demonstrated in some other offenses, intolerable, offenses such as snarking at Adjutor101, Kibi78704, and Pete and possibly mistaking someone for an ableist. Strangely, you are actually capable of apologizing for something, which makes your unapologetic outrageous troll behavior all the more avoidable. You've failed to publish any course transcripts whatsoever. I will, however, give you the benefit of the doubt on this one point and assume that you are not an Essjay case. No one cares or believes that you are not fluent or expert in any one area. You've thoroughly abused and exceeded the power, status and "right to exercise power given by ... academic knowledge of an area" given to you due to your admittedly great but also tragically misused proficiency and hard work, and you have likely mistaken your academic authority as being analogous to the "right to exercise power given by the State", if there is such a thing. You've likely used your academic authority as if it were state-analogous authority to labor under the false premise that your trolling is not trolling, that it is organizationally similar to trolling, but is legitimate under the further, also false, premise that there are several important differences. The only important thing that you and I have in common is that we are both Anglophone Wiktionary readers with no right to exercise power akin to that given by the State, whatsoever. While I do not and did not troll, should I begin to do so, I would be entirely proficient in doing so. Despite your through experience in biting, I would be more proficient in trolling than you and all your allies combined. But as unlike you and Ajax as described by Iomenedes in Sophocles' play Ajax, I have good judgement and there is also much else to be found sufficient in me as well, for I do not, in fact, have a vile temper. Instead of a vile temper, I had a situation in which you provoked me into telling an inconvenient truth: that you are, in short, wholly unfit for, and undeserving of, your command, however informal that command may be. I strongly recommend that you stop acting like a troll in all but name, that you stop treating those that are not trolls like they are trolls, and that you not lash out against this very post. If you act like something and treat others like they are the thing, then it is only a matter of time before they act like the thing. However repugnant that may or may not be, it is an inevitable consequence to anyone with your conduct. Trolling is just one of those things, and if you and I were to go troll-to-troll, then my victory in "the coming battle", as it were, will be overwhelming. That I have more important things to do than sort through your misconduct is too true for me to be a past or current Forum Warz player as such, and too false to tolerate any further misconduct of yours, sir. You are incapable of inheriting any of the significance of this message as significance of your own. This is not a joke, a metaphor or an exaggeration. This is not an insult. This is not a flame bait. This is not a provocation, nor is this a love letter so we can foe yay or have any other sort of romantic or sexual tension whatsoever. It is a warning and, in that a warning could ever be advice, it is the most or among the most implementable, eloquent, enlightening and just plain profound advice you shall ever find regarding your conduct as a Wiktionarian. 110.55.4.50 06:41, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Not particularly happy about User:DCDuring seemingly being bound and determined to get rid of liberal Republican and conservative Democrat by hook or by crook. Purplebackpack89 20:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
big = "Someone or something that is large in stature"
Hi. What would be an example sentence for this? With coffee, I can imagine "I'd like a large", but not "I'd like a big". When is "big" a noun? Equinox ◑ 00:17, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't look for citations with the phrase "a big", but rather "the bigs" and "your bigs", for which there are numerous citations. The most applicable sentences I can find quickly are "Powerful big players can also be problematic to guard if your bigs are weaker or slower than theirs—though occasionally you can win a matchup for a while with a smaller, quicker player on their big one." (bigs=tall basketball players; one person who furthers this terminology is basketball commentator Stu Lantz) and "Government has a responsibility to oversee the operations of the bigs and we accept that. We have nothing against the bigs; their contribution to the economy is essential". (where "bigs" refers to big corporate entities). I also came across "If these are your smalls, I'd hate to see your bigs.", where "bigs" refers to bloomers. If you were looking for less complex sentences, one for the basketball players would be, "It's important to keep your bigs out of foul trouble". I'd note that a similar sentence is already in existence at the entry for bigs. Purplebackpack89 00:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- Is it ever used in the singular? </curiosity> ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
- IDK. Like I said, I've usually heard it as "your bigs" or "the bigs" Purplebackpack89 05:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
Something disappeared.
I offered to apologize to someone on Wikimedia for saying I could go troll-to-troll against Chuck Entz. But now, I can't find the offer. I'm ready to apologize, but I don't know where to apologize. I can't find it on your talk page, nor with the search function in Wiktionary nor Wikipedia. Can you please tell me where to go? 110.55.0.56 05:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Hey, leave me out of this! If you want to talk to User:Chuck Entz, talk to him at User talk:Chuck Entz. I'm not Chuck Entz. Yes, he is a frequent commentator on my talk page, but this is not the venue to talk to him. (Also, I archived your message). Purplebackpack89 14:08, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Why we don't need durable citations
- In today's world, a greater percentage of content is on not-necessarily-durable website rather than print media or durable websites.
- Compare to books. We don't link to every book we have, and we don't unfrequently cite rare books where Joe Avg is unlikely to ever obtain a compy.
- Some things don't stay up forever, but many things do. Instead of assuming that something will eventually disappear, we could assume that it won't (FWIW, Wikipedia makes the latter assumption; it doesn't require durable references
- If the quote that uses the word is already on Wiktionary, do we necessarily need a link to anything anyway?
Purplebackpack89 18:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- Do you think you could please answer the question I asked to you at Equinox's talk page, about this subject? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the "other words" question? I can't think of one right this minute, but I would guess there are a number of words, particularly recent slang or words primarily used on the 'Net, that would benefit from a relaxation. Purplebackpack89 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you think of some words in the future, I'd be curious to know. As I said, I can't say I agree with your proposal at this exact moment, but knowing what words could be affected by it would make some practical difference and would be good way to start discussing. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- You mean the "other words" question? I can't think of one right this minute, but I would guess there are a number of words, particularly recent slang or words primarily used on the 'Net, that would benefit from a relaxation. Purplebackpack89 18:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you don't like our policies, start a vote to change them. Don't just whine about it all the time. You have to work with a system to change it. Equinox ◑ 15:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
- There's a BP discussion going on this topic, @Equinox. Also, while you're hear, lemme ask you this: do you legitimately doubt that this word is used? Have you examined its internet usage? Purplebackpack89 18:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.
You are encouraged to change
'''<font face="Verdana">]]</font>''': Purplebackpack89
to
<b style="font-family:Verdana">]]</b>: Purplebackpack89
—Anomalocaris (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- K it should be fixed now Purplebackpack89 18:11, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:52, 1 June 2018 (UTC)