Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5 in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5 you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5 will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Purplebackpack89/Archive 5, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I've provided a copy of the page for you (with some additions that I think would be necessary for an entry), in case you have lost your copy. The first revision is your original version of the page. I userspaced it because this is gonna be one of those terms I'll keep an eye on for attestation. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I stumbled across your entry for Paumanok. I'm pretty sure i know where the confusion comes from, but that word is almost certainly not from the Algonquin language, but rather from a different Algonquian language - perhaps Unami or Munsee. I'm not really sure what to about that, but the alq language in wiktionary refers to the language spoken in Quebec and Ontario, but not in New York. SteveGat (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 4 years ago19 comments6 people in discussion
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. Purplebackpack8900:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
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. bd2412T01:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
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. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds01:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
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.
@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. Purplebackpack8903:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
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. Purplebackpack8901:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@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? Purplebackpack8903:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
If I had seen an IP editor create an entry like that, I probably would have deleted the ALgonquian section as "no usable content given". It's one thing to refer to the word in the etymology for an English entry- that would be easy to fix. The problem is that Paumanok is probably not how the original name would be spelled- it's what's left after it was borrowed into English and perhaps Dutch as well. We don't have a German entry at Munich. Yes, the English name came from German, but the correct spelling in German is München. Besides, most American Indian languages are morphologically quite complex: there may be various prefixes, suffixes or clitics involved, so the lemma might not be what you think. I hope the definition is right, but I've seen too many cases of misinterpreted local names to be even sure of that. A favorite example comes from an African languages class: apparently there are (or were) bodies of water in western Africa with names along the lines of "Sedlo". The story goes that an explorer would point at a river and ask in French what it was called, and the local person would answer, also in French, "c'est de l'eau" ("that's water").
As for the language: as was pointed out above, Algonquin was not spoken in New York. The local language was apparently an Algonquian language (notice the difference in spelling), but we wouldn't have a header for that- nobody speaks families, they speak languages. Your entry was like an English entry with a German header and a "de" language code, under the justification that "it's in a Germanic language."
My take on this is that you made the kind of mistakes I would expect from someone with zero Wiktionary experience: creating an entry in a language you literally don't even know how to spell, forgetting really basic things like where the language section goes, how to use headword templates, etc. Having just had a discussion with you, Meta obviously still had you on his watchlist, so it's hardly surprising that he saw the message about your entry. Anyone who's worked with non-Indo-European languages knows how easy it is to go wrong with even very basic stuff, so the mention of your creating an entry in an American Indian language rightly set off more alarm bells than that gender-reveal party in Yucaipa. The fact that you restored the entry without fixing even the most obvious mistakes made it look like you were doing it strictly to make a point.
Sure, Meta could have been more diplomatic and discussed it more before acting, but you really need to step back and take a look in the mirror. I'll admit I've never been a great fan of your work here to start with, but I have to say this isn't like you: even your worst mistakes from a few years ago were better than this. Chuck Entz (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Please leave Yucaipa out of this, @Chuck Entz. I've spent the last couple days breathing their dust. And you can understand why I'm upset at Meta, right? This is nowhere the first time they've acted undiplomatic toward me and this WILL be the last time, they WILL no longer interact with me. If something needs to be done about a page I've edited, somebody else can do it. Purplebackpack8911:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
And the use of a block here was questionable, because a) it could have easily been resolved without a block, and b) Admins shouldn't block people they are content-disputing. And, TBH, Meta should remove this page from their watchlist and stop interacting with it! Purplebackpack8911:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, I'm not sure Munich/Munchen is the best example because German is a written language and the Algonquin languages aren't, or at least weren't before Paumanok entered the English language. Purplebackpack8911:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I have no comment on the block/unblock/interactions. You all have more experience here than me. On the underlying issue, Paumanok is most decidedly NOT an Algonquin term, and never was. It may or may not have a connection to a different Algonquian language. SteveGat (talk) 13:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Absolutely. But i don't get to pick the terms applied to languages vs. language families. And it's no worse than German and Germanic, Finnish and Finnic, Turkish and Turkic, etc. The problem in this case seems to stem from Pritchard who - maybe for political reasons - refers to all Algonquian languages as Algonquin, parallel to his assertion that all Algonquian speakers and their descendants are part of the Algonquin nation. That practise has no basis in linguistics and certainly doesn't fit how Algonquin (the language) is treated here in the wiktionary. Paumanok probably comes from Lenape or another language spoken near what is now New York City. SteveGat (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
@SteveGat You said, "I don't get to pick the terms applied to languages vs. language families." This is a user-generated project, so if you wanted to propose slapping a front word in front of Algonquin to make it less confusing, you totally could and if enough people agreed with you, it'd change Purplebackpack8921:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Where does it say "it's a Purplebackpack89 entry"? All @Benwing2 did was incorporate a ping into the mention of you as the creator so you would be notified of the RFD. If all he wanted to do was cast aspersions on you, he would have left out the ping. My take on this is that he was made aware of it by the other rfvs and rfds.
This kind of hysterical over-the-top reaction just makes it easier to dismiss you as someone with mental or emotional problems- not that anyone would refer to it explicitly, but they wouldn't have to. What would you think if you saw someone else do this kind of thing? Please stop shooting yourself in the foot- it makes such a mess, and you might hit someone else by mistake... Chuck Entz (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz, try to be in my shoes for a moment. I've had more scrutiny of my edits in the past week and a half than in the previous five years. And some of the undos or RfDs I'm facing are in and of themselves ill-considered (Knight readding controversial language at got dog, Benwing not understanding the context of "dont tread on me"...) If you were facing the kind of magnifying glass I and my edits were, you would be very upset. IDK how you'd express yourself, but you'd be angry. And remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you. (It doesn't help your case, BTW, that Benwing commented on three RfDs I'd also commented on in the last hour) Purplebackpack8900:26, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I can only speak to Benwing2's behavior: it can be explained by simple awareness and attention, rather than malice. If someone reacted oddly to something I wrote, I would see what else they had posted. I make a point of reading the diffs for all the discussion forums on my watchlist, every day. Benwing is a lot busier than I am, so I doubt he keeps up with it all. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
For Benwing being starved for time, he seems to have found enough of it to read my user page. And @Chuck Entz I still think you're not quite understanding what I've been going through through the past week and a half: people are looking back at years worth of my edits (some of which nobody has questioned in years), and cramming scrutiny of them into a few days. Would it kill people to slow down the pace or maybe lay off me for a few weeks so I can catch my breath? And the additional problem here is that it was flat-out a bad RfD...Ben clearly didn't understand the context of the definition and he hasn't been able to persuade anyone else to vote delete, And it's not the first time in the past few days that supposedly good editors have made bad edits trying to undo my edits. Purplebackpack8910:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Benwing nominated an article I created for deletion
Within a few hours, five people have voted to retain it
I suggest to Benwing that he withdraw a nomination that is likely to be closed as keep
Fenakhay blocks me for supposed harassment a few minutes later
Ridiculous, ain't it? Also, if other editors are allowed to monitor my edits, I'm allowed to discuss their changes to my changes. That's only fair. And while you're here, please unblock me. Purplebackpack8923:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks
Latest comment: 5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 5 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You are misunderstanding what "related terms" means. Please read WT:EL. "Related terms" are those that are syntactically related, not just those that have some vague semantic or topical connection. The latter types can be placed under ==See also== but I would question whether you really need to put all Monopoly-related terms under ==See also== for every other such term. Benwing2 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Purplebackpack89: Speedy keep Several have voted keep, only the nominator has voted delete
Benwing2: User:Purplebackpack89 Please read w:Snowball clause. This clearly does not apply here, so your speedy keep was in error.
Purplebackpack89: @Benwing2 Your undoing of my close is what is in error (and you would not have undone it if it were anyone else). What is the cause for this remaining open? The editor who added the tag didn't even vote or provide a rationale. There's no rationale for deleting this at all. I fundamentally ask you: why should this still be open?
Theknightwho: I have blocked @Purplebackpack89 for three days, as their behaviour is becoming seriously disruptive and their unwavering claims of being victimised are becoming unmanageable. This is far from the first block they have received for disruptive behaviour.
This was then followed by a message on Benwing2's talkpage (), with similar accusations.
To explain in more detail, there are two reasons why I chose to block PB89 here, which are both related:
They are highly disruptive in discussions, consistently BLUDGEONing and casting aspersions about the motivations of other editors, which prevents productive discussion from taking place, and wastes a lot of people's time as they try to explain (in vain) why they disagree.
Purplebackpack89 consistently personalises disputes by claiming that they are being personally victimised, which essentially makes their behaviour unmanageable, since they will always protest that anyone who tries to mitigate their disruption has some kind of bias/conflict of interest. You can see four separate instances of it on this very page: (1) in their accusation towards Ben, (2) from a few years ago towards Metaknowledge (at the top of the page), (3) the "I am being harassed" thread from June and (4) a more subtle one directed at me, where they group me together with Benwing2 (presumably as harassers), imply I've done this lots of times before, all while dishonestly misrepresenting the reason why I blocked them (edit: they've now made an overt claim in the thread below). There are many, many more examples of this from the last few months alone, so it is very evident that this behaviour is both ubiquitous and long-term, which is a serious problem.
No. The problem is here is that you've made two questionable blocks in quick sucession, both of editors you were disagreeing with or have disagreed with in the past.
There is nothing warranting a block in the passages you've quoted. Blocks are for things like vandalism and there's no evidence of that in what you've provided. There IS evidence that you blocked someone in the middle of a discussion. Are editors not allowed to discuss you or Benny's actions now? Do administrators have immunity and get a different set of rules than us peons?
Finally, as for claims of victimization, you just enacted a bogus block over nothing. That could easily and rightfully be considered victimization. There's something 1984-y about using perception of victimization as a reason to commit an act of it. War is peace, lies are truth... Purplebackpack8918:14, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I had never interacted with Elizium23 before, was not in any kind of disagreement with them other than reverting their attempt to edit another user's comment, and no-one disagreed with my block (including Koavf and WordyAndNerdy), so don't make things up. You are just engaging in yet more of the very behaviour I have described above, thereby proving my point and the justification for your block in the first place. You are not being victimised: you are just being extremely disruptive and refuse to accept it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
No. You are being a rogue admin who has had longstanding and well-documented problems getting along with other editors and has just made two inappropriate blocks. "Disruption" is a slippery, amorphous term and you've misused it this time. It is NOT Disruption to question another editor's action. What frankly IS Disruption is your misuse of the blocking tool
It is very apparent that there are no circumstances under which you will accept that your behaviour is a problem, or that anyone who disagrees with you is not out to get you unfairly. Please take the next three days to reflect on how you've behaved. Theknightwho (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There may be other circumstances in which my behavior is a problem.
This is not one of them.
Neither me nor anyone else should be blocked under the circumstances you blocked me, or blocked Elizium23. Discussion is not disruption.
And you have demonstrated in this thread that you are confrontational as all get out and not to be trusted with the admin tools. Expect a discussion about that soon. Purplebackpack8918:39, 7 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Furthermore, you blocked me without actually giving any reason why the entry should be deleted or discussed any further.
