Purplebackpack89

User talk: Purplebackpack89
Archives
2012/2013 2014 2015 2016/2017/2018 2019/2020

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)

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)

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. Purplebackpack89 11:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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! Purplebackpack89 11:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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. Purplebackpack89 11:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

In other words, it's not Algonquin...but it's Algonquin... Purplebackpack89 13:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Algonquin (language) ≠ Algonquian (language family). SteveGat (talk) 13:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You do realize how counter-intuitive that is, right? Purplebackpack89 13:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

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)

@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 Purplebackpack89 21:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Pritchard doesn't actually say that it is in the Algonquin language. He describes it as being in the "Renneiu language", which is not a well-used name. Another linguist says that "Renneiu appears to be P.'s name for the r-dialect Munsee spoken in western Long Island". Our own article on the History of Long Island suggests as much. bd2412 T 01:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)