User talk:BD2412

Status: Active. Archives: 1 (10/05 - 08/06); 2 (07/06 - 02/07); 3 (02/07 - 6/28/07); 4 (6/29/07 - 12/31/07); 5 (1/08 - 8/08); 6 (9/08 - 12/09); 7 (12/09-12/11); 8 (1/12-4/16); 9 (11/16-12/24) Interaction ban? I thought we'd agreed that there was an interaction ban between Knight and I in a previous discussion. Then why is he going around deleting redirects I've created and claiming they are vandalism? It sure feels like he's trying to start a fight to justify blocking me again. That bugger CANNOT avoid being confrontational 12:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Purplebackpack89 12:37, 12 March 2025 (UTC) Can you point me to some examples? bd2412 T 04:20, 17 March 2025 (UTC) @bd2412: the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral. Very inappropriate edit summaries and not really speedy-able anyway. Purplebackpack89 20:13, 17 March 2025 (UTC) @User:Purplebackpack89 I don't think calling someone a bugger is appropriate: too person-oriented. It would have been better to drop the last sentence of your complaint. DCDuring (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Regardless of how you feel about bugger, Theknightwho has a well-documented history of confrontation. Purplebackpack89 20:15, 17 March 2025 (UTC) @Theknightwho: I am not fond of having conversations about people to which those people are not privy, so I am inviting you here, but I have to say that I tend to agree that your referring to a long standing editor, who is making obviously good faith edits, as a "vandal" is at least as inappropriate as that editor referring to you as a "bugger". I have said before, and will repeat now, that if you think that an editor with whom you have a personal conflict is doing bad work, the best practice for you would be to sit back and allow another administrator to address that. If no one else does, consider the possibility that this means that others do not consider the edits in question to be improper. bd2412 T 20:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC) @BD2412 I did not claim these were created by a vandal. What @Purplebackpack89 is referring to is the deletion summary, which says Created in error: content was: "{{speedy|This phrase is never used alone, as discussed at RFV/RFD -- note a vandal keeps recreating it -- please protect}} #REDIRECT the bride at every wedding, the corpse at every funeral". The part from content was: onwards is automatically generated, and the words "note a vandal keeps recreating it" were part of the text on the page at the point it was deleted. My thoughts at this point are: I do not have a "personal conflict" here. In fact, I did not even check who created the page, because it was irrelevant, but even if I had, I fail to see how I have done anything inappropriate. I do not understand what Purplebackpack89 is attempting to achieve by coming to you like this. Purplebackpack89 has a long history of behaving like this towards numerous other editors - this goes back many years. I do not see why we should assume good faith in Purplebackpack89 when they never assume it themselves (as evidenced by this complaint on your page, and the fact they did not notify me that they were making it). Theknightwho (talk) 23:48, 17 March 2025 (UTC) @Theknightwho: I do appreciate your explanation. It is correct that speedily deleting a page tagged by another will incorporate the text of the speedy deletion tag into the deletion edit summary. In this case, the language referring to the page creator as a "vandal" was left by an anonymous IP, User:2a00:23c5:fe1c:3701:6564:4720:7fd0:84ee. bd2412 T 00:27, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Let's say what Knight says about the deletion is true. I'm willing to accept that it might be. It does strike me as rather careless of you because you accepted a speedy tag with it seems little research as to who tagged it or if what was said on the tag was true or not. As an admin, you need to follow all policies and guidelines. That means assuming good faith in me whether you want to or not. That means assuming good faith in Dan Polansky and all the others you been confrontational to as well. As for this 2a00... business, because I am not an admin, I can't see how the page was tagged before Knight deleted it, nor can I see WHO tagged it. This WOULD pass a lot of the responsibility on to 2a00... for creating an inappropriate tag. And, FWIW, there's a 90%+ chance that 2a00... is our old friend WonderFool. I still believe Knight should be under an interaction ban with me given his history of confrontation with me and with other editors. And the fact that Theknightwho cannot admit that interacting with me might be inappropriate, and instead turns this around to attack me, vindicates my belief that an interaction ban is necessary. Purplebackpack89 00:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC) Purpleback is still here? I thought we got rid of that annoying bugger. Father of minus 2 (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC) Freedom of speech to the outermost limits of the terms of service of the website would mean you could call a person a vandal or call a person a bugger or anything like that, and it would be okay. Because freedom of speech isn't really about some words you say, it's about freedom to think openly. Freedom to be wrong, freedom to be unpleasant, freedom to be a fool. THAT'S the Wiktionary you want- a Wiktionary that is totally unfazed by use of common parlance. THAT is conducive to the long-term interests of building the dictionary project. The road to decline is the road of "interaction bans" or similar for use of simple gibes, insults or similar. The road to success is to REJECT speech control rules. Leave that backward, unenlightened era behind. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2025 (UTC) @Geographyinitiative: The purpose of this project is to build a dictionary, not to create a free speech zone. There are plenty of those elsewhere on the internet. Our purpose is best served by attracting people who can provide a high quality of research, writing, and reasoning. We do not attract the best contributors by allowing the site to devolve to base name calling. It is for that very good reason that civility is a bedrock principle of this project. bd2412 T 02:38, 18 March 2025 (UTC) I just have to realize that freedom of speech is no longer respected anywhere; it is literally despised in every quarter. So I just have to reframe what I'm saying to "freedom of thought". Surely you all realize that "freedom of thought" is conducive to the building of the dictionary. I wonder.... "Civility" does not mean no slightly insulting words can ever be used. It is, indeed, uncivil to demand that human beings never use slightly insulting words in their communication. That's the uncivility I'm challenging! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2025 (UTC) If you want to talk freedom of thought, I got blocked for three months largely because I think differently than the GODS here and they don't like it... Purplebackpack89 02:11, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Use of any person-oriented pejorative to refer to a member of the contributing community here is bad practice and contributes to and is symptomatic of bad interpersonal interactions. IMHO, it would be wise policy to censure (not censor!) folks who do this. DCDuring (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2025 (UTC) You put in an effort to attack people, knowingly dropping inappropriate content. So they come back. Theknightwho totally can avoid being confrontational, and is so as mildly as conceivable if he doesn’t, while you can’t expect someone to be not confrontational, with the amount of risks you take. Stop gathering people to fight with. It is not getting better for you. You are getting more disfavourable interaction than you hoped to stave off. Fay Freak (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Cap, Fay Freak, straight cap. You're essentially saying that BOLD doesn't apply to me, and you have provided zero evidence whatsoever of any inappropriate content within a reasonable recent time frame. And as for "Theknightwho totally can avoid being confrontational", numerous discussions about his confrontational behavior would suggest otherwise, as would his comments above where he is complete unable to understand why interacting with me might be a bad idea. Purplebackpack89 02:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC) How has it got so far that interacting with you is a bad idea? Could it be that you are unable to understand? And yet stick your neck out into matters you are unable to grasp, only then to be offended in accordance with your expectation? Overall more confrontational than anyone else. People have chosen not to, yet you try them; their confrontational behaviour does not suggest their inability if only pointed out once you appear. Fay Freak (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2025 (UTC) still haven't provided evidence of "dropping inappropriate content", but whatever. Looks like you can't and should just desist. Purplebackpack89 03:25, 20 March 2025 (UTC) Here is an example of someone "dropping inappropriate content" recently: Fay Freak lobbing the r-slur in the middle of an off-topic political rant on RfD just three days ago. If I'm being honest, TKW's overall conduct seems improved from two or so years ago, but FF has been freely rolling around the deck for half a decade. Nonsense like this is why I pre-emptively avoid most discussions in which FF is involved or back out if he shows up. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:12, 20 March 2025 (UTC) @WordyAndNerdy: And speaking of a “rant” is not an inappropriate slur? The “wild, emotional, and sometimes incoherent articulation” or “uncontrollable anger” or whatever that means is in your head. No political assessment of the entry has been made from my side, nor can you claim it off-topic. It is just you making up a judgement to side against me (chime in against me, though you claim to don’t usually do it/avoid it, something pressing emotionally obviously?), not because politicization was objectively present in my utterance, admit it, which is inappropriate. And contradicts your voiced opinion that I am freely rolling around the deck—sounds good and creative to me—, which counterindicates concern with personal politics again. My view of things is so unconcerned that I am liberal to consider “the r-slur” as a self-designation, for I do not let any groups hijack that which expresses what is conceived best; connotation cannot beat denotation, or you see a whole society confused by it: terms like retarded, autistic, spastic, moron, cuck, stalking, stalker, Nazi etc. intended for specific states are always taken very literally by me and not transferred for groups or internet phenomena beyond their meatworld base. Purposefully eliciting emotions, not insisting on their sparing allotment, is inappropriate, for attention and willpower needed for a beneficial project is limited organically, in the meatworld again, the anterior cingulate cortex. I am actually concerned with the mental sanity of people, so where does the idea of inappropriate abuse of disability terminology like retarded come from? Is it inappropriate to consider human brains and personhoods when dealing with their behaviour, and the description of their language has to be made? No, and I have to perform it only consciously, which amounts to expressly often, since remember that I literally don’t have the ability to social interact (the definition of ASD), I don’t feel you, I have to simulate your theory of mind by my intellectual capability, which is as expensive as you barely even imagine, that’s also why I know what is expensive there and can only make indirect assumptions about the capabilities of others in it. If you disallow negative descriptions here it is just false, there is a deficit, and complicatedly people have different ones but use the same language as though they had not, even overvaluing hiding their personal deficits. Purplebackpack89 does the opposite, opening a thread to call someone specific a bugger, as it turns out based on an overfast accusation of being called something, which he could have recognized if he were not guided by the emotion, accusing people doing their jobs as patrollers of stalking, and adding multiword entries he foresaw being contested (one even less likely than the other voted down already, when a year ago I ultimately expressly came to the conclusion of him acting in bad faith, he remembers which entries, I do not have access to the deletion logs), which again was inappropriate. You are not even applying the concept of appropriateness correctly; you cannot deny I look at getting across correct core messages, and vague social expectations have less bearing from what I can see than commonly assumed. And now only, after you get the facts straight, you can conceive political denominations – value judgements after factual observations, something for Purplebackpack89 to learn, since he accuses me of lies and thereby demonstrates that he does not even know what a lie is, like above outlined alt-righters calling everyone a cuck. How do we get MAGA and Putler? People are quick to react emotionally on an overly specific point, for right-wingers mostly something about sinister foreigners against whom they demand protection, and make their vote depend on it. Neurotypicism is a disability, or retardation—which is synonymous—, where everything connects to the broader context of the tribe, lacking a reality check, this is how you explain fascism being supported by the majority. The neoreactionaries you suffer now made an intentional ideology out of it, too, noting often the complications around thinking higher than Dunbar's number. It is that stupid, and I am supposed to be the edgelord or some enemy of your personal comfort zone for pointing it out. Think about time preference though: be offended now, enlightened later, it is a bit like exposure therapy: write your most problematic slurs or obsessive-compulsive thoughts on a chit and carry it with you till next week. The executive functions will become better this way, because emotions connected with ideas carried in mind are a burden. You just intuitively think this is nonsense: I actually think that complicated and it takes years to learn how debate hinges on such functions circumventing feelings. Now there is also this gender bias. It is probable that you are averse to it because males do it more often or heavily, for whatever reason indeed historically being considered less emotional. Again not my devaluation based on sex and not my imputation, just something I suggest to consider due to statistical observations. Of course I must also be schizoid enough to disregard relations of people altogether and explain their entanglements; I hope this is for your benefit, WordyAndNerdy. Fay Freak (talk) 17:50, 20 March 2025 (UTC) 1) It was wrong of you to assume I was acting in bad faith 2) You STILL haven't provided a single diff of a bad edit in 2025 (and, until you do, I WILL contend your assertion that I make bad edits is inaccurate. Making accusations without evidence IS YOU acting in bad faith) 3) Your 5,000 character comment is rather nonsensical and makes unnecessary parallels to editor behavior and the current political climate Purplebackpack89 20:24, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I won't dignify the above wall of text with a response, except to note 1) I'm on the spectrum as I told Fay Freak the last time he gave this excuse for his on-wiki conduct, and 2) I'm requesting an interaction ban limiting Fay Freak from replying to or addressing me (including indirectly, as seen here – I avoided further comments in this discussion while it was active due his engagement). WordyAndNerdy (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2025 (UTC) I support your request for an interaction ban. I'd honestly even go a step further: I think Fay Freak's comments are so inappropriate and nonsensical, they warrant a block. Purplebackpack89 15:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC) This is increasingly looking to me Like a discussion that should be taking place in a more public and community-oriented forum than my talk page. However, I will absolutely endorse DCDuring's last comment here. bd2412 T 22:51, 19 March 2025 (UTC) Nah, this is person-oriented. It does not look like Purplebackpack89 should embroil us in even considering to establish new rules to follow. Nobody saw a fuss and then out of the blue appeared another main character thread. Fay Freak (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC) I was under the impression that we already had the discussion and that an interaction ban had been implemented. Purplebackpack89 02:31, 20 March 2025 (UTC) DCDuring writes: "Use of any person-oriented pejorative to refer to a member of the contributing community here is bad practice and contributes to and is symptomatic of bad interpersonal interactions." However, I would tell you that the much greater bad practice is to so stifle the human spirit that an editor cannot speak a single insulting word against another editor without fear of reprisal by the community. Apologies if I am misusing your page BD, but if I don't speak up now, and I mean now- the speech control restrictions will just get more and more confining. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 10:47, 20 March 2025 (UTC) It is a bad idea to use the canard of "free speech" to justify shaming and insulting a user off the project... Purplebackpack89 15:19, 20 March 2025 (UTC) @User:Geographyinitiative It is a question of whose human spirit is stifled: the would-be insultor or the insultee? And an insult often triggers an equivalent response and can spread to include others. If insults are essential to one's spirit perhaps one could avoid stifling someone else's spirit by insulting AI entities or contributing on a site populated by folks whose spirit soars when exchanging insults with the likeminded. DCDuring (talk) 18:58, 20 March 2025 (UTC) You've got mail You've got some Purplebackpack89 12:48, 22 March 2025 (UTC) Need an edit hidden Hello BD, I believe this edit constitutes an OUTing attempt and it should be hidden. Purplebackpack89 15:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC) Have also sent you an email regarding this topic. Purplebackpack89 15:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC) It seems like it's just speculation to me, but I'll follow through on this. bd2412 T 04:04, 25 March 2025 (UTC) On further examination, the content still being in the discussion, I don't see what good hiding that specific edit would do. bd2412 T 04:06, 25 March 2025 (UTC) @BD2412 Did you get a chance to read my email about why I want it hidden? Also, what the hell with Svartava? He's proposing a long-term block because I ask admins to assume good faith, contested a deletion of a category, and ask Benwing not to speculate where I'm from? And he took away my rollback? Could you weigh in on beer parlor and get him to tone it down? Purplebackpack89 11:29, 25 March 2025 (UTC) If your issue was really with your privacy, you'd have long ago asked Wikipedia to delete other details (what college you attend etc.) from your Wikipedia user page hsitory. But we know it's not about that. It's petty revenge as usual on whoever disagrees with you. 2A00:23C5:FE1C:3701:888:8C8E:A3FE:E3AA 11:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC) I have very specific reasons for wanting that piece of information hidden. And you're one to talk since you created part of this mess by calling me a "vandal" for creating a reasonable redirect... Purplebackpack89 11:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC) On further review, I have deleted the edit summary. That, at least, will prevent disclosure through casual perusals of the page history. bd2412 T 14:21, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Thank you. Now apparently somebody gotta explain that asking that that be removed is a NOT rationale for blocking me, because, I kid you not, Svartava has suggested that I be blocked for saying that Benwing shouldn't mention that. Purplebackpack89 18:47, 25 March 2025 (UTC) What a blatant misrepresentation of what I posted! And it's certainly in-line with your behavior and tendencies. I have pretty clearly said that the proposed block would be an extension or continuation of your previous 3-month block along with points detailing why I feel that you are repeating things that you were blocked for. Svārtava (tɕ) 19:43, 25 March 2025 (UTC) Svartava, do me a favor and find something else to do. Go create entries...anything... Purplebackpack89 19:49, 25 March 2025 (UTC) I would continue to prefer that these discussions not be located on my talk page. That means all of you. bd2412 T 20:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)