3 ms·

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI "Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."

by mgdlbp 4y ago

Maursault 4y ago
Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.
- cxr 4y ago
  This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. * or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    > This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common. > What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man. > Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead. > Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.
    - cxr 4y ago
      > Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. > Burger King is not a burger Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that. > Taco Shack is not a shack Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI "Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."

by mgdlbp 4y ago

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NOTWIKI "Tree's leaves are turning pretty colors. I think Tree looks nice today."

Maursault 4y ago

Please cease referring to your vehicle as "the car," or "my truck." It has a make and model and it is not all cars or all trucks. Also, when speaking of air travel, do not refer to this transportation as "a plane," nor "the plane," but instead, for example, "Boeing 737 Flight xyz." Do not ever, ever say you are taking a train, cab, uber, or bus. Do not ever go "home" again. There are lots of homes. Be specific, as continuing to speak this way is inaccurate, ambiguous, grammatically incorrect and confusing.

cxr 4y ago
This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. * or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, whereas Wikipedia is a wiki—which (again) doesn't even matter in this case, since we're not claiming any faux pas over the appropriate use of "a wiki" or "the wiki" or "our wiki" or "some wiki", etc.
- Maursault 4y ago
  > This comment is full of false equivalences. In fact, it contains only false equivalences. Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. Using wiki for Wikipedia, specifically because Wikipedia is a wiki, is the same kind of substitution as using plane for Boeing 737, because examples like these replace the specific with the general, which is incredibly common. > What you just wrote is a decent argument against anyone taking issue with someone saying "the wiki" or even "my/our wiki" where it makes sense to. With respect to the topic at hand, however, that makes it a total strawman, because no one is taking issue with those things. Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" is nothing like exercising the grammar of the English language to construct ordinary sentences involving "the bus" or "my truck". Whether a definite or indefinite article is used makes no difference here, they merely indicate whether identity is known, and when missing they are assumed: "(the) wiki is not a proper citation." In English, we often use the general group in which the object belongs to replace the object, such as "vehicle" for "truck," and "truck" for "Ford," or "Internet" for "website" and "website" for "reddit." I have not, in fact, invented any argument to attack, which is necessary for a straw man. > Please don't make bad faith arguments like this. It stands out especially when it comes from someone who's first remarks were an objection to the Java/JS example on the grounds of category error. Here is your straw man. I have not made any bad faith arguments, so you've invented one to attack instead. > Shortening "Wikipedia" to "wiki" would be like shortening "Burger King" to "burger".* It shouldn't be done, and it shouldn't be controversial to bring it up. It was a polite request, after all. or if that example bothers you, shortening "Taco Shack" to "shack", to use an example that will withstand any criticism that Burger King is not a burger, Burger King is not a burger and Taco Shack is not a shack. You are suggesting that wiki is an abbreviation of Wikipedia, but because Wikipedia is a wiki your argument fails. And because these types of substitutions are common, the request was unreasonable.
  - cxr 4y ago
    > Please demonstrate any false equivalence that I employed and demonstrate how my reasoning is flawed in claiming equivalence. For all the reasons that I just said. If you dispute that, then any response by me (or anyone else) is already guaranteed to be futile. > Burger King is not a burger Gee, it's almost as if I already covered that. > Taco Shack is not a shack Bizarre claim, and a clear example of the futility involved here.