User talk:Gibbousmoon100

Spoiler alerts

Avoid "spoiler alerts" see WP:SPOILER cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Worms (1995 video game)

First of all, you need to calm down and remember WP: Civility. Using obscene language and edit warring don't accomplish anything. Next, if you look carefully at a dictionary, you'll see that the word you're thinking of is "minimalist", not "minimalistic". The idea of the "-ic" suffix is to convert the word to an adjective, but "minimalist" is already an adjective, so saying "minimalistic" is like saying "wroted" (instead of "wrote").--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for becoming impatient with you and using the expression "for fuck's sake." But your repeated refusal to actually defend your position with facts (coupled with a stubborn insistence on reverting my fixes to your error) has been both baffling and frustrating. There are over 55 million examples on Google of the usage of the word "minimalistic." You may have some pet reason for disliking the word, but your position is and has consistently been that it is not an actual word and that any usage of it in a quotation should therefore be succeeded by the word "sic." Not only is it a genuine word (with usage slightly different from that of "minimalist," due in part to the fact that it is an adjective only and not a noun), it is a 100% STANDARD word, and has been for well over 50 years. That is to say, its usage incites no notable controversy among professional English prescriptivists. Is there something else I could have said other than "please look it up" that would have inspired you to investigate? If so, please share that information with me. You claim to have done so, and yet even a 30-second search on my part yields standard entries for the word "minimalistic" (yes, with the "-ic" suffix) on wiktionary, the Collins English dictionary, Google's built-in dictionary, and various foreign language dictionaries, in addition to the 55,400,000 results reported by Google. Even a cursory examination on your part would have settled this argument weeks ago.

Also, as an aside, usage norms suggest that "minimalistic" is a more common and natural-sounding description for aspects of gameplay in a video game than "minimalist," because of the additional baggage held by the latter word. But that is my (subjective) judgment, and it need not be true for your position not to be defensible. Your addition of the word "sic" to the quote is inappropriate not because of a subjective disagreement between us but because of an error in fact checking on your part. If I appear to be frustrated with you, it is because your continued refusal to engage in fact checking despite being spoon-fed the link to do so makes your error appear to be a willful one, rather than an accidental one, which I assume it initially was. Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Classic transference above - as can be seen in the article history, Gibbousmoon100 repeatedly ignored Martin IIIa's directive to look the word up in a dictionary, instead linking him to a wiki (seriously) and google search results (seriously) as supposed proof that his made-up word exists. Martin IIIa's summary above is essentially correct, though I think I can improve on his example: Saying "minimalistic" is like saying "isolationistic" (instead of "isolationist") or "narcissisismtic" (instead of narcissistic or narcissism).--NukeofEarl (talk) 18:09, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what your goal is in posting this, NukeofEarl, but in addition to reporting key facts backwards and ignoring the content of the post above, you cited two examples of demonstrably non-existent (not merely non-standard) words in support of your conclusion and you failed to do your own due diligence: minimalistic. (n.d.) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged, 12th Edition 2014. (1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2011, 2014). Furthermore, you changed the Wikipedia entry so that it actually misquotes someone in order to service your own agenda, damaging the factual accuracy of Wikipedia. You may want to reconsider your motivations.Gibbousmoon100 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]