Wikipedia talk:What does "per" mean?

message: One of the important processes pages, :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests, has a collection of shortcuts that are confusingly close to the name of this page. This essay should probably be renamed. --Barberio 08:47, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I realy have no idea what to call it, since it's a strange hybrid glossary item and pseudo-guideline. It's also redundant to Wikipedia:Glossary#Per. --Barberio 15:23, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Based on it's redundancy to Wikipedia:Glossary#Per and confusing closeness in title to :Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests's shortcuts, I'm going to nominate this for MfD. --Barberio 15:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Potential link confusion with [[WP:PER]], this should be renamed. 

message: "It's not a disagreement because I'm right" is not a productive position to argue from; there's really no existing dictionary definition of "per" that supports either view - this usage, whatever it is, is unique to wikipedia. --Random832(tc) 13:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusion vs disagreement 

message: Believe it or not, I remember the days when things got done on Wikipedia and people actually cited their own unique reasons for getting it done, not just "per"ing someone else. I find it deeply depressing that this is even a page, and more so that the saying has caught fire so quickly and to nearly everyone here. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 11:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but this page doesnt say that clearly, , and the reason it is here is to do so. Perhaps the first section got lost somewhere along the way.  DGG 06:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I miss the days when this wasn't an issue.

message: Hi, Radiant! (and the rest of the people who watch this page). I just noticed that you reverted a number of edits I made to this page to clarify its meaning, and I was unsure what you meant by your edit summary. I'd appreciate if you'd post a note on the talk page explaining your reasoning before you reverse that [relatively large] amount of work.
You wrote:
wow, I go away for a few weeks and someone needlessly complexifies this page and reverses its actual meaning! Bad.
First off—please assume good faith, and maybe check out WP:OWN a bit? You may have considered my edits needless and "bad," but I'd like to hear some more specific discussion on what exactly was the problem with them, so that this page can be revised to suit everyone's needs. I wasn't certain how I "complexified" the page, and in what way I reversed its meaning. If I could hear more about that, I'd be more likely to agree with your reasoning around the page's content, rather than getting wikistressed and nearly reverting it back. :) 
Here are some of my reasonings behind the changes I made:
* I did a number of formatting fixes. For instances, I added bullets to several points which seemed to need that formatting, and bolded certain words. I believed that this would make the article more friendly on the eye and more consistent with WP:STYLE.
* I changed vague phrases like "for the reasoning" with "... believe this because of the reasoning".
* I suggested that perhaps a misunderstanding of the word "per" could be found among established, as well as new, users.
* I took issue with the phrase specifically does not mean on the page. It seems rather difficult to say exactly what a word does and does not mean among this community, as I don't believe there's any official policy or consensus on the exact significance of "per."
* I made some of the language more Wikipedia-specific, and tried to delete some language which personified the word itself.
Sorry about not putting this on your personal talk page, Radiant!, but I felt that it'd be more useful to place this message nearer to the actual article. Switchercat talkcont 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying your meaning. I suggest that you add Some novice users ... etc. to the page itself, as I didn't find that that message was clearly stated in the page itself. (Although, as I edited it to say, it's not just novice users.) I'm still not quite certain about what you're trying to imply, though. Which of my edits specified on my bullet-pointed list did you disagree with, and in what way did these edits change the meaning to a more vague one? As far as I knew, I was mostly making the language more easy to understand (see point #2). :) Switchercat talkcont 12:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A late reply but... boy, the above comments really confirms me that this page is an essay. I still don't understand why the author doesn't want it tagged as such, but the page is pretty clear to me. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 03:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: reversion of my edits to this page

message: In the normal usage on WP 'per' almost equals 'according to'. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 20:13, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Per = ...