Nouns used as verbs are automatically invalidated in meaning.
here the word is a noun.
The fact that in some other language another word is pronounced the same as the english one doesn't change the meaning of the english one- likewise for non-accepted dictionaries (an "online dictionary" could have been "urban dictionary" for all we know.
You can use any word as you wish, for example I coud start calling cats apples. of course going to the SPCA looking for apples is more likely to give you strange looks.
the meaning of a word extends only as far as those who understand that meaning. Since these alternate definitions you've provided are by no means in "official" dictionaries (webster, oxford, etc) but rather far more or less in the field of technical jargon relating to forum's and BBS's, it is a bit presumptious to apply these meaning of the word in contexts where the real meaning is intended.
If somebody asks for an "Orange", you almost always need to derive the meaning from context. If for example you are colouring an image and somebody asks for orange, perhaps you will hand them the orange crayon. If you have a fruit bowl in front of you, you will hand them the fruit.
If on the otherhand you are colouring AND have a bowl of fruit you can infer the meaning both by the inflection as well as the high possibility of disambiguating information, such as "orange crayon". Also, use of adjoining words can help isolate the meaning in this case, for example:
"hand me orange" would almost certainly mean the crayon, whereas "hand me the orange" would likely mean the fruit. Using "the" indicates in this case the object is a physical entity rather then the description of the colour of the desired object.
Now if you would kindly read a real dictionary and determine if your off-the-wall definitions exist, I'm sure you will find them quite absent.
