User talk:BigBodBad

Please leave your messages here:

[Proactive]]

Hi. I've reverted your redirection of Proactive. It's far too big a change to take place without a proper discussion. Merging seems like a good idea, although there has been a previous fruitless discussion. I suggest you raise the issue on the articles' talk pages first. andy (talk) 23:44, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reapplied the merge. Really though, if you revert my changes I will AFD the article; this is simply a content fork.BigBodBad (talk) 12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Chugging

I like the page better after your changes. I'd have done something similar myself but (the article had some sources and) I'm very reluctant to delete anyone elses work. I know you will spend your time as you best see fit and I might get around to doing it myself eventually but I'd just like to gently nudge you to copy the good bits of the article to the street fundraising article, some of the citations weren't all that bad and nicely formatted if nothing else. -- Horkana (talk) 02:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

While

There is more to be had at the entry than simply usage alone. Perhaps your bias in the entry has favored one over the other, but I claim no bias when I state that this entry has encyclopedic value. If someone searches the term "whilst", they will be redirected to "while" which, I can only imagine, causes some amount of confusion. The *phenomenon* of the occurrence of whilst instead of while alone warrants the existence of an article documented as such; the fact that all terms must be defined is inconsequential, simply that they MUST be defined, not that it is a dictionary entry. If you believe such information to be confined to a dictionary, I'm afraid you are mistaken. I will revert the article in some time. If you wish it to be properly deleted, I suggest you AfD the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.172.159.162 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a very common misunderstanding. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia doesn't really do words worth a damn. If you think about it, it pretty much only does nouns and noun phrases. This is deliberate, it's supposed to be used alongside dictionaries and similar language-specific tools (that's what wiktionary is for). It's specifically not a usage guide to English (unlike a dictionary) or for that matter, any other language. The Wikipedia doesn't cover or define all terms, only those necessary to be defined in the context of talking about an idea that an article covers. Words are not valid ideas for articles. - BigBodBad (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a soft redirect for whilst to wiktionary also. - BigBodBad (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2010 (UTC)