User talk:Brandon

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14

This page has archives. Sections may be automatically archived by .

Red cunt hair

(Copied this back from your archive, after Miszabot archived it, to give more time for a response Chzz ► 23:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Re. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red cunt hair (2nd nomination)

Hi there,

Regarding this AfD closure,

I'd appreciate it if you could please elaborate on how you came to your decision that the consensus was to delete the article.

Thanks, Chzz ► 15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The main debate centers over whether or not the article constitutes more than a dictionary definition. The keep as notable votes were arguing with themselves, nobody was claiming the phrase to be non-notable. The move votes were not compelling because a "Hair (unit of measurement)" article would only only devote a small section to "Red cunt hair" and would most likely have to withstand its own AfD. If you'd like the article undelted in userspace so an article on hair as a unit of measurement I'd be happy to. BJ^Talk 18:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you; I understand. I already have a copy of the most recent revision. Could you tell me what changes, in your mind, would elevate the article from a dictionary definition? For example, I've already added the picture (which would not be in wiktionary); would further scientific evidence of the dimensions help? Or further references? Thanks, 19:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe one of the points those in favor of deletion were making is that it is a phrase, not an actual unit of measure. It just means "really small amount", nobody is going to take a measurement in the unit so scientific evidence of the width of a pubic hair is rather pointless. BJ^Talk 20:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here, an article about really small units of measurement would be pretty cool (though we may already have one lying around somewhere). --MZMcBride (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MZ - it's a good idea for an article, I think, yes; however, I still personally think that this one could stand alone.

BJ, I understand your comment about measurement, but I'm still unclear on what additions would satisfy you - or do you simply consider that the article is incapable of falling within the Wikipedia remit?

After reviewing the AfD, I am considering taking this to DRV. By my count, there were 11 keeps, 2 moves and 9 deletes. With the discussion on policies that ensued, I don't see how this can be declared a consensus agreement to delete, and I think it should therefore have defaulted to keep.

Please let me know your thoughts on that, thanks, Chzz ► 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote, but you can take it to DRV. BJ^Talk 21:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fully aware that AfD is not a vote; I just don't see any clear consensus. Therefore - and absolutely no offense intended, nothing personal at all;

Deletion review for Red cunt hair

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Red cunt hair. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chzz ► 22:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail

Hi, I've pinged your e-mail. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just replied on the talk, I'll have a look at my email. BJ^Talk 02:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Kay, thanks. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 02:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. BJ^Talk 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate

I find your comment at WP:ANI, "The image namespace is deprecated, nothing to see here", to be inappropriate, condescending, and derogatory. Admins are supposed to conduct themselves, what was the word, politely, I think it was. The image space is not deprecated, it is expanded into the file namespace, and either file or image can be used interchangeably, per editor preference. The point is that is annoying for a bot to change a specifically chosen and perfectly valid syntax for a less desirable syntax. The issue certainly has not been resolved, unless some changes were made that I am not aware of, although at present the bot is not active for who knows what reason. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Less desirable in what sense? You readily admit they're synonyms. If a bot wants to use the canonical name (which is "File"), what's the issue? We don't allow bots to go around bypassing redirects, but if they're already making productive edits and they also want to do something minor like change Image: → File:, I don't see an issue. "Tempest in a teapot" comes to mind. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of factors that involve personal style, though, as the edit window states, "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." I personally prefer to use Image: and do not want any bot changing it to File:. The reason I use Image, is to emphasize that it is an image. The issue is that the bot is not only not making a useful change, it is making a distasteful change. When a person writes a sentence, just because there are several synonyms at any point that could be chosen, does not mean that they are interchangeable - it dramatically changes the sentence by which of those synonyms is used. I have no problem with the bot making useful auxiliary edits, but changing Image to File is not useful. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: File: vs. Image: on ANI

I have a question about this as I still use Image: over File: as general force-of-habit. Is this change coming from a bot that is going through and manually changing Image to File or should all editors do so? I am kinda confused. - NeutralHomer • Talk • May 3, 2009 @ 04:22

No, it was a bot that was running a "cosmetic changes" script along side its main function. Any user or bot that is just changing Image to File should be blocked. Image isn't going anywhere anytime soon so it's no real worry. BJ^Talk 04:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, just wanted to clear that up. When I seen that on ANI, I thought a bot was going through and changing it (which I personally would have no problems with). Thanks for the response and Have a Good Sunday...NeutralHomer • Talk • May 3, 2009 @ 04:26

While the bot is not specifically changing Image to File, which would be prohibited, the effect is the same, as over time you can expect the bot to find some other edit to make, and as long as Image to File is still in it's bag of tricks it will use it. That is what I object to, the contents of the bag of tricks. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 05:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, that's the entire point. To slowly make minor changes along side other edits with the result being an eventual switch over to file. BJ^Talk 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ - there is no "eventual switch over to file". Users are free to use Image: forever. It is totally personal preference. I could be wrong but I see no reason for ever removing the Image: mapping of the File: namespace, and I find it extremely unlikely that it would ever happen. Hence, any changing of Image: to File: is simply annoying and less than useless. 199.125.109.77 (talk) 23:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]