OpposeJackofclubs 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The user seems to give somewhat illogic reasons in many RFD discussions. Maybe a better understanding is what he needs first. --Jackofclubs15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He also seems rather contradictory. There were these recent comments on RFD which to me seem like a lack of understandig of our WT:CFI, and contradiction of himself. I apologise in advance for picking holes in this user's edits... but I found these recently.
"I get quite annoyed by any phrase that starts with an auxillary verb ", "The first line of WT:CFI says "all words in all languages]], and coalmine is definitely a word, but since it's the alternative spelling of coal mine then that would become a red link, rendering coalmine useless. Also, it seems silly to delete the one that's 50 times more common the the other one just because it has a space in the middle. Weird logic, I know, but I can't seem to pick a hole in the argument.", "Delete, unless we want to add a policy that allows X and Y in the titles of articles. Although I do see the point that some of these merit an article, but it's not easy to come up with a title for them.", "As below, we don't allow "X" to act as a filler in article titles, do we? I sort of think there's some merit in it, but not much. I'm in favour of a delete but it does highlight problems with have with article titles", "Keep, definitely not just SoP and not easy to understand even by looking up the individual words. I'd rather that we improve the article than delete it."Keep, SoP yes but it's a set phrase rather than two words put randomly together. The example above would be chocolate chip -- that's just a chip made out of chocolate, but it's also a set phrase", "As above, you can put almost anything in a butty, particularly chips, egg and bacon. Probably a weak delete' because chip butty is a set phrase in the UK, albeit it's a butty with chips in it.", "Keep, nonstandard? Yes, but everyday English nonetheless.", "Delete, I just checked the Shorter Oxford (more than 4000 pages) and it doesn't list it.", "Delete, the citations only show that it's an error", "Depends how you define logic, really. But a fair point.". --Jackofclubs16:41, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're being a real jerk about this. Much more than that actually, but I'd rather not use the word. If you're wondering what label I might be thinking of, consider what label you yourself would use to describe someone who refuses to talk directly to another person in the conversation, as you have done to Mglovesfun by speaking of him, in a reply to him, in the third person. Your mean-spiritedness may be overlooked, even forgiven, if you had a point, but so far you haven't taken the time to make it very compelling. Of the quotes you listed, the only suggestion I can't support is of using the Shorter Oxford as a guide, but at least that's a common fallacy among new contributors, and it might even make sense to veterans in a case like prefices where one would expect other dictionaries to list the spelling.
"I get quite annoyed by any phrase that starts with an auxillary verb"
We normally reduce phrases down to their core and redirect variants. For instance, "eating out" -> eat out, "blew a fuse" -> blow a fuse, "not bend the truth" -> bend the truth, "be broken-hearted" -> broken-hearted, "cheer someone up" -> cheer up. The comment above makes perfect sense to me. Any phrase that starts with an auxiliary verb should be inspected to determine if it's necessary to include in the phrase. Phrases like "go fishing" should be examined to determine if it's really an idiomatic phrase at all. You yourself zapped the entry that this was in response to.
"coalmine is definitely a word, but since it's the alternative spelling of coal mine then that would become a red link, rendering coalmine useless."
This establishes a point on which everyone can agree, and then argues that the alternative spelling listed in the entry would be perpetually red. I don't mind having red links to terms that haven't been added yet, but do you think we should have red links to terms that should never be added? Alternative spellings are linked as part of our layout conventions. Why would we want to have a link conveniently allowing creation of an entry that we've decided shouldn't exist? This is a classic logical reduction to contradiction. Either it should exist, or there is something wrong with our conventions. In other words, our convention of linking alternative spellings deduces the assertion that the term should exist.
"Also, it seems silly to delete the one that's 50 times more common the the other one just because it has a space in the middle"
Compare to in between and for ever. When these first became widespread, could they not yet have been considered idioms, not until some writers decided to take the space out? Apart from its obvious importance in breaking words, though not one that's universal to language, spaces are fairly minor. A space rarely makes a difference in interpretation, and if part of the spelling nonetheless isn't considered a glyph. Why would we judge idiomaticity on something so minor? Shouldn't we be able to spot an idiom before writers do? And if writers consider coalmine to be idiomatic, when someone says the term without writing it, are they saying something idiomatic or not?
"Delete, unless we want to add a policy that allows X and Y in the titles of articles"... "As below, we don't allow "X" to act as a filler in article titles, do we?"
Many contributors before you have been opposed to such phrases precisely for this reason. In fact we used to have a number of such phrases that have since been deleted, again for this very reason which you seem to find so absurd.
"Although I do see the point that some of these merit an article, but it's not easy to come up with a title for them."... "I sort of think there's some merit in it, but not much."
Are you saying Mglovesfun shouldn't be an admin because of his candid honesty? The discussions we have in RFD are not judgments where each team presents its side. They are deliberations, and one should feel free to speak his mind in such deliberation without having uncertainty taken as a sign of weakness. (Edit:) While I would be careful not to characterize it as such as yet, if it is a predatory approach that you choose then it is not welcome here.
"Keep, definitely not just SoP and not easy to understand even by looking up the individual words. I'd rather that we improve the article than delete it."
You have a problem with this? The first sentence is practically the cornerstone of what constitutes an idiom, the second the cornerstone of what constitutes a wiki.
"Keep, SoP yes but it's a set phrase rather than two words put randomly together. The example above would be chocolate chip -- that's just a chip made out of chocolate, but it's also a set phrase."
In case you weren't aware, SOP is not synonymous with idiomatic. The example given of chocolate chip is dead on, as this term is likewise sum of parts but idiomatic for other reasons. In the opinion of Mglovesfun, "chocolate chunk" is a set phrase for the same reasons. You may disagree, but you cannot discount it as an illegitimate view.
"As above, you can put almost anything in a butty, particularly chips, egg and bacon."
This is the basis of his decision to vote for deletion. He continues:
"Probably a weak delete' because chip butty is a set phrase in the UK"
That is, there may be reason to keep, but not strong enough to overturn his conviction to delete. He continues to say that, although it's a set phrase:
"it's a butty with chips in it."
In other words, it's sum of parts, but as noted above, that does not necessarily imply that it isn't idiomatic. In particular, a phrase like telephone box used in the UK but not understood in the US can be considered idiomatic on those grounds. Mglovesfun is pointing out this latter rationale at the same time as saying it's not reason enough to overturn his conviction to delete.
I'll admit this is a somewhat convoluted sentence as I've had to break it up to explain it fully. You say that Mgloves fun makes illogical statements, but perhaps he doesn't make sense to you because he's too far ahead for you to understand. Please don't take that as a put-down as it's mere speculation. I only say it so you'll consider that perhaps it is you who needs a better understanding. Hopefully with this explanation you'll see that his words do in fact make perfect sense.
"Keep, nonstandard? Yes, but everyday English nonetheless."
Nonstandard language is considered idiomatic for that reason alone. Some will make exceptions for grammatical trends like using adjectives as adverbs, but for scattered phrases that don't conform grammatically, if it's in use then it should be included.
"Delete, the citations only show that it's an error."
The citations in this case had a variety of meanings, where the writer would have used the term erroneously in place of an existing term. The policies we have in place support the supposition that three such uses, at least if they had the same meaning, would indicate trend rather than error, but some regular contributors have argued otherwise, calling such instances isolated nonces. They may well be, the problem being that there's generally no way to tell, other than by getting more citations, in the dozens as most printed dictionaries require. The fact that there were a number of meanings indicated in the quotations gathered is pretty telling to me.
There is an explanation for this opposing vote by Mglovesfun, but it was never sought out by you. You disregard the opinion without asking for any further clarification. The wording is so ambiguous that I cannot understand your certainty in its fallibility. There are other types of errors important to spot in quotations, particularly OCR scanning errors where the quotation does not accurately reflect the printed page. Yet you seemed to know that Mglovesfun was wrong without ever being sure of what he meant.
"Depends how you define logic, really. But a fair point."
I can't be certain if this was an entirely sarcastic statement. Myself, I'm honestly not sure I want to understand how logic works in your world, (edit:) unless as I suspect it is a simple matter of misinterpretation, or of assumptions and readings that have not been presented. If a string of perfectly legitimate arguments somehow sums to the opposite of that, if you only see the side that backs the conclusion you've already made, I want nothing to do with your self-supporting rationale, nor does anyone else here who may some day disagree with you. (Edit:) I say "if" because the evidence of your remarks does not clearly point to this, and I would not wish it to be the case. In case you might think otherwise, for the record, I do not completely agree with Mglovesfun myself. Particularly, (edit:) while you may vote in earnest, in this attack I do not believe you have "a fair point". I would much rather have an admin who is seeking answers and willing to consider the positions of others, than one who thinks he knows the answers and discounts opinions that he does not understand. DAVilla20:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mglovesfun offers arguments I cannot follow at WT:RFD. While contributions to RFD have nothing to do with adminship (admins need not discuss there, and non-admins can), I would like that an admin show good sense. Obviously, arguments that I can follow have good sense. :-) Cf. the preceding oppose votes.—msh210℠01:02, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Equinox ◑ 21:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Oppose Jackofclubs 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The user seems to give somewhat illogic reasons in many RFD discussions. Maybe a better understanding is what he needs first. --Jackofclubs 15:46, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
