Talk:Brian mccann

Quite pointless
How silly to re-created a deleted spelling mistake to make a point! Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! (Whisper...) 12:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * [I first saw the above comment not here, but on that user's talk page, where i had left a procedural request. My request may have offended the user, or parts of my response may have done so. The following addresses only the other editors' point above, by omitting material not bearing on the recreation of the (improperly) speedy-deleted rdr. (My focus on the possibility of offense being given in my first and  second msgs, and the omissions within the version of the (deleted) second one that i've copied here from the history, reflects the lack of any civil or collegial response to what i have duplicated here.)]

_ _ Not WP:POINT at all. This was the error of a new editor, IMO too obviously to bother checking. I guess they had to be registered to create it, but they are unlikely to check their contribs and find an edit on the good name attributed to them. They are more likely to type it in the same way, be embarrassed in front of the friend they are showing it off to, by the fact we seem to have trashed the contrib without comment, and go away pissed off at WP.
 * ''[Material omitted here.]

_ _ As to the [the speedy deletion being unjustified], go reread WP:CSD again; it can be called an intentional misspelling, but it is neither
 * 1) a spelling mistake,
 * 2) implausible, nor
 * 3) a typo.
 * _ _ As to point 1, the mistake is not one of thinking that's the correct spelling, but a misunderstanding of the specs for the WP search facility. Its design intentionally encourages typing titles into the Search/Go box as all lowercase. (I note that "mccarthy" + Go gets you to McCarthy via a rdr thru the 2-yr-old rdr at Mccarthy, and "mccann" + Go gets you a search result headed by the 1-yr-old and 6-month-old rdrs Sean mccann and Mccann erickson.) An experiment gives a result i anticipated but could not confidently predict: "mccann-erickson" + Go failed but "mcCann-erickson" went to McCann-Erickson (both before i created a new rdr at Mccann-erickson). The point is that not even experienced users can be expected to realize that the internal-to-a-word cap-C is needed, even tho all the initial Cs of words get provided by the system.
 * _ _ As to 2 & 3, such inputs are neither peculiar to that editor nor slips of the keyboard, but, consciously or not, intentional reliances on reasonably expected system features.
 * _ _ BTW, IMO, the choice of "typo" rather than "misspelling" in CDS R3 is intentional: misspellings, even the ones that were "implausible" until they actually occurred, are likely to be repeated.

_ _ Keeping the rdr that the move produced at least alerts the editor to the existence of a properly named article, and will not be interpreted as showing we think they were stupid to want an article on the topic. My purposes, in doing a history merge on the two articles, were to give whatever additional info might be in the stub hidden under the rdr a chance for inclusion, and to avoid repeated inspections behind the rdr by multiple editors. The merge may also contribute to the new editor seeing their contrib (which i think had a trading-strategy discussion that was new to the article) preserved, either on the talk page, in the history's old revisions, or, perhaps eventually, in new revisions, ameliorating the "insult factor". --Jerzy•t 15:52 & 15:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)