Travis Mason-Bushman wrote:
On 2/22/06 2:26 AM, "Phil Boswell"
<phil.boswell(a)gmail.com> wrote:
But don't you see that what you have written
there is the essence of what
the article **should** say? It should be expanded a bit, but you've
summarised it nicely.
A compromise was proposed that I - and a few others - could have lived with
- a protected redirect to a short paragraph on [[Internet phenomenon]] or
[[List of YTMND fads]], which simply states he was some guy who got
convicted of a minor sex crime and had his picture turned into an Internet
meme.
No, that was not good enough for the article's proponents - we had to have
his complete life story (such as it is) and picture for all to see. The
proposal was rejected.
So, now we have nothing for a year.
I opposed redirecting to "YTMND fads" since the article listed Fark
and
Something Awful as other places the photo was being used extensively as
well, which meant it wasn't just a YTMND fad and so redirection there
when linking to [[Brian Peppers]] would be misleading. Provided it's
true that Peppers has been used elsewhere, I still stand by that -
nothing has changed, it'd still be misleading to redirect there.
But there's no reason why we can't _also_ have paragraphs at those two
other places you mention, especially given that an independent article
is apparently out at the moment. It just means we can't have a
{{main|Brian Peppers}} at the start of them.