From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merger

I propose that Unibrow be redirected here as it is simply a slang term for this condition. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

• Now done per WP:SILENCE, WP:BOLD Beeblbrox (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• Excellent work, all you've lost is all content from unibrow, per Wikipedia:OMGWTFBBQ. --131.111.8.103 (talk) 23:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is that supposed to be sarcasm? The whole point of merging was that I felt the Unibrow article, to be frank, sucked, so I don't mind losing that content at all. I waited 11 days for someone to else to voice an opinion, then I went for it. I don't know what you mean by that link since my links were words, not acronyms and I linked them so anyone could read those pages if they weren't familiar with what I was citing. So, what is your point exactly? Beeblbrox (talk) 00:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I totally agree that the original article sucked big time. My WP:POINT is just that WP:IHATEIT when information is lost while someone is supposedly improving Wikipedia. Was there really absolutely nothing salvagable? Your wikiactions are justifiable iff this provides less or equal amount of information compared to this to an English-speaking Martian who is unfamiliar with the topic. --131.111.8.102 (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to feel I am obsessed with the rules, "gaming the system" etc. Sorry, but you got me all wrong. I suspected that, despite the fact that the merger tag was up for 11 days with no input from anyone, that someone might nonetheless come along and raise an objection later, so I just left those links to "cover my ass" so to speak. The Unibrow page had zero references and seemed mostly to be a place for people to post insults about celebrities and/or friends. I brought all this up on the article's talk page some months ago, by the way. Anyhoo, after looking at the diff you provided above, I did find a little something to add back in, although it is also unreferenced. I am not claiming ownership here or anything, if you believe you see a way to improve this article, please go right ahead. I'd just like to add that information being "lost" is not always such a bad thing, as firstly, nothing is ever lost forever on Wikipedia, and secondly not all information is useful, especially if it is just a bunch of stuff that bored teenagers made up one day, or to put it more succinctly "Information is not knowledge" Beeblbrox (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] bert

And what about Bert? =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.212.195 (talk) 16:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)