User talk:Android79

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome to my talk page. Please abide by the following guidelines:
  1. Sign and date your comments by inserting ~~~~ at the end. If you do not sign, I may ignore or delete your comments.
  2. Unless you are contributing to an ongoing discussion, start a new topic.
  3. If the discussion begins here, I will make my responses to your queries on this page. Be sure to put it on your watchlist if you want to see my response immediately. (Conversely, if the discussion begins on your talk page, I will continue the conversation there unless you explicitly tell me not to.) Fragmented discussions are difficult to follow.
  4. If you are having a dispute (or a lengthy conversation that I probably wouldn't be interested in) with another user, please take the discussion to his/her talk page instead.
  5. Remember to refrain from personal attacks, to be civil, and to assume good faith.

I archive this page about once a month. Archives can be found here.


Contents

User:AdelaMae

The above user posted an unusual request at the AMA Request for Assistance page and I thought that you might be able to help (and told her so). I don't now anything about this beyond what she has said, but if there's some truth to it, maybe you can help smooth over this situation. Thanks.Gator(talk) 14:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm

Perhaps I'm merely feeding those-who-should-not-be-fed, but check out my latest on User talk:The Great Saiyuki. Friday (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Responded there as well... android79 19:53, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

silsor

android,
We've spent too much time on this. We're feeding the trolls. Yes, f silsor had spelled out his arguments (assuming they exist) that would have been preferable. But I think that the best thing would have been low-key response. On one ond of the possibility spectrum is that this is a carefully thought social experiment, on the other is that it's a mal-adaptive attention seeking device. Whatever it is, I'd prefer to not make a fuss until it's actually hurting something.
brenneman(t)(c) 22:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Eh, who's trolling? I would have been fine with a low-key response – see my vote on the damn thing – if silsor and others hadn't insisted on re-listing the silly thing time and again. android79 22:43, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You are one of the subjects of an RfC

You have been named as one of the subjects of an RfC at [1] --Silverback 06:42, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you deleted my complaint

Since you deleted my complaint Wikipedia:Requests for comment/personal attacks by Ambi could tell me what was the out come? as I never had the chance to see any comments being unable to get internet for 24 hours. Does Ambi have to the right to abuse me? Is she exempt from abuse rules? This is a bit like a court case where your not allowed to take part and defend oneself. Could you return the comments (some ten I see) as I believe I have the right toe see them. And why wasnt I asked to comment? Eric A. Warbuton 03:37, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Please review the policy laid out at WP:RFC, particularly Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours and RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community. Repetitive, burdensome and unwarranted filing of meritless RfCs is an abuse of the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. RfC is not a venue for personal attack. Filing an RfC over a matter that other users regard as trivial or inappropriate may diminish their opinion of you or may cause them to file an RfC against you (emphasis added).
There was no "outcome", as an RfC is not equivalent to a court case. It is a request for comments, just an informal discussion with no "outcome" or decision, binding or otherwise. However, the general reaction from most commenters was that it was a frivolous RfC. I'm a bit baffled by your question "And why wasnt I asked to comment?" Your comments started the process in the first place. I have no intentions of undeleting the RfC, as I'm unaware of any policy that would allow me to do so. Feel free to ask at WP:DR.
A few sarcastic remarks from another user do not constitute grounds for an RfC. You'll note that two people are required to certify that they tried to resolve the same dispute with another user in order for an RfC to remain open. You'd be better off trying to resolve this through mediation. android79 13:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
Personal tools