User talk:Android79/TalkArchive007
Why Did you delete it
[edit]Hello Android, Why did you redirect The Couch Hines to Madtv ? If You did do it i don't mind be next time consult the article Creator. If you can rewrite the article in the founding link [1]
- I didn't delete anything. I redirected it because I thought the topic would be better served by a redirect, given the state of the article – there was almost nothing in it, and I couldn't really make sense of it. For example, I have no idea what "Couch Hines points out every problem any student might have like talkng" means. Feel free to expand the entry for Coach Hines at MADtv#Recurring characters. There's generally no need or convention for contacting an article creator when changes are made, as you can easily add any page you like to your watchlist to see when changes are made. Also, please sign your posts to talk pages with ~~~~. Cheers, android79 22:35, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you ought to look at this:
[edit]User:79 androids- this popped up when I was on RC patrol. Fernando Rizo T/C 03:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
- Yup, that's me. At some point I will probably want to run a bot, so there he is. Thanks for watching my back, though. :-) android79 03:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Heh. Oops. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:04, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
It's a copyvio, is what it is. Usually large unwikified text entries are copyvios. The easiest way to catch them is just to pick about ten words in a row and Google it using an exact phrase match. Cheers! Ëvilphoenix Burn! 02:58, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I was so perplexed at the content that I didn't even think of that. Nice catch. android79 03:00, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Merge
[edit]I didn't merge. I just added the valid content elsewhere. While it may be duplicitous, it has not been merged. Copying is not a restricted action while an article is VFD. Please feel free to retract your inaccurate statement on the VFD page. Thanks. ContentLuver 07:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- It's not an inaccurate statement, because copying the content to another article is the first step in a merge. This is a prohibited action while an article is on VfD. android79 11:09, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for agreeing that it is not a merge! Hooray for ContentLuver! ContentLuver 12:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
re:your comment
[edit]Hello Android! I just read your comment at Tony Sidaway's page and, well, thats the point I was trying to make. Also, if I had known that my votes would be disregarded out of hand, as being a new user, I guess I wouldn't have wasted my time on the VfD page. When I first discovered Wikipedia, it seemed to me there was a strong sentiment for new users to get involved with the WP community, and I just don't see my patterns as a user parrelleling any sockpuppet type behaviour. All Mr. Sidaway had to do was look at my contributions. I feel I have been subjected to extremely unfair and biased, not to mention arbitrary treatment, and well, somewhat bitten by the experience. I only hope that my votes will be counted now and there will be no further qualifications placed on my contributions to the WP. I remain somewhat awed by the sheer scope of the project. Keep up the good work, and thanks for taking the time to read this. I will look here for any response you care to make. Cheers! Hamster Sandwich 17:23, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
The imposter..
[edit]Well I'm less than thrilled with the situation, truth be told. I feel like some stranger is wearing my underpants, or something equally weird. I've told FreplySpang about it, hopefully she can help. Any suggestions? Hamster Sandwich 16:27, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
that account has been blocked indefinatly.Gavin the Chosen 16:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
hello there
[edit]You can check my contributions and see if I 've ever attacked anyone personally. User Susvolans distorted my comment. The acronym FYROM is used by the UN, check google site:un.org +FYROM - it is obvious that my usage of that term (Greece and FYROM are negotiating on UN) cannot be considered as an insult. MATIA 13:23, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Sorry if I'm interjecting myself inappropriately, if so, please accept my apologies and ignore the rest. But I've been watching this Macedonian naming dispute issue for a few days now. If you take a look at the edit histories and talk pages of the following — Macedonia, Republic of Macedonia, Macedonian Slav, and Template:Macedonian naming dispute among others — you'll see that this is an on-running, highly charged dispute regarding the appropriate name of an independent country in southeastern Europe. The user MATIA is one of the more reasonable folks I've encountered at the talk pages of those sites, but he certainly has his POV, and wittingly or not, is pushing it. What he doesn't understand is that the acronym FYROM is considered offensive by many of the citizens of the Republic of Macedonia, as some feel that it disparages their history and culture by implying the illegitimacy of their nation. This is true whether he thinks it should be or not. Therefore, in the interest of being cool, one should refrain from using acronyms others see as epithets, even if you personally think it's silly. I'm not stating this as a general proposition in life, that's a little too PC for me, but in Wikipedia, a community governed by civility, it seems like the wise course. Sorry for the rant, but I wanted to provide the "other side" to Matia's posts. Thanks, Friejose 13:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- I don't intend to get involved in this dispute one way or the other, as I have no knowledge of it. I was just pointing out the relevant policies. I hope you can all resolve this dispute with civility and come to a reasonable compromise. android79 13:40, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Scimitar's RfA
[edit]Thanks for the support. Given your habitually good work, particularly on VfD, it really does mean a lot.--Scimitar parley 19:49, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
- Likewise. :-) By the way, your user page is totally borked in Firefox on Windows at a resolution of 1280×1024. Buncha overlapping boxes. I'll send you a screenshot if you like. No idea if this is Firefox's or Mediawiki's fault, but hey, it look funny! android79 20:29, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
- Please do. It comes up really nice on my computer, and I didn't realize there were problems.--Scimitar parley 16:43, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Eyeon
[edit]Thanks, Android. I'll keep an eye on it, and I've deleted the image. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:49, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
With regard to the VfD closing, I counted ten deletes against seven "keep"s (redirects and merges are counted as keeps). That's a clear non-consensus. Cheers, JYolkowski // talk 01:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- I guess I miscounted the first time around, and I still count different than you – 11 to 6 rather than 10 to 7 – but either way that's no consensus. It seems silly to even merge this article, but I guess since no one's done it yet... android79 01:16, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
Thanks
[edit]Thanks for your deletion on US Supreme Court Stubs. I have changed my username forom Dbraceyrules to V. Molotov 
20:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
- Well, I didn't delete it (or even tag it), but I would have if I could have. android79 21:30, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
policy vandalism
[edit]The page in question is a proposed policy, not policy. Unlike policy I don't have to ask before making changes. If the owners of wikipedia didn't want me editing it, they wouldn't have made it writable. You had no right to go vandalize my changes like that. What justification do you have to use the number 10,000? NONE. Just that it excludes blogs, which you do not understand. Disgraceful. My respect for wikipedia goes down with every edit. 12.111.139.2 01:55, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- If you weren't already in the habit of vandalizing Wikipedia with linkspam, I might pay more attention to your complaints. "I don't have to ask before making changes" – that's incorrect. Policy on Wikipedia is developed by discussion and consensus. The 10k number was arrived at after much discussion. For you to unilaterally change it is inappropriate, especially when you have ulterior motives. android79 01:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I read the rule that says ignore all rules. I think you are feeding me a line just to support your desired outcome. Want to talk about ulterior motives? lets talk about wikipedians trying to delete articles on blogs. If obvious that metroblogging is valid and belong on wikipedia, the votes are a HUGE majority for keep. What I did was just change the policy to represent an OBVIOUS consensus. The people have spoken. 10k is too low a limit. 12.111.139.2 02:16, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- A few votes on a deletion discussion for a single website does not a consensus make. Wikipedia:External links describes the policy that should be followed regarding external links. android79 02:21, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
The policy was, of course being followed.. antibloggers haven't gotten a no-blogs policy enacted yet!. I see you reopened the VFD by doing so you broken the rules as the VFD close text is quite clear about making no further edits. 12.111.139.2 02:35, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
- I reopened it because it wasn't properly closed. Read the policy. android79 02:37, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Had I not read it, I would not have known how to close it. or did you just change it to say what you want? Also, don't remove my warning. It is unacceptable to violate policy and vandalize pages. 12.111.139.2 02:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)