Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/April Arcus - Revision history

April Arcus at 07:18, 11 April 2020

2020-04-11T07:18:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:18, 11 April 2020
Line 2:		Line 2:
	I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court".		I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court".

	I appreciate that ~~Peter~~ took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		I appreciate that April took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

	:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

April Arcus: April Arcus moved page Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/Peter Farago to Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/April Arcus without leaving a redirect: name change

2020-04-11T06:01:14Z

April Arcus moved page Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/Peter Farago to Battlestar Wiki talk:Requests for comment/April Arcus without leaving a redirect: name change

← Older revision	Revision as of 06:01, 11 April 2020
(No difference)

Joe Beaudoin Jr.: Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

2020-04-11T01:54:11Z

Text replacement - "Peter Farago" to "April Arcus"

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:54, 11 April 2020
Line 4:		Line 4:
	I appreciate that Peter took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		I appreciate that Peter took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

	:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:~~Peter Farago~~\|~~Peter Farago~~]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:April Arcus\|April Arcus]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

	::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Steelviper: + arbitrary time frame thoughts

2006-06-08T18:02:05Z

+ arbitrary time frame thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 8 June 2006
Line 10:		Line 10:

	I think Steelviper is right: wikipedia does this but we have so few regular editors that it's just cumbersome in here, and our current method of just debating things on talk pages is enough to handle our needs. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:28, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		I think Steelviper is right: wikipedia does this but we have so few regular editors that it's just cumbersome in here, and our current method of just debating things on talk pages is enough to handle our needs. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:28, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

			== Arbitrary Time Frames ==
			"Steelviper's self-admitted arbitrary time frame might have set a hasty deadline that was too fast for most of us."
			:I didn't set the time frame, but I did update the Sitenotice at Shane's request (with the deadline driving off of the project page text). I do agree with the rest of the summary, though.--[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 13:02, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

The Merovingian at 17:28, 8 June 2006

2006-06-08T17:28:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 8 June 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
	:::This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		:::This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

			I think Steelviper is right: wikipedia does this but we have so few regular editors that it's just cumbersome in here, and our current method of just debating things on talk pages is enough to handle our needs. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:28, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Gougef at 17:19, 8 June 2006

2006-06-08T17:19:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:19, 8 June 2006
Line 7:		Line 7:

	::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
			:::This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Steelviper: /* RFC thoughts */ + third try's a charm?

2006-06-08T16:18:07Z

RFC thoughts: + third try's a charm?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:18, 8 June 2006
Line 5:		Line 5:

	:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

			::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

April Arcus: /* RFC thoughts */

2006-06-08T15:47:06Z

RFC thoughts

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:47, 8 June 2006
Line 3:		Line 3:

	I appreciate that Peter took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		I appreciate that Peter took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

			:I did make an honest attempt to resolve our differences privately, and I would be happy to share the log of that conversation with you. --[[User:Peter Farago\|Peter Farago]] 10:47, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

Steelviper: + can't we all just get along?

2006-06-08T13:32:45Z

+ can't we all just get along?

New page

==RFC thoughts==
I'm not a huge fan of this process. I know it has precedent over at Wikipedia, but I'm not even certain of it being effective there. There hasn't been an RFC here that has been "carried" (received even the minimum number of endorsements). It seems like our time/resources would be better spent if the parties in dispute just quickly hashed out whatever problems they had rather than dragging the issue into "court".

I appreciate that Peter took the time to respond to this, but I expect that it'll go the way of Shane's RFC (the only other RFC I can recall since I've been here), and be deleted this weekend. --[[User:Steelviper|Steelviper]] 08:32, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:28, 8 June 2006
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		::I was not calling you out, or even calling Shane out. It was more of an opinion regarding my distaste for the RFC as a mechanism for "dispute resolution". Though the process is somewhat young here, it's 0/2 (as far as I know). --[[User:Steelviper\|Steelviper]] 11:18, 8 June 2006 (CDT)
	:::This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)		:::This is my first experience with it and the process seems cumbersome and awkward for the relatively small group of active participants we have here. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. --[[User:Gougef\|gougef]] 12:19, 8 June 2006 (CDT)

			I think Steelviper is right: wikipedia does this but we have so few regular editors that it's just cumbersome in here, and our current method of just debating things on talk pages is enough to handle our needs. --[[User:The Merovingian\|The Merovingian]] <sup>([[Special:Contributions/The Merovingian\|C]] - [[Special:Editcount/The Merovingian\|E]])</sup> 12:28, 8 June 2006 (CDT)