Jump to content

User talk:Pedro/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merchant Accounts

Sorry about that. But I thought we could add example pages to sites with similar topics and services.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.148.47.84 (talk) 12:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Damn you!

Cannot rollback last edit to Psychoanalysis by 212.219.190.164 (talk · block · contribs) because someone else has edited or rolled back the page already.

Last edit was by Peter Orme (talk · contributions).

brenneman {L} 08:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for reverting vandalism. So sorry to have offended you by doing something usefull.....
Moved from User talk:Aaron_Brenneman
Thanks for the mindless posting on my page. Perhaps you can clarify what you are banging on about ?? Peter Orme
The message above is what is seen when attempting to revert vandalism after someone else has already done so.
I presumed that the context (including the edit summary "you're too fast for me") would make it utterly pellucid what I was "banging on" about: Kudos for doing something useful. Please do just go back to whatever you were doing before. I'll not trouble you again with oblique messages.
brenneman {L} 12:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ysgol gwynllyw

many thanks for sorting out this page this morning. I think both of us were on the job! at the same time Children from a rival school plus our own kids have been at it

Thanks again

Alun Thomas Head of ICT Ysgol Gwynllyw

Reporting persistent vandalism to admins

Go to WP:AIV, read the directions (admins will likely block only if they've vandalised after bv/blatantvandal,test3 or test4, and within the last few hours), copy the appropriate template, and add it to the "User/IP reported" section.

In my experience, they'll be blocked within ~1-20 minutes.

Thanks for the help! TransUtopian 15:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Thanks

Thank you for the quick permanent block of the vandalism only account User:Weberavin. Pete Orme 16:48, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. The page move has been reverted and the useless article name has been salted. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what are you talking about

? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.118.160.31 (talk) 15:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

speedy

thanks

i'm in a computer lab at school, kids at the computers next to mine are vandalizing pages, i'm trying to get them to stop, thanks for helping me out, i'm new ^^ --Chain Impact 13:23, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

(Ref: reverting vandalism on your user page)

You're welcome, anytime :D And that monkey vandal infobox is utter genius. Keep it right up, happy editing!
xCentaur |  talk  10:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eiger Sanction, image

I uploaded the pic the other night thinking that was the main ariticle for the film. Today I finally saw a seperate article just on the film and switched the image. Apologize for that.

Well done

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Your work against vandalism has been very good recently, well done, here's a barnstar. :) Rasillon 17:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:::Received with thanks ! I'd rather not receive awards from sockpuppets and vandalsPedro1999a |  Talk  21:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expulsion of Germans after World War II

Sorry, I've reverted your revert of Expulsion of Germans after World War II but missed the edit summary. Anyway, the wording has been already discussed and agreed before. I don't see why have you reverted it. --Lysytalk 00:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

My account was definitely not compromised. Exactly what edits do you refer to? Removal of links added by MillerCenter (talk · contribs)? I already explained my actions at User talk:Rjensen; I was under an impression that it was a spam-only account, and in any case he failed to discuss their addition, even after a five-minute block to get his attention. Removal of a message by 72.49.182.192 (talk · contribs) from my talk page? The message was a (poorly formatted) request to upload a file I couldn't even access (let alone verify its copyright status). I did respond on his talk page, saying that I can't and won't do it and why (and removed the message from my talk page as inappropriate), and he still kept asking so I had to respond in a more final way. Perhaps the change of block length of several users? If some of my actions were inappropriate or against the policy, I apologize for that. - Mike Rosoft 11:36, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the message--St.daniel 21:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you so much for the barnstar I cannot tell you what it means. Thanks--St.daniel 21:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:WebAPP

See WP:NPA. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I suggest you stop claiming that content differences is vandalism. I think I know what vandalism is, as I have been here a lot longer than you. If you want to address this in a moderated tone, I will do so, but your screaming of "vandalism" will not lead me to being cooperative. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This discussion is at an end. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moral - don't cross swords with this admin - trigger happy ain't the word!

I thought you said you removed this? I suggest you just blank this section, or archive it. Both are appropriate responses. It shows you've read the message, even if you didn't choose to respond. Best of luck in the future. Ben Aveling 11:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done.Pedro1999a |  Talk  08:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Ah...missed that one on Piracy. Thanks. JONJONAUG 12:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. OMG. I read what you reverted (on Tramp). I didn't realize that other user was also having a "conversation" at the same time. Thanks for watching my back. Turlo Lomon 11:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your're welcome. I note we just got involved on the vandalism of Fraud as well!! I have reported the user for a block. Pedro1999a |  Talk  12:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lunatic who runs the asylum

Please keep me informed. If you do decide to take it to WP:ANI, I will be happy to assist. Jeffpw 08:28, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much. This really seems to be an admin who has let power go to her head. It fully justifies what I have been saying about her failure to assume good faith. I think it's more than justified to complain becuase this kind of thing will seriously put people of editing. Jeffpw, I am going to try and get the time to build a full report with full citation and will notify you as soon as I have placed it at WP:ANI. Once again thanks very much. Pedro1999a |  Talk  08:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have now gone to WP:ANIPedro1999a |  Talk  09:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I see. Be careful with your words, and think about your posts before submitting them. I certainly agree with you about her, but it would be helpful if you had posted more examples of incivility. Jeffpw 10:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I tried to be as moderate as I could be. Sorry I didn't get many examples. If you have any perhaps you could add them.Pedro1999a |  Talk  10:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't normally pick on the to/too thing, it's just that it was bolded :) /wangi 10:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • If nothing else, you will probably have made her consider her recent actions in a new light. If this causes her to slow down, and take a more user friendly approach to her function, it is all for the good. Jeffpw 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks once more for all your help and support. Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Hi! Re: [1], I am not an admin, and have not had any personal interaction with Zoe. My first two observations after reading the AN/I thread are 1) while I feel I understand where you are coming from, you may be being a little too touchy for the oft tough world of WP editing and discussion; 2) take a look at Zoe's user page where she lists her philosophy. From this blurb, it does sound like she might be more focused on the community among admins than upon the WP community at large.

I have found that there are a wide variety of admins here. I recently listed my own first AN/I followed by a checkuser. I thought I had a very serious matter to bring up. Virtually no-one commented on the AN/I for several days, except to imply that maybe I should submit a checkuser request. I did so, and it was soon declined. I was disappointed. Then, w/o any more discussion, my AN/I was archived by a bot. Before I noticed this had happened, an admin noticed, resurrected it, and left a quick note that s/he would look in to my AN/I. Details continued for a while ... The bottom line result was that the accounts I originally raised concern about were all blocked for an indefinite amount of time since admins determined that the accounts I inquired about were reincarnations of a previously indefinitely blocked user. So, in my situation, some admins brushed my concern off as something that couldn't/shouldn't be dealt with (due to lack of archive information) while others took a fair amount of time to work with me, investigate the matter, and ended up implementing the "right" decision. If I am not mistaken, the primary admin who ended up helping me with my AN/I is one who, perhaps like Zoe, is perceived to be a very strong willed, sometimes prone to short answers, and yet, also a very good admin.

May I suggest that when and if you run in to another tension point with Zoe, we, the WP community, deal with it then, while it is happening? It may be that she just wants/needs to move on, and maybe this time, you need to too. However, if this truly is a pattern, the next time you notice it, you'll even have a previous AN/I in the archives to point to.

Just my two cents; hope some of it helps.

Keesiewonder talk 11:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your calm words! Much appreciated!Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're most welcome! I am not yet convinced that you brought this topic up in the wrong place. Perhaps you should start a discussion about whether the AN/I page is appropriate for complaints about specific admins on the AN/I's talk page. I would hope that the line you suggest they remove, if they don't like where you reported this, would only be removed after a discussion on its talk page anyway. Keesiewonder talk 11:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. I have done just that.Pedro1999a |  Talk  11:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool

Way to stay cool as a cucumber during your discussion as WP:AN/I! That was impressive, I hope many people learn from your attitude. -- Natalya 14:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and a warm fuzzy

Delightful userpage pic! It suggests that we need a WikiVandal action figure, although I can't imagine who would market it. NewEnglandYankee 20:44, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honored, sir. NewEnglandYankee 17:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

regarding your message

I would if I was an administrator. They are pesky aren't they, those vandals.Chensiyuan 13:53, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see non-admin people doing it all the time so I follow suit. Chensiyuan 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

see talk page

Why? It's obviously a page some little kid made to make himself seem cool, nothing to discuss -- febtalk 09:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Is there a tag to indicate orphaned talk pages that need deleting after main article was Speedily Deleted? Been to WP:SD and can#t see anything.

{{db-talk}} -- febtalk 08:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted talk page

Yes, typically, the software will include the contents of the page on an edit summary. In general, if there is a speedy deletion tag on a page, you don't need to create a talk page to request deletion as well. It just makes another page for the admins to delete. Thanks, NawlinWiki 13:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry! It's just the SD was contested by the author, so I started the debate on why to SD, as per the instructions on the template to discuss on the talk page. Sorry to create more work!! Pedro1999a |  Talk  14:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think they meant creating a talk page after it was deleted. I've seen talk pages on speedies get missed all the time. Also, the hangon and talk page stuff is for the person defending it, passing wikipedians don't need to argue about it unless they think it should be kept. -- febtalk 16:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair Point. I'll revise my strategy on making the first post on contested SD's and leave it to the author. Thanks and ....Happy Editing!Pedro1999a |  Talk  16:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I realised when I saved that I placed it in the wrong area.Therequiembellishere 21:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism to Charlie Crist

How did I vandalize the page? --Napnet 03:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deepest apologies. Looking at this diff it looked like you entered the vandalism. I see now it was historical, and had been missed previously until it's reversion by User:Therequiembellishere. It was unfortunate that you had made the prior edit and got caught up. Again my apologies for the error. Grovels away !Pedro |  Talk  08:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick reply. I have been trying to keep Charlie Crist's page free of vandals but it looks like i missed something while cleaning up some references. I agree with your position on blatant vandals by the way. Thanks for your quick reply. --Napnet 13:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Please see Talk:Edinburgh#Flags. Thanks/wangi 14:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Las Vegas, Nevada & Melbourne and Glasgow edited to test!
That should do for now ;) I guess WP:CITY would be a good place to centrally discuss this, I'll start up a discussion at the weekend once I have more time. Thanks/wangi 21:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if the IP edits will get a different response than "your" edits? /wangi 21:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More time? Blimey, I'd have thought dicking around on Wikipedia would be your first priority! smile! Seriously, yes, an open debate there seems good. And I agree - how interesting will that be..... give the RC patrollers (me included!!!)something to think about possibly...Pedro |  Talk  21:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, you thanked me for reverting your edit to Bordeaux. I can to a fair extent see your point re flags for twin towns/sister cities which I hadn't really thought about before I reverted. Actually, the main reason I really reverted was that you hadn't put anything into the edit summary — one of my pet hates, I have to say! I often do revert edits that give no explanation for removal of content, and I would not have immediately reverted if there had been an explanation. Anyway, I did see later that there is a real issue as detailed in the essay, Edinburgh and Vancouver that should be addressed, and I did mean to involve myself with the discussion but I wasn't able to get my thoughts together yesterday.--A bit iffy 09:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Wiki Wiffle Bat
This award (none of the barnstars seemed to fit just right) is for your excellently articulated and defended defense of the flags on the Edinburgh page. Rarely have I seen an argument of such quality during a discussion page dispute. Cheers! GlamdringCookies 00:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for your kind words. I truly appreciate them.

As far as your scored out comment is concerned, I am a little distressed at your edit. I had intended, and had thought that I had achieved, a very gentle explanation of how the project works. Certainly it was not my intention to bite anyone, and I am saddened if it appeared that I did. I suppose we all make mistakes.--Anthony.bradbury 22:14, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pedro!

Thanks very much for the interest and help you have given me of late. I really appreciate it! -- Death666 20:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most welcome !Pedro |  Talk  21:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Usurped the name "Death" so we'll see what happens (I certainly hope that the name isn't against the rules too!). Thanks for the heads up! -- Death a horseman for a better tomorrowTM 14:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Aram Assadrian

He was not famous and he was very uneducated and should not be included in the wikipedia. That is why I Blanked his page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by VCinema (talk • contribs) 19:10, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Proxy server

Hello Pedro. The IP you referenced is a proxy server. Take care, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Allison

I have declined the speedy deletion request for this article because playing for Forfar Athletic F.C. is an assertion of notability. You may nominate the article at AfD if you wish. Oldelpaso 19:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still here

And always willing to help my Wikifriends. I'm just selectively editing from now on. Jeffpw 10:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPA

I'll consider that, thank you.--hnnvansier 12:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Iranian Debate

In what way is it relevant to the argument? Maurauth 13:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Maurauth 13:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

From Wikipedia: Civility:

"If it is a clear case of ongoing incivility, consider making a comment on the offender's talk page." [emphasis mine]

Before you refer others to a Wikipedia policy, perhaps you should examine it yourself? --Xiaphias 10:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia: Civility:
Petty examples that contribute to an uncivil environment:
  • Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("fixed sloppy spelling", "snipped rambling crap")
Emphasis mine. And perhaps you should examine it too before quoting back. This not a flame war - I found your summary to be in breach of a guideline but that is all. If you didn't find your tone uncivil that's up to you. It is only a guideline after all, and we all have different opinions on what may or may not be civil. Sorry to have wasted your time. Pedro |  Talk  10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great, you’re half-way there! Now, can you demonstrate ongoing incivility?--Xiaphias 10:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that's a 'no.'--Xiaphias 11:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk-Page Comments

Your recent talk-page comment: "Emphasis mine. And perhaps you should examine it too before quoting back." [2] could be viewed as rude. One might infer that you were mocking the user for his 'emphasis mine' caveat. Thanks.
Your recent talk-page comment[3] could be viewed as an ill-considered accusation of impropriety. Thanks.--Xiaphias
See how easy it is to make such accusations? But, beyond annoying the person at whom they are directed, what do such comments accomplish, really? I suspect that this is the basis for the “ongoing” requisite.
Anyways, next time you scold another user for a minor policy violation, don't violate policy in the process. That’s silly.--Xiaphias 11:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RMS Titanic

"Artefact" is the more common variant in British English, see for example http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-art1.htm --Guinnog 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I see. My apologies. Br Eng is correct in this article. Thanks. Pedro |  Chat  09:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. It actually isn't worth fighting over, but seeing as the article seems to have been using that spelling by consensus we may as well leave it like that. --Guinnog 09:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. You can see how edit wars end up on things like this! It's a British Ship so we use Br Eng, but an American rediscovered Her so we use American Eng. Ughhhh! Of such things are Wikipedia made! I genuinely thought that artifcat was Br Eng but I see the derivation is Latin (Arte Factum) so your spelling is dead right. Hope to see you around the 'pedia again and Happy Editing.Pedro |  Chat  09:32, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, likewise. --Guinnog 09:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

It's usually just a question of checking the diffs far enough back. In my case, it was easy because I knew for a fact that my last edit from yesterday was good, so I just looked at the diff between that and the current version. Since there was nothing but silliness, it was trivial to remove. It would have been more difficult if there were any other good edits aside from partial reversions between. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to RMS Titanic, are considered vandalism and are immediately reverted. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Matteo (talk @) 20:44, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF Would have sprung to mind. Pedro |  Chat  20:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Struck through warning by other editor. We all make mistakes. It was just his mistake this time, not mine!!Pedro |  Chat  21:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro/Archive_1&oldid=1088327773"