User talk:Pedro/Archive 15

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PublicFUSE

Thankyou for doing that for me. I figure it's better to be safe than sorry for such things! Cheers, Lankiveil (talk) 13:15, 2 January 2008 (UTC).

Majorly's userpage

 :) Like your additions. Very <insert suitable word here> Rt. 16:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Majorly and I don't always see eye to eye, but I like him a lot and occasionally you've got to have a bit of fun round here! As for the <insert word here> hmmmmmm.... surreal? .....bizarre...? drug induced....? :) Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You're better than a thesaurus. :) Rt. 16:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Livadia (yacht)

Our edits have probably crossed each other, but I just wanted to remind you that normally we can't G12 articles when there's an assertion of copyright :) We need to blank and wait the mandatory 7 days. Cheers! -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 22:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! That kind of things happened to me too :) -- lucasbfr ^{ho ho ho} 23:07, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User:FortKent

Hey,

I hope you don't mind, but I reduce this guy's block to two days. A few people at AN/I (well, you started the thread) apparently wanted that; he requested unblock because he was "being bold", but I didn't unblock him completely because of the things he did. Again, hope you don't mind.   jj137 ^♠ 00:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy new year!

A little late... but I saw your name go by this morning and thought, "Gee, haven't wished him the best of the season!". I thought you might be interested to know that I've taken the only "oppose" comment at my AfD to heart and have been working on articles rather than/as well as wielding the mop -- my New Year's resolution is to get Ellery Queen to at least GA status (okay, I'm shooting for FA, but one thing at a time).

You know, I kind of depend on you to tell me when I'm ready for things -- am I ready to "pay it forward" and adopt a wannabe-administrator? I'm starting to think it's time I made you proud. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Meetup

Hi there, I noticed you expressed interest in the Birmingham meetup last October. Just letting you know, another UK meetup is in planning stages, here. We need input on where and when we will meet so comments would be much appreciated. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Promise not to beat me up when we meet? Promise? :) Thanks for letting me know matey. Pedro :  Chat  16:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try my very hardest... I'm only a timid person in real life though, you might frighten me! :D Seriously though, it would be nice to meet eventually. Majorly (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Redeletion of characteristica-Interlingua comparison

Hello Pedro,

You have redeleted the article Interlingua and the characteristica universalis compared for the reason that it was recreated, without substantial changes, after being deleted through discussion. Here is why I recreated the article without substantial changes: It was deleted as original research, but as I explain below, it doesn't contain original research. So I don't see any way, or any need, to meaningfully modify it in response to that discussion. If you read the explanation below and still feel that the article should be modified before being recreated, please let me know what changes you feel should be made. I would be glad to try to make those changes or at least give them every consideration.

The reason given for the original deletion — which resulted from discussion of a different article — was original research. However, the entire article was taken from the sources cited. I reviewed it again just now and can't find any "unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas"; "unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position"; or "opinions, experiences, or arguments" not found in the sources (WP: NOR). Instead, the article presents ideas taken from different sources as in the example found at (WP: SYN):

Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references.

Wikipedia's original research policy presents the passage above specifically as an example of "good editing" (WP: SYN).

There is also some background, but this is taken from the sources as well. Again, just let me know if you still feel that changes are needed. Thank you for your consideration. Lumturo (talk) 02:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I did find some unsourced statements in the article, so I sourced them before returning the article to Wikipedia. I think every idea in the article is now referenced. Just let me know if you still think that changes should be made. Lumturo (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being so helpful and agreeable. Wikipedia needs more level-headed administrators like you. Yes, I've reviewed the sources carefully to be sure that they actually support the article. Best wishes to you too and have a great day! Lumturo (talk) 13:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This situation has now escalated to the point where I've reported it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents; if you have any further comments, that may be the best place to make them. Thanks for your efforts in this situation, they are appreciated. Accounting4Taste:talk 18:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sue Page

It was not reposted, it was undeleted by User:ESkog asserting there was permission from the copyright holder. I'd just removed the speedy tag after seeing this in the deletion log when I went to delete it. —Random832 15:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alton H Maddox

Thank you for your interest in my edits. Unfortunately the material you've reinserted reads more like an editorial than an encyclopedia entry. I have been working on a more neutral version that I've previously not inserted as citations aren't compelete. However, I now intend to insert it in its present form since my deletions keep getting reverted. Your input is welcome. 130.156.29.112 (talk) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks card

Hello, Pedro, thank you for participating in my request for adminship, which closed successfully with 47 supports, 3 opposes, and 0 neutrals. I am glad that the community thinks it can trust me with these tools; I will try and use my new mop and bucket (or vacuum cleaner!) carefully. I would like to personally thank you (again) for nominating me, I hope I meet your expectations. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Adminship

I withdrew my request for adminship. Now is not the time for that. Although I love editing Wikipedia, I don't know exactly what I would do with the tools, and what I would do. I think I'll keep editing Wikipedia, and maybe six months or a year from now, I can go at it again. I apologize for whatever I may have done in the past, but I strongly believe that I am a useful contributor now. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be very honored if you could adopt me or if you could give me a few pointers about Wikipedia. I will be sure to ask Jayron32 the same thing. If you speak Spanish, I think you'll understand that "a conocerte fue un placer, y espero que podamos hablarnos en el fúturo". But I don't know if that's correct, 'cause I'm only in Spanish 3. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha! Americans are probably the worst when it comes to foreign languages, not the Britons! I don't mind a communication delay for the most part. You're very kind. Thank you. I'm currently making a special Barnstar for you in Power Point, so stay tuned! — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Your behavior in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cuyler91093‎ was exactly how RfAs similar to that should be handled: with civility, encouragement, and respect for the good-faithed candidate, along with good advice. Thank you Pedro. Acalamari 00:57, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome: you definitely deserved that award. :) Acalamari 01:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for the heads up on the BRC MfD. It's surprising that no one bothered to post a note on my talk page before you. I appreciate it. Thanks also for the support. Lara❤Love 18:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry

i won't do it again promise :)--Dlo2012 (talk) 04:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BRC

So when are you joining? :P SonOfPedro is a valued member, of course, but we can always use more admins taking pictures in bathrobes! Haha. GlassCobra 06:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Ha! With my new Wikipedia mug and T-shirt as well - just need Wife Of Pedro to take the snap shot! Pedro :  Chat  08:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the thumbs up! :P So I'll be expecting that on my desk shortly, shall I? GlassCobra 00:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Premature unprotection of Alton H. Maddox, Jr.?

I note that User:Maelgwnbot removed all protection on Alton H. Maddox, Jr. today, apparently because there is something "outdated" about the template used to protect it, not because the issues which called for the protection of the article had been resolved. 130.156.31.148 has rewritten the article entirely in his own style; while he has not removed everything that is unfavorable to Maddox, the result does not read as an article, but a set of bullet points which do not even form grammatical sentences. Further, it is hard not to suspect that this "bullet point" style has been chosen specifically to avoid description of the highly controversial tactics[1] Maddox used for arguing his cases and his causes; since that is undeniably part of a complete picture of the man, I do not think that this is a very good change. Would you please take a look and see what you think? -- 209.6.177.176 (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The protection ended as I had preset it to expire on the 6th, and the bot just removed the template. I am hoping that this can be sorted out on the talk page of the article without need to reprotect it. If you feel the changes done are detrimental feel free to ammend them again, but please can consensus be achieved via talk first. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  08:21, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Good instincts

Regarding your initial block of ALA2222222, your instincts would seem to be very accurate. See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dan689 for a reason why. ;) Woody (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. I saw the old ANI discussion about my original block, and I know some felt that it was a bit faithless. But sometimes WP:AGF has to come second to WP:BLATANT BAD NEWS. Thanks for letting me know. Pedro :  Chat  15:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, a bit of vindication is always nice. :) Woody (talk) 15:45, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which which passed nem. con. with 45 support, 0 oppose, and 0 neutral. Thank you for your support and all the kind words that were expressed. I will try to live up to the trust placed in me by the community. I now have my homework to do and then pass the Marigolds.

I'm particularly grateful for your full analysis of my contributions. Cheers.

Kbthompson (talk) 15:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My WP:RFR

I saw you left this comment for me: "I am slightly nervous that this user has used Twinkle fairly regularly for (admitedly minor) content reversion, rather than directly editing the page." If that is a reason not to give me rollback, then cool, no problems whatsoever. but can you explain what you mean? The fact that I've used the Rollback (good faith)? Is that a problem, and something that is frowned upon? If so, please let me know so I can stop doing so. I just use the assume good faith option to rollback stuff I'm not certain is intentional vandalism, but is clearly inappropriate (in my opinion) content anyway. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 10:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

rollback

This user to me doesnt meet the requirement of need, looking through the contribs I see lots of AWB edits adding and removing space I dont see any vandalism reverts and was about to decline. Gnangarra 13:50, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I see that my Rollback permission request was deleted, following a note from you of "Malformed Request." It said "reason below", but I couldn't find it. I'm not sure what the situation is. Could you explain? Thanks. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks very much. Can you tell me what was malformed about my request so I don't repeat the error? Thanks again. Monkeyzpop (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

RFR

Much obliged - Nigosh (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

		Thanks for your support
		Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Userbox

You beat me to removing that symbol you added, which I was going to do because of the transclusion on a couple others' pages. I thought about adding that "talk" symbol but than it looked kind of weird with the "no" symbol on top of that... Rjd0060 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

....But if you could make that a bit smaller without making it hard to read, I can replace the image I have. I just tried using it at about 60px and the writing was too small to read, but I didn't want the image too huge.... - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go over the weekend if I have five mins. No worries. Cheers buddy. Pedro :  Chat  16:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded a smaller version over yours. Looks good. Feel free to revert if you want to. That one looks better big... - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Rollbackimgedit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Rollbackimgedit.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I added the tag for you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Help on move

Hi, dropping by for that help that you said was available. I have to declare an interest so stepping aside a bit I wondered if you would take a look at a move that took place yesterday.

The article City of Leeds was moved to Leeds city council then City of Leeds redirected to Leeds. The discussion is at Talk:Leeds which was initiated by Chrisieboy on a rename that was objected to by PamD and myself. As this does not appear to be the correct way of handling the different entities involved. The discussion took place before Christmas and then all of a sudden yesterday the page was unilaterally moved. Since which Jza84 has also voiced concern.

Do you think that this should be reversed and the user ask to take it to WP:RM or should the interested parties just go to WP:RM to get it reversed? I did suggest going to WP:ANI but probably a bit OTT.

Thanks Keith D (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Keith, I've commented on the talk page. I'm really busy today and just quickly popped on to do a couple of things, so I'm really sorry I can't help further at the moment. I'll check back on it though. Sorry again not to be more helpfull. Pedro :  Chat  14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I wrote the note on WP:ANI just before going to bed then had second thoughts this morning. Looks like take it to WP:RM. Keith D (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which I withdrew with 5 support, 14 oppose, and 9 neutral. Thank you for your comments! Whether it was a support, oppose, or neutral, I likely got some good feedback from you. I will probably do another RfA in the future, but not until I work out the issues brought up.

Soxπed Ninety Three | tcdb 17:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Rudget!

Dear Pedro, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Cute baby

Your baby is so cute! miranda 10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Wife Of Pedro and I think so too, but we are biased!!! Pedro :  Chat  10:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

:-D have a good one! Miranda 13:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Triwbe

Sorry about the rather vague edit summary. I was trying to fix the support section for the RFA report, but it didn't seem to work, but it doesn't matter anyway because I've gone neutral. I was sure that I had opted out of automatic edit signing.... - Apologies for any inconvenience. Regards, Rudget. 17:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

No probs at all buddy. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

vymucany page

you were just plain wrong deleting it as I have cited few local newspapers that should satisfy any request for reliability. --dusoft (talk) 21:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

A belated thank you for your RFA support! Archtransit (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

question...

If you had been aware of this exchange between the person working on Vymucany and the person who nominated it for deletion, would you still have deleted it?

Your deletion was less than twenty minutes after the newbie showed they needed help -- help which the nominator didn't seem to think they had any obligation to supply. Geo Swan (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked all relevant conversations and found the article failed WP:CSD#A7 due to a total lack of assertion of notability. I userfied the article pending assertion of that notability. The editor had time enough to add citation. However he did not add notability - and 20 minutes is more than sufficent IMHO to add notability rather than references. Userfying was the best option to keep the editor happy and potentialy get the arrticle into the mainspace without future issues. Pedro :  Chat  22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on User talk:Dusoft. No offense, but I think you have forgotten what it was like to be a newbie.

Note, in particular, this comment, ten or eleven minutes prior to your deletion. It seems to me as if he thought he had supplied information to demonstrate the band's notability. You concluded the deletion because the details he supplied missed explicitly stating that key word "notable", correct? Geo Swan (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I deleted because the article failed to assert notability. Please remember that whilst discussion is great, an admin, at the end of the day, makes the decision based on the text in the article. I suggest you re-read the deleted version and notability guidelines. As for your accusation of WP:BITE I'm sorry you feel that way and hope that by restoring the article to user space pending improvement I have not lost a "newbie". Best. Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WRT rudeness. It was not my intention to be rude.

I understand that you are just a volunteer, working on the wikipedia in your spare time. I understand that leaving a substantive note for Dusoft may have consumed more time than you were willing to budget for this article. Personally, I would strongly prefer quality-control volunteers only act on a quality control concern when they have time to do so while fully complying with WP:CIV.

Yes, userifying the article is better than just blowing Dusoft off, or telling him to take it to deletion review. But, IMO, it would have been better to not delete the article in the first place. My understanding of what you have written, so far, is that you are not disputing whether the topic of this band was notable. Dusoft thought he had satisfied the notability requirement, by supplying more references. I am completely confident he made that comment in good faith. I strongly believe he deserved to have someone politely explain that the article did not yet comply.

I just checked Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non English sources. IIUC that the sources are in Slovakian, not English, makes them less favored than sources in English, but does not disqualify them for being regarded as reliable sources.

With regard to your understanding that administrators: "...at the end of the day, makes the decision based on the text in the article." Wikipedia:DEL#Alternatives_to_deletion says, in the first sentence of this section:

"If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion."

WP:DEL used to be much clearer on this. It used to have a table that very clearly spelled out how to react to problems in articles for which deletion should not be considered an option. It used to spell out, more clearly, that everyone -- nominators, those voicing an opinion in the {{afd}}, and closing admins, were supposed to form their opinion on whether the article should be deleted on whether the topic merited coverage -- not on how well written the article was at the time of its nomination.

So, I am sorry, but I continue to hold the opinion you are mistaken to think you should be deciding whether articles should be deleted based on their contents at the time of their nomination. I continue to hold the opinion that your decision should have been based on whether the topic merited coverage. I continue to hold the opinion that all your decisions on deletion, whether as a nominator, discussion participant, or closing admin, should be based on the topic of the article, not the current state of the article.

This particularly concerns me because I think we are agreed that the effort necessary to satisfy the clause of WP:notability clause sounds relatively trivial. Insertion of a the phrase "is notable because", a reference to a national tour, top ten hit, positive reviews.

Let me tell you about the deletion of Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. I came across references to the Jamaat Tablighi back in late 2005 or early 2006. I had never heard about it, and had no idea why counter-terrorism analysts asserted an alleged association between an individual and the Tabligh movement was grounds for detention in Guantanamo. The Tablighi Jamaat article was then very weak. It was totally unreferenced, and subject to revision wars and contentious {{copyvio}}. Throughout 2006 I spent dozens of hours working on that article. My references to the DoD assertions that it was an organization with ties to al Qaida were the very first references that article had. Those references, that material, was routinely removed, either without any explanation, or with the explanation that the DoD assertions were false, weak, based on denunciations coerced through torture. Most of those dozens of hours I spent were consumed in trying to explain to the admirers of the Tabligh movement that the core policy of WP:VER stated that the standard for inclusion was "verifiability, not truth". Frankly, I too was skeptical as to the credibility of the DoD allegations. But they were highly verifiable, and, IMO, they were highly noteworthy, because a significant fraction of the Guantanamo captives were being held due to an association with this group.

By late December of 2006 my patience with the admirers of the Tablighi movement, who were removing referenced material, that was written from a neutral point of view, based on their personal interpretation that it wasn't true was exhausted. I had suggested starting an article just to discuss the allegations. They had objected. But the material kept being deleted, so I assembled my notes, and started working on Allegations that Tablighi Jamaat has ties to terrorism. I knew it would take me hours. I expected it to take about ten minutes per reference, and I had three dozen references.

So, I saved an interim version, only to have it tagged for speedy deletion by an over-hasty new page patroller one minute after creation. IMO, this nomination lapsed from compliance with the recommendations of WP:CSD, which warns nominators not to tag articles within minutes of creation because the author might still be working on it.

I put a {{hangon}} on the article when I noticed the {{db}}, left a note on the nominator's talk page, and started drafting my explanation for the {{hangon}} on the article's talk page.

You suggested 20 minutes was plenty of time for a contributor to assert notability? I hadn't finished my justification of my {{hangon}} tag before an overly hasty administrator deleted the article. This overly hasty administrator's deletion was 38 minutes after my placement of the {{hangon}} tag. I know 38 minutes is not long enough. So I know 20 minutes is not sufficient. And as I pointed out before, you really only allowed a dozen minutes from Dusoft's last note.

So, why didn't I just initiate a deletion review. Well, I did that. It should have been clear cut. But it was a very aggravating drain on my time. It was a very unpleasant surprise to learn that after the deletion review I had to face the very unpleasant time drain of an {{afd}}.

All the waste of time and aggravation arising from the deletion review and {{afd}} could have been avoided if the nominator and concluding administrator had each spent a fraction of a minute thinking about complying more fully with policy.

There is a phenomenon I first became aware of two years ago. Prior to the winter of 2005 images that were from a site that had some kind of {{noncommercial}} liscense were allowed. In the winter of 2005 there was a policy change announcing that uploading new images with a noncommercial liscense would no longer be allowed, and that volunteers would start pruning the existing images with noncommercial liscense.

This policy change came as an unpleasant surprise. I had uploaded a dozen or more images of Canadian Coast Guard vessels. But, it is important to comply with policy, so I spent a day looking for images of Canadian vessels that had been taken by employees of the US Federal government, because they would be under PD liscenses. I noticed the efforts of these volunteers doing the pruning. I found one guy who was changing liscenses, from {{self}} and other valid-looking liscenses. He wasn't explaining why he was changing the liscenses, on the talk page. And he wasn't informing the uploaders. I asked him to explain what he was doing. He said he was sure the uploaders were putting bogus {{sfd}} liscenses on images they didn't own to get around the policy change. Well, obviously they shouldn't be doing that. They should have done what I did, and looked for free replacement images. But he wasn't fully complying with policy either. He acknowledged this. But he claimed that if he took the time to fully comply it would make his vandal fighting efforts much less effective.

IMO this is a false justification --

"My efforts to enforce the wikipedia's policy would be less effective if I fully complied with policy myself."

This is a justification I have heard variations of dozens of times since then. It is a justification I had differed with, in all its variations. IMO it is absolutely essential that everyone who is trying to enforce policy fully comply with policy in their efforts.

That patroller who was breaching policy in his attempts to get the non-complying images deleted was setting a bad example. Those image uploaders who were relative newbies aren't going to be taught to comply with the wikipedia's policies if those enforcing the policies weren't complying with them themselves.

No, I am not saying you uttered a variation of this justification. But I am concerned that what you have written comes close to this justification. It is my opinion the nominator's efforts fell short. And, sorry, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to be arguing that you did everything that could be expected of you, and I think you should have done more.

Personally, I would far rather have quality control patrollers who fully complied with policy themselves, at the cost of cruft sticking around a bit longer, than have "efficient" patrollers who set a bad example by skipping full compliance with WP:CIV.

Now, maybe I am wrong, but I am concerned over your interpretation of policy -- that we are supposed to base our conclusions on whether articles merit deletion on the articles' current state, not on the importance of the topic.

If you remain convinced that policy supports your interpretation, that conclusions about deletion should not be based on the topic, but on the article's current state, I would appreciate you citing the clauses of policy on which you base this opinion.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 03:25, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Geo Swan, and than your for your time in your expansive response. I think the issue here is perhaps getting out of proportion. I appreciate you are a more than seasoned Wikipedia editor, and your keen knowledge of policy is a testament to this. On balance perhaps I need to refresh myself with C:CSD policies. To this end I will be looking at performing less CSD actions in the future and focusing my time elsewhere. With regards to the specific article, I guess this is where our views differ. IMHO articles should at least merit a stub status prior to inclusion - i.e. they fulfil the spirit not the letter of policies. This is my view, and not a Wikipedia view of course. Admins must exercise judgment and I perhaps need to soften mine and be more lenient. I guess repeated CSD actions (I have some 1,000 deletions) tend to make one a bit jaded. This is clearly a bad thing. I hope that the editor will recreate the article back to the main space, and I will endeavour to learn from your well reasoned comments and propositions. Pedro :  Chat  13:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hey there, I'm writing to inform you that I have withdrawn my request for adminship, which was currently standing at 11 supports, 22 opposes and 6 neutrals. This count could have been so much better if I had understood policy, although I believe that 17 questions is a lot to ask of a user's first RfA. I will take on all comments given at the RfA and will endeavour to meet the high expectations of the RfA voters. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN}^{play it cool.} 21:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which closed unsuccessfully with 25 support, 18 oppose, and 6 neutral. Thanks for the support and I'll look forward working with you. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: Who did we lose?

Well, User:Rudget has left, User:Rlevse left but came back and User:Shadow1 left.--Phoenix-wiki 22:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Bugger. Pedro :  Chat  22:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:TSQUAD.

We're recruiting. :) · AndonicO ^Hail! 22:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

RfA noms

I'm sorry you feel this way, but all I can do is assure you that this is a misunderstanding. Epbr123 (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. Although, candidates are allowed to have holes in their experience, especially if they don't intend to work in that area. For example, you have little article writing or XfD experience, but that didn't harm your RfA. I know the Twibe RfA is an issue, but I believe that either he meant he would work at AfD only once he was ready, or that he only made the comment to make himself seem more rounded. I nominated him as a potential vandal-fighting admin; I didn't expect him to say he would get involved in AfD. Epbr123 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is more the issue - you nominate based on one thing and then the candidate announces they want to work elsewhere with no experience at all!! Frustrating! As you say, I had very little article writing experience at my RfA so If I'd gone in with "I want to work at WT:DYK" I'd have been in trouble and rightly so. I did however have substantial and accurate C:CSD work, and that was my main area of interest and I said so in my Q1. Pedro :  Chat  11:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello there!

Hi again, Pedro! I remembered that you're British, and I was wondering if you would like a template I made that you can put in your userspace. It's called {{Right now English}}, and it looks like the new message bar, but it includes the current date and time. How do you like it? And, if you'd like to reword it to make it more British (I'm not familiar with the British "language", so to speak, because I'm American), then feel free to. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 06:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hiya. A good idea. My only reservation is that banners using the "usermessage" class of div as it confuses people into thinking they do have a message! An interesting one for you - I protected a page the other day and just couldn't get it to work right - I kept on getting the end date wrong and didn't know why - then I remembered to type it in American fashion and it worked! He! So you're totally right that we need to remember the difference between Brit and US day/month format! Pedro :  Chat  08:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: My RFA

Hi Pedro. I want you to know that I'm not holding a grudge or thinking ill of you at all regarding your oppose position, and, possibly, the flurry of opposition and neutral stances it may have "caused". The truth of the matter is that you brought certain things to light that other users felt were pertinent in casting their vote. I still feel as though I'd be an asset (rather than a hindrance) to the team, but I wouldn't ever believe your comments were made in bad faith. I'm not sure if you went beyond my talk page for your analysis, but perhaps if you did, you wouldn't feel so ambivalent. Regards! Wisdom89 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it this way - you're an asset without the admin bit and I strongly believe in the future you will be an asset with the admin bit. I'd just like to see 10/12 weeks of ironing out some minor issues. I agree 99% of what you do is great, but sadly RfA's allways fail on the 1% (or less!) that isn't. I really admire the way you've approached this though, and how calm and accepting you've been. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

New to Wikipedia...could you please assist...

Hi Pedro, I'm very new to this world of Wiki and need assistance with a disambiguation situation. There is a rock group (Treepeople) that has the same name as a nonprofit that I created an entry for (TreePeople). How to I indicate on the rock group's page that the nonprofit also exists? I read your entry at the Help Desk as well as the disambiguation page but I'm starting to slip down the rabbit hole and sense this simple action is going to take me a long time to figure out. THANKS SO MUCH for any assistance you can offer! 67.107.22.68 (talk) 21:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)Laurie

No problems. First you need to create the article TreePeople (Band). (I'm going to assume that they are notable enough for inclusion). Then at the top of the Treepeople article insert the following code (you can cut and paste it):

{{about|the not for profit group|information on the band of the same name|Treepeople (band)}}

which will produce

This page is about the not for profit group. For information on the band of the same name, see Treepeople (band).

On the existing article just reverse it e.g.

{{about|a band|information on the not for profit group|Treepeople}}

which becomes

This page is about a band. For information on the not for profit group, see Treepeople.

Obviously the links will go blue when you create the article. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The Right now template

It's not the colors of the usermessage boxes anymore! — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit: Sorry, I accidentally put this message on your user page. It's not vandalism, but I reverted it, so I apologize. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 03:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a lot nicer. And I'm using it! Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  07:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)