Jump to content

User talk:Pedro/Archive 17

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baris Ince

And now I find you stalking my contribs! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 00:08, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added myjobspace.co.nz as I felt it appropriate, as it has recently become a website of considerable worth. seek.co.nz has a wikipedia entry, so this should too. This is now advertising, I was just making is stub so someone else could add material, or I could when I had more info 203.109.213.73 (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC) Signed Dez82 (not logged in right now)[reply]

Adoption

Working through tutorials/sandbox.
Need the basics.Preceding unsigned comment 18:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply.
I could not think of an original one, until I noticed that those that forgot to sign, got an automated message. In my mind, to use something similar for a user name, would be well remembered by those I communicate with.
I am working on the tutorials and playing in the sandbox. Once I am ready, I would like to do cleanup type work to hone my skills. Ultimately I would like to create articles for subjects that I know well. I have no desire to attempt that until I get the basics mastered.
Preceding unsigned comment add to 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trampikey 2

Can we sort this out to give the candidate a fair run? Best that we revert to 3 supports and no other comments. Pedro :  Chat  23:03, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is that my decision? Anyway, the only non-support comment that actually affects the outcome is your oppose – Gurch 23:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

Hi, just dropping by to say thanks for supporting my RfA, I totally wasn't expecting to get so much support, it was a really pleasant surprise. Melesse (talk) 04:07, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melesse (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

User:208.108.95.7

I noticed that you blocked this IP for 72 hours. Since they seem to vandalize at the same time each day, I set up a block for 4765 minutes, or 79 hours and change. To do this, I had to (briefly) undo your block. I left your warnings in place. This is one I had on my radar from yesterday, so I took the liberty of throwing in some random numbers, to see if it would help. Just wanted to let you know, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whee, my first wheel war! I figured that this sort of thing is why 31 and 55 hours are default options for block lengths, so I just took it a step further. I think AIV Helperbot doesn't like it, though: another IP I blocked resulted in this edit summary: rm 207.32.4.1 (blocked until 2008-02-09 00:52:23 by Ultraexactzz. It didn't even try to give the length in minutes or hours! Happy to help, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 18:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VistaPrint

Hello Pedro, I have made changes to the page to hopefully read less like an advertisement. Please let me know if you would reconsider thetag placed on the page.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffespo20 (talk • contribs) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I went to do some more work and was beaten by another editor - we've removed most of the tags now - article looks fine. I actually have used the company myself!! Pedro :  Chat  16:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you spam



My RfA
Thank you very much, Pedro, for your support in my RfA which I really appreciate. It closed at 83/0/0. I was surprised by the unanimity and will do my best to live up to the new role. All the best, --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The patio at the Partal Palace in the Alhambra, Andalucia.


My main fear at the moment is hitting the block button when I mean to look at someone's contribs :)) --ROGER DAVIES talk 16:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Pity about the main page :)

Editor Review

Could you please comment on my editor review here? Thank you!! Happy Editing, Dustitalk 18:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also review my edits when you get the chance? I've noticed you've done a few editor reviews, so I thought I'd ask you. Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to your reviews at Wikipedia:Editor review/Soxred93

Hey, thanks for your reviews! I have made a reply at Wikipedia:Editor review/Soxred93, feel free to look at it! Soxred93 | talk count bot 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Dearest Pedro, I owe you thanks for many things but top of the list must be your superb nomination statement which I have no doubt played a major part in making my RfA so painless (along with my quite brilliant answers obviously ;)) THANK YOU nancy (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understanding

Thanks, Pedro, for the understanding.
You've maturely approached the problem (that it wasn't a problem after all).
This wasn't supposed to go on ANI, you've noticed well. So much panic because of one opposer.
I can't believe that your first RFA failed (to make it more funny, it hasn't failed because of opposing votes based on "2 years experience" criteria :)) . Kubura (talk) 09:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I see your oppose as good faith and true to your opinions, but you must remember, as I said at ANI, that RfA is a rough ride for a lot of people, and not just candidates. Anonymous Dissident, Balloonman and others where right to challenge your oppose, allthough I feel an ANI thread was not the right way to approach it. It's all a bit of a storm in a teacup, and hopefully we can all move on in a spirit of collaboration. Very best. Pedro :  Chat  09:57, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupidity

I keep forgetting that I can do that now. Sorry. John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hello Pedro. I was wondering if you could review my editor review, it's available here. Thanks! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the editor review! I appreciate the comments. I familiarized myself with the page protection criterea, and I will follow all the other comments you mentioned. Also, my planning date for an RFA is between March 15-20, does that sound good to you? - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very wise! Pedro :  Chat  22:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for rollback

Hello, Pedro. I've been away for a while, but have been trying my best to get back to Wikipedia in the last month or so. I noticed that you were one of the administrators willing to assign the rollback feature. Well, reverting vandalism is something I have done often here, and continue to do, and I think that it would help me in the tough task of fighting vandalism (not to mention be more efficient in it). So, would you mind granting me this feature? Thanks in advance for consideration. – Alex43223 T | C | E 23:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis done! Pedro :  Chat  07:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Happy editing to you too. – Alex43223 T | C | E 02:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

As long as nobody stumbles and falls, I'm certainly in no hurry. I appreciated your note, though. Doczilla (talk) 10:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naseba

It appears we were both trying to list it for deletion at the same time. -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears we were both mentioning this fact on each others talk pages at the same time!!!Pedro :  Chat  12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And then my phone rang and I was almost expecting it to be you...... -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Class - that really made me laugh that comment, good one!!! Pedro :  Chat  12:14, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to look at the same user's other contribs though. I'm happy to let you do that... :-) -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is really starting to get annoying now .....Pedro :  Chat  13:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFR

Hi Pedro. Just a quick note to say I've answered all your questions on the main RFR page. Thanks! B e t t i at a l k  16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Pedro :  Chat  16:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester

[1] I really hope that has nothing to do with me. If you're able to come, I'd like to meet you. I've already replied on my talkpage [2] but seriously - no hard feelings. WjBscribe 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan and Deskana won't bite either - they're easy going people really ;-) ... WjBscribe 16:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Ben macleod"

Howdy, bro. It looks as if that title had been deleted once before. Same user, no other edits. I'll look to see if I can verify the claims, but I have a feeling that I'm not going to find a whole heck of a lot.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a great article, but asserting he's been in Harry Potter films is enough to escape WP:CSD#A7 - glad you've double checked he's for real - cheers! Pedro :  Chat  16:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Valentine's Day!

FLc is wishing you a Happy Valentine's Day! This greeting promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy Valentine's Day, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the love by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/HapValDay!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank You

Thank you very much :-) -Ravichandar 06:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Ben Macleod

A tag has been placed on Ben Macleod requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 10:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

how are you..Mr.Pedro..can I say Pedro without (MR) ? i think you know Troina (stephaine) why did she give up ? she want to be admin in the last time. --O.waqfi (talk) 14:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please just call me Pedro - or "Oi, You" :). I don't know what has happened to Triona - sometimes a bad RfA can be pretty hard (although hers was doing okay, all though unlikely to pass). Hopefully she'll be back. Pedro :  Chat  20:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship

Hi Pedro, continuing our discussion on this from last month - if you're still willing to consider sponsoring me for RfA, I was wondering what (if any) steps to take next. My edit count is near the 4,500 threshold you suggested and I may as well wait until it creeps over there, but is there anything I should prepare in the meantime? I've occasionally seen people criticised for getting the technicalities of their RfA wrong, but as it's the kind of thing one only usually does once (hopefully!) it's hard to get any practice at it... I will take a proper look at the RfA pages now and see if I can work out for myself what needs doing, but all advice gratefully received. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 11:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

User talk:BlairsvilleHighSchool

Okay. You need to understand firstly that adminship is not about policing your students contributions. It's helping Wikipedia on a much more general and advanced level. This account has, I regret, no chance of being granted admin rights for your specific reasons. What else can I help with? Pedro : Chat 00:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm skeptical that this is actually school personnel. What's the nice way to put this? ... ehm, it didn't seem to be quite on the level of someone who I would expect to be employed at an educational institution. Seems a little incoherent ... I suspect this is a student who thinks he/she is clever. - Revolving Bugbear 00:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGF buddy ....... I sort of agree, but the quality of educational output these days means there is no guarantee that teachers can communicate either, sadly. This account has done nothing inconsistent with a new account, and we should encourage them to help here until prooved wrong. Pedro :  Chat  00:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it were a new account, I might agree, but the account's existed for 11 months. - Revolving Bugbear 01:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, new = experience not tenure. The very fact that the account has been around some time does not indicate a vandal account and the length of time does not seem to equal a sleeper. However, I'm going off-line now so over to you!!! Pedro :  Chat  01:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's a vandal or anything, or that it's up to no good. Whoever it is seems to be doing no real harm. I just think the story combined with the timeframe is a little difficult to swallow. In any case, I don't see this account as a problem, and will keep an eye out.
Cheers! - Revolving Bugbear 01:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed - a watchful eye will do the job here! Pedro :  Chat  01:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review

Hello Pedro. First off, thanks for reviewing my Editor Review. I appreciate that. I'm going to try to focus on the negatives you mentioned more than the positives. As a matter of fact, I already got a couple things done: I familiarized myself with the protection policy, along with changing the font on my talk page. I will have another review in March, to see the remaining weakness before I run for an RFA. I plan on an RFA on the Ides of March, if that sounds good to you. And I look forward to your support! Thanks again! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 03:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that timing would be very wise. Pedro :  Chat  19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pre transclusion

:O Git! :) dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 11:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tee Hee! Beat you too it! Pedro :  Chat  14:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barneca RfA nomination spam

MastCell, Pedro, Dreamafter, and DHMO, you four get your own personalized copy of User:Barneca/RfA/Thank you (below). Thanks for the nomination, faith, and support. That was much less stressful than I anticipated, and it's likely due to the strong nominations.

I won’t be too bold at first, but hopefully after starting out with baby steps I’ll find my stride. See you around! --barneca --barneca (talk) 18:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barneca/RfA/Thank you

203.94.143.9

Pedro, I urge you to look at the contributions for this IP and the fact that it's been given three warnings for vandalism this month alone. As well it has a very long history of blocks for vandalism. I believe a second look is worthy. Bstone (talk) 23:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Editor review

Thanks for the editor review, Pedro! I left a more lengthy response here, so you may reply there if you wish. Thanks again! Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BRC

So, erm, when are you joining? dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 08:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I get five spare minutes with a camera and my bath robe! Which could be 2012 with my time pressures at th emoment :( Pedro :  Chat  10:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please sign here

I finally found you. I had adapted my signature from sorry guy and had decide to ask him if he minded. He told me he got it from you, so I ask you, do you mind me using and adaptation of your signature?--Pewwer42  Talk  10:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More than welcome! Pedro :  Chat  10:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of request for deletion of editor Pedro :)

Pedro, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Pedro and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). GlassCobra 00:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, about time too! Pedro :  Chat  08:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Munroe

Thank you for your edits to Myles Munroe.--Nowa (talk) 12:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Re: [3]. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wishes to fix my typos is welcome to do so... :-) WjBscribe 19:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On RFR

Ha, ha. :) Well, I'm glad to know that our concerns there were supported by each other. :) Acalamari 20:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-to

That wasn't "to" bold, was it? LOL Dlohcierekim Deleted? 20:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

) class !!

Rollback thanks and username

Thanks very much for granting me rollback :) My username is just my real name, so no link with the college :) When friends speak of how their names are famous, I usually win with the college in Winchester :D Best thanks, PeterSymonds | talk 21:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: WT:RFR

Sorry, but I'm not following you. Can we discuss this here instead of battle? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yep! Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to use January 10 2008, can you at least link "January 10" and not just "January"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done my friend - This is a wiki - you could have done it yourself you know!!. Please don't feel like this is some kind of "battle" that you "won" or "lost" - it's just about making wikipedia as clear as possible. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know now what you were trying to do, however, now there's the matter of making sure all of these are styled in the same fashion. Is there a bot or something that can save us the trouble? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're correct here. My first random click was Talk:Reaganomics which is in the general format I prefer, and per MOS - basically not your format, I'm sorry to say. Bear in mind that WT:RFR is high visability so clarity is best. Altering individual talk pages of less high prominence articles seems a poor use of bot resources Pedro :  Chat  23:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you suggest? Manual editing of individual talk pages or just leaving it alone for now? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd leave them - most seem either in the format as above or with no date specified at all. The link to the debate is far more important. Frankly no date at all hardly hinders the project - it's really only to try and pre-empt another XFD debate shortly after the first one. Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:RfA suggestions from 2 weeks ago

Hi Pedro, I read your comment on my RfA... those dodgy AIV reports were all WP:HUGGLE's workings/bugs etc. I know that users must (at least) have a final warning or an {{subst:uw-vandalism4im}} before a report to AIV is possible. When Huggle has done these things I've quickly attempted to undo the error and taken full responsibility. I do hope that has been noted. Thanks again for your comment to me 2 weeks ago; I really appreciate it. Take care, ScarianCall me Pat 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at RFA. Pedro :  Chat  15:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grudge

You seem to believe that I bear you some sort of grudge because of your opposition in my failed RfA. Nothing could be further from the truth. I made it plain to you what I thought of your intellectual dishonesty in refusing to accept that you had been mistaken in your POV accusation/opposition, and for me the matter was then closed. But apparently not for you.

If you continue to find yourself unable to conduct yourself as an administrator should, then I would suggest that you ought to seriously consider whether you are fit to be an administrator. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, you are welcome to take this to WP:RFC. I shall review your claim of "intellectual dishonesty". I bear you no ill will, but I am afraid that I am of the opinion that your failed RfA has soured your view of the administrative element of this project. To make it very clear at this stage I will not undergo re-confirmation via RfA but will abide by majority views at RfC. I am frankly bemused by your comments. Do you honestly think that my oppose at your RfA was the start of some kind of grudge??? A grudge is normally held against someone who has upset you - e.g. if you had opposed my RfA I might have a grudge against you (I don't of course for the sake of clarity as you did not). The grudge is entirely yours - not mine. You've done nothing to make me have a grudge against you. Please - let us work towards building Wikipedia and drop this. However, I will respect any RFC you bring. Pedro :  Chat  23:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of bringing any RfC against you. But if you would stop abusing me, and start to believe that I may be expressing a reasonable pont of view, even if it is not the same as your own, then that may be a reasonable step forwards. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of bringing any RfC against you. But if you would stop abusing me, and start to believe that I may be expressing a reasonable pont of view, even if it is not the same as your own, then that may be a reasonable step forwards. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course. Malleus, let me put it bluntly to you. I have a wife and a child. I have another child due in August. I own my own business and am also a company director of another business; I also provide background support to other small three / four man employers local to me. I have precious little time to relax, but when I do I choose to edit Wikipedia as I enjoy it and it helps me chill out. I don't want conflict and I don't want stress (so WP is probably a bad place!!). I do, however, believe in this project. At heart I am a manager but typed words are very poor in terms of communication. I love WP for the freedom it brings me, and I don't want to see it spoilt. To be blunt; I stlll believe your failed RfA (which if you review it's failure was little to do with me and I have reviewed it again tonight) is your issue. I ask you to move on. I also ask you to remember that adminship is not a title - just some buttons on a website. I also extend my apologies for any upset, again, and ask you consider that people are people - I work hard for this project and I do it with the best intent. You work hard for this project with the best intent. We actually have a common aim. Pedro :  Chat  00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that you are the only person on this project to have a real life? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really believe that the above comment is helpful? I'm trying to be lucid and honest to help you understand I do this in good faith. Pedro :  Chat  00:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a company director, and I know what that involves. Please do not assume that you are in some way "special", and deserving of "special" treatment. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pedro here: Malleus, you've changed quite a bit since your RfA. My only experience of you before was you failing a GAC of mine, but you were much happier, relaxed and you edited where you edited best: the encyclopedia. Now all I see is what I see as rather bitter comments towards, mostly, Wikipedia's administration structure. It's an area where you rarely went before (AFAIK, I never saw you there), and I agree with Pedro that it is surely because of your RfA failing. Please, just write some more excellent article, stop this ridiculous arguing, and useless discussion over nothing, and let us get on with things nicely (hand in hand preferably, but that's optional) Majorly (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will freely admit that my failed RfA was an eye-opener. But it didn't change my attitude to the encyclopedia, and I would guess that I have probably contributed to the project at least as much as you and Pedro have since then. The only thing that's changed is my attitude towards wikipedia's administrators. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:49, 16 Februa-ry 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Night Night! Off to bed now - sorry. Pedro :  Chat  00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Majorly. Malleus, we all want the best for Wikipedia. Let us move on from this meta discussion - please - towards our common goal. Thanks Pedro :  Chat  00:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Food for thought

Hey Pedro! Thanks for the offer, I would be honored if you could coach me with regards to admin actions. There's still been some minor slip ups (although I contested a few of them hehe), but I honestly think I'm starting to get the hang of it. been attempting to get my "impulsions" under control while going to wiki talk areas and dropping comments/questions (also on WP:RFPP and WP:ANI. Any advice or help you could provide would be greatly appreciated. Cheers! Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - I'm so busy at the weekends due to User:Son Of Pedro {above!) and my business but I'll set up a page and we can work towards it. Pedro :  Chat  00:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very cool, I'm the opposite, I'm busy during the week. : ) Take your time and let me know. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good stuff. I know you're an admin in the making and it's a pleasure to help. Man, that's my Narcissism done for tonight !! Pedro :  Chat  00:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Hello, pedro. On my RFA I believe you posted the comment saying that I should remember that a perceived vandal could possibly become an opportunity to greet a new user. Please forgive me if I'm wrong, but I feel that I have addressed that issue in question 3. I wrote that it is possible to educate a user on the policies of wikipedia. I have tried to show users the proper way to edit constructively. [4] [5] [6]. As for the UAA reports, I feel that the reason for the edits were not because of trigger happiness, but because of a former misunderstanding of the username policy. After those reports were made two months ago, I reviewed the policies to a great extent, and now I know what I did wrong and why it was wrong. I should have addressed a concern to the user on his or her talk page instead of placing a request at UAA. I can assure you my knowledge of the username policy has improved greatly since December. Cheers, Icestorm815 • Talk 02:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no point in disagreeing with Pedro. Pedro is always right, even when he's wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malleus, I see no real point in your comment. If you have some kind of beef with Pedro, please follow his suggestion and take it to RFC instead of leaving pointy comments on his talk page. GlassCobra 02:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to misunderstand wp:point. I was simply making an observation. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Icestorm - I will review further in light of your reasoned explanation. GlassCobra - thanks. Malleus. WP:RFC if you wish. Pedro :  Chat  13:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doczilla's RfA

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro/Archive_17&oldid=1165655925"