Jump to content

User talk:Pedro/Archive 34

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

Apologies

I'm terribly guilty right now for what I did, so I want to apologize for the mistake on my behalf. You were right to call me out on something I said that could have been terribly misconstrued, so I immediately removed it upon seeing your message. I'm sorry that I affected your trust. It won't happen again. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to apologise for my responses to you on Biblio's talk page. Since the conversation was all about interpretation in the first place, it was highly inappropriate of me to post a comment such as this, which, in hindsight, I see could be interpreted as being impudent. My intention was to lighten the mood (and was certainly not to make a comment which could be interpreted as being a smart alec response, but I see what you mean) - put simply, I didn't think, and I should have. All I can say is that I am sorry, and hope that there are no hard feelings between us (there certainly aren't from my end). — neuro(talk)(review) 12:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation became overly heated and I did nothing to help calm it down either. I appreciate your kindness in taking the time to make the above comment today, and as far as I'm concerned it's forgotten and we should all move on. Certianly no hard feelings - I've allways considered our previous interaction to be totally positive Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion

Can I ask you why you deleted Giambigarchy? I don't think that was necessary and it offended no one.

I have already advised the author of the reasons, prior to this request - we evidently were typing at the same time. Pedro :  Chat  16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You have strict guidelines against what? Putting up an amusing article about something I believe in, I don't mock your beliefs do I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh6thman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was posted again, might this be treated with a bit of salt? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to have been well sorted! Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nz26 | Talk | Contribs 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the rollback permissions, Its made my life that little bit easier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz26 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Pedro :  Chat  09:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Not my favorite part about being an admin, but sometimes it's just gotta be done. Can you take a look at [1], my talk page, and especially User talk:Syjytg, particularly my message yesterday, and suggest an appropriate course of action? I'm not condoning User:Antti29's behavior here; I think that should be toned down and said so, but I do understand the frustration being displayed and I think we're on to a case of WP:DISRUPT here. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for you. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syjytg just got a 24hr for 3RR. I note only one effort on the article talk to try and resolve this which was by Antti29, so the block seems justified, although very regretable. Antti29's comments were, I think, born from frustration but it was right to warn him - he could have been on a block as well if it wasn't for his efforts to take to talk. Crazy how we get 1 blocked editor and 1 disgruntled editor over a couple of decimal points............ luving Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I issued that block :-) But what next?  Frank  |  talk  13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tempodivalse

Hallo. Thanks much for your input at my RfA, your comments are appreciated. I would like to apologise if I appeared rude or arrogant there, please understand that it is not usually in my nature to be boastful. I was in a hurry to go somewhere in RL and sort of wrote the nomination quickly, without really spending much time on it (a bad idea if you want to create the right impression in a admin request). I've withdrawn my request, because I feel that I am probably not ready for the extra responsibilites. Perhaps I'll consider trying again in a month or so. Thanks, and happy editing. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Wikipedia does indeed have the most high standards of any Wikimedia project for becoming a sysop, I think. On Wikinews, all you have to have is a few months' active contributing, and about 700 edits. Also, Wikinews has a smaller contributor base (about 60-70 active editors), so every editor will eventually become acquainted with every other editor on the project. Here, it's far less personal. Ah well, as they say, better luck next time. Cheers, ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flaming Butterfly

Please point out where I have removed useful edits, and I will surely make sure that doesn't happen again. Also, I have repeatedly tried to connect with the user in question over how to handle the page. The user in question deliberately ignored me, similar to how he ignored many other users on different article disputes as well. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 15:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This revert also removed some useful edits (such as marking the article was uncategorized). I appreictae when you are trying to protect the article some colateral damage occurs, it's not a big issue. Pedro :  Chat  16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Butterfly Edit War

The edit war has continued on this page after your protection and un-protection. I don't want to step on your toes, so I thought I'd notify you rather than blocking them myself. Camw (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one day - major SSP issues that I don't have time now to sort out :( Pedro :  Chat  16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - forgot to say thank you for the note! Pedro :  Chat  16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

I'm wondering why you don't run for 'cratship, I think you will be a good one. I like your high standard on civility as well.--Caspian blue 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I think Pedro would be a good 'crat too... which is why I looked at his edits a few months ago... and concluded that while he would probably be a good 'crat, I would be surprised if he would pass an RfB. 99% of the time he is civil and has extremely high standards, but the 1% he speaks his mind too bluntly, which I think will garner a flock of opposes---especially in light of his outspoken criticism of the current 'crats. Again, being a good crat and passing an RfB are often two different beasts.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Becaue I have a history of some incivility to be honest (or, saying it how it is, which often amounts to the same thing), and because there are others who are better than me, and who would be probably be more effective with the extra bit; However I certainly appreciate your kind words - a little feel good for the weekend! Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds on that edit conflict given the time from when Caspian posted! Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I respect "honest" and "outspoken" admins (of course with civility) because they do not seem to be afraid of changing thingsrather than to remain in present with problems on Wiki. I think you're one of them, so if you run for RfB, you get my full support. :)--Caspian blue 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're most kind, and I appreciate your words very much. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome. I appreciate your administrative works :)--Caspian blue 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a further comment - I think too many people view the editor-admin-OTRS-Bureaucrat-Oversight-ARBCOM thing as some kind of "promotion" wiki-career. I've got a pretty damn succesful real life career (though I say it myself) so have no need to go seeking a pseudo one. I find the concept that a wiki has "promotions" to be off-putting or poorly constructed as a concept at best. That's why I'm outspoken about a number of our current crats; they seem to think they are in someway "more senior" or "better" than others just because they have access to one extra feature on a checklist and a rename user link. Sadly, and more importantly of course, may admins seem to think they are in someway better than editors without +sysop - and that's where a lot of the project's issues lie. Enough ranting by me - again my thanks for your kind words. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You raise the very valid and acute point, but I would rather want to believe that admin or editors with extra tools are more "versatile" and can handle difficult situations in better ways. So people trust them, and our anonymous community is based on such trust. The Wiki promotion concept somewhat reminds me of the famous catchpraise used by Kurt, haha...--Caspian blue 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very perceptive comment. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so is yours. Then, have a nice evening or night!--Caspian blue 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my small mess

Thank you getting rid of my misbegotten redirect page for "Tulsa Central High School". As you could perhaps tell from my garbled edit summary, I was having a bad couple of minutes at the keyboard--not only did I fail to notice the quotation marks in the redir page title, but then I accidentally hit the "enter" button while I was still in the middle of writing the edit summary for the speedy-delete request. How embarassing! My apologies, and thanks for cleaning it up for me. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - no need to apologise. That's what the mop is for - good luck with the article. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback reply

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting my request for rollback, I will fully read the Rollback feature article and only use rollback the right way. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and have already read the article with my understanding of Rollback even stronger now I will definitely make sure I use it accordingly. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUG

I originally contacted my mentor about this, but since he seems to be absent, and I'd REALLY like to download Huggle tonight, I'd like to contact another rollback-granting admin about the matter. Looking over my recent reverts/warnings, would you trust me to use Huggle? →Dyl@n620 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Pedro :  Chat  23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would - I wasn't aware you needed a permission to download Huggle - only that without Rollback it's not much use - and you have that. I assumed you could just download, install, and get going ? Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need permission (aside from Rollback) to download Huggle, I just wanted some reassurance from an experienced rollback-granter that I was ready. →Dyl@n620 23:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Pedro :  Chat  23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Although, would you recommend the main version (more features) or the lite version (faster)? →Dyl@n620 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend the Lite Version, but I was unaware that there were two versions now. I used Huggle for maybe a couple thousand edits, but that was several months and 10 or 12 thousand edits ago. But I never used any of the advanced features, it was strictly for rollbacking vandalism. Therefore, I would propose that the Lite Version would better suit my style, but perhaps you could get the full version and if you use the features, then great, but if you don't, you could replace it with Lite. Useight (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try full. Thanks for the input, Useight. →Dyl@n620 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Bachelor of Business Studies

You deleted the Bachelor of Business Studies due to blatant advertising?

I had visited the page a few times last year as it had valuable information about the difference in abbreviated titles (BBS, BbusSt). I've just attempted to revisit the page but alas it is no longer there.

Could you consider making the page available again? If there's blatant advertising within the page maybe it could be edited instead.. I notice other pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Engineering and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science haven't been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touristsaila (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've taken a look at the article Bachelor of Business Studies (redlinked for any on else with admin rights watching this page to easily find) but there is, in my opinon, nothing of encyclopedic value within the content - clearing out the spam would leave an article with no context so I'm afraid I will not undelete on this occasion. Please feel free to get input at the deletion review page if you disagee. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rethink

At least sleep on it... Majorly talk 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm a man of my word [2]. Malleus will tell me when I should take the tool's back, if ever.Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please rethink this. Synergy 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - sorry! What the community gives, it takes away. I have a recall list for a reason, and even if it did not match my criteria (3 people) then so what? I should honour the principle not the letter. I'm not retiring or anything - I'll still be here - just tagging the G10's not deleting them! I trust Mallues to let me know if/when I should ask for the tools backPedro :  Chat  22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another admin Malleus has driven off the project. Fantastic. Majorly talk 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not down to Malleus - it's my choice. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is... it was he who came up with the absurd idea you need a break. It is he, not you, that needs the break. Majorly talk 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Pedro...don't SoWhy 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I implore you to wait seven days, as per your recall criteria, to see if two others request desysopping. Because they won't. Useight (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, please don't be the only intelligent person who listens to Malleus. Synergy 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your willingness to do this, but I really wish you would reconsider. This is stupid, and there is no reason you should not have your admin tools. You have done absolutely nothing wrong. If anyone needs to take a break, it is Malleus. J.delanoygabsadds 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do this to prove your willingness to be recalled to Malleus - at least sleep on this, come on, man. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generous comments, but let's cut to the chase. I don't have to do this, and yes I can get it back anytime at BN. So, Malleus points out that this is deeply unimpressive [3] - he is the one constantly bemoaning admins who cling to the bit for dear life - well that's not true. If I just go back to BN and ask for the bit I'm proving Malleus is right -that admins have some horrible fear of being desysopped. Well, at least in my instance, he's wrong. I'd fail an RFA - we all know that - so I'm happy to just hand back the tools sans drama to keep Malleus happy - and prove admins aren't actually as bad as he thinks they are. If I can at least get that point over to Malleus it will be worthwhile. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should maybe talk about this tomorrow Pedro, but not now, feelings are running too high. I didn't mean for you to give up your bit, just to stand back for a while and regain some perspective. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow is good for me. I hate the clock changes! But I'm very clear on this Malleus - it's up to you (that's not an onus or anything, apologies if it sounds that way). I'm not going to lawyer my way around this. If I can't act honestly to the spirit of my own criteria then I should not have admin rights on Wikipedia irrespective. Anyway, bed time I think. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say that this was good decision, but then i'd be lying. How could you? Most people would kill to be admin and you just give it up! The question is, why? The Cool Kat (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "most people" kill to be an admin? You tell me. Who says that "most people" give a shit about being an adminstrator on wikipedia anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd kill to be an admin, chances are you're not suited for the position. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multi ec)Ah, well there lies the point! If most people would "kill to be an admin" then we really have an issue here. It really is not that big a deal - the problem is one only truly realises this when one actually get the "tools". Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is literally "killing" anyone or anything - it's just a hyperbole (obviously) expressing the desiring to have the buttons, hopefully to help. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really inaccurate to say that most administrators want to have their flags? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Being an admin is a big honor. And i don't mean to soun selfish, but who would give it up? I hope reconsider soon Pedro, because as of now, you're just a normal user a big target for vandals wth an axe to grind. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really inaccurate to say that most administrators display a rather unhealthy obsession with retaining their flags? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, and you clearly don't, for which full respect. It would be a very great shame if wikipedia was to lose one of its more honest administrators just because I thought you were talking bollox when you thought that I was talking bollox. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it's bollocks not bollox - but you're the writer and I'm the maintenance guy so I won't second guess :) Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surviving on a knife edge here; "bollocks" may have been one step too far. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd insert a VIZ stlye "some bollocks recently" image from Mr Shankbone's collection on to my user page, but as I am now at the mercy of the almighty admins I guess I'd best not :) Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the issue is want over need. I want the flag to help out - specifically at CSD on en.wikipedia. I don't need it, in the sense that my life really is not empty without those tools on this site. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no, adminship is not an honour. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would however contest that having the trust of the community is not something to be ashamed of. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although wether I have (had) that is questionable in itself, sadly. Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to help out, please continue to do so. The community hasn't taken the bit away - even Malleus doesn't seem to want this so that makes a count of zero people wanting you to quit. I also think you would pass a RfA with flying colours. But in a way I quite like the "I'm calling your bluff" element of this - as long as it doesn't go on too long. Dean B (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no bluffing here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have respect for your decision to give up the tools, but I have always thought of you as a good admin. I look forward to seeing you with the tools again when you are ready. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am glad to see you have changed your mind. I hope a bureaucrat grants your request. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks

[4]. We really do need more admins. Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom borril and this G10. Pedro :  Chat  23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One day soon it will perhaps be possible to discuss this "too many admins" idea without everyone flouncing off and getting into a huff. I hope so anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated before that it's a valid idea, I've also stated I'd like some facts and evidence behind it. And the dross that new page patrol throws up, coupled with the CSD backlog at my general editing time, indicates "all hands to the pump" is actually the answer. Maybe DougsTechs means "too many crap or inactive admins". But that's my personal take. Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bold idea

Pedro, lets edit some articles! :) Lead the way. Synergy 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "article editing" you speak of? I though Wikipedia consisted of CSD, AIV and WT:RFA? :) Pedro :  Chat  06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...

...not helpful. Why? you being pointy? Did I miss something?  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, man come on. Why? iMatthew // talk // 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pointy, and I'd be disapointed if people read it that way. Per my recall criteria "If three or more of the above think I'm abusing adminship then it is un-questionably time for me to hand the bit back." - well it was only one, and even then it wasn't admin tools but my general manner; however I think there is no need to lawyer around it - that would show recall to be broken. Pedro :  Chat  06:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe I get it a little bit, but as you are a voice of reason around here, I don't know how helpful it is to give up the bit. Not that one can't be helpful without it - far from it - but certain editors can be more helpful with it.  Frank  |  talk  14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I'm not going to call you decision pointy or anything, but rather a decision that I think more people should be willing to make... of course, I am firmly of the opinion that moving in and out of adminship should be no big deal. If more people had the courage to do so... or were willing to do so... I think WP would be better off. Obtaining and loosing the Bit should not be something sacrosant... it should be a common occurence ala rollback. People should be able to relinquish the bit and regain it without the dhrama that seems to be associated with it... I commend you my friend for giving it up.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  06:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda had a feeling this was looming on the horizon - It's encouraging because abdicating the buttons shows (ironically) a desire to benefit the project. Adminship saps the strength of great editors. Wisdom89 (T / C) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever had a desire to benefit the project - however I readily admit that at times my abrasiveness and rudeness has probably not indicated that. Pedro :  Chat  12:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look...

...at this MfD. Also check my deletion log; the page was deleted three times under three different names. I am soliciting the opinion of others as well. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAR delete, but I've voiced my opinion at the MfD. Pedro :  Chat  15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks.  Frank  |  talk  15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - good outcome - thanks Frank (and Nancy and Gwen) Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little clarification ...

Just a little clarification in view of some of the misleading and downright dishonest comments made above:

  • "I implore you to wait seven days, as per your recall criteria, to see if two others request desysopping ...".[5] I did not request Pedro's desysopping, it has never been in my mind to request Pedro's desysopping, and so far as I'm aware nobody has requested Pedro's desysopping.
  • "Pedro, please don't be the only intelligent person who listens to Malleus."[6] Curious how civility seems to be a one-way street on this project.
  • "You don't have to do this to prove your willingness to be recalled to Malleus." Quite right, and you may note that I never asked for any such proof.
  • "Yet another admin Malleus has driven off the project".[7] I'm not aware that I've driven any admins off the project, although I am aware that you have Majorly.
  • "... I'm very clear on this Malleus - it's up to you".[8] If it's up to me Pedro then I demand that you request your bit back and return to work.

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. Another resignation! Please request your tools back as soon a you feel you want them. Wikipedia needs to keep a favourable ratio of good to bad admins. Your resignation doesn't help this ... I'm sure Malleus would agree. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this, but this is something I'd prefer we address before I consider going and ask for the bit back. Pedro :  Chat  19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - I'm not being negative but you raise a good point about recall and a rather large hole in the system - admins can look "Oh so honest" but if they just then go back to BN and ignore their recall then the whole recall thing is a pointless exercise. Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been critical of that for as long as I can remember, and I do think that it stinks. On the other hand I also think that RfA stinks, and to be brutally frank I wouldn't be at all confident that you'd pass another RfA. Not because I don't think you'd deserve to, but well, that's just the way it is. The other thing that stinks is the "administrator for life" mentality that too many have. In short, I don't think that any one of those things can be fixed in isolation; they all need to be fixed together. You know that ain't gonna happen, and I know it ain't gonna happen. So if you're looking for my blessing to ask for your tools back, then you have it unreservedly. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I didn't ask for your recall, and so far as I'm aware nobody asked for your recall. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not - but you (rightly) stated I needed some perspective. And my criteris where not just about the letter - they are the spirit. I think I've gained some, rather rapidly. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a majority of the admins today would pass a second RfA. Even those who deserve it would probably fail.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm quite certain you're right, so my comment was no reflection on Pedro. Rather it was a reflection on the RfA process. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, fully, with the above. And, yes - the admin for life mentality is a particulalry big issue. How we fix it is another debate of course. For the record (that's on wikispeak if I recall?!) You did not request my desysop, I did not do it to "proove a point" and frankly CSD at 07:00 wikipedia time was not too hot - and (sadly) CSD is the one thing I can say I do well. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then whenever you feel ready, get back to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with puerile innuendo as well. Any chance to mention VIZ - it has to be done. Really should work on that article... Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your bits have quite properly been returned to you. Believe me, if the day ever dawns that you call me a hopeless idealist and I respond by calling you an unappealing fascist results in either of us leaving a project that we both obviously have some regard for, that would be a very sad day indeed. Don't get too cocky though, I still think you were talking bollox. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still upset you didn't seem to get the many sticks reference - an ironically interesting thing on a wiki actually. But, no - I'll try not to get cocky. If I do - let me know a bit faster next time. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assume too much grasshopper. Remember the dog who didn't bark in the night? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mea cupla. Well said. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my comment of "two others request desysopping" listed above could, at worst, be considered misleading since it does imply that you (Malleus) requested desysopping, which you never officially did. Although, here you do recommend a "break", which, in context with the conversation, could be taken as either Wikibreak or a break from the tools. To call my statement "downright dishonest", which I'm sure you're not, would be wholly inaccurate. Perhaps I inferred an excessive extrapolation, but I'm not going to outright lie. Useight (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call a spade a spade. I am most definitely saying that your comment was dishonest, and that you are continuing to be dishonest in not recognising that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or trying to stir up some sort of argument between you and me (or perhaps some third option), but if you're looking to start sparring about this minutiae, you're barking up the wrong tree; I don't get involved in heated debates, but merely impart my opinion briefly and then go back to my work. Useight (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you like it is, not trying to be sarcastic. You behaved dishonestly, but you refuse to admit to your dishonesty. Take that as you will. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've learnt a lot from this. Let's move on guys. I've just found out I'm now travelling round our beloved isles for the next few days, which has not exaclty put User:WifeOfPedro in the best of moods and frankly I don't need a sea of orange bars (with apologies to the Bard) when I next log in. I've been a bit of a dick over the last few months - Malleus was dead right - but at least I've stood firm on the spirit of my recall pledge. If Malleus has upset others then, in the nicest possible way, please discuss it elsewhere. Oh - and please try to find a middle ground.

One other thing - a thank you to everyone who took time out to comment in the threads above. I'm sorry if this is viewed as needless drama. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Pedro - let's hope this episode doesn't crop up in the future as a sign of being "temperamental". You know how accusatory some users can get. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already know this, but I thought I'd remind you of it anyhow. Next time you feel like throwing in your bits, don't :) Intead, walk away for a day or two. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April fools!

Happy april fools, Pedro! X! :  Chat  00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Happy April Food day! iMatthew :  Chat  00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy (month) (jester)'s day! Wizardman :  Chat  00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(DUDE e/c x 4) - Yes, what a grand day it is... the_ed17 :  Chat  00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why I had to submit an RFS. Useight (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You are all Pedroviduals." "We are all Pedroviduals." "I'm not!"Avi :  Chat  01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...On Wheels!!! Parsecboy :  Chat  02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyyyyy Icewedge :  Chat  03:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC and have a nice day, Pianista :  Chat  04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assimilate: LuciferTiger :  Chat  04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doppelgang – Your evil doppelganger from a parallel universe has appeared. Muahhahaha!!!!!11!one!! Chat   : Pedro  05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE kotra :  Chat  05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be mistaken with Gotcha DayI'm Spartacus! :  Chat  05:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use this signature per consensus. Neurolysis :  Chat  07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I approve the above messages

Hey, why is everyone stealing this unique signature I just thought up today? You people are evil!!!!! SoWhy :  Chat  07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secret Pedro sig cabal shows its face. Amalthea :  Chat  09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I'm confused Jac16888   Chat  09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I must assimilate too. Steve Crossin :  Chat  10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hee. Joined the cabal club. Queenie 12:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I more-or-less legitimately cribbed Pedro's sig something like a year ago, so I beat y'all to it. Frank :  Chat 

HAGGER? JamieS93 :  Chat  14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagger rulz. D.M.N. :  Chat 

I don't get the joke. I don't like the signature. I refuse to change my signature as part of some stupid joke. Cyclonenim :  Chat  16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to change without notice. Terms and conditions apply.

WHO, WHAT, HOW AND WHY????

I suspect IRC has been fully mobilised to get half the regulars to copy my sig for the day.......... Should I be flattered? Nahhhhhhhhhh :) Pedro :  Chat  08:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny part. Half these people don't use IRC. It started with myself and about 10-15 others, and quickly spread like AIDS!! iMatthew :  Chat  10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, it's being spread quicker than AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa!! *abrupt record scratch*.....*slowly backs out of room* GlassCobra :  Chat  12:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Jac16888   Chat  12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools warning

Please stop. It appears that you have been self-canvassing—letting others reck your talk page with messages to notify you of how loved you are—and how well considered you are all over the place. While sober and emotionless notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect Jimbo's point of view. Please do not allow post notices which are indiscriminately all with blue boxes, which espouse a certain huge image right above and violate our signature copyright policy. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus and that !votes inserted by users with the same signature do not count, as they are considered automatically sock puppetry. One of our million bots will be glad to automatically ban all users involved, thus effectively banning all admins from Wikipedia. (See what you did?) Thanks. Udonknome :  Chat  09:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me. It was my little brother, I only left the room for a minute and he got on my PC - honeslty, really, it's true.
This user is banned. By decision of the this arrogant user, this other user is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period ending when the apocalypse begins. You have cause a virus-like spread of your signature and slowed my dial-up connection with your humongous images. Please refer to Conficker C for more information. (By convention bans are enforced with blocks of an equivalent length; this account will also be blocked and locked up forever.)
This notice is posted by The Person U Don't Know for the April Fool's Day Committee.
(Account information: block log • Time well wasted.)
Waarom de bovenkant van Astley van de Hooimijt - neer? is. Gebruiker: Eenvoudig zuiden Dit is misschien het slecht vertaalde Nederlands. Evha gaodo arlpi lofos yda! 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ GlassCobra - <3 u2
@ Pedro - total respect 4u (and as a side note - actually, I'm kinda liking the sig., I just may keep it a while) — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I think it suits you! Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. I keep looking at all these talk pages of people I revert, and I'm like, "Wow, Pedro really gets around. Wait...." :P J.delanoy :  Chat  15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEDRO

I don't know if you saw it or not, but before a load of discussion on WT:RFA got archived, your signature was being used at lot there as well. In fact, it's being used everywhere at the moment. It seems that WP:HAG...er...WP:PEDRO is flourishing freely at last. :) Acalamari :  Chat  16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - and I love that edit summary :) Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew I could start something this big... O_O iMatthew :  Chat  18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even sure I want to change it back... Perhaps we could all leave them this way? Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would cause a LOT of confusion! Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, Pedro, are people using your sig today with whom you've not even had any previous interaction? Because, quite frankly, this is hilarious. hmwith :  Chat  20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I know or recognise a great many of the editor names, but there are several (liberally scattered over dozens of project pages now) I don't know. The en.wiki World has gone Pedro signature mad :) I believe someone even asked Jimbo to change his signatuire to match. Lol - I was going to run a Wikipedia:Request For Founder Status attempt today, but maybe when people realise Jimbo's my sock anyhow it will no longer be required. :) Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:PEDRO now exists... X! :  Chat  20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaargh - wiki imortality.....:) Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boom. With my own flourish. Keegan :  Chat  06:49, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Block appeal

I wish to appeal you blocking me indefinitely. But as I am prevented from posting anywhere other than on my user page, this message can't exist. You are therefore imagining the message, and the voices in your head are now very real to you. So I suggest you question your sanity and relinquish your admin powers. Oh, and unblock me too! Stephen! Coming... 09:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Go on then :) Pedro :  Chat  20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serious Post

Hi Pedro. I come to you with a rather unusual situation. Now that April Fools is over, I have a request. The Wikipedia community recently lost an editor. In the US we had some late winter storms, and while dealing with real life, User:Nitelinger suffered a heart attack. While he wasn't a particularly prolific editor in the "edit count" category, he was one of us. I know that this falls outside the SOP of our encyclopedic efforts. I also realize that there are real people on the other end of each and every post. The fact that this happened at our "April Fools" time of year doubled the difficulty. It's become quite obvious that you hold a certain high degree of respect in our community. As such, I was hoping that perhaps you would consider leaving a word or two here. Perhaps it will not be considered a "valuable contribution" to the encyclopedia, but perhaps it would be a valuable consideration to the reality of our efforts. If I'm out of line in this request, then I apologize - but my internal beliefs compelled me to ask. Thank you. — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  10:00, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's also a mention here.  Frank  |  talk  16:13, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing that to my attention - I've commented and moved a few things around on Nightlinger's talk and user page. Pedro :  Chat  20:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smile!

Xclamation point 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. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm J.delanoygabsadds and I endorse the above message :-) 15:47, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if I'm two days late!

But I don't want to miss out of all the fun. Inferno :  Chat  23:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's always a good time to worship Pedro.--Res2216firestar :  Chat  08:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the Move tab

Hello Pedro. What is the mobe tab at the top of the window for? -- Preceding unsigned comment add to 23:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've seen it in the corner for a while, but had no clue what it was for. Preceding unsigned comment 22:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, I was about to fix {{unsigned}}. D'oh! Nice username, by the way! :). —Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterSymonds (talk • contribs) 00:55, April 6, 2009.

My Transclusion

I'm sorry about that, Pedro. Thank you for fixing it. I guess I set a bad precedent by breaking Wikipedia before I even started :( Law shoot! 11:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the re-assurance, Mr. Pedro. I have no excuses, except, I've never "transcluded" anything! (I guess I just made an excuse) Oh well. I appreciate the warning, and at my next RFA, I shall know better, having learned from this experience :P Law shoot! 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your confidence has really eased the tensions I have. RFA during midterms is not what I anticipated, but, as you have so aptly coined it, I'm a NET POSITIVE, LOL. I hope that is the case. Perhaps my bullocks essays will become a mainstay as well. Thanks again, Mr. Pedro! Law shoot! 12:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Carcharoth (talk · contribs) has posted some questions about the operation of WP:RFP and WP:RFA at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Aitias/Evidence#Context_of_comments_and_policy_pointers. Based on Wikipedia:LOGACTIONS#User_rights_modifications you are an uninvolved expert in the field. If you could stop by and give your opinion it would be most appreciated. MBisanz talk 07:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do, but it will likely be a couple of days. Pedro :  Chat  14:03, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA thanks

My RFA passed today at 61/5/4. Thanks for participating in my RFA. I appreciate all the comments I received and will endeavor to justify the trust the WP community has placed in me. Have a nice day. :-) AdjustShift (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Easter!

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

I have been watching and researching the RFA process for about a year now. I have decided to voice my opinion. I intend to do a good bit of research before I comment. Please let me know if I stray. Preceding unsigned comment 00:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is particularly valuablke to get more people providing input at RFA - often it seems to be a crowd of "regulars". The key, as you have rightly highlighted, is the research bit. This often saves having to ask questions of the candidate and in particular thorough research is, in my opinion, a basic courtesy to those requesting the extra tools. Pedro :  Chat  06:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies from Naresh Gehi

ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naresh Gehi (talk • contribs) 09:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what is meant by RFA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naresh Gehi (talk • contribs) 10:03, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied on your talk. Pedro :  Chat  10:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move attempt

Practicing the "move" function from the link you sent me, I did the following:

  • Went to my "Preceding unsigned comment/Links to study" page.
  • Selected "move" and entered "RFA Formulation" here

The page moved fine and history followed. My question: Do I need to tag the ".../Links to study" page for deletion? I'm not sure if the system or a bot will remove the old name or if I need to request it. Thanks again for all of the help. --Preceding unsigned comment 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That worked fine - nice one!; but yes, sorry I forgot to mention that the Mediawiki software will leave a redirect in place of the old page. These can only be deleted by admins (I'm not aware of an adminbot that will clean this up) so you would need to use {{db-u1}} template to get it speedied. I've deleted this one for you (I assume you wanted the redirect gone?) Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you for the clean up. When you have a chance:
  • please review my recent edits at RFA. I want to make sure they are constructive.
  • look here and let me know if my rational is sober.
--Preceding unsigned comment 00:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking through your RFA comments they seem all good to me. In particular this comment [9] is very strong; I always feel that links to back up your statements can more weight (e.g. "Support - this editor is very good at helping newbies" is fine but "Support - this editor is good at helping newbies" with five diffs is better). As RFA is (sort of) a discussion not a vote counting exercise the more evidence you have (both in oppose and support) the more it helps others who wish to comment.
  • As for your RFA criteria they seem pretty strong. The onus is on you reseraching things - not dissimilar to my standards. The only thing I'd possibly question is "Leadership skill". Admins are not per se leaders - although there is an argument that newer editors would expect guidance from administrators. I guess I prefer "guidance" over "leadership" but that's a personal take.
Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  07:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revised my RfA criteria, thank you. I will continue researching candidates at RfA (wonderful way to learn about the various moving parts at WP). At some point I would then like to tackle other areas. I'm not interested in writing articles at this time, nor playing Whack-a-mole with the page patrollers. I might like to help with some basic chores, if you know where I might fit in, please advise. --Preceding unsigned comment 19:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are always tasks to be done. You could clerk at WP:RFP or add input at WP:UAA when you are happy you are clear on the policies. Working at the WP:HELPDESK is a really good way of both contributing by assiting newbies and learning more about wikipedia as well. But don't abandon the main space - getting a DYK on the main page is pretty cool (IMHO!) Pedro :  Chat  20:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:UAA is a little too similar to playing Whack-a-mole;
  • WP:HELPDESK Would be greak, I will require more experience under my belt;
  • DYK is definitely a good place to start when I am ready to work with and around the articles;
  • WP:RFP seems like it might be a good fit. I am in the research mode now. This should be a good fit if help is needed there. It is now on my to do list, Thanks!!
On my current assignment with RfAs:
What advice can you give me when the nominee looks like they might not benefit the project with sysop rights? What is the best way to communicate any found character flaws(that would relate to sysop potential) without appearing to be uncivil or making a personal attack? I have observed those applying to join a perceived club, or gain a title; those gaming the system, editing in areas and creating volumes for the sake of 'having the right boxes checked; and those with serious control issues. In general, how do you best communicate major faults to the group while preserving the dignity of the applicant? --Preceding unsigned comment 16:08, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback request

Thanks for granting rollback. Pmlinediter  Talk 12:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for granting rollback. Strongbadmanofme (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both very welcome Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna say thanks for granting rollback too. --KuRiZu (talk) 12:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA Question

Hey Pedro, you seem to be the "go-to" guy when it comes to RfA questions, so here I am. I've looked, clicked, and read, but haven't found an answer to this one. Is there a time limit that a RfA can be held in abeyance before it's either deleted, closed, or transcluded? Not that it really matters one way or the other to me, I was just curious. — Ched :  ?  21:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted---no. Transcluded---no. Closed---if it is open, it usually closes within 7 days of opening. On RARE cases it might go longer.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spartacus!.. actually, I don't think it ever officially opened, and that's why I asked. I'm guessing it'll open in the next week or two, maybe after some of the ArbCom stuff has settled down. I just wasn't sure how long things could sit out there unattended. — Ched :  ?  01:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you have an open RfA, before transcluding check with the noms. You don't want to surprise them with an active RfA that they wrote months ago...---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OH ... NOT ME! ... I still have way too much to learn before I think about that! (even though I do go through your tests from time to time to see how I'm progressing) I was wondering about the Doug's Tech and ChildofMidnight RfA. I think she/he wants to go ahead with it in the near future, but I didn't know if something like that could become "stale", and have to be redone from scratch. Just curious about the process and all. — Ched :  ?  01:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I'm Spartacus says there is no limit to untranscluded RFA's. The only thing I'd check is that the accuracy of any nomination statements are still true (e.g. if things like edit count / active areas of work etc. have changed) Pedro :  Chat  06:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mind you, a thought occurs that before CoM sets this live they may want to reconsider. Good judgement is critical for administrators and frankly this editor running for RFA would exhibit very poor judgement. The RFA will be a drama fest and ultimately be unsuccesful. </powers of foresight> Pedro :  Chat  07:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Spartacus (or B-man if you prefer), and Pedro. I definitely appreciate the input. I'll admit that I was inclined to favor the RfA at first, but the more I read and see, the more concerns I have as well. And I agree that judgment is the key issue on this as well. I doubt that it's my place to offer any input on the matter however; so I'll simply wait to see what happens. The key question(s) about the length of time a RfA can sit in limbo has been answered, and I appreciate the time from both of you. Cheers and happy editing ;) — Ched :  ?  17:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And behold - my powers of foresight were correct again. Pedro :  Chat  19:04, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macromonkey (talk · contribs)

Hi, could you have a look at this users latest edits. I'm afraid he's breached your conditions. Best, Verbal chat 21:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He sure has! -- BRangifer (talk) 23:13, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see he has been blocked indef. - and rightly so; particularly with his personal attacks. I've kept Cold Reading watchlisted as I suspect a sock may turn up. Pedro :  Chat  10:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wikipediafailcausewehateyou

wikipediafailcausewehateyou.org ;) ~ Ameliorate! 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total and utter class! Pedro :  Chat  10:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sockpuppet say what? What? Ceranllama chat post 11:23, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those TPS'ers who are unsure where this came from. Pedro :  Chat  20:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me again

Hi Pedro, me again. I noticed another notice of the passing of another one of our community members. I remembered the last time that I had questions, you were extremely helpful at handling the necessities. I was wondering if it would be proper to develop some sort of guidelines to follow in this respect, and if I'm not mistaken, it was your mention of this that compelled me to start a proposal. I'd greatly appreciate any advice, help, or suggestions that you'd be willing to share here. Since you have more experience in wiki-procedure, and I'm not quite as bold as others may be, I was hoping you'd have a look. I have contributed to a few attempts in the communities efforts to achieve consensus - but starting one may be a bit out of my league (maybe it's cause I'm just from the wrong side of the ocean ... lol. Sorry it that was a little out of line, but sometimes a little levity helps). I haven't moved to project space, or transcluded to WP:CENT, or even mentioned it at AN. Hopefully if I'm making a fool of myself, it will only be noticed by your personal talk page stalkers/friends. The proposal is here:

I'm not interested in starting up any dramafest that would degrade into conversations around the various beliefs, religions, or lack there of. I'm not interested in a debate on privacy issues, how much someone contributed, or a "That's not what we're here for" argument. I simply think it would, or at least could, be an assistance to admins (and others) when they are confronted with the inevitable situation. Some other editors that I'm considering asking for input would be:

The only reason I mention these editors is that I noticed that they have been willing to share their thoughts on the matter previously. I don't want to be accused of canvassing, so I'm not sure if it would be proper. I'd also be interested in Jimbo's input, but that may be a little bolder than I'm willing to go. ;).

If you feel that this topic isn't worthy of a proposal, I won't be offended if you simply delete the message (although I do admit I'd be a bit surprised). Thanks for your time and consideration. — Ched :  ?  05:43, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need an actual policy (and I mean policy not guideline) on this. It's a simple fact that the longer the project goes on the incidents of well established editors dying will increase. Without clear direction on how this is handled we will see issues on every occurence and at a time that is by defenition highly emotional this is not a good thing. You are certainly righ tthat this needs to be centralised - a discussion at WP:DIED is simply not enough to get full input. Yes, there will be peopel who argue that this has nothinig to do with improving an enyclopedia; however without editors there would be no encyclopedia.
One thing from your page I think needs to be added is removal of rights (crat, sysop, rollback). If a sysop account is blocked it can be self unblocked (sysops can unblock themselves) so if the community agrees we blocked deceased editors we need to look at user rights.
My take, FWIW, is that nothing should be done in terms of block / rights unless we have a good confirmation the editor is dead. This may not need to come up to the standards for the encyclopedia (Reliable sources / Verifiability) but we should have something.
In respect of memorial pages the little blue banner (c.f. User Talk:Jeffpw) was a little design I did for Jeff that I also used for Nightlinger. Seems to work. The various MFD's of User Talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam have indicated a strong community will to keep memorial pages; however remember that in Jeff's case he was a very well established editor and his family wanted it.
Above all we must respect the rights of the deceased and their family. If we have reasonable confirmation an editor has died (trusted user confirmation, whatever) then we are likely to be in contact with the family - and their wishes would be paramount.
I'm horribly aware of the posibility of WP:CREEP but we need to do something. I think the best way is to get a central discussion going. Pedro :  Chat  07:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%, and I have no problem in doing a fair share of the grunt work so to speak. I'm not entirely sure how to go about centralizing a discussion, but after a few hours sleep, I'd be more than happy to throw that section on user rights in as well. (if you or someone else doesn't do it first.) Right now, other than the note at irridecent's talk, this is the only place I've really discussed the matter. I have no problems in forging ahead, moving to mainspace, posting to AN, RIP, and CENT - unless you feel I'm headed in a wrong direction. As much as it's sometimes easier to follow someone else,s lead, I'm not asking for you to grab hold of this and divert your attentions away from your preferred work either. I'll sleep on the matter for a bit, and unless someone objects, I'll consider that I may have a nod to try things. As much as I'd appreciate any and all help in wording, formatting, direction, etc. - I'm not expecting any either. I'll stop back here when I get back to the wiki-world - and go from there. Thanks very much for your input here, I appreciate it. — Ched :  ?  07:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. I'm pretty busy in RL at present but I'll be around to help out - feel free to ask and I'll do my best to assist. Pedro :  Chat  07:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, moved to Wikipedia talk:Deceased Wikipedians/Proposal to establish practices to be followed for deceased Wikipedians, and posted to AN, Village Pump proposals, RIP talk and WP:CENT. Do you think I need to post anything in some sort of RfC? — Ched :  ?  16:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good and seems to be getting a good level of input. Nice work! Pedro :  Chat  06:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In viewing the source of that little compliment .... I consider that "High Praise" indeed! ;) .. and seriously, thank you for all your time, help, advice, and input Pedro. — Ched :  ?  00:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback help

Hiya, I was wondering if you could help me.

my recent rollback permissions request was declined but i have followed it up but nobody has answered it yet and i assume that becuase its hidden that everyone assumes its been delt with but nobody has noticed to follow up questions, I noticed you were the most recent to reply and i assumed that you were a rollback allocation user. would you be able to annylise it for me when you have time? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesooders (talk • contribs) 13:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look for you. Pedro :  Chat  14:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to look at that for me I really appreciate it.

Thankyou :D --Jamesooders (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome - keep on doing what you're doing and hit me up in a few days for a review. Pedro :  Chat  14:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Again

Wow, That was very kind of you to keep an eye on for me. Thankyou soo much for taking the time to do that, I really appreciate your recognition as well but the most, and thankyou very much for doing that for that. I appreciate your help, if you ever need anything let me know :D

once again, Thankyou! :D --Jamesooders (talk) 16:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Yep

lol, It's unbelivably easier to use then twinkle that's for sure! It sure is powerfull and productive although i see what they mean by how it can also be a harmfull tool if you don't know what your doing. Thanks again by the way! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesooders (talk • contribs) 18:56, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heading to CSD

I decided to try out CSD. I am just starting my studies. Please let me know if you have any other pointers or resources. Also, if you have a second, I am looking for your advise if/when I make an oppose comment at RfA (see above).--Preceding unsigned comment 00:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk back

Hello, Pedro. You have new messages at Antivenin's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Been a while

Since we had a chat. Just stopping by to say hi... Ceranllama chat post 01:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

close

that may be as close as I've ever seen you come to losing your cool. good job at maintaining. ;) — Ched :  ?  09:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you already know, but "losing your cool" is American slang for losing your composure.

Unprotect Macromonkey talk page

Hi, could you please unprotect macromonkey's talk page so I can request an unblock? thanks 86.149.7.89 (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to semi protection. Please sign in before requesting unblock. Please don't abuse this. Pedro :  Chat  19:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I'm offline now for at least 2 days - any admin can reverse this without issue or question and I will defer to their judgement. Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not now

You mentioned about seeing NOTNOW used in AfDs. Well, using the "Whatlinkshere" feature, I found it used in a delete vote here, and in this AfD it was even more spectacular: it was used as the closing rationale. Acalamari 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A classic case of linking to the shortcut name not the essay behind it. Oops.... Pedro :  Chat  19:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, that's the WP:POINT being made here...oh, wait... Acalamari 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was the other one I meant to link to earlier - and perhaps the one that is most over abused as a blue link around this place to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't agree more with you on that one. Acalamari 20:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:WR

No, that is not the problem. Somey's lies are the problem. EricBarbour and Kato are opinionated, but Somey does all-out lying. And I am not very pro-Wikipedia. But Wikipedia Review now, is much different than WR pre-November 2007, before Blissyu2 was banned. But you are anti-WR in general, and I am just anti-WR-after-2007. I just don't want lies spread on the site. The site is not "full of lies", it is just that Somey cannot prove what he said about me, and it is a lie. Jonas Rand --68.96.209.19 (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not spam

The messages about WR are not spam. You are completely unfamiliar with the conflict and I am informing readers of that thread. I will stop, but really, blocking me would be quite unnecessary. It is also inappropriate to call it spam. This is informing people that what Somey is saying is a lie. He has collected lots of clout and appreciation and respect among people, but he is actually a liar. Because he is so popular and well-liked, I am doing a duty to the members of the board and readers of the thread specifically. It's not spam. Jonas Rand 68.96.209.19 (talk) 20:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ælfheah of Canterbury

The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you so much for your anti-vandalism efforts while poor Ælfheah of Canterbury was on the main page! May an obscure little Anglo-Saxon bishop and saint bless you. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wotcha

Yes, am fine - just too busy for Wikipedia at the moment (real life intervened). Hope all is well with you. WaltonOne 15:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks man, cheers! ~ Amory (talk) 07:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental removal

Hi Pedro, looks like you accidentally removed a new admin report here but I fixed it. rootology (C)(T) 21:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my undo didn't take, my rollback reverted your undo and it was a mess. Seems to be fixed - I hope :) Pedro :  Chat  22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh - and thanks!! Cheers my man. Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BN

Hmm? –Juliancolton | Talk 20:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir, I am writing to inform you that a sum of 1,000,000 is available if you help my client with the purchase of a new browser.............. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
:) –Juliancolton | Talk 20:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back on a proper machine now with the "benefit" of Vista and IE7.... Thanks for the heads up! Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment

Dear Pedro, I'm very sorry to hear about the loss of your friend. My sincere condolences go out to you and yours. — Ched :  ?  20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ched. These things happen. BTW I made a bold change to WP:NOT#MEMORIAL you may be interested in. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro, apologies for not responding yesterday - I kind of got caught up in some rather interesting reading in a couple threads. And, yes, very good improvements I thought - and noted that on the talk page. Although, finding it within all the "#NOT PLOT" talk might take a little digging .. lol. I'm guessing that you're aware of the page: Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines which Biblio put together after the discussion page was closed. May be a few tweaks that could be done to it before it actually goes from proposal to guideline, but at least we now have some things to refer to.
Congrats on having a decent computer. I don't know if you're interested or not, but I've noticed that a lot of editors here seem to have migrated from IE over to Firefox. It might be a browser you'd be interested in looking at, although I'm also a strong believer of the phrase "each, to their own". Anyway, thanks for the tip on the NOT MEMORIAL, and Best wishes to you and friends and family. — Ched :  ?  13:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, hope you are doing OK. Law type! snype? 20:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. My sincere condolences. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am truly sorry for your loss Fahrenheit 21:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all. Funeral was yesterday and apparently was a moving secular event. Regretfully I could not attend due to other commitments - which was also very upseting - but the good lady (User:WifeOfPedro) reports that all went as well as could possibly be expected. Again, many thanks for your kindness. Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThankSpam

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record.
I recognise that the process itself was unusual, and the format was generally considered questionable - and I accept that I was mistaken in my perception of how it would be received - but I am particularly grateful for those whose opposes and neutrals were based in perceptions of how I was not performing to the standards expected of an administrator. As much as the support I received, those comments are hopefully going to allow me to be a better contributor to the project. Thank you. Very much. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~~~~

Well, back to the office it is...

Pwi-Di-Goo-Zing Ne-Yaa-Zhing Advisory Services

Hi. I see that you have speedily deleted the Pwi-Di-Goo-Zing Ne-Yaa-Zhing Advisory Services. For any chance, can I get you to e-mail me the text that was deleted? Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Pedro :  Chat  06:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The version I deleted was utter rubbish;
  • "This is the code of loyalty that was found on Micheal Jackson's mobile phone after he died in 2022 after kicking a duck, which attacked him afterwoods. This historic fight ended in a tragic road accident involving a cat and a pear of Kennedy's socks."
Genius. I'll email the later version deleted by someone else as that had some real content as I assume that's what you were after? Pedro :  Chat  06:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was both, actually. I was going to see what was there before I recreate the article. I see the original one is indeed utter non-sense. I see the real content one (the second iteration) was a case of plagiarism. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. Pedro :  Chat  06:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

The Leadership Barnstar (UK)
For your work at showing leadership by example. Your contributions to our project have shown the highest degree of integrity, and you have clearly provided the community a positive example of what we should strive for in our efforts. For that reason, Ched would like to award you the Barnstar of Leadership (UK).
  • (note: This is the first original "Leadership (UK) barnstar to be issued)

Hey Pedro, I can see from your lack of pomposity that you hold little value in "Barnstars". I fully understand that this will drift into the archives of your talk pages. That said, I just wanted to let you know that I value your efforts here. I appreciate you taking the time to assist me personally, and your work in general with regards to Wikipedia. Nuff said. — Ched :  ?  07:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - thanks Ched - not sure it's really deserved or earned but it gives me a warm fuzzy glow :) Thanks again! Pedro :  Chat  08:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interested?

Hey Pedro, we're working on something for a template at User:LessHeard vanU/rip-template. There's a talk page, and I'd be greatful for any input on it. I have no idea on how or where we're going with this .. so your leadership would be gratefully appreciated. — Ched :  ?  09:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a shufty! Pedro :  Chat  09:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


re: RfA

wow .. that sure caught me off-guard. Of course I'm willing to help in any way I can, to be honest, I thought that an RfA was months away. There's a ton of things I'm not up to speed on. I have to tell you, I do have an unofficial mentor in Huntster. I'd want to discuss it with him of course. I'd also need some guidance in this. Are you willing to train me a bit? I think that I learn things fairly quickly, so I'm certainly willing to make an effort. I'll default to your judgment here Pedro, whatever you think is best for the 'pedia is fine by me. — Ched :  ?  09:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting June due to the "tenure" argument at RFA - six months is generally seen as sufficent. But you've got the article writing balance right, DYK's, Helpdesk stuff and so on and it all seems good to me. Any skeletons in the closet? It's not really a "training" thing more ensuring that you use the tools wisely - and rememeber my motto which is "if in doubt - don't". Is there any area you consider yourself weak on? And remember that admins are not expected to know everything about every aspect - just have a decent level of WP:CLUE. Let me know what Hunster says. Pedro :  Chat  10:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I've received a reply from Huntster, and it appears that your judgment is what I should be looking to. I would ask you to look at the Larry Sanger talk page, and decide if there were any skeletons that would be of concern. To be honest, I believe that the Sanger talk page would actually portray me in good light. I have to think about this a bit Pedro. I have no doubt that I'll be willing to do my very best, but as I head off to my time away from WP, I ask what directions I should take from here? — Ched :  ?  11:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus definitely favors your judgment here Pedro. I have no problems with suffering the slings and arrows of an RfA if you feel that it would benefit the community at large. I admit to being human, and I'm sure I've made my share of mistakes here - the very recent one being my error in using HotCat to place "Living People", rather than the proper "Living people" on articles I was going through. As soon as that was brought to my attention though, I made every effort to rectify the situation. RussBot is tagged to fix my mistakes on this one. If you see a net positive in a RfA for me in the future, I'm certainly willing. I've started User:Ched Davis/RFA-learn, so anything you think would be of value to me would be greatly appreciated. So, be it the aforementioned start of June, or a year down the road, I'll trust the ball to be squarely in your court at the moment. ;). Nothing like a little pressure huh? .. lol. Hey, the bottom line is "whatever you think is best, is fine by me". — Ched :  ?  20:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

skeletons

OK, it's only fair to you that I look for my errors here. Theres are what comes to mind.

  • [[10]] a tldr page in which I tried to offer my opinions. I don't see anything in my posts that would be cause for concern, but I'll leave that for others to decide.
  • [[11]] perhaps an overly-sensitive reaction on my part, but I'd like to think that I resolved it well.
  • [[12]] definitely an error on my part. I only looked at the past 2 or 3 edits, and I should have looked at the entire history. Once presented with my mistake though, I did my best to fix it. B-man may have a field day with this, but XfD is not particularly an area I'm interested in. I've found that other than a voice or two in !voting, it's an area that could be slightly toxic to my enjoyment in editing Wikipedia. Other than an obvious attack page or copyvio issue, I doubt I'd have much use for the delete function.
  • [[13]]. I assume that my comments were taken as being critical here. It wasn't my intent, I was only trying to explain why I prefer to default to support. I hope that I handled it properly, but again, that's only my subjective opinion.
weak spots

I'd have to say that anything related to XfD would be a weak spot for me. I'd rather fix and build than delete, so my judgment here could come into question. I could ask B-man (now Spartacus (sp)) and SoWhy for some guidance if you think that would be wise. In general, your words of "when in doubt ... don't" would be my guidance here. I'd probably be inclined to "tag" and trust the judgment of another admin, rather than actually use the delete button myself. I'm just not precious about deleting things. I'd also have to say that I don't have anything in regards to recall prepared. While I certainly value the communities views of my efforts here, I just haven't found any hard and fast rules at WP:AOR that I understand. I could easily be convinced to work something up say at User:Ched Davis/recall that basically said if there was consensus that I've not used good judgment over a span of various topics, I'd return my flag to the 'crats.

Bah, that's nothing to be worried about, Ched. :P. You're making a mountain out of a molehill :) Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 22:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhh ... another fault I have .. lol. Hey, it's only fair to point out anything I can think of if Pedro is considering this. I wouldn't want anything I've ever done to reflect poorly on someone else here. :P — Ched :  ?  23:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, User:Majorly asked me about it too in IRC, don't know if that has anything to do with anything, just thought I should mention it. — Ched :  ?  23:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You use IRC? Best keep that quiet. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 15:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Mall, "I won't tell, if you don't" ..lol. I have seen that issue come up at RfA from time to time, no questions there. I'll tend to open it when I get into new areas of WP, and then ask questions relevant to the things I'm working on. No doubt, I've seen some childish antics (just like any other open project), from time to time - but other than getting some input on what I'm doing, and an occasional "Hey, how ya doin?" I'm not one of the big players. I'd suppose that I shouldn't mention that I'll read through WR on a rare occasion as well? I can't see the "tar pit" because I never took the time to join, but I figure - meh, the more input I have to work with, the more informed my work will be. I figure RfA is much like being naked in a crowd - the flaws are going to be glaring at times, but if we do this, I'll just hope nobody asks for a "colonoscopy" .. ;-) A good example of IRC would be when I made a bad CSD tag of a motorcycle, a few moments in IRC, and I realized that I was wrong, so I just went back and undid the CSD tag. That's really the only thing I use if for. — Ched :  ?  18:35, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rollback

Thanks, it's great being able to use Huggle now, its easy once you get used to it. So once again, thanks --Frozen4322 Talk Stalk 22:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Rollbacker

Please-just give me a chance. When I noticed it was done before you changed it and declined--I was extremely happy but now disappointed. I feel that I have the proper intentions and experience and so do my comrades that told me to wait a week. I don't think they would be disappointed to see that I got rollbacker as long as I use it right. If I don't you could always revoke it. Just give me a chance. Please--SchnitzelMannGreek. 12:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied at WP:PERM to keep it in one place. Pedro :  Chat  13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using the recent changes page but whenever I find something worth reverting...and click undo...i find out some other user did so already. Its annoying. What should I do?What do I do. P.S. Should I reapply for rollback on saturday?--SchnitzelMannGreek. 20:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else has already reverted that's a good thing - it shows that the encyclopedia is being kept clean. It's not a race so don't worry - this is voluntary after all. As to a timescale - I'm just concerned about this desire for rollback - it's not a big deal you know - why not just chill and edit the article space instead? Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see...no need to be concerned about my want for rollback. The only reason I desire it is so I can experience wikipedia one step farther. I want to be like you and other notable anti-vandalist wikipedians. It sounds intresting and I want to show the vandals that no vandalism will be tolerated. I just hope to be one of you guys. By the way...did you see my contribs that are new. I also translated 3 articles from German(for Wikiproject Assyria) by hand. Took all day. I've done it before though. I hope to get the Rosetta Stone Barnstar one day...haha LOL!--SchnitzelMannGreek. 21:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what to say here - "one of you guys" ? My friend I'm really not sure what your aim is in this (no offence) - please remember that no extra features are rewards. Moving on - I'm gratified you've spent all that time translating - that's so valuable to the project - do you have some diffas of where you have reposted the translations? I think there's at least one wikiproject who would value your input on translation work. Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No Offense Taken:) I understand that there are no rewards for rollbacker i just want to get out there and make a difference by defending wikipedia as a duty. If you look in my contribs--I took your advice and began revert vandalism in the "Recent Changes" area. Its intresting and it feels good helping. My goal is to become an administrator. As for my translations--I do it for Wikiproject Assyria. If you recommend another project...that'll be fine as well. I'm enjoying the chat:)--SchnitzelMannGreek. 21:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarante that becoming an admin is not as good as it might seem to be :) Nevertheless, all work is valued here whatever the motivation. I'll see if I can find some more useful links in the morning (UK time)for you. Pedro :  Chat  21:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean about being an administrator but I hold that as a goal. User:PMDrive1061 told me that if I keep it up..I might be there one day. He aslo noted it was a good goal to have...anyway Thanks for the Chat:)SchnitzelMannGreek. 21:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most welcome. Keep up the work - it's appreciated by a wide audience after all! Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro-are you there? By the way...I've been practicing reverting vandalism in the recent changes like you told me, again:)SchnitzelMannGreek. 13:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dipping into them they seem good - you might not be aware but there are standard warning templates availabel that save you having to type your own - see WP:WARN for a list and usage instructions. Good work. Pedro :  Chat  13:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, sorry I'm taking up your talk page-lol!. By the way, if I keep it up and apply for rollbacker on Saturday, do you think I would get it. While reverting edits, I noticed some places where there was definate, straightforward vandalism like blanking and repeating letters(profanity). I could have used rollback on those. By the way any Wikiproject that needs a translator other than WikiProject Assyria which I'm part of?SchnitzelMannGreek. 16:18, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: rollback

 Done –Juliancolton | Talk 13:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum#Incivility

Thanks for the heads up, even if I am rather shocked that you chose me as an example of incivility. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can understand that in some people's eyes it's needless, but I was merely showing my strongest opinion possible there. What offended me (well, more upset me really) was "Wnat uncivil? Go chase him up." I'm not uncivil. I, rather modestly I feel ;), regard myself amongst some of the more friendly and approachable administrators on Wikipedia, and to be identified as a beacon of rudeness (and even redirecting incivility calls against Malleus to me) is quite frankly horrible. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will redact my remarks as I really don't care anymore mate. Pedro :  Chat  19:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't be like that. I've fallen out with you before (and it feels just as crap as it did then) and I'd really rather avoid something like that happening again. :( weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 19:30, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not falling out. I think "Strong Support" is a better way of expressing support than "fuck yes" in a collegial environment. You don't. We agree to disagree. FWIW if you think I've identified you as a "beacon of rudeness" I'll state now that is not the case - you are a fine admin and a great example in many areas. This is not about "sensibilities" as Jenna puts it - it's simple fact that pointless swearing does nothing to impress most people over the age of about 18 (well maybe 20!). Pedro :  Chat  19:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a massive relief. Sorry for the inconvenience my support has caused - it's not a common thing for me to do at any RfA I can tell you (I've used it maybe four times(?) for exceptional candidates (well, in my opinion at least)). Thanks for the kind words :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to move on. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rights

I was interested in your views, but someone else's RFA is not the place to pursue the discussion. Are you speaking as a lawyer for WMF, or is it just your personal opinion? Groomtech (talk) 21:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual IANAL but My Wife IAL thing :) To me it's the same thing as WP:FREE. I have no issue at all that all editors in real life, deserve basic respect dignity and freedoms. But the difference here is the law regarding our actions and the freedom regarding what we can do. For example, legally, to post a copyright violation is the editors problem and not the Wikimedia Foundation's (although it is still a grey area however American case law points to this as reality). To whit - as editors we have no right to edit here whatsoever - but we do have responsibility for our actions. It's very onesided but that is not the wikimedia foundations problem - and if it became so then wikipedia would be shut down straight away. We all have fundamental freedoms and rights - but many do not extend to private property.

I am free to write an essay on almost anything - but I am not free to write it on another persons piece of paper.
-Pedro

Don't get me wrong - I like your sentiments - but they are not grounded in fact and therefore do not become logical arguments. Please reply as this seems a useful conversation. I'm off to bed in a moment so my apologies if my response is tardy. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think anybody who signs up for an account should have to sign something stating that they understand their rights, You have the right to remain silent, anything you say can and will be used against you should you run for admin. You do not have the right to an attorney, but trust me you will want one should you run for admin. Do you understand these rights?---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If certain editors understood their right to remain silent ANI would be less than 50 Kb ....... Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you imagine I think I have a right to edit Wikipedia? I have no more right to do that than I have a right to turn up in your back garden. But if I am in your back garden, that doesn't mean I lose all my human and legal rights and that you can do whatever you like to me. Groomtech (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, no. Your question at RFA is do Wikipedians have rights. Whilst it is granted Wikipedians are humans, your question predefines parameters thus loading it. If I asked "do North Korean people have rights?" my question would merit a different answer to that expected from "do human beings have rights". See Loaded_question#Implied_form. Pedro :  Chat  20:23, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked one questions and made two assertions. To which of those was "Ah, no" a reply?
All Wikipedians are people, and all people are potentially Wikipedians -- this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. The statement I made reflects my personal views accurately and is perfectly comprehensible in context. The question was deliberately phrased to see what assumptions candidates would make in answering. The candidate in question does not think rights apply to Wikipedians, and I think that is a valid reason for not granting powers over them. I would be equally disinclined to vote for a judge who thought that people in general had rights but defendants did not. Groomtech (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm cranky enough right now to come out and say I think the question, the concept, and any oppose stemming from same is BS, and that's just my opinion, freely expressed. Dlohcierekim 00:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which of the following do you hold to be BS: (1) human rights; (2) legal rights; (3) the notion that human rights have anything to do with Wikipedia; (4) the notion that legal rights have anything to do with Wikipedia; (5) the notion that the Wikipedia community can sustain a set of "wiki-rights"? Oh, and while you are free to regard my views as BS, suggesting that my "oppose" comments are BS comes close to being an accusation of something. I am sure you will wish to clarify that point. Groomtech (talk) 11:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the notion that the Wikipedia community can sustain a set of "wiki-rights"? Somehow, I feel this conversation has occurred before, on a grander scale. Dlohcierekim 13:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Groomtech - you are one of those people with whom there is no value in having a debate, as you are so blind to your opinion that you will never be disuaded no matter what. I'll say that if you expect an clear unambiguous answer to a question then it's best to make the question itself clear. I'm sorry, but as Dlohcierekim says above this has been discussed before on a much larger scale and I'm not up to debate it further. You think I'm flat out wrong, I think you argument is ill-defined and logically weak so that's that. Pedro :  Chat  06:38, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You expressed the initial interest, but if you don't care to debate further, then we agree to disagree and that's fine by me. What is not fine is that your first sentence can be read as personally offensive. I suggest that you reconsider it in justice if not to me, then to yourself. Groomtech (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to debate before I realised your closed mind. Consider my first sentence as an opinion. Maybe it is a stupid, foolish opinion with no grounds in logic. Even so it is my right to hold that opinion - and I believe you feel we have rights to maintain stupid, foolish and illogical opinions. Just so eh?. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← Hey folks, pardon me for jumping in here, but given my own bold statement placed on my user page very shortly before this question became a topic at RfA I thought I'd fill my boots a bit here. Up above a statement is made: this is the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit - actually, that's not entirely correct. While it is an encyclopedia that anyone may edit (provided they adhere to our rules), I think it's important that there is a distinction. What I'm trying to say is this - if we say that someone has the "right" to edit here, it carries with it the distinct implication that someone has a "right" to a computer, and a "right" to Internet access. While that's a wonderful idea, it simply is not factual in todays world. You must first achieve the means to obtain a computer, and then you must fulfill your obligation to pay your ISP. Now, all that being said, I'd offer that Groomtech may enjoy some conversation at Wikipedia talk:Equality, a recently developed idea. OK ... carry on, and thanks for allowing me to open my big mouth. Best to all. — Ched :  ?  21:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Incivility. Groomtech (talk) 06:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

sent. Dlohcierekim 00:33, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - interesting. I'll dig. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  09:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback.

Hi. My name is WaveRunner85. I have been on Wikipedia for a couple of weeks and have a good idea of Wikipedia and I know how it all works. I have not actually been in an edit war, but i have witnessed one and know what to do in the event of one. The reason I could really use rollback rights, is because I use Lupin's anti-vandal tools and it takes forever to revert things the old fashion way. When my WikiFriend told me about this, I have to decided to apply. Thanks. WaveRunner85 (talk) 13:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Pedro-- Only count 6 article edits and <500 overall. On another matter, I have sent you an email. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13
16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 Not done and replied on WaveRunner's talk. Dloh - I'll go check my inbox :) Pedro :  Chat  13:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support

I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support. Cheers and happy editing.--kelapstick (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any talk page stalkers - re wikiquette alert

i am on my blackberry running opera mini that makes editing large sections hard - if not already closed can a tps add to the wqa that groomtech could do with a thicker skin but if it means that much to him i apologise for any upset caused Pedro :  Chat  17:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ([14]). Hope that helps. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 17:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am happy to accept your apology and regard the whole episode as closed. Groomtech (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for the Rollback!!

Thanks *insert 'wikinick' here*, I shall use this ability entrusted to me to battle the toughest dragons of vandalism and all of us, together, shall win the day!!

Most welcome. Pedro :  Chat  21:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks *insert 'wikinick' here*, I shall use this ability entrusted to me to battle the toughest dragons of vandalism and all of us, together, shall win the day!! Sheled (talk) 21:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still welcome :) Love that wikimedia software and edit conflicts! Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ya gotta love the enthusiasm ;) .. and welcome back. — Ched :  ?  21:34, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, welcome back. :) PeterSymonds (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers chaps Pedro :  Chat  07:08, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro/Archive_34&oldid=1180394393"