User talk:Pedro/Archive 39

Request for Rollback permission

Two days ago, on WP:PERM/R, I requested Rollback permission. I see that some other requests there, before and after mine, have been processed. Did I perhaps make my request in an incorrect manner that caused it not to be visible in whatever queue the administrators use? Thanks. Peter Chastain (talk) 02:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done I'm sorry it was not sooner - the request must have been overlooked as you formatted it all fine. Sorry about that. Pedro :  Chat  07:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Peter Chastain (talk) 07:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

My page was deleted and I was hoping you could tell me why and where can I find all of the writing that I did. Thank you.

RfA answer

You withdrew your question 4 (I think), but here's an answer in any case. Cheers!

A: Technical affinity: I changed careers in 1/2003 from a software development and engineering background, so I do think I pick up some technical things quickly--I can only wish I did so more quickly. It's hard for me to say why Wikipedia wasn't front-and-center in my interests for the first few years I was here. In part, I was starting my new career. In part, I don't think I had found my "place" here yet, there were few places where it seemed like I could have fun and be constructive. Connection with a group of other editors working on the same task adds to the fun of WP and probably brings me back more, too.

Accounts: This is the only account I've had, and I haven't edited here here via IP, save for the odd accidental logged-out edit or three early on. --j⚛e decker^talk 22:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your time in responding. I was mistaken in thinking you first few edits involved intimate WP markup (I noticed after asking you had over 200 edits, hence my revert). I'm pleased to support your request, good luck and happy ediitng. Pedro :  Chat  22:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Most welcome! --j⚛e decker^talk 23:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

For the user page edit, it put a real smile on my face! (PS: regarding your advice re: CSDs, I agree with you entirely... that's not an area I'm ready to move into, and if I did I'd have signficantly more to learn. Thanks!) --j⚛e decker^talk 21:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom

You know the one about patience, serenity, and wisdom, right? I'd appreciate your wisdom on what to do about this. In particular, look at the (currently) three bottom threads: "Smelling pistake", "For crying out loud!", and "Disruption". In truth, a block is already due but I'm so involved I don't want to be the one to do it. At some point, I'll ask for further advice from somewhere, but I dislike the dramaboard route. If you need background, holler, but I think you're familiar with the situation.  Frank  |  talk  21:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC) PS: Cheers, hope you and yours are well!

Blocked for 6 months (wow!) by Beeblebrox. I agree the block was needed but 6 months seems a little heavy! Resolved the issue I guess... Pedro :  Chat  21:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I just came back to report never mind. We'll see how it turns out.  Frank  |  talk  21:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

A heavy-handed block for incompetence no less. Which policy demands competence? The incompetence is not where Beeblebrox thinks it is though. Malleus Fatuorum 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I've asked the question.  Frank  |  talk  22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to

thank you for the time taken to review my request. Now, I am more than ready to help around here. Andreasm ^{just talk to me} 22:55, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome. Pedro :  Chat  06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind sir...

...but I edited through your protection here - I think it's one of those occasions where it was the right thing to do and I'm sure you'll agree. I think it can stay up for a week or so then it can be reverted. Hope you're well - you still need to get that backside of yours to Manchester for a pint! Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course not! Thanks for posting that Ryan - appreciated. One of these days I'll get my sorry backside up North for a beer - just have to convince the wife that she's got to look after the kids all weekend on her won! Pedro :  Chat  06:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

An observation

I remember a few years ago that French lorry drivers lobbied against a tightening of the drink-driving laws in France on the basis that they drove far more miles (kilometres I suppose) than the average driver, and were therefore more likely to get caught, hence the proposed new law would have discriminated against them. So far as I recall, they won the argument, but of course that was France, where all sorts of whacky things happen.

What's occurred to me though after looking through some of the recent discussions at RfA, and a few recent RfAs, is that in a different context those lorry drivers may have had a point. It's rather easy, for instance, not to get blocked if you only make 50 edits a month to wikipedia, somewhat less easy if you make a thousand or more, as there's always someone looking to take offence. Perhaps a better measure is the ratio of blocks to postings. I'm not at all trying to excuse my own block log, that can be explained in many ways, just musing over a few things. Malleus Fatuorum 22:04, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Of all the various rambling at WT:RFA recently this probably hit the nail on the head. A perticularly perceptive remark that sums up a lot of what's wrong around here. It's a fact that admins are given far greater latitude than non-admins, and no mater how much Jimbo bangs on that admins should be held to "higher standards" the reality is that they are not. Disapointing - yes. Wrong - yes. But it's true. Pedro :  Chat  07:26, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

from the shadows

Hello there Mr. Pedro! Just popping through my watchlist, waxing nostalgic. How've you been? Keeper | 76 02:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Greeting my friend! It's all good I suppose! My activity on WP is not what it was, but I'm still slavishly addicted to popping in on a regular basis. How are you and yours? Pedro :  Chat  07:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Family is good, work is good, life is good. I have no complaints other than trivial ones about how my legs don't work like they did in my youth and observations in passing about the random strange looking mole (is it growing? is that one still brown, honey, or is it turning red?), and other such commonalities of becoming "that" generation that scowls at loud music and shakes his head unapprovingly. I still edit quite a bit around here, but almost exclusively as an IP so I'm not tempted to get admin-y, which I've determined, having been quiet and reflective for almost 2 years, is what drove me to leave. I was pleasantly surprised to see you near the top of my very small watchlist, editing. Stay well, good sir! Keeper | 76 15:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I spend a lot of time reading now, too little editing. Funnily enough I was going through my RFA nominations the other day and it was suprising the number of editors I remember well whose name you just never see any more. Still, most people grow weary of their hobby at times I guess. Delighted you and yours are well and I feel your pain in the age related stakes. BTW - two years since Jeffpw passed on ..... that's a jolt. Pedro :  Chat  19:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, it really has been two years. That's like 14 years for dogs and MMPORGs. I hope his family continues to heal, he was a hell of a guy, from whatever you can learn of someone on an anonymous website... On the other note, you got me curious, and I rambled down my list of admin nominees too. Most are here - some renamed, some long silent. Probably the most active nominee of mine, and the most productive in terms of improving this little project unselfishly and boldly, is dear Malleus, who luckily didn't pass RFA. I think that is very telling. Keeper | 76 02:13, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kibbitz

Re [1], of course you'd have to find a time when there is actually ice at the spot, and since the ice does tend to move around a lot, it would be tricky... :) (Google Earth behaves very strangely at that point: try flying the airplane underwater there.) Antandrus (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I shall hit the flight sim on that to see! Cheers! Pedro :  Chat  23:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikidestruction

Yes. If you could tell me how on Earth I managed to do it, I would be grateful. At least I did not blank the main page or block Jimbo! --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Guess it was one too many tabs open, or a wrong click of the finger. As for blocking Jimbo - well that's been done a fair few times. And deleting the main page is now not visibly do-able via a CSS hack (but it is actually possible using the direct URL assuming it's still under 5,000 revisions - however WP:BEANS and all). Happy editing kind sir. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Can you imagine how it feels when you are happily ploughing through a list of nominated articles, you call up WP:CSD and you find that it has unexpectedly been deleted and you have done it?? --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:30, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Put it this way - I can feel your pain [2] :) Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear!! I missed that - out of the country. But you were quicker to revert than I was.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 22:31, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Page Deletion

My page "Keeping Up With The Guptas" was deleted and I was looking for some help. I am on the Marketing Team for Keeping Up With The Guptas and I was hoping that you could tell me why my page was deleted and where can I find all the text that I put onto the page. And how can I use the text from my website on Wikipedia legally? Thanks

Mvayder (talk) 17:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mvayder. I'd suggest you look at some of the links (in blue) that follow and I hope they give you some hints to editing Wikipedia. Firstly you clearly have a conflict of interest. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - so please remember that not everything that exists needs to be in it - only things that are worth of an enyclopedia. Secondly, to be included in an encyclopedia something must be notable - which I'm afraid from the description of the article this show is not. Thirdly, we require references from third party reliable sources to verify claims that a subject is notable. Fundamentally, this home-brew show (as it was depicted in the article) does not match up to a number of our core policies, and thus I deleted it. I can e-mail you a copy of the deleted text if you wish. In respect of using the text from your website here, that's fine as long as you agree to release the content of your website under this licence. Bear in mind that this will have serious repercussions for your website if you have any copyright marks on it. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

So does that mean that I cannot have the page up on Wikipedia yet since it is not well known? And yes that would be great if you could email me the text.

00:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mvayder (talk • contribs)

 Done Deleted revision e-mailed. Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Hey there. I was thinking of throwing my name into the ring in a few months, and wondered what you thought? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 21:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You're mad? Heh! Seriously, it's a touch late my time, so can I come back to you tomorrow on this after a review? Pedro :  Chat  22:02, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Just one thing - didn't you get involved with the password sharing thing with Peter Symonds (not a "deal breaker" just to give me notice) Pedro :  Chat  22:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I did, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steve Crossin. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:05, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah -my memory is not as bad as I thought! You might need to address Alison's oppose (No. 9) very directly. Perhaps you can help me out by elaborating on what she meant there. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Me and Alison were quite good friends beforehand, and hated me after I told her that I'd been using another admin's account. As for problems on other wikis, I'm really not sure what she meant, I figured she was just very upset/angry at me, and I don't blame her for it. I really screwed up back then, but there's not much I can do except try and move forward. I think I've got a better head on my shoulders (I'm going to be a dad soon as well) and it looks like we need the help around here, but yeah, I dunno whether I could or whether it's worth a go or what my chances are or what to do next. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll take a shufty tomorrow. Congrats on the fatherhood thing! That will be an.... experience (as a father of two I know darn well!) You don't want to buy a cot do you? :P Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

A shufty? What's that. Re: the cot - Will you pay shipping to Australia? :P Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

[3] - And I think the shipping may outweigh th evalue ;-) Pedro :  Chat  22:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Heh, I love urban dictionary. I'm a bit outdated policywise (WTF did they do with WP:USER) so I'll need a few tips to get me going but like always, I'd love to help out). Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:39, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I've elected to use the #3 definition when reading Pedro's comment. Pedro - don't you know that will make you go blind? –xeno^talk 20:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Ha Ha! I didn't even see that! Xeno - you should read Viz - I think they sell it over the pond! Anyhow I'm married, so naturally masturbation is a regular occurence completely irrelvant to me. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Lolol. So true. –xeno^talk 20:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is kind of an awkward thing to stumble upon. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 22:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Steve, I've given this some thought now. Essentially let's play the "password incident" thing never happened. You'd pass RFA easily. I'm not a big fan of the odd swear word in your edit summaries but that's pretty minor. You've done all the stuff that clearly indicates you would use the extra tools wisely and well. So, we need to take a step back. If the misjudgement in password sharing had not occured you'd already have the tools and be helping out. But it did occur. At your RFA there were several strong opinions, and in particular regarding the lone IP edit that caused added confusion. However I stand by my comment at your RFA that you did the honest thing. You didn't sock, didn't RTV, didn't give up on the place. You took the 6 month ban and then resumed editing. I think that speaks volumes.

I'm normally a good judge of RFA outcomes (well, I flatter myself that I am) even if I've been known to have pretty very rotten judgement on who to support at times and who to oppose.

I think you might well pass, assuming the community has a sense of forgiveness and assuming they look to your recent actions and your good grace in owning your mistakes. I'll nominate if you wish. Pedro :  Chat  20:36, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(You missed this). Wait, you mean now? Don't you think my somewhat recent inactivity will work against me? I don't want to over rush it, but I think now or soon is a good time. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:35, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I never looked at the activity count as I wasn't looking at number of edits (I rarely bother when nominating as editcountitis ain't my thing!). I suppose the hole of the last two months is a possible sticking issue for some. Maybe get this month over with and go in September? Pedro :  Chat  10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You think that my last 500 edits going back to November won't cause major issues? I'm keen to give RFA another go, but be honest, how long do you think I should wait, and what else do you think I need to do/iron out/resolve before I give RFA another go, because I wouldn't want to run unless I've a rather good chance of passing. Keep in mind that I don't have an enormous amount of time, so writing a FA is pretty much out of it for a long time. My time is better used clearing backlogs and mitigating disputes. But yeah, be honest. I respect your opinion. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 10:49, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

It's one of those things really - there's no point writing an FA just to try and bolster your chances of adminship. You write because you want to write. You already have featured content, dyk's etc. It's really just a question of does password sharing + relative inactivity = no admin buttons or does the overall contribution history = admin buttons. I don't honestly know, but in the current climate of active admin levels declining maybe it's worth a shot. Having said that I'd think another month of moderate activitiy would be beneficial and give a greater level of recent edits for people to review. Pedro :  Chat  11:21, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I trust your judgment either way. If you'd like to write a nom now then I'd accept, if you think I should wait I will. It's your call. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me ponder and I'll come back to you. Pedro :  Chat  11:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 11:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The current climate, as you put it, is difficult at best. There seems to be an attitude of "if I can't have it, nobody can". Waiting a month or two won't hurt.  Frank  |  talk  11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Wisdom89's next RfA

Made you look! I'd rather roll around in excrement : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Got me! Pedro :  Chat  06:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

As Pedro's talk page is the only thing on my watchlist now, I'm having to keep myself amused with things on his page so thought I'd chime in here! To be honest Wisdom, I'd put in a nom if I was you - you've come on a lot over the years and I reckon you'd have a good chance of getting the tools - you'd certainly have my support. Put some thought into it - I'd be pleased to see you hitting those buttons. If you want a nom (I'd have to remember how to write one!), let me know. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

The man said it Wisdom. Personally I'd ask for the bits - you know I'd be delighted with a co-nom for you. (and Ryan - dude you picked a dull old page to watchlist! Heh! )Pedro :  Chat  20:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan and Pedro. I know I'd have the support of many people. It's especially encouraging hearing this from Ryan given his previous uncertainty with my being an Admin. Still, I'm just sure there'd be a pile for something. Maybe my terse bluntness at times, who knows. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I do. And so do you. Just look at what's unfolding at Nev1's RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd come out of retirement to support you. 174.52.141.138 (talk) 21:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

RFA

Some of that makes sense. However, a self professed "weak" rationale is a completely different situation to a self professed "strong" one. Regards, --WFC-- 15:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Some if it made sense largely because of my horrid typos :) Heh. Agreed however that the qualifier can imply the argument itself is weak or strong. Pedro :  Chat  20:05, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, and farewell

I just wanted to thank the only person here whose efforts I will remember with pleasure and respect; I'm packing it in. I know there is a kernel of utility here, but between the onslaught of crap and the incredible rudeness and sense of entitlement of the children who feel compelled to keep shoveling it on, I just can't contribute to it any more. You weren't wrong to lead me to administrative status, and I will always respect your contributions here and be grateful for your assistance over the years, but I cannot continue. My very best regards and wishes for your future and your family. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

And with that we just lost another productive editor. 67.136.117.132^{Also 174.52.141.138}21:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Bugger. Pedro :  Chat  19:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Bad Edit on ANI

I deleted the edit on ANI, so you might want to RevDel my edit, which will still show the edit. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably also should block and rangeblock User:78.176.22.68. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked that single IP. Can't see anything that needs a rev/del unless I'm being thick (which is likely) Pedro :  Chat  22:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, that works. I think the range is subject of that ANI thread that the user had commented on, which is why I suggested it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah cool - I'm not to clever with range blocks so I'll leave it to someone more competent if it needs to be done. Thanks. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

MOTD

Today's motto...
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Nominate one today!

Lol. —fetch·comms 20:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

"Nerd" from Wikipedia Review?

Hi. I'm not sure if this has already been asked (I check your most recent archives and didn't see anything off-hand). Are you "Nerd" on Wikipedia Review (member link)? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Some time ago someone emailed me suggesting that Pedro was Nerd, seems to have been a popular theory at one time. As I recall, Pedro denied it, and I've reason to doubt him. Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm most certainly not Nerd and have stated so for some time on my user page[4] - although you'll have to take my word for it. I don't have an account on Wikipedia Review nor have I ever had one. Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

email

Actually, the user has been provided with the contact info he needs. Dlohcierekim 21:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For user read "troll" but I still can't see where Dloh. Not Nerd :  On WR  21:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Smirnofesque-- in US, you get mail. On Wikipedia, mail gets you. Or "ping". or "you've got some now." cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

and "ping" again. Dlohcierekim 21:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi Pedro,

Thank you for providing the arb comm mailing list: arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org

I had seen it before but it would have taken me some time to find it again. I am posting to you an e-mail I sent to it so that a record exists on-site. Note this edit might be over-sighted. You may want to e-mail the details to yourself for future reference.

Hello,

Your cowardice defies belief.

I've taken messages from Wikipedians upon news of a parent's death. 

I did my best to help #### when she was dealing with stalking. 

I took a bus ride across the American border  and almost been held to visit another Wikipedian (we both needed a friend).

I've edited the content policies exhaustively and tried to shut down off-site chatter that risked tarnishing the process.

I've devoted hours of my life to writing Featured Articles and hours more to keeping them up to standard at the Featured Article Review.

Tens of thousands of people devote small sums of money to your foundation on the basis of it's charitable status. And who do we have now running the English language site? Teenagers who want "A  Note From Jimbo." 

Now Jimbo's getting visits from the FBI and he's worried a mention in Time Magazine won't be enough to secure a footnote alongside Ann Rand. The Wikipedians who actually care about the content rather than meaningless titles in cyber-space could care less.

Keep on fingering those delete buttons.

User:Marskell

If you want you can go to one ANI or one of the other noticeboards and enquire why the User:Timothymarskell was blocked. You may wind up blocked yourself, however.

My best advice would simply be to create as many sockpuppets as you can -- be sure to use very diverse names for your handles and do not enable e-mail on any of them. Rather than being stressed about a block in future you can take an hour off and simply start editing again. Do NOT activitate socks to waste time on on-line noticeboards or to badger other users; this simply causes stress and hurt to others. Focus on the mainspace and remember that WP:V is the only truly important policy.

Take care of yourself,

-- Timothy Marskell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.97.86.98 (talk) 06:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Gordon

[5] He is blind in one eye which might make the case? Not Nerd :  On WR  17:58, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

So, he lives a normal life and in the uk we don't like to label people in such a way, as disabled. Off2riorob (talk) 18:00, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know where you get off mate, but that was only a helpful comment by me. I didn't revert you, I simply asked you to consider. Your caustic comment above about how people are "labeled" in the UK is strange - you do know I live in England and have done all my life? Not Nerd :  On WR  20:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't need to consider, I was involved in getting and keeping the Brown article as a GOOD article and am a major contributor to the article. I am not your mate as you call me and where you live is also not my business... What do you want by getting involved then? Off2riorob (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

1) It's a wiki - so I can get involved and you don't WP:OWN it. 2) I've re-added that cat per this reliable source and 3) I seem to remember sticking up for you a lot in the past - clearly I was wrong. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

You are ignoring my request for WP:BRD please reconsider and open a discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I did while you blindly reverted me - I don't know what part of the D in BRD you don't get, but don't just start shouting at other people to discuss - why didn't you start the debate ourself? I note you' are ignoring my commentary regarding your self declared ownership as well..... fascinating. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Update, or perhaps apology is more correct, sorry I was a bit rude to you and sometimes I use expressions that are excessive and unwarranted in the situation and can be taken wrong, as I did in this case. It was a simple cat and not attack content at all. I have a bit of a thing about labeling people as disabled if they live a normal life but I lost the plot in this case. Actually I have dropped my own issues at that article (or thought I had) and rarely edit it nowadays. So .. if I upset you at all .. I am sorry. Off2riorob (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Half of one and a dozen of the other, and my apologies. As I note above, I have in the past stuck up for you (or I certainly have meant to!) so I was a little disapointed in your reaction - but that doesn't excuse my overly agressive responses to you. Apology accepted on the condition you accept mine to you :) Happy editing. Not Nerd :  On WR  11:44, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Cool, onwards and upwards. I forgot to say I also withdraw my excessive objections to the cat being added. Best regards. Off2riorob (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Ley line

Hey, that was not bite, I replied to his help desk reply and in detail, with praise, on his talk page. That doesn't belong on the article talk page and it would have been much better - IMHO - to deal with it on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 21:03, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And if you'd looked at his contributions, you'd know he had asked at the help desk about the talk page header mentioning it not being a forum and was unsure as to whether he should have posted it there. Dougweller (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Then archive it, don't revert it - and add a link. The thought occurs .... Newbie - might not actually know why his wall-o-text just vanished from where he put it???? Or maybe he might - I don't know. WP:BITE is near universally ignored by admins anyway. Do what you see fit - I couldn't care less anyway. Usual crap. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

And you can fuck right off with your smug little "look at his contributions" bollocks - look at mine - the only reason I saw it was because I have the helpdesk watchlised. Fuck you and your sanctimonious attitude Doug. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeez, that's nice. Are you always like this? Although archiving and a link is an interesting idea. Dougweller (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I generally treat people with the respect they give to others if that's what you mean. And as you lazily threw bullshit around about checking contributions, despite the fact you are wrong, and brazenly removed comments that would be better served as an archive reference then ... well I guess that answers your question doesn't it. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Nope. I replied at the help desk making it clear I was going to comment on the editor's talk page. You decided to put the edit back with a PA in the edit summary - you must know about AGF. Then personal attacks here - not a good example for a new editor if he were to come here to thank you. Thinking about the archive suggestion, as the edit wasn't rev/del'd, a diff would have sufficed also. Dougweller (talk) 05:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hysterical. Pleasae feel free to mention AGF a bit more in the same thread where you specifically stated above "And if you'd looked at his contributions...". Pleasae AGF that I did. better yet actually look at my contribution history (as I stated above) and note that there was a grand total of two minutes between my revert and comment at the Helpdesk. So clearly I did look at his contributions. Complex stuff clearly. And FYI I struggle to see how the truth is a personal attack. Either way I doubt this conversation is going to move much further forward but please feel free to have the last word. Pedro :  Chat  06:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Titanic

I've replied on the talk page re semi-protection. Maybe this is better discussed at WT:SHIPS. If there is demonstrable consensus to unprotect then the article may be unprotected without further consultation with myself (heading to bed soon anyway). Mjroots (talk) 21:30, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Talk:RMS Titanic and your pompous "If there is demonstrable consensus" comment above is duly noted. The fact that you unilaterally protected the article and then expect consensus to unprotect it is truly laughable and yet another example of how wikipedia is in the clutch of [redacted on the basis of not wanting to be desysopped for a little while longer] Pedro :  Chat  21:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Really, very busy

Some real life stuff that was slightly anticipated now seems to be occuring. Not around for a couple of weeks. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Still busy, so alas timely responses not guaranteed. Not Nerd :  On WR  20:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you ...

... for taking an interest in the Moors murders and for helping out with the TFA issues. It was a pretty harrowing article to write, and I'm not ashamed to admit that there were sometimes tears in my eyes. I suggested the collaboration because Brady obviously won't live forever and his death is likely to be a media frenzy, but without PoD I'd never have done it. We need lots more PoDs. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done nowt. Well done to you and PoD for yet another masterpiece. Pedro :  Chat  06:39, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Your note in the RfA

Dear Pedro, I've replied at the RfA too. I've shifted my comment post your note. Thanks for the message; my regards always. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 02:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that was wise. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  06:40, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

E-mail

Hello, Pedro. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

HeyMid (contributions) 08:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Heymid - could you possibly resend - nothing in my inbox or spam filter. Pedro :  Chat  13:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Yes, you're absolutely correct — I never sent you an e-mail. However, Protector of Wiki claims to have sent an e-mail to you, regarding an eventual mentorship. Did he e-mail you? If so, did you read it? Did you reply? Or he e-mailed Phantomsteve. I don't know, I can't verify PoW's claim. HeyMid (contributions) 14:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

HeyMid - sorry - my apologies - I misunderstood. As it happens whilst rifling my spam to find your message I did indeed get the message from Protector of Wiki. I'm not decided yet what my thoughts are. I'm also not sure I'm the best admin to ask - I'm barely active, rather busy in real life, and most relevantly my credibility on Wikipedia is pretty much zero. I'll try to make a more detailed response if I can but I'd urge PoW to contact PeterSymonds or indeed to ask via email that a request be placed on ANI (I know his talk page access is revoked but he can email unblock.en or any admin). Pedro :  Chat  20:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Also, I have sent an e-mail to PoW, but haven't received an answer yet. HeyMid (contributions) 20:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. FWIW I generally agree that if he accepts the condition of removing the ALL CAPS thing that's a step forward. Mentorship (which he also accepts) would be conditional. Pedro :  Chat  20:45, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

In the (latest) e-mail I wrote to him, I pointed out that the ALL CAPS issue wasn't the only reason for the block. I also wrote that I am willing to mentor him, but only if he agrees to certain conditions (written in e-mail). If he agrees, I will put them up at WP:ANI for discussion for an eventual unblock. I should've probably added that he should've contacted PeterSymonds (the initial blocking admin) at first hand, and not you (in fact, I can't even understand how you were somehow involved in this at first). I just hope that he is willing to adress the issues and concerns in order to become a good editor at Wikipedia, and that he doesn't try to evade his block through IPs and/or other accounts. He has written to me that he has no plans to leave the WMF (which is also a great 'favour'). However, my impression is that he doesn't understand why his behavior is disruptive (and blockable), which (of course) is a minus. HeyMid (contributions) 20:57, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite remember how he came on my watchlist (an RFA comment I think) but it was clear from day one this was going to be a user who would have difficulty meshing into en.wp. I'm generally very positively biased towards newbies and whilst I recall trying to make some fairly blunt statements to PoW I was willing to also defend him. His block came as no suprise, however, and I support Peter Symonds' action all things being equal ...... nevertheless we do have WP:OFFER (ignoring the 6 month bit) and PoW did indeed make many positive contributions. Will he get the WP:CLUE and WP:COMPETENCE bits - only time will tell if he's unblocked. However his positive contributions did, albeit marginally, outweigh his very negative contributions (specifically the chip-on-the-shoulder attitude, ALL CAPS, caaling admins "mods" and general resisitance to helpful cajoling). I'd like to see him back but (and this sounds dreadfuly sanctimonious so I apologise in advance) only under an understadning that we don't suffer disruption gladly and can quickly revert his editing privelidges again if needed. Pedro :  Chat  21:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

There are many of us who "have difficulty meshing into en.wp", and in time I hope that there will be many more. Vive la Revolution. Malleus Fatuorum 21:38, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

To quote your good self, albeit out of context and deliberatley truncated, It's difficult for non-wikipedians to understand .... That's the spirit of what I'm getting at. Some people just simply can't "get" the way things work here. I'm neither saying that Wikipedia works particularly well, or indeed that the way it works is acceptable. Nevertheless, it seems we do (through either blind luck, divine intervention or some as yet undiscovered property of M-theory) actually get cracking content out to our readership. Some people just don't seem to be able to realise that in order to do that we need a least a modicum of give and take. My concern is that PoW might be one of those. Perhaps not, and hopefuly not. I'm not really in the mind set of disenfranchising anyone but vandals and extreme POV warriors - but those clearly unable to at least vaguely get along are more hinderance than help. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about what PoW's done or hasn't done, but I do know that if (s)he wants to continue contributing here then it's necessary to bend a little. Not too much, but just enough. Malleus Fatuorum 22:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. The offer that PoW has put forward (via private e-mail) seems acceptable to me. Nevertheless it's not really my decision, and as I stated above my credibility on wp is largely non existent anyway so, alas, my opinion is not likely to count for much. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

... and neither of course is my opinion, so welcome to the club. :-) Malleus Fatuorum 22:24, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

We should introduce some handshakes, words and rituals. We don't want too many people in on this. Pedro :  Chat  22:27, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The female editors here have beaten us to it. Malleus Fatuorum 22:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Note: Given his latest e-mail reply to me, it seems that PoW is not satisfied with me being his mentor. However, it seems that he is at about the same time zone as me (UTC+2 or UTC+1, I'm at UTC+2). Also, we do keep our e-mail contact with each other. The question is what we'll end up with... HeyMid (contributions) 07:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

A support in the oppose section

Howdy. In this RfA you appear to have put your support in the oppose section.--Rockfang (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

He moved it from the support section, hence my question too. ++Lar: t/c 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sup/pose... Op/port  ??

[6] I laughed. But then I realized I didn't get it. ++Lar: t/c 22:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently our beloved and benevolent 'crats are more than capable of working it out. In glorious RFA your vote is more than counted. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Beloved? Benevolent? Sure, why not. Or is it the other way round? ++Lar: t/c 22:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You're a naughty, naughty boy. Here's a satirical quote from Hans Adler: "Anyone who uses humour in Wikipedia (and especially in project space) exhibits a severe lack of respect for those of their fellow editors who have no sense for it." Malleus Fatuorum 23:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

20,000th edit

Well, this one is my one. Which is more sad - that I've made 20,000 edits or that I noticed? Both, probably.... Pedro :  Chat  16:20, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations and/or condolences, whichever is more appropriate (not sure myself). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:29, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll take both :) Pedro :  Chat  16:34, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Cork insertion required.

Insert wherever HalfShadow 21:27, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cork duly inserted, with extreme prejudice. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You're a prejudiced cork inserter? I'm calling the NAACI on you! HalfShadow 21:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I admit it's a nasty image. To be honest I'm secretly a prejudiced uncorker .... :) Pedro :  Chat  21:33, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, as long as you're not a corksucker.

Seriously, that shit is sick... HalfShadow 21:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt a week off will redeem him as a shining Wikipedian ..... hmmmm. </blind optimism> Pedro :  Chat  21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Reminiscing

Now the nights have drawn in again and the year is coming to a close I was idly wondering where it all went wrong for me here at wikipedia, so I was looking through some old archives. Given recent discussion on this talk page I couldn't help but suppress a smirk when I saw this comment of yours at my second RfA: "I find Malleus at times to be abrasive". Looking through that RfA also reminded me of my enemies; I was quite staggered to see that Rlevse opposed me, the barsteward. Perhaps that's why some accused me of engineering his downfall by pushing him to FAC with Grace Sherwood knowing that the article wasn't ready, an accusation that I find to be way beyond any incivility that I've ever been accused of, but OK because it came from an administrator, one of the untouchables. The more I think about it, it's not where did I go wrong but where did wikipedia go wrong. Malleus Fatuorum 20:10, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF! Dlohcierekim 20:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Now, you see abrasive is, of course, not without merits; I haven't looked but I do seem to recall supporting you wholeheartedly at RFA#2 - partly in recompense for my screw up in opposing at #1. You are abrasive - that's you. I'm miserable, prone to outbursts and needlesly sarcastic - that me (and ironically my WP charisma is very different from my RL traits). The Rlevse incident I read about a lot but didn't comment on - or if I did only in passing). It strikes me that Rlevse is actually a really nice chap - genuinely was here for what he perceived to be the right reasons - even if at times they were the wrong reasons or did it the wrong way - (and you can count me in that school too). I agree of course, wholeheartedly, that Wikipedia has gone wrong - indeed went wrong sometime before either of us ever made an edit here.

It does strike me that a few people could do with reading and better yet understanding some of the policies / guidelines rather than spouting them like mantra as they add their super-script sub-script flashy signature to them however - in particular AGF and CIV. Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You did indeed support me, not exactly a great career move. I've wondered recently whether if I was starting all over again here with a clean slate I'd do anything differently, and with a very few exceptions the answer is no, I wouldn't. Still, enough about me, this is your talk page, not mine. Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ha Ha. Luckliy I gave up on the WP:CAREERMOVE please let that be redlinked (q.v. WP:RFB, WP:ACE etc. where we find most of our "career editors") a long time ago. I kind of moved into WP:HONEST-IF-OVERLY-BRUSQUE-AND-OFTEN-BELIGERENT-BUT-STILL-WEll-MEANING modePedro :  Chat  21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) and you are always most welcome on my talk, and your honesty in your intentions is nothing less than expected. Pedro :  Chat  21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I'll get blocked if I make WP:CAREERMOVE a blue link to WP:RFB ? Pedro :  Chat  21:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

You'd probably get away with it, with at the most an admonishment; I'd be looking down the barrel of a block. Without wishing to name names, if Georgewilliamherbert gets elected to ArbCom you won't be seeing me for dust. Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Ironically enough I just took great pleasure in opposing him for those elections. He is an editor I find to be displeasingly process driven and his "on-line" persona comes over as exceptionally pompous and beligerent. Clearly very much the wrong choice for ARBCOM. I'd expand upon my thoughts regarding GWH but the much misunderstood WP:NPA prevents me. Pedro :  Chat  21:58, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Apparently we're all supposed to conform to his Californian sub-cultural view of civility, because he's, well a Californian. Even in the States people think that California is a crazy place. Malleus Fatuorum 22:09, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the once again cultural divide between the UK and our US brethren seems to rear its ugly head.... I had a rather unfortunate run-in with Raul over at BN recently, where his somewhat surreal lack of good faith (read: arrogant assumption based purely on his own opinion) left me honestly very angry - then I remembered that for all his hard work and commitment he's a Wikipedia Founding Father and an American - thus "right by default". I decided to leave the debate without further comment. It's easier that way at times. Pedro :  Chat  22:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I saw that. I've had the odd run in with Raul as well, heck, who haven't I had a run in with, but I think he's generally in the right place. There are lots of other American editors I generally agree with as well; SandyGeorgia, Ealdgyth, Karanacs, and Moni3 spring immediately to mind, although I can't help but notice that they're all female. Maybe I'm just a sucker for intelligent women. More seriously, I've often wondered if the English wikipedia wouldn't be better served by splitting off the American stuff from the rest of the world stuff. Then the GWHs of the project could keep their little corners as civility-free as they like, while letting the real work carry on without their interference. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I was going to say how contrived the US/UK distinction is in Civility Police-type discussions, but then realized that since I'm from the US, I should probably just fuck off instead... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:50, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just stop making edit confilcts on my page you yankee git! :) Pedro :  Chat  22:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

(rustling of electronic pages as Floq looks up "git" in handy encyclopedia that just happens to be lying around)... Hey! That's even worse than "sycophantic"! --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

And isn't Iri American but living in the UK (my facts may well be faulty)? I'm certainly not swinging for Americans- Floquenbeam, Dlohcierekim, Keeper76 (wherever is he?) etc. - nice honest people. But they're the kind that understand the cultural differences - my comment above about "brethern" is deliberately tongue in cheek - heck my sister in law is American. As ever, it's the few that ruin it for the rest of us - and I'm under no illusion many Americans wish the Brits were off the project too. However this is, well alegedly, a world enyclopedia. The reality is we need more editors from outside the UK, US and Australia and similar to help us all shift our cultural POV - something unlikely to happen.

Alas, no solutions on my talk page - only problems. :) I'm off to bed now, kind sir. Should we not interact before (unlikely!) then may I offer you an early seasons grettings and a pleasent Christmas and New Year break. We spent the day Christmas shopping for the kids so I am now tired, skint and wondering where the hell we're going to hide two bags of stocking fillers! Pedro :  Chat  22:51, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

There are many great American editors, and you've mentioned a few. My contention though would be that the vast majority of the civility police are from the States, although to be honest I have no real evidence for that, just a gut feeling. I really can't believe that English administrators would be as precious as User:Gwen Gale, for instance who swoons at the word "sycophantic". Malleus Fatuorum 23:05, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not stalking you, honest, but I do think there's something in that. I've noticed it in other forums over the years. I think maybe it's that we are rude (sharp, dismissive, curt, surly, cheeky, disrespectful) quite a lot, and consider it a part of normal life while offensive is something way over there. Offensive is when you call someone one of those, and their mother too, and he was a welshman. Just saying some idea is bollocks, and the proponent should get off their bum and look the proper answer up, is just part of everyday life.Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, Elen, Usenet was a pretty... verbally uninhibited place even back when it was mostly populated by Americans. I have about the same amount of actual concrete data as Malleus, but my gut tells me that the main reason there are more Americans worried about civility bad words is simply because there are more American editors. I think it is, with notable exceptions, more an age thing than a nationality thing. (I guess my own prejudices are showing). --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I was on Usenet a long time before wikipedia came along, but I never found it as restrictive as wikipedia has become. To take one example, GWH has said explicitly that he is not concerned about "bad words" per se, when he clearly is, and he takes no great trouble to investigate before blocking. If it's an age thing then I'm not sure which way round that might work. Are you suggesting that the younger editors might be less tolerant of views they don't approve of (that's really what WP:CIV has degenerated into) than older editors might be, or the reverse? Malleus Fatuorum 00:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, Usenet certainly wasn't as restrictive; just trying to justify my own gut feeling by pointing out that Americans can say lots of naughty words on the internet too. GWH doesn't actually fit into my simplistic model very well. But what I mean about age is that I've found that young admins, in general, are less likely to look at subtleties and underlying complications, and are more likely to react to easier-to-describe things like bad words or blunt talk. And, due to their ability here to silence others at the push of a button, a power which, at that age, has no equivalent in real life, they're strongly tempted to assert power. Not necessarily because they're evil, but because they're kids. Never trust an admin under 45, I say. To be honest, I'm not a big fan of anything-goes anarchy and ever-spiraling bickering fests either; I'm just even less of a fan of the widespread over-reliance on the block button. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

GWH might well be off the chart but I'd agree with your general assessment. Malleus Fatuorum 01:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

BTW Elen, have I ever mentioned to you that I was blocked for using the word sycophantic? Malleus Fatuorum 00:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me. I have seen some stunning bad blocks in my time. I am reminded of a Perishers cartoon where a character says something erudite, and another character hits them because they can't take a chance that they might be saying something insulting.Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

One of the many problems here is that bad blocks stick as a stain on the blockee, whereas the admin making the bad block gets away scot free. Malleus Fatuorum 01:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and the trust you have shown in me. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 12:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Your block

Regardless of how irriating editors are admins need to set an example of staying calm and not resorting to ad homs. I've blocked you for 3 hours.©Geni 00:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Ludicrously inappropriate block, and "overly strident language" isn't a reason for blocking, which I have now reversed. Reasons are in my unblock rationale. This whole thing is tending to become more unnecessary than it needs to be, and it should stop right now. If editors, including admins, are not prepared to act rationally, and within policy, I have no problem about issuing preventative blocks before referring the while issue to ArbCom; and given that ArbCom tends to be somewhat slow, those blocks may turn out to be longer than may be strictly necessary for the protection of the encyclopedia. That's not up to me. Rodhullandemu 01:02, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur that this was an inappropriate block. I don't support Pedro's language at ANI,[7][8][9] but a 3-hour block without warning was not the proper course of action. --Elonka 01:13, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Is it silly season? Punitive blocks are being handed out left, right and centre it seems. Geni, bad block. Really bad block. You talk to and warn seasoned editors about such things, and you certainly don't block while leaving the offending post in plain site at ANI. Sheesh. The power seems to have gone to a lot of heads. Fences&Windows 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, as noted at ANI I was indeed asleep, so that fixed nothing really. Nevertheless "prick" probably was on balance not the best use of language, so fairy nough. Still - at least I never called anyone "sycophantic" - that really would have been block worthy Pedro :  Chat  07:44, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Did I ever tell you about the time that ....? Actually I didn't call anyone sycophantic, I was just careless enough to use the word when talking generally about what I called "admin wannabees". Some administrators don't need much encouragement to issue blocks, as you've just found out. Malleus Fatuorum 12:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - whilst I agree that my choice of words was sub-optimal (to say the least, and I should apologise to TFM) it's quite interesting to see how easily someone can drop the ban hammer, without any warning and an hour after the "offence" has been commited. On reflection it's probably a useful lesson for anyone with the admin bit to be blocked. It also shows how right I've been to reserve my use of the block button to the most obvious cases and where blocking is only preventative - as opposed to punitive which seems to be the case here. Never mind. Pedro :  Chat  12:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Policy on Classification by Ethnicity, Gender, Religion and Sexuality

Hi, I have a problem with the article White Argentine. In the article I mentioned many people who are Argentine by birth and by option (they immigrated when they were children and stayed in Argetnina until their death, or they are now living there). All those people mentioned in the article are perfectly Caucasian by phenotype, and all have European/Middle Eastern ancestry. To see the names, check this older version of the article, for they are now removed. This is because some users appeared criticizing the article and alleging that mentioning all those persons without a source that explicitly define them as "White Argentine/Argentinian" was a breach to Wikipedia's BLP policy. Is that true? Because I read the article of WP policy on categorization by ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality, and the topic "Race" is still under dispute. Besides, one of the users that criticizes the article is also involved in the proposal/discussion/RfC of the policy itself. If the matter isn't still resolved, can they apply a rule that it is not fully valid yet? If I provide sources that every living Argentine mentioned in the article is of predominantly European ancestry, isn't that enough to define him/her as White? Please, help me clarify this doubt.--Pablozeta (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Pedro thy master

Hi. On looking at this MfD, I wonder, is there any relationship between Pedro (talk · contribs) and Pedro thy master (talk · contribs). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:00, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. No. A minimal amount of research would have solved your question without you needing to ask. Next time, try WP:SSP. Better yet, WP:AGF and WP:COMMON. Cheers for the assumption of bath faith. Merry Christmas. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

An improper relationship was so far from my mind I didn't even think of it. Sorry for the offense. I was wondering if he is a friend, or a fan, or a nuisance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Or just someone who choose a username with "Pedro" in it? :) A simple use of the search bar above reveals that typing User:Smokey lists plenty of other people with similar usernames to yourself. None of whom I imagine are vaguely related to your good self! Pedro : [[User_talk:Pedro|<font style="color:#== RfA ==

Hi Pedro, thanks for your kind comments, both on mhy talk page and the RfA. I've been getting disheartened at people opposing me for what I see to be pretty poor/easy reasons, but knowing that well-respected editors such as yourself have got my back is incredibly heartwarming! Thanks again, GiantSnowman 13:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

"well respected" is probably a little unlikely, but thank you for your kind words. Perhaps 6 months and then another try would be my best advice, FWIW. Sorry this time didn't happen - please don't loose heart in the project. Pedro :  Chat  17:18, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I was tempted to take a break following some of the comments from editors who are opposing me based on one tiny slip-up as opposed to nearly 5 years of solid contributions, but I won't let them get the satisfaction. I've learnt lots from the process and will definitely run again in a few months. GiantSnowman 15:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear, and impressed by, your commitment to a project that has hardly treated you well over the last week. RFA has turned into such a humiliating ritual these days it surely drives of quality contributors. I'm glad at least some of the opposition and neutral was able to give some positive feedback as well. If you need any help on anything just ask, and I look forward to supporting round 2 later in the year. Pedro :  Chat  16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that's one of RfA's biggest problems right now, that it is so often demotivating to good contributors, to the extent of driving them away. It's best avoided in my opinion. Malleus Fatuorum 16:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "demotivating" is rather kind. It's a cess-pit where AGF and CIV are thrown out the window. Pedro :  Chat  19:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your support, it was greatly appreciated; I'll be running again in a few months once I've ironed out some of the issues that people raised. Thanks again, GiantSnowman 19:16, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Moon landing conspiracy theories

Hi Pedro. My name is Stalkervision I am a retired professional photographer with 30 years experience in this field. Why are my edits being erased. The information written in wiki i edited was false and was not written by a photographer. It also has no photographic sources listed whatsoever to back it up. Please redo my edits. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalkervision (talk • contribs)

Replied at User talk:Stalkervision Pedro :  Chat  14:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I notice the word "verifiable" used here. Please show me the verifications for this original info. If it leads back to the Clavis hoax site be aware this isn't directly from nasa, it's a personal site. PHil Plait isn't a photographer this info is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalkervision (talk • contribs) 14:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The information on the cross hairs does come from clavius.org (which I assume is the site you mean?) but the page referenced then further cites other reference work - without a full reading I can't off-hand see exactly what parts of Clavius.org are referenced by the books indicated at the bottom; If you have concerns that the site we are referencing is a hoax site then I'd strongly urge that we have this discussion at Talk:Moon landing conspiracy theories where other editors can add input. Pedro :  Chat  15:02, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

They are all Photogrammetry book references and have nothing to do with what his asserts.

In fact he gives no references to pages in these books that he sites to prove his point whatsoever and also no links to said pages.

I have tried to work the forum you mention without much success. I will keep trying though.

Can I ask you this one question. When problems with the Clavis information have been brought

to the editors attention has anything whatsoever been change?

Is it worth the effort whatsoever?

Thanks Stalker

If there is a problem then it will be fixed - however you need to achieve a WP:CONSENSUS that there is a problem. Also note that it does not mean that the text will be changed - if the information is available from an alternative verifiable source then we would change the referencing (provided the refernce said materially the same thing) and not necessarily the text. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  16:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

addendum - I'm about to go offline - I'd suggest you copy your last post on your talk page over to the talk page of the moon landing conspiracy theory page as linked above. Also, don't indent lines with white space - that's why it comes up in the little box with the dotted line - if you need ot indent text you can use a colon sign : . Best. Pedro :  Chat  16:23, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

: thanks pedro  I will look into all this. Stalker  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stalkervision (talk • contribs) 16:34, 21 January 2011 (UTC) 

Wikipedia Ambassador Program is looking for new Online Ambassadors

Hi! Since you've been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, I wanted to let you know about the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, and specifically the role of Online Ambassador. We're looking for friendly Wikipedians who are good at reviewing articles and giving feedback to serve as mentors for students who are assigned to write for Wikipedia in their classes.

If that sounds like you and you're interested, I encourage you to take a look at the Online Ambassador guidelines; the "mentorship process" describes roughly what will be expected of mentors during the current term, which started in January and goes through early May. If that's something you want to do, please apply!

You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are friendliness, regular activity (since mentorship is a commitment that spans several months), and the ability to give detailed, substantive feedback on articles (both short new articles, and longer, more mature ones).

I hope to hear from you soon.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Given the random people contacted in your last tranch of spam, (everyone from Arbs to process wonkery maniacs) I'm afraid I'll decline. I do, however, have a $200,000,000 fortune I need to get out of my sub-Saharan country real quick. A small fee from you will ensure a return of 10%..... Pedro :  Chat  23:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh. Yeah, there's no good way to reach a large portion of the community at once, so the most effective way that I've found to recruit solid Online Ambassadors is to take some page or list or the like where a lot of good Wikipedians participate, and go through leaving talk page messages for the ones who are still pretty active. It isn't feasible to really research people ahead of time, since only some small portion are interested, and they usually self-select based on whether mentorship is something that fits with what they like to do on Wikipedia. Cheers --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat ]] 19:54, 27 December 2010 (UTC)