User talk:Pedro/Archive 44

Nil carborundum

Dont let the buggers grind you down. I felt like that last week. Go do some gardening/dressmaking/light engineering or something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You took the time many months ago to help guide me toward a goal, and put your own neck on the block. I truly appreciate all the effort put into helping me, as well as the trust you have given me. I'm hoping you get a nice quality break and come back refreshed. Hopefully, yours won't need to last as long as mine did. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 20:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro

You could say many things about him, some of which I couldn't argue with, but dishonesty and lack of integrity are two that really don't apply. And even if you disagree with that, I think you'd agree it's not the kind of thing you say in public. More of the straight talk and/or dripping sarcasm I've come to expect, and less venom, please, my friend. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd echo Floq's comments there, especially in light of my message you'd read removed just a day earlier. I see you're taking a break now, I hope it helps to bring a little clarity. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think firstly that I deliberately worded my comments to include "sufficient"; I never said he was dishonest or lacked integrity. I think secondly that it does come over as "venomous" so Floq. is right to pull me on that, and in hindsight (even with the inclusion of "sufficient") it was poorly thought out and needlessly rude. I'm not quite sure what to think about Malleus going to the talk page of everyone on the list, but that's up to him. I'd also note that the inability to admit he can make a mistake as shown here justifies my decision if not the phrasing I used when making. Pedro : Chat 16:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you guys can find a way to work this out. I have a lot of respect for both of you, and it's tough to see two people you respect have disagreements. — Ched : ? 16:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you're just making it up as you go along now Pedro. Malleus Fatuorum 16:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps it just seems that way. Pedro : Chat 19:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, it's a matter of interpretation. And the perception of others."[1] You really couldn't make it up. Malleus Fatuorum 20:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocking Pedro, ever, for anything, unless he goes batshit insane. Nor am I going to issue him templated warnings. I consider myself a friend of his, and friends try to talk to friends, not block them or template bomb them or patronize them in an attempt to be evenhanded. If I ever get to the point where I think he should resign the tools, I very much doubt I'd have to "initiate recall" online, I imagine I'd just send him an email suggesting he resign, and I imagine he'd think about it, and probably do it without needing two other people to agree; I flatter myself that he respects my opinion that much. Such an email is not on its way from me. I also imagine that if anyone else on his recall list emailed him, he'd do the same. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm not blocking Malleus, ever, for anything, unless he goes batshit insane. Nor am I going to issue him templated warnings. After that stupidity when I blocked Rodhullandemu for calling Malleus dogshit, one Malleus-related drama was enough for me; I want my next trip to ArbCom to be about something else, not because I've blocked him to appear even-handed. I would also likely never leave a suggestion that he tone things down on his talk page, or email him, because I don't think he values my input enough for it to do any good. Maybe I'm wrong.

So Malleus, and Pedro, and anyone else interested in bitter, unproductive complaining about how you've wronged each other and whose fault it is will have to do without my taking sides, or wielding the block button, or Twinkle-bombing anyone. Instead, I'll just sit here being continually amazed how much less mature online interactions between humans are, compared to flesh and blood interactions. I think it's related to the decreased likelihood of being punched in the nose. Or the lack of nonverbal cues. Or the inability to buy alcohol for each other. Or something.

But just on the off chance that you're doing it for our benefit: you don't like each other. We know. We get it. You can stop now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but then what's the point of your name being included in Pedro's list? Malleus Fatuorum 21:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? It's Pedro's list, he can do whatever he wants with it, for any reason he wants. What's the point of beating this dead horse? What would your preferred method be for selecting people on a recall list, find all the people who hate you the most and sign them up? ‑Scottywong | comment _ 23:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be to select those least likely to initiate a recall request, that's for sure. Pedro is apparently very concerned about appearances, so let's see him do the right thing. Either drop the pretence of having any practical recall procedure at all or select a few less admins like you, prepared to turn a blind eye. Malleus Fatuorum 23:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And if he doesn't, then what? You'll hate him even more? ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 23:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to believe that I hate him at all? I just think he's been acting badly for some time now and he needs to be reined in. And it would be nice to see a display of honesty about the recall process for once. Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro, since you've acknowledged that a certain edit summary was "needlessly rude", may I suggest that you apologise to the person you were rude to? Ϣere SpielChequers 08:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Since that incident started on my talk page during my RfA, and I have offered an olive branch out to Kiefer [2], and he has graciously accepted, I would ask that we consider moving on in this instance as well. Unless this serves some higher purpose that I fail to see, laboring the point seems counterproductive. I think we are all grown up enough to allow for the occasional, singular outburst of frustration. I would not have blocked another editor for this, and instead left a very strong message on their talk page for this singular incident. It seems this has already happened here enough times. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 14:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who's talking about the "occasional, singular outburst of frustration"?[3] Malleus Fatuorum 15:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WereSpielChequers was, thus the narrowness of my reply. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 15:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, how dare you distort the facts like that. Surely you noticed that Pedro was blocked a year and a half ago for a full 14 minutes, and then again 6 months ago for a full 2000 milliseconds. ‑Scottywong | yak _ 15:25, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he also noticed that you chose to ignore the diffs that Hipocrite posted to your talk page yesterday, at your request, and how swiftly you swept them under the carpet. Malleus Fatuorum 16:01, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're just confused over the difference between someone ignoring evidence, and someone dismissing bullshit evidence. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 16:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of us is certainly very confused, or extremely dishonest. Malleus Fatuorum 16:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had previously seen the comments, but it doesn't alter my point. As flawed as you surely agree that I am, if I can reconcile with Kiefer and neither of us concern ourselves with who is to blame nor even ask that the other party apologize, then surely you both are capable, if you so choose. I'm not arguing against your right to question Pedro, but I am not sure what the benefit is at this stage, as any point worth mentioning has already been said. If there is a higher purpose, perhaps something worthwhile to Wikipedia to be gained by continuing this examination, it isn't obvious to me and I would request you point it out. If there isn't, it is my opinion that putting some distance between you two is a better solution for now, as it is unlikely that you two will agree on these points at this time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 16:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the one dragging this out, that would be you. Pedro has made his position very clear, as have I, and there is no common ground between us. End of story. Malleus Fatuorum 17:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your recall page

You have removed the only "dissident" voice on your recall page. Please add me. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 17:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if it seems I've removed th eonly dissident voice. I was tempted to take you up on your other (sincerely - I was) but I'm afraid given the content of your user page at this moment in time I'm afraid not. Whilst your intentions in that regard may be noble I struggling to see how the release of IRC logs (a venue I assume people think will be private) reconciles with integrity. If there's a back story I'm missing then I'd be happy to reconsider. ta. Pedro : Chat 19:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IRC logs of public channels are not private. There's backstory you are missing, which is detailed at Wikipedia_talk:IRC#Records_of_policy_enforcement. Given that you have now considered it, I have removed my dated request from my user page. Please add my name to your category. Hipocrite (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might also want to refer to this long discussion that Hipocrite, Malleus, and I just wrapped up. If you're not aware yet, Malleus has started a separate thread on the talk pages of all 10 users who remain on your recall list. I'm happy to say that the discussion on my talk page was by far the most productive.</sarcasm> ‑Scottywong | confer _ 20:09, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Productive no, but it was certainly very revealing. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't disagree with that. ‑Scottywong | express _ 21:08, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your sign

Something diff then what is happening

Your correct sign is something like this: [[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk: It causes weird situations like above, so can you change it to?: [[User:Pedro|<b>Pedro</b>]] : [[User_talk:

Happy editing! Yash t 101 03:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recall procedure

Hi there. I have chosen you as one of the editors who may request my resignation as part of my my recall procedure. Could you have a look, and confirm whether you're happy being on the list? Thanks. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My Editor Review

I have been here for a while and want to improve myself. Though I try my best to do the right thing, I may do something wrong. As you have seen me work, can you please leave me a review as I want to know where I stand so far and what should I improve to be a good editor. Your opinion has always been valuable and your review can help. Thanks :) Yash t 101 08:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Considering an RFA

Hey Pedro, Your name came up in an idea I had at WT: RFA so I figured I'd ask you what you thought my chances would be at an RFA. During my last one, I blew a question at CSD and then took a wikibreak from being burnt out. When I returned I began to edit and actually try writing articles (now I have a few DYK and few more awaiting reviews). Then I had to leave suddenly for school, but now that it's over I should be consistently editing.--SKATER ^{Is Back} 15:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Signature

Just wanted to say, I was trying to make my signature a little more interesting without being distracting like it was previously, and while the tutorial by User:Smurrayinchester and WP:CUSTOMSIG helped, I copied your signature to my signature sandbox page here and used it as a template for my current signature. Overall, just wanted to say thanks! Imadeausername! (talk·contribs) 19:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brown

Gotta say I seem to be in good company. The latest graduate of the Class of Pedro really impressed me with his wise and helpful counsel to a fellow editor. Hope to see you back here soon. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ArbCom case involving you

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Nelly Furtado ethnicity dispute and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, ChromaNebula (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The involved editor is PedroPVZ (talk · contribs), not Pedro (talk · contribs). --auburnpilot talk 23:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You've got 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

→B music ian 09:58, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]