Hello - I believe your G3 of this page was in error, as it was only the most recent revisions that were vandalistic. I've taken the liberty of restoring the non-vandalistic ones. If this is not an acceptable solution to you, please go ahead and re-delete and we can go to WP:DRV. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brides Television
The site is known to be the only resource online for people looking for a comprehensive directory of wedding related television shows . Many wedding TV fans do not know that more than 3 or 4 wedding TV shows even exist and are broadcast in the United States. Would like a reconsideration on deletion of BridesTelevision.com .
Here is a source for you http://goldplanning.blogspot.com/ just do a search for bridestelevision.com . Samantha Goldberg is one of the top wedding planners in the United States and has been featured many times on "Whose Wedding is it Anyway?" If you could help me "usify" the article I would very much appreciate your contribution.
You can thank my watchlist and the refresh button! You actually edit-conflicted me when I was giving a {{uw-vand4}} but it was probably better to nip it in the bud anyway. Regards, EJF (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BRC & privacy concerns
Hey buddy, glad to have you back. Would you mind dropping in your opinion here? I'd especially like you to lend a voice because of what just happened to you. Thanks. GlassCobra01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think me leaving would be on a par with the loss of that fine editor! However I was never "leaving" at all - it was an emergency deletion due to very genuine privacy issues (and some insistence from she who must be obeyed!) Thanks for your kind words my friend! Pedro : Chat 07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
For the fix on my talk page, and for the block. If they react with insults when I ask him to read policy it's unlikely to go well... Ha hum. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I meant to reply to something you said over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/EVula_3 and I apparently forgot. Sure, "anyone can edit" is mentioned as part of one of the five pillars. Anyone can edit, sure, but this is really short for "Anyone can edit. And, anyone who can't collaborate reasonably with others can be shown the door." And, yes, we welcome everyone. Those who can't behave like reasonable adults use up that welcome very quickly. I don't think it's remotely contrary to the five pillars to admit that sometimes we have to show disruptive editors the door. Getting rid of those who are causing trouble helps make the environment welcoming for those who are here to do useful work. They're the ones who count. Friday(talk)20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more. What I'm confused about is how you think this is relevant to my arguments at EVula's RfB. At what point did I mention disruptive or non-collaborative editors? I'm talking about geuine editors (including those whose only contribution may be 1,000 almost entirely HUGGLE related edits). Editors who perhaps will never have the right temprament to be administrators, but who nevertheless are valued - well at least by certain sections of the community. Or do you believe that we should also be "showing them the door"? With respect, I'd ask you to read my arguments at the RfB, and the diffs provided, and consider wether your words above actually reflect the argument and concerns I was putting forward, or actually points that you think I was. Cheers. Pedro : Chat 07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read this and (I think) figured out why I had this thought. We should not be trying to retain all good faith editors. Good faith is a given- we assume everyone is trying to be useful. Good faith is necessary but not sufficient for being a constructive editor. The other half of the coin is competence- the actual ability to edit usefully. Lack of competence manifests itself in a couple common ways around here. Someone may have the best of intentions but is simply too immature to work in a collaborative environment. Or, someone may be too hot-headed and unable to take constructive criticism. Or, someone may be a kook - overly obsessed with one single issue so it clouds their judgment. We see these problems very commonly. And, in my opinion, as a community we're horribly bad at dealing with these situations. There's always a huge crowd of people who show up saying "So-and-so tries really hard.. we have to give him another chance!" Trying hard doesn't cut it. Competence is required. (And yeah, this isn't really relevant to the RFB, it's more of a general comment on Wikipedia and how we could solve some of the recurring problems we see here.) Friday(talk)14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree, and I agree there seems to be some horrible thing at RfA with people supporting based on "Oh, they've been around made 10,000 edits with automated tools so they deserve adminship" - like it's a reward. My point at the RfB was that EVula has, in the past, expressed the opinion that if we loose an editor after a failed RFA then it doesn't matter because they weren't fit to be an admin. This is where I disagree. Yes, not everyone can cut it here at all. And an even smaller percentage can cut adminship (at least if they use the buttons!). But just because someone is fundamentally unfit to be an admin doesn't mean we don't want them at all. The best possible outcome of RfA is two fold - 1) Competent editors with the janitorial bent of mind as well are given + sysop. 2) Editors not having the administrative "ability" are retained as editors and don't leave. And if they do leave we don't go "oh well, they'd have never cut it anyway".
Fundamentally it is up to the community to make the place more welcoming so that no good faith and well intentioned editor leaves through any other reason that no longer being interested or having the time to help. If we loose an editor through a failed RfA it is my belief that we should look to ourselves as a community to see where we went wrong, and not just hold our hands up in resignation of "what will be will be". </diatribe> :) Pedro : Chat 14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy question
Sorry to bother you -- I'm wondering if you can guide me to the Wikipedia policy that says, in a nutshell, "Thou shalt not be paid for work on Wikipedia". I'm not sure that WP:COI covers that precise situation. Accounting4Taste:talk23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I *may* be mistaken but I thought that was another young aspirant and not Giggy? (There may well be two separate incidents involving separate characters) Orderinchaos13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro. I added another Gwynand situation to the mentoring page for comment. Not sure where that page stands... will it be an ongoing project? Not really getting any traffic.
I've saw recent comments re:DHMO's RfA. Not sure what to say. If that can't be properly refuted... although I am already in the boat that in the vote-war that this RfA has become, I'm not sure how it can be argued that any real consensus was formed at the end to promote. Crats have a tough job, indeed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have a look for you. yes, I'm not sure if it's really working, but I've not been giving full energy to it recently. We shall see. Regarding DHMO's RfA this could be a killer. At this point I'm awaiting input from Giggy, but if it is as East718 lays it out (and I have no reason to doubt him) then the 'crats job may suddenly become a lot easier. At present the loss of just 15 or so supporters into oppose (assuming they actually oppose and didn't just go neutral) could be enough to sink it in raw numbers. Pedro : Chat 13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly could work... I certainly would like a venue that is totally appropriate for me to post my conduct and look for feedback from a general group of experienced editors, the key is though for it to get some traffic. As for DHMO, the percentage had already been at a steady decline from about 85% a few days go... assuming East wasn't improper with his statement (which I agree with you on, don't see how he could make such a thing up), then this could be over. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like it is already occuring. Unless East is flat out lieing in order to sway this thing (which under AGF and knowing him I'll totally rule out), when DHMO returns online, I think now might be the time to actually consider withdrawing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big sigh. Yes, I agree. When a few more people come on line in the US I can see this bombing before DHMO even gets to try and justify his actions (which on the face of it will seem pretty hard). This RfA is messy as it stands, so much bad feeling and accusations, which is why I've largely kept away from it since supporting. It's only going to get worse, methinks. Pedro : Chat 15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to edit that RFA anymore as well, too much by way of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. I really want what East added to be an additional misunderstanding, although it doesn't appear to be, and I wish water didn't live out in the ocean...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Keeper... my comments here of course aren't meant to be harmful to DHMO, really he has always been pleasant to me. On the other hand, the RfA doesn't need some mass exodus of support votes that either refrain or move to oppose/neutral. There is no consensus now, I don't think there can be in two days from now, a withdrawal would probably be the best for him if he tries to run again 6 months down the line. Two more days of this circus is just too much. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At time of writing the RfA is 304/80 plus neutrals. It would take just 15 editors to move to oppose to put the RfA at 75% by the numbers. Which taking into account the weight of the neutrals would then look like a default no consensus close to me at this time. However there are issues of canvassing / meat puppetry that have been alleged and would need to be weighed. The RfA is not beyond "success", but I am now in the position of wondering whose success that would be - DHMO's or Wikipedia as a whole? As has been noted, it is a shame that his timezone precludes a response, and we may yet see the RfA at 75% or less before he can even reply to East's comments. Pedro : Chat 15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he is still garnering new supports. I hate to say it, but I'd guess that several of the newer votes (oppose or support) aren't reading the entirety of the RfA, which of course they don't have to (but should). The last two supports really don't indicate they saw what East wrote, I doubt they did. In a way, that's a note to this consensus thing. I'm not gonna stand here and tell you that 304 supports is a clearn "no-consensus". What I will say, is looking at this RfA by itself, considering the warring between supports and opposes, the amounts of votes that seem to be trying to cancel out support/opposes, and admitting that this really has turned into a circus, regardless of DHMO's actions, I just don't see how a person can look at it and say "Yep, there is a consensus here to promote this candidate". It has become so massive, that I really don't think that many of the newer votes are really looking at all the info. Hard to find consensus from that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue, of course, is one has to AGF that the current supporters have done their review properly. On an RfA with some 400 comments that's tough going! As a whole, there's just everything in this RFA that's wrong - Meatpuppets, socks, SPA's, bad hand / good hand accounts, allegations of block voting from people in the same wiki projects, supports with precious little thought behind them, and opposes just the same. It's a mess. A bad joke. And poor old DHMO is sat in the middle trying to maintain his composure. So I do feel for him, and wonder if the stresses of the RFA have lead in part to the incident East has highlighted. Not that this would be an excuse. I can see either a withdrawl or possibly the need for an extension (though goodness me with 400+ comments you'd not expect that!). At this moment I could see a promotion. But I don't expect that situation to be the same in the near future. However it's both unfair to Giggy and pretty pointless to speculate on what might happen. Time will tell. Pedro : Chat 15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHMO rfa
Is there some reason not to say that the candidate blanked the RFA? I can't see why not. I can't see why "courtesy blanked" was correct - that would only be true if someone else had blanked it. In fact I can't see why it was blanked at all - it doesn't usually happen with failed or withdrawn RFAs. I assume that its because there is stuff there that DHMO doesn't want people to see, which is odd, because the history exists William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noticed you edited through my protection, so thank you for also coming to my page. I asked DHMO if I could change his wording (which he in turn changed from yours), as it struck me as having far to much drama around it. You will note, assuming you have looked at the history, that I have tried to achieve a totally neutral statment of facts in the blanking message, and personally have not used the word "courtesy". The facts at hand are simple. The RFA is blanked. DHMO blanked it. Therefore your current edit seems acceptable. The intention is to draw away even more drama from what has been a disapointingly drama fueled exercise. Again, thank you for coming to my talk page to advise that you made that change. Pedro : Chat 07:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't come here to advise you that I'd made the change; I came to ask the question I asked; which you've answered, thanks. You haven't answered the auxillary question - why it should be blanked - merely stated that DHMO blanked it. Thats not an answer; DHMO doesn't own the page. But we can let that go by; there are enough wounds here already. I will say that DHMO has done himself no favours by blanking it; it just looks petulant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you EVula. Mr Connolley, I hope that answers your auxillary question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd note that courtesy has historically also extended to not editing through another administrators page protection without discussion. Pedro : Chat 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think this? I am not a sockpuppet please feel free to check with a checkuser but I am willing to bet my life savings that I am not a sockpuppet. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because I have geek at the end of my name is that why I am suspected of being a sockpuppet? I had a look at that users contributions and they are nothing like mine at all so I dont see how I am a sockpuppet of this user. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there Pedro was just letting you know that I am going to stay away from the speedy delete button for a while, if the article needs it because it is an obvious reason to delete then I will add the tag but I have read the guidelines 3 times so that I dont get into trouble again. Chemistrygeek (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Whittard of Chelsea, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Whittard of Chelsea seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Whittard of Chelsea, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For a moment there, I had thought you had created an article or something! Did you get my email about some collaboration? giggy(:O)09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, technically it was created, deleted and then recreated and referenced by me. But it's not on my hugeWP:DYK list :) as it's kinf of a one paragraph stub. Yep, got your e-mail. Just as soon as RFPP, CSD and AIV are empty I'll be working on an FA ........... :) Pedro : Chat 09:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Saw and commented my dear! WP:AGF says one more go. I read his lengthy note on your talk page. He knows the score, and I think we're doing right by the editor, Wikipedia, and ourselves here. Hopefully! Pedro : Chat 19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been pointed in your direction from another editor, and I am asking if you would consider Admin Coaching me? I would be very gratful. Many thanks, yours. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺14:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, I've had a chance to look through now, so some feedback. I'm moving away from "admin coaching" as there has been a lot of recent debate at WT:RFA and WP:RFA that it is less than desirable. The key, as I and some others see it, is that there is a strong difference between coaching someone on how to become an administrator (read - how to pass RFA) and how to be a good and effective administrator. To this end a few of us are working on a project at User:Pedro/Mentoring which may or may not succede. I'd encourage you to review that page and participate there. With regard to your work so far, two (hopefully helpful) pointers;
Engage "force an edit summary" in your preferences - communication is vital
STOP doing things like this [1]. Of about 3,900 contributions 538 are to you user page - almost 14%. If you must count your edits do it every 1,000 (minimum!)
You're clearly on the right track, no question. Also, ask yourself the following question, and feel free to reply to me here or at the mentoring page - "Why do you want to be an admin"? Pedro : Chat 09:24, 4 June
2008 (UTC)
Thank you =] Also I did do that check box in the preferences about me being reminded to do an edit summary.
I would like to be an admin because I have been heavily involved in editing the English Wiki on subjects I am interested in, but also with this I would like to be a wider part of the community and even help it best I can. Helping Wikipedia is an ambition for me because when I edit/search pages I come across a fair amount of vandalism, I would like to play my part in helping cease the bad things such as that. Police,Mad,Jack (talk·contribs)☺14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing wrong with your neutral stance, in that at RfA everyone has their own "standards" (wether codified in an essay or whatever) or "expectations" before offering a support. I do feel that Majorly's reply was out of line, and not at all what I expect from an experienced editor. I'll explain why, before I get a barrage of abuse. If an editor with 600 edits opposes a candidate with 2,000 edits for not having enough experience I would not expect their oppose to be challenged in the same way Majorly has done here - this is an ad hominum argument. The fact that you've had RFA's yourself seems immaterial in this instance. Having said that I don't think your comments Epbr's edits are perfunctory, mechanical, robotic, thoughtless, and seem to have nothing more to say rather than "I want my edit count as high as possible" are ideal at all. You'd have done yourself more favours without that comment I'm afraid, and to be honest in light of the evidence posted further down I'd be inclined to consider striking that part. Pedro : Chat 07:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that much of Majorly's behaviour has been out of line recently, so if I were you Wisdom I'd just shrug it off. You're perfectly entitled to state your opinion; there are aspects of this nomination that I'm not entirely comfortable with either, but time will tell. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pretty surprised by the whole stance. The "thoughtless" comment was especially eye-widening. Not that it's really a big deal, I suppose - just out of character, at least in my opinion. Aliquando et insanire iucundum est, maybe? ;-). Tan | 3921:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My ire peaked when Majorly decided to use a veiled immature comment to call me a hypocrite, so perhaps that's where it came from. I was a little ticked to see two respected users (who barely give any thought in RfA anyway - Majorly just makes lightly barbed comments, and Naeri signs his name, sorry guys) take exception to my opinion, which was completely justified. That's all. I've explained my position. Wisdom89(T / C)22:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Well you asked for my thoughts and you got them :). Whilst I understand very much how you'd be more than irritated by the comments made (which were poor) it's still best to rise above them - difficult I know, but it seems to me you went a bit OTT against the candidate due to your ire with Majorly and Naeri - which was not the candidates fault. Pedro : Chat 22:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the "thoughtless" (pun intended) comment shouldn't have been made, which was almost certainly due to frustration. It is not the candidate's fault. Still, I maintain my initial position that such reversions using Huggle are mechanical. I asked, Pedro because I already knew the answer. It was uncivil, and I wanted to bring it to your attention (partially) for you to just flat out tell me : ) Wisdom89(T / C)22:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - adminship is a big step. Although it's something I've considered, most of my edits (as I'm sure you've seen) have been small ones - fixing red links, reverting obvious vandalism, categorising etc., with the occasional Prod/AfD/CSD thrown in. It's only in the last month or so that I've expanded my horizons to participate more in the 'wider Wikipedia world' in terms of warning users about deletions/vandalism, AfD discussions, major changes to pages and so on. At the moment then, I don't consider that the majority of contributions I make require admin functions, I still have issues deciding if articles meet WP:N or not (so I need to improve there), and I'd want to get more into the AfD/anti-vandalism areas before I seriously considered applying (and would probably ask for admin coaching at that point). I think that's a reasonable statement of my current WP state :-) CultureDrone (talk) 09:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DHMO rfa
You said:
Thank you EVula. Mr Connolley, I hope that answers your auxillary question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd note that courtesy has historically also extended to not editing through another administrators page protection without discussion. Pedro : Chat 07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Mr Connolley. You don't own pages you've protected. If you're going to protect them in a misleading state, you can expect them to be corrected. I find it somewhat odd that you deleted this thread without leaving me time to read it. If thats because you find this all distateful, then feel free to delete this again William M. Connolley (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. One tends to assume that user names such as your own are real names not pseudonyms. Also, apologies for archiving early (not deleting - I confess I can't understand why you think this was deleted when you self evidently found my reply) - I tried to note all active threads but missed yours. As to the main point, please review the situation fully;
I requested a change to the note, as I felt it to be rather dramatic [6]
Your defenition of "misleading" is yours, but I actually made efforts to make the statement neutral and not misleading. I hope you can see this. Pedro : Chat 20:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure whether its worth beating this one to death, but: its not a pseudonym. You have the right edit, but must have missed the edit comment: this page has *not* been courtesy blanked; its been blanked by DHMO, and it should say that at least. I don't see how omitting the name of the blanker makes it any more neutral; to me it seems misleading by omission. But checking the diffs, I see it was DHMO that did that. As I said, I'm still quite unsure why he has behaved like this William M. Connolley (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, apologies for the "Mr." bit. I'm really not sure what you want from this - are you acknowledging that you made an error and had assumed it was I that made the original blanking or other posts? That's what I read from But checking the diffs, I see it was DHMO that did that. I didn't miss the edit summary, I assure you. I simply strived for a neutral and, perhaps more importantly (in this one case), a more drama free note on the blanked page. Pedro : Chat 21:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
Hey, i understand that you reverted the changes I made to BiteFight. I understand the part about the links, but you also reverted much valuable information about hunting, stats, and shadow-lord(member/premmy etc...). I have much experience in this game, and i think that you should let these important edits stay...
THEDEFLEDONE (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!
THEDEFLEDONE (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just edit conflicted with your advice on edit conflicts but as your text was almost word for word identical to mine I didn't need to follow the instructions. nancy(talk)11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've been just taking 'er easy, anything I'm not sure about I'll either comment or let another admin take action so I can see what others thought appropriate. Yes, that does help. Too bad you can't RSS a user's contribs or something. xenocidic (talk) 13:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I noticed. /shrug. Know of any admins that have a nice admin dashboard? I'm trying to improve mine, particularly looking for a way to add CSD in there. xenocidic (talk) 13:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's helpful, I'll pilfer borrow some elements from there. Unfortunately that category track isn't being updated anymore as far as I know. But I think I might be able to pimp it out using the {{pagesincategory}} thingee I learned about a while back. xenocidic (talk) 13:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts that have degenerated into vandalism only
Wasn't quite sure what to do about this user, some constructive edits in the past, but pretty much vandalism only these days. I dropped a 24 hour, as they've not been blocked in the past. xenocidic (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 24 hoursd is fine, and just watchlist there talk or something and indef. if they do it after their return. There as been some talk recently about not leaping in with indef. even for clear bad faith accounts - but no guideline came from the discussion IIRC. Pedro : Chat 15:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A request for some help
Hi Pedro - I've seen you around a lot, and you've commented at things like my RfA (thanks for the support, etc.!) and I actually value you opinion. I am convinced that you could assess a discussion for consensus impartially and let me know what the response is.
Unless you've managed to miss it, a discussion has boiled over on the topic of FritzpollBot. The discussion appears to now be winding down, but there is no formal mechanism by which I can determine consensus. As the bot's operator, and holding particular views on the matter, I should not be allowed to, and thus will not judge what should happen.
Goodness me, that's fun isn't it. I'll do some off-line working weighing the nature of the major arguments each way and see what it looks like. Might be a while.... Pedro : Chat 13:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh God Fritz, I feel pretty guilty for approving you and pushing you into all this. "OMG no moar stubs" seems to be the catchcry, which is just lame. My advice is to utilise thesepages. ;) giggy(:O)13:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Congrats, Giggy, you just openly tried to bias what was supposed to be a completely neutral admin arbitrating the consensus of a highly-contested page. Well done... :( Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that Pedro, a much better arbitrator than myself, would be biased by comments I've made here which I've repeated in the discussion anyway. giggy(:O)14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Girolamo, if it eases your mind, I promise I can be totally neutral on this, as firstly I haven't participated (although I was aware of it) and secondly I really have no strong feelings one way or other (hence my lack of participation!!) Pedro : Chat 15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is going to require considerable time. There are both strong and weak arguments made on either side, a variety of diffrent argument, and a number of sub threads that need to be considered as well. Allthough a first glance indicates some clear lines to follow, consensus is not immediately self evident. I will be pleased to work on this over the weekend as time allows. Pedro : Chat 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you can, please do, and I look forward to your conclusions. A result of "no consensus" is also acceptable. To make life easier, I'm going to remove this from the watchlist template now Fritzpoll (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that too. Seems rather suspicious that an IP would come complaining about CG to you directly (of course your name (Nancy) is all over CG's talkpage, I suppose IP could just as easily come to my talk or Pedros...)Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All explained now - was entirely genuine & he didn't realise he wasn't logged in. I haven't actually asked but I'm guessing that Keeper is right that he picked up my name from CG's talk (not the only one it seems, I am now the official CG complaints department). Feeling quite guilty about thinking it might be trolling now. nancy(talk)19:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
this edit was made by this user, and CG "warned" him. CG never edited teh Shell article directly, or reverted. (And the diff doesn't have spelling errors anyway). I'm willing to bet that this user (about 50 edits since January, so consistent), is the IP. Still baffling why CG would "warn" him, but not actually change the article. Hmm. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeper you need to go forward one edit on the link that you have provided that is why I have warned the user for it as it was a spelling mistake on King William not the edit that you have found. Chemistrygeek (talk) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Below is what I found on the history of the page feel free to comment about it but I believe that I have warned the correct user. If I havent then I will go to the userpage an appologise for the adding of the warning and remove it. Chemistrygeek (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Revision as of 12:04, June 5, 2008 (edit)
Wikiuser100 (Talk | contribs)
m (→Diversification)
← Older edit
Royal Dutch Petroleum Company was a Dutch company founded in 1890 by Jean Baptiste August Kessler, along with Henri Deterding and Hugo Loudon, when a Royal charter was granted by Dutch king Willem III to a small oil exploration company known as "Royal Dutch Company for the Exploration of Petroleum Wells in the Dutch Indies" (now Indonesia).
Kizzy
Thanks for revising that article, it took me a while to realize what it was all about. I still think it needs work but at least it's readable now! Thanks, Shoombooly (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No probs my man - as ever because I'm useless it may be a day or so. (Going to a christening tomorrow so unlikely to be on WP as I'm going to be a Godfather) Pedro : Chat 21:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole no problems at all - nice diverse work, doing what you're interested in. I was, however, a bit concerned by this. I know how heated that article gets but please (and I know it's hard) focus on the task at hand. If you're receiving ad hominum attacks rise above them. Don't respond by criticising editors no matter how obliquely or how justified you feel. I reiterate, 99% of your work is great. I saw you involvement trying to mediate a heated discussion as well, which was good. But sometimes you just have to bite your tongue. (Well, tie up your typing hand as the metaphor doesn't really work !) It's not a common occurence I admit, and your style comes across as far more relaxed than previously. I commend you for that and urge you to keep on being WP:COOL. Pedro : Chat 10:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:FritzpollBot
Hi - can't help but smile when you go from impartial to supportive just reading the proposal. Thanks for the help though - I'm sure we'll meet on Keeper's talk page! Fritzpoll (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My Rfa
Thanks, Pedro, for participating in my recent RfA, which recently passed with 81 support and 1 neutral !votes. I appreciate all the support and constructive criticism offered in my RfA and I thank you for taking the time to !vote in my nomination. I feel so honoured to be trusted by so many of you and please, if you have any advice, comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page.
Hi again ! Well, you did say ask if I had any questions..... Can you have a quick look at my recent contributions - you'll see I've changed a lot of US school articles to redirects per WP:SCHOOL - i.e. the schools have failed to establish any notability per the guidelines given, and are basically just articles with an address and infobox. Having done so many, my nerve is failing, and I'd like an opinion as to whether I'm following guidelines, in case I have to justify my actions to the author. Thanks. :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACC
Hey there. I was told I need to ask an admin for Account Creator privledgesSince you gave me rollback I thought I'd ask you. I was already approved for SQL's tool and signed up to the mailing list as well. Thanks! §hep • ¡Talk to me!19:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the comments you left me on my RFA. Adminship is definitely something one wouldn't want to dive into. I used the expression, "What does this button do?" on someone elses talk page and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Whether it's a red button that destroys the world or a white button that blocks a user, they both can have consequences :). <3TinkleheimerTALK!!21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your help please...
The record shows you recently deleted the redirect Tina M. Foster, because it did not point at an existing article.
Could you please tell me where it redirected to?
Sorry to butt in, but I think Pedro may be fast asleep (or he should be...) That redirect pointed to Tina Monshipour Foster, which was also speedy deleted (by CSD G12; copyright infringement). If there is another "Tina M. Foster" that should have an article, by all means, recreate! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer22:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Geo Swan. What Keeper said! That (and if memory serves a couple of other redirects as well) were created by the sam eauthor but the main article was a WP:CSD#G12 copyvio.
Please let me see the deleted version of this article. A quick Google search has convinced me that the deletion was premature. I discovered that the user that created it seems to create articles in good faith and with knowledge of Japanese culture but doesn't understand the aggressive, overeager patrolling and tagging that is done too often. Also, are you able to see the list of articles that this user created that were deleted? If so, I'd like to see it. --C S (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually the only deleted article created by that user (the only other couple of deleted contributions are a redirect and a request at page creation. Looking at the article, I think it would have fallen foul of WP:CSD#A7 back in September of last year, and is borderline now. The only possible assertion is that there is one reference - A7 has been modified recently such that a reference may count as an assertion of notability. If you'd like me to undelete that article please ask - I'll be happy to - but it would require some work to ensure it doesn't fail WP:MUSIC. Pedro : Chat 07:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your opinion, but I can also make this kind of determination based on my experience also. There is no need to undelete the article. Please let me see the deleted version, as I requested, and then I will make the decision to recreate it or not. Thank you. --C S (talk) 07:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned it up and made it a nice little stub at Mina Aoe. I think you'll find it's in good shape now. Thanks. You can delete the redirect in my userspace which was created when I moved it. I wanted to preserve edit history...but now I realize it's not complete since the original creator's not listed. Oh well. I don't know how that kind of thing is usually handled. --C S (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Killed the redirect. Good work by yourself. One comment - the blue links in the discography are a bit misleading; I'd expect them to go to an article on the album, not a place (or to our article on blues. I'd suggest de-linking them at the moment. Pedro : Chat 11:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request for Rollback rights
Hi Pedro, i saw your name on the list of Wikipedia administrators willing to grant rollback requests, and was wondering if i would be able to obtain Rollback rights from you. I love Wikipedia, the community, and the articles. I find them helpful and informative. I try to patrol the recent changes as best as i can, but it is tiresome and difficult to undo vandalism when there are a large amounts of edits as the undo feature is only useful for the newest. I also have recently discovered Huggle, however without rollback this program does not work. I realise i have a relatively small amount of edits, however i believe i am an experienced editor here and have familiarised myself with all policies and rules. I do know that rollback rights are a huge responsibility, and misuse could disrupt wikipedia severly, but i believe i am up for the challenge and only wish to help and contribute to Wikipedia, as i believe it is a fantastic resource that needs to be maintained. As far as i know, there are no set requirements for requesting rollback rights, but if you have any standards you wish me to meet before you feel comfortable enough to consider me, please let me know and i will do my best to achieve them. Thank you in advance for any decision you make, and thank you for taking the time to read my request. Once again, contact me on my talk page if you have any concerns. Best wishes and happy editing, Metagraphcomment09:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First off, thank you for your support. In my current RfA, you said "My cautiousness is that Q1 seems a little bland". I'm not particullarly sure what you mean, could you clarify so I can fix it to be more to your liking? ffm12:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's no biggie, and I saw you made some additions. I prefer a nice direct answer to Q1 that relates to demonstrated experience e.g. "I have 1,000 acurrate speedy tags so I will be working at CSD" or "I have been clerking at RFPP so will be working there". In your case I think you should have presented that fact that you wanted really to work at WP:ERRORS. The statement you made really looked like a "list of popular admin areas" (i.e. just about every major area admin tools are needed) rather than a specific statement of how the tools will help you in your prefered area of skill. Having said that, it's my personal thoughts, so don't get too hung up on it - I did a very thorough review and I'm sure you'll be more than capable and am delighted to support. Pedro : Chat 12:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest you stop refactoring it now.....others have commenetd in support, perhaps based on the original answer, so to keep on changing it seems a little wrong. Pedro : Chat 12:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't want to make a huge deal out of this or anything, so I thought I'd just chime in here. FFM, be very cautious when changing your answers after the RfA has already started and votes have been made. When I say cautious, I mean, I think it's improper to do it at all. Maybe to clarify you can add something, and even then, make it explicit that you added to the answer. Ive seen a candidate do this before and it hurt their RfA when pointed out. There are no specific rules anywhere written on this, but the basic premise is that one shouldn't change their answer to something better after getting feedback, I guess for reasons that are obvious. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs13:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya. Just a courtesy note to say I've named you as one of the editors that I would accept a request for recall from. There's nothing onerous about it, and you don't have to do anything. It's simply to let you know that as I have added myself to CAT:AOR I needed some unfussed criteria for recall, and I believe your judgement fits that criteria neatly. Thanks! Pedro : Chat 10:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did giggy cross post that here, or did you notify yourself of your own criteria... or am I in the wrong place? <_< ... >_> This is your talk page, right, Pedro? I'm slightly surprised to be named, considering our rocky past and frequent disagreements on various issues, however, for that same reason, I'm touched... not like that. o.O If you should end up going through a recall, I'll most certainly be one of the three signatures ;), but until then, much love. As an aside, I just put up my criteria a few days ago... and somewhat humorously, you don't qualify to certify a request, though you could initiate one. :P I think this is the most smilies I've ever used in one post. :D LaraLove|Talk|13:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I feel somewhat like Lara. Six months ago you were opposing my RfA, we subsequently had a "full and frank exchange of views", and now this. Just one question though; what are the criteria for anyone to be removed from your list? ;-) Just joking, I'm seriously flattered that you believe I can be trusted to act fairly and responsibly in this matter. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To be removed from Pedro's list, you'll have to make your own list of respected/respectful editors, of which any three can initiate your recall from Pedro's list. Of course, they will each have to make a list as well to be open to the possilibility that they aren't suited to be on your list...and so on and so forth...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and I've decided I'm the "captain" of Pedro's list. It's quite obvious (at least to me), that he listed them by order of importance. ;) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that hint EVula - done. And thank to all. I deliberately made sure that I did not just select a bunch of editors I've allways being number one buddies with - that would be dishonest. I've also selected people with the skills who can identify poor administrator performance. Let's hope you guys never need to start signing.... :) Pedro : Chat 18:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I give Pedro full marks for putting his balls on the block with nutcases he's fallen out with in the past. I'm speaking only for myself you understand Lara. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say I really don't see the point in this. If you go batshit insane, things will happen anyways - this just seems like overkill. I suppose there's no harm in it, other than just another bureaucratic facet to this place - Tan | 3920:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going batshit insane will get you desysop whether you are open to recall or not. This isn't for when he goes batshit insane, or apeshit, rather when he flips his shit. You see. :) And Malleus, you can include me in that, as I'm sure you have. ;) Haha, LaraLove|Talk|22:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, sorry, I was just strolling by and overheard your conversation... I wasn't eavesdropping, I promise! :) That revision, in my opinion, is most certainly POV and should be removed until a source is added. I didn't check out the editor who added it, but it's potentially a COI edit. Okay, I'll be on my way now... :D LaraLove|Talk|13:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro, I feel kind of honored to be on the list : ) But seriously, one question. I see that you've chosen some pretty astringent criteria - Three or more editors and you'll ask to be desysoped no questions asked. While admirable, I'm confused though. The chosen criteria is up to the administrator in said category, but I was under the impression that it was to stand for a reconfirmation RfA. Or am I mistaken? Wisdom89(T / C)20:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If three or more editors from the list believe I have abused or simply misused my admin tools to the point I shouldn't have them I'll go to meta and ask for a desysop. That's basically it. I trust the editors on the list not do it for the hell of it - only if they genuinely believe I'm out of line. I don't ever believe I will misuse/abuse admin tools - hence my confidence in my very open recall criteria. However many have spoken about how hard it seems to be to prize the tools from an admin. Methinks it's time for me to put up and make my recall criteria direct, clear and very very simple. I make no mention of reconfirmation RFA's. The one thing I wouldn't do is then just ask for the tools back at BN without one. I'd prefer not to have them at all than go back on my implied (if not stated) word. Pedro : Chat 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My RFB
Thank you for your comments in my RFB. Since it was only at 64%, it was a shoo-in to be unsuccessful, so I withdrew. I didn't want it to run until its scheduled close time because my intent in standing for RFB was to help the bureaucrats with their workload, not give them one more RfX to close. Through the course of my RFB, I received some very valuable feedback, some of it was contradictary, but other points were well agreed upon. I have ceased my admin coaching for now to give me time to revamp my method. I don't want to give up coaching completely, but I'm going to find a different angle from which to approach it. As for my RFA Standards, I am going to do some deep intraspection. I wrote those standards six months ago and I will slowly retool them. This will take some time for me to really dig down and express what I want in an admin candidate. If, after some serious time of deep thought, I don't find anything to change in them, I'll leave them the way they are. I'm not going to change them just because of some community disagreement as to what they should be. Will I stand for RFB again in the future? I don't know. Perhaps some time down the road, when my tenure as an administrator is greater than one year, if there is a pressing need for more active bureaucrats, maybe. If there no pressing need, then maybe not. Useight (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smile
- DiligentTerrier(and friends) 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. Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[I hope this is the correct way to leave a comment - I haven't done this before!]
Earlier today you deleted a page I posted, Nottingham Laser Clinic, for blatant advertising. I accept this decision fully, but was wondering if you could help me with what overstepped the mark in terms of advertising? My aim was to produce an informative article about the company, and I patterned it after an existing article - Surgicare - in the hope that I would strike the correct balance. I've read a few other articles on companies and can't see a particularly discernable difference in the article I submitted. Obviously there was a difference, so I'd like to find out what that is, as this is my first article so I'd obviously rather not repeat the mistake... Any tips / comments would be very helpful!
I just visited my talk page for the first time and noticed that you had moved the page when I was working on it to my userpage from user:USERNAME. I didn't spot my error there, nor did I spot your help, but thanks for that!
Many thanks for the pointers. I understand what you mean. I'll try to come up with a more objective version and let you know - if you could check that for me (before I submit it, obviously) that would be great. Thanks again for your help!
I specifically didn't review in order to make an impartial comment at WT:RFA. If the editor asks foer the tools that would be a different thing of course. Pedro : Chat 23:21, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still running from the drama. It's rare for me to become angry here, but the other user's remarks were not appropriate I suggested that Shalom take it to WP:AN/I. I think he should get an editor review before another RFA. Dlohcierekim23:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very rare for you, good sir, given how mellow you are! A difficult issue, and I've not got time to review properly, but I'm happy to voice in general conversation prior to any RFA. I agree that ER may help solidify thoughts and gain valuable insight that WT:RFA will not. Pedro : Chat 23:38, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Yes, in general Wikipedia is still fun. I enjoy doing general cleanup, fixing headers, rewording sentences, stuff like that. Um, what do you mean when you say, "What are you hoping to work on next?" RC-0722361.0/114:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yeah, Xenocidic said this morning that RfRBot was "in limbo" (whatever that means...) and that archiving should be done manually until it's fixed (see this edit summary). Hence the manual archiving. :) But it's good that not done's can be deleted without archiving, that saves some work! Best, PeterSymonds(talk)21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c)Sorry that was bad communication on my part too. I always thought that we should archive notdone RFR's, but when I undid a user's blanking of their request a few days ago it was reverted. So I was never really sure! :D Thanks, PeterSymonds(talk)21:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They were removed back in April due to me using them to revert a removal by the BLP bot of something I didn't think was a BLP violation the log, the revert. I later realised that the information that had been included was completely false and won't be using rollback (or any other form of reversion) to revert edits made under the guise of BLP. Naerii (complain) 00:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I'm confident you're clear on when to use the tool and when not to. Please remember it'll be revoked again if misused, although I'm sure it won't be. Pedro : Chat 00:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well done for reverting vandalism at Hand of God goal, but when you revert, be careful to repair the whole of the damage done: not just removing any offensive comment that they might have made, but also restoring any deletion. Thanks, and keep up the good work. Kevin McE (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't involve in any dispute, I was just trying to save this article from miscreants and I requested to protect this article and its been protected now. I hope it clarifies the situation. Kindly retrospect your decision. --Falconkhe (talk) 04:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nottingham Laser Clinic
Hi, I've tidied up the Nottingham Laser Clinic page, User:RentaCenta/NLC, and was wondering if you could have another look at it for me please? I understand that the Mail and Express articles are not dedicated to Nottingham Laser Clinic, but they definitely mention the clinic, and I was trying to use them as evidence of media attention / reputation... Not sure if this is correct?
Any pointers would be great! Thanks for your continuing help.
I know that you might not grant it but was wondering if you could grant the IP block exemption because my college network is always being blocked for vandalism and is really annoying. Thatcher set out some guidelines on the colleges talkpage. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:212.219.59.241 It is continually happening and I keep getting caught up in this block. I will understand if you dont want to grant it but would be an advantage for me. Chemistrygeek (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking at that for me! I actually referenced that appointment later in the main body but I've moved the reference to the lead now, User:RentaCenta/NLC,. So you think it'd be ok to submit it now?
Think I should be able to move it. Many thanks for your help, I really appreciate it. If I need help in the future would I be alright coming back to you?
Yes, I'm just trying to fix that. Do you know what copyright tag I should use? I'm finding it difficult to work out... Thanks for correcting the title.
Yeah, I'm just reading through the fair use stuff now. I'll carry on reading for my own education on the subject, but if you think it's unlikely to fall under that category then I'll probably just leave it off. Many thanks again!
I uploaded the image again by mistake with incorrect copyright info (it's not showing on the NLC article page though). Could you remove it for me please? Sorry for the error! I was trying to get the hang of the copyright tag and fair use rationale, but I didn't realise I couldn't edit it once it was uploaded. I'm not sure that the logo doesn't fall under fair use by my reading of the guidelines, but I'm gonna leave it alone for now anyway as I have stuff to do!
Many thanks again for all of your help with this - it's good to know that the Wikipedia community is helpful and collaborative!
Hello Pedro. I've noticed that you have a completed set of responses to the RfA Review question phase at User:Pedro/RFA Review , but they don't seem to be included on the list of responses here. If you've completed your responses, please can you head to Wikipedia:RfA Review/Question/Responses and add a link to them at the bottom of the list so that they get included in the research. We have a closing date of midnight UTC on 1st July, so please add your link before this date. Once again, thank you for taking the time to participate in the Question Phase of RfA Review.GazimoffWriteRead15:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your kind words which have given me strength at this terrible time. You've always been a good friend to me, and have shown it once again. Your genorisity of spirit will never be forgotten. Love, Jeffpw (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
