Actually, he contacted me with a non-answer. I asked for a link to his RFA. As i said before, i can't be bothered searching on my own. He still hasn't answered.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, apologies I did misread thinking you needed a link to my recall standards, which I have now noted are in fact not on my userpage, and I have fixed that. Xeno - indeed - we need more on this. Arguing and debating are part of Wikipedia but when the tools come out we need closer review. It is too easy for abuse to happen and admins "close ranks". Open and honest debate must be had. Pedro : Chat 20:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's odd. In his response to me, he said that only his pals could initiate his recall. Yet in his RFA, he said that he was open to genreral recall. Clear now.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on that list that you appear to be characterising as "Pedro's pals", but if you believe that I wouldn't be fully prepared to ask for Pedro—or any other administrator—to be desysopped if I felt it was appropriate to do so, then you must be living in a cave. --MalleusFatuorum21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up - I think, Bali, you misread the recal page. I specifically included editors I've had disagreements with. In my RFA I made not mention of "general" criteria. I note from your writing that English is not your first language, so apologies, but on en.wikipedia please expect english responses. Pedro : Chat 21:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since pedro asks, his response to me here [1] directed me here [2] where one finds if 3 out of about 12 hand-picked editors agree to recall, that he will consider recall. Yet in his RFA, which was later provided to me here Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2, we find that he is simply "open to recall" not, as is in fact the case, "open to recall if near-impossible to meet conditions align." I will continue to respond here if i am asked questions or my interventions are commented on.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What recall criteria would you like me to have Bali? Bear in mind most admins have no criteria at all and that at no point was recall mentioned at my RFA with the exception of that question. Under current convention I can be an admin for life with no regard to the community. I opt to be more transparent, honest and open. Tell, me, do you have an editor recall statement? Under what circumstances will you stand down from editing? Pedro : Chat 21:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, please note (as it is likely lost in the editing) this [3] from an editor who (though I respect) I have had major disagreements with, opposed his first RFA leading to a pile on, and generaly have had a less than love-in experience with. "Pals" is exactly wrong. And I must put Jenna back on the list now she's back editing. And Tan, as we just had a bust up. Just a note. Pedro : Chat 21:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since you ask -- I don't really care about your recall criteria. Having today looked at your content contributions, i think it's sad that you became an admin, but what's done is done. Why did i ask? Because you were being very pointy in your efforts to seek the help of another admin in your project to... hurt the admin in question. I turned your actions around on you, and found some hypocrisy; when at RFA you were simply "open to recall." After RFA, as it turns out, multiple hand-picked editors had to be in agreement on Tishabav and then you'd consider the proposal. This hypocrisy (of such a common-place nature that it ordinarily goes without saying) caught my eye. I brought it up with you now because you mounted your high-horse against someone else, who appears to have behaved just a little more straightforwardly on this issue than you have.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I'm wrong. I'm a disgrace to the admin community and to the english wikipedia in geneal. I lied at RFA by pledging to be open to recall and then .... being open to recall to a mix of close "wiki-friends" and people I've violently disagreed with. I'm sorry Bali but I really can't argue this one to be honest - because I frankly don't care about you or your opinion. Pedro : Chat 21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
@Bali, after 2 ec's, per request for "please provide me with a link?" To any RFA it would Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/username of interest here, with a space followed by a number for subsequesnt RFA's. So for Pedro it would be Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro for his first and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pedro 2 for the one that succeeded. Also, to me, the "I'm too busy to be bothered strikes me as . . . off putting? weird? Totally unnecessary? If "you can't be bothered, why should anyone else? Also, if you are looking into another user's conduct, would you not wish to initiate some sort of dispute resolution followed by RFC followed by Arbcom? Youseem distressed that recalling Predo isn't easy enough for you. For the record, I'm one of those Admins who does not believe in recall and have not set up a process for recall. (Flattered that I'm on Pedro's list. Looking at the list, if anyone on it had a serious concern about my ability I'd take a step back and seek more info.) I'd thought this recall business had been left in the past, but the one's who did set up recall criteria used a narrow or restricted list. I think having any recall criteria at all, beyond the standard dispute resolution processes, is being overly agreeable. What exactly has Pedro done that you dislike and have you tried discussion? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem confused. I'm simply apeing his conduct. Surely, imitating an administrators conduct is always a productive thing, no? I have no "hate" for anyone here.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I demand some equality here. I was blocked yesterday for using the phrase "sycophantic wannabee" in reference to an unnamed editor. Yet Bali gets away with a direct "useless drama-monger"? He must have powerful friends. --MalleusFatuorum22:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't beat yourself up, I'd completely forgotten about that unfortunate incident. Which wasn't an abuse of admin tools anyway, just straightforward abuse (not from you I hasten to add). Anyway, I don't think there's anything to see here, and I really can't see anyone on your list doing anything except yawning in boredom at this. --MalleusFatuorum22:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, exactly, do you want me to clarify? I can't understand your question Bali. I'm sorry, and I'm really not trying to be rude; I appreciate en is not native to you but I really have no clue what you're trying to ask or get a response to. The redlink above is only more confusing. Pedro : Chat 22:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may have "heroes", I certainly don't. Neither do I understand the basis of your complaints here, and to be honest neither do I care. --MalleusFatuorum22:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
<<ec>>`Malleus-- you are my hero. Bali-- Just looking at this, you are coming across as rude, incivil and abusive. If Pedro were an abusive admin, he'd have blocked you already. I think he's just showing considerable restraint. You got a problem with him-- WP:AN/I is thattaway. Dlohcierekim 22:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ENOUGH I found your conduct with others to be trolling, Pedro. And I will continue to respond. If you don't want me to respond here again, all that has to happen is that you, pedro, not mention me again in the text here. Up to you.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro, and thank you for your faith in me. I kinda hate to say anything ... but, ahhh ... I never edited Iron Maiden, and are the "edits" referring to the number of unique articles? Again, I'm not finding fault or anything - I really appreciate your faith in me, but I was wondering if maybe you were looking at another editors contribs? Thanks, and sorry you've had such a rough day. ;) — Ched : ? 23:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro, I know you're out for the night, Huntster said basically to transclude at will. I'll do so now, and come what may, I thank you again for your kind words, your guidance, and your faith. Soup's on! — Ched : ? 04:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review
I'm not exactly how this works or if I'm doing this correctly. I noticed you'd deleted a wiki article about a band I'm in called "Sonic Solutions Incorportated." I'm trying to figure out why you did this.
Hey Pedro, I had a question. Is the term "cut me some slack" considered derogatory in any fashion that you're familiar with? In my generation and culture, we often used the term as a plea for leniency, but I was wondering if it was considered offensive in other parts of the world perhaps. Not that it's a huge deal, I was just curious. — Ched : ? 21:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing this is clearly from your RFA - In England I'd find it a bit abrupt, and the "Aww girl" bit not needed at all. The key here is remembering that on Wikipedia we work in a purely written medium and tone of voice does not transfer. We also deal internationaly and therefore with all the cultural differences that brings.
I find myself frequently frustrated by Americans in particular (no offence) and I am well aware many Americans find me at the very least frustrating, boorish, stuck up, idiotic, mental or just plain "old fashioned". If they lived in rural England they'd have a different view point and if I lived in Wisconsin I'd also have a different outlook. The differences are frustrating - but they are also the challenge that helps improve our end goal on Wikipedia.
In summary I think the comment, if spoken, would be harmless (and I believe you write it as a "spoken comment" if you will). Just remember that an everyday phrase can have other intimations when typed, and when read by different cultures.
An example - I have recently taken my three year old to task for saying "Oh God" as opposed to "Oh Gosh" - I'm secualr, and do not believe in God (and hence blasphemy is not an ideological or religious issue), but I am aware other do believe and find "taking the Lord's name" to be offensive - and I prefer my child not speak in such a fashion even though it does not offend me.
Ah, I think I understand a bit better now. Regardless of the final outcome, I will certainly go offer her the apology that she deserves. I honestly never meant to offend, and I feel bad that I did. The only reason I'll wait is simply because it could be construed as an attempt to change her !vote, and given your explanation, I think her !vote is proper. I'll try to avoid writing as a "spoken comment" in the future. Thanks for the insight Pedro, it's appreciated. ;) — Ched : ? 21:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is particularly wise of you to wait until the RFA is over, and that a well couched explanation / clarification / "apology" to Iri would be good (I think apology is the wrong word, as you did not intend to offend, but I'll leave it at that as I can't think of a better term). Iridescent is one of the best editors around here, but like us all has a belly button. I'm not saying you did anything wrong - you didn't - but that at times our written word imparts meaning we did not intend - something I am all to often guitly of myself of course. Pedro : Chat 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note: Interesting thing this RfA procedure. It's given me a totally different perspective of all things "admin". Just a thought that was held within my feeble mind. I look forward to discussions and conversations about the concept of "adminship" in the future Pedro. And I do greatly and humbley appreciate your faith in me. — Ched : ? 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good - I'm gald it's gicing you a fresh perspective. You'll do fine - heck it's hardly tricky - but I'll be happy to help at anytime. Pedro : Chat 16:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro. I'm checking in at lunch-time today, and noticed an item that I may have not posted well on. I saw that Wizardman (whom I have the utmost respect for), perhaps thought my answer to Q1 was ambiguous. Not being a self-nom, I really didn't have a prepared list for that question, especially since I've never worked with the wiki-admin interface before. I'd hate to throw something on the RfA at the last minute, but if you feel it's the right thing to do, I'd say: WP:RFPP, WP:AIV, WP:REPAIR, and WP:REFUND would be the items I'd most likely be interested in. I'm not sure what time it will be when I get back home tonight. I'm -4 of UTC, or -5 of BST, and am usually back between 5-7 pm my time. I believe that would only allow a couple hours for others to modify their opinions, and I didn't want to react in a knee-jerk fashion. I trust your judgment in RfA matters, so whatever you decide is fine by me. Best to all, — Ched : ? 16:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
diff. Sorry, just got back. With only a few hours to go, perhaps not worth the confusion. If anything, maybe I could throw bold around the 4 items I listed above?. Doesn't seem to be a major issue, probably best to just let it ride, so I'd imagine that the RL issues would be the items to concentrate on. — Ched : ? 20:53, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If anything I'd be pleased that editors such as Wizardman take the time to re-read and further digest comments. The fact He still supports says volumes. I'd let it ride. I trust you to take on board the oppose comments and go by my mantra ... 'If in doubt - don't.. Pedro : Chat 21:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Hi Pedro, I realize that this is probably hitting your PC in the middle of the night for you, but hopefully it will be a pleasing thing for you to wake up to. The RfA did indeed go through as successful. I wanted to thank you for all your kind words, your trust, and your faith in me. I am honestly humbled by it all, and I'm at somewhat at a loss for words. (probably a first for me .. lol). I will do my utmost to live up to the faith and trust that you and the community have placed in me, and as always ... "If I'm in doubt ... I won't" Thank you my friend, and my very best to you and User:FamilyOfPedro as well. (of course you know that this just means I'm going to have more questions for you ... ;)) — Ched : ? 02:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Pedro:
Not sure how this works. I have left some helpme questions on my own my talk page, but no results. I'm just starting, been fooling in the sandbox for way too long. Then I lost the majority of my article! Is there any way to get it back? Not sure how it happened. Any way in future to really save things so that doesn't happen?Calnut (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: wp:np...
... as in Wikipedia:Net positive. I started the talk page with a question/thought. I didn't know if you'd be interested in going that direction or not. I do like the idea that it is now out in main space. It's such an oft quoted item, that allowing others to opine away I think is a good thing. Cheers — Ched : ? 17:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re:
I would answer your question much later on your talk page. I do not want to elongate the discussion there. If you do not satisfy with my rationale, just think like "oh, here comes another editor with per oppose".--Caspian blue19:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more than happy for a discussion here. I'm not fussed, I think your oppose is perfectly acceptable (although clearly I disagree!) but I must admit that the "signature screwball" has me confused and that I really am very against any for of deep discussion to co-ordinate an RFA - which after all is about the community's judgement of the candidate and not the nominators statements. Pedro : Chat 19:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Pedro. I was just dropping in to note the question raised in the oppose section regarding the DYK thing. Is the sig issue the same story? I don't really get that one. Anyway, I see nwo you're already aware and discussing with Casp. It seems like that editor hasn't really been active at DYK. Maybe you can clarify? Am I allowed to cast aspersions on your "Per high quality nomination statements :)" comment, or is that in bad taste? Cheers. Looks like a good candidate to me. I like their honest and straightforward answers. They seem to have a good grasp on what's needed here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CoM - replied at the RFA as it's important - but by all means cast aspersions on my "high quality nom" :) - it seems I didn't make it clear what I meant and I hope I've now fixed that. Pedro : Chat 19:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason that I said I would say later is that 1) I'm not a native speaker, so I'm much slower to answer or organize my view to others. That is stressful 2) it is inevitable that once a discussion with you starts, that takes a great deal of time for me. That is also stressful 3)I've tried to avoid drawing unnecessary attentions to my simple vote! on RFAs because being on a spot light is highly stressful. After all, I come here to edit articles.
Sorry that if my comment on the pre-discussion makes you unpleasant, but I want you to reconsider rewording the "collusion" allegation. It tastes very bitter. My point-out does not mean that the candidate has to be under your "micro-management". It can be compared like you're asked to write a recommendation letter for an intelligent student who wishes to become a medicine doctor, but if your letter is written like the student is highly skilled at computer programming and have a businessman mind, so he can be a next Steven Jobs. How does it sound to you? That is my impression on your nomination. I'll add more later.--Caspian blue20:07, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Caspian I really don't know what to say. The language barrier is too difficult in this instance for me to go much further I feel. I will not change the word "collusion". Your English language skills are impressive indeed, but the finer points are likely to elude you - no offence but the finer points of any language will elude almost all non-native speakers. Sufficent to say that words in quote marks do not mean that one is, by defenition, quoting. That was not even close to derogatory and my statement above ("I think your oppose is perfectly acceptable ") seems to imply I give you a lot more good faith than you give me. Pedro : Chat 20:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you felt that I urged you should've "colluded with" the candidate", no, I did not mean it at all. I know the term itself is not derogatory, but the insinuation that I misunderstand nominators' role is still unpleasant. You certainly remember that I came to ask you why you don't run for Bureucratship because I felt you're fully qualified. So please do not say that I do not assume good faith on your questions and answers. If I do not have a respect toward you, I would not spend my time talking more about what I stated for my stance. At first, the nomination looked very comical due to the introduction like "Sensible Sig" "Sensible User Page" (written like German way or advertisement) and, "E-mail enabled" (this trivia should be even mentioned for better housekeeping? how?). I know there is a RFC/U going on an admin for his sig. However, that case is extremely rare, so that he is accused for not having a "sensible sig" by many editors. However, I do not think having an ordinary sig or default is "sensible". As for the mismatch, I've never seen him on DYK areas, so I checked on his every contribution to DYK, and that does not match to his actual contribution and intention in your introduction. I highly think of "nominators" statement because they could be a first impression for voters who do not know candidates at all. Moreover, do you really think that every voters check on candidate's contribution in detail? So I'm sorry to say that your nomination statement rather made me scrutinize his contribution.--Caspian blue20:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Caspian. Firstly - I think it's brilliant that you do bother to scrutinize the candidate - that way they will get better feedback, both positive and negative. If my nom made you look closer then apologies for the hard work but it is no doubt more appreciated than "thow away" opposes / supports. I'm sorry you feel offended by the "collusion" comment. For the sake of harmony I will remove it. As far as the house keeping comments go - You've lost me regarding the bolding of these above and the German advert reference. I assume you are not implying the Nazi SS? Thinks like having e-mail enabled should, IMHO, be mentioned as not having it enabled has caused concern historically. As to wether I think every "voter" checks every candidates contributions in detail - no, they don't. I do care when people support blindly in general, of course, but I'm not the man to fix this problem - indeed no-one would be - it's all part of the human condition. Pedro : Chat 20:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nazy German? Oh, no....Communication via online is hard...in a foreign language (for me and for you too to figure out what I'm talking about). In German language, the first letter of all nouns in sentence is styled with "capital letter". Thank you for the retraction. If you feel offended by my "screwball" comment, well I will redact it too.--Caspian blue21:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah well - you learn something new everyday. I didn't know all nouns in German were capitalised . My knowledge of German is limited to yes, no and Autobahn :) I'm not at all offended by "screwball" - I just don't know what you meant by it. Pedro : Chat 21:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually thrown a bit by the "4/5 edits" comment, which I think referred to DYK articles and not edits... Anyway, I'm going to give Pedro the benefit of the doubt as far his high quality nominations go. Thanks for the clarifications and for the discussion gents. Sieg Heil. Ooops. I mean Have nice day. Now they're really going to come for me. Gulp. I'm one bad joke/ sarcastic comment away from real trouble. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the RfP Rollback page right before I added my request, compare my revision to the one before it, it was a walk to find where I could edit that section as a whole because of the way the rollback caption splits sections. Also, any idea on the NPW tool? I added my name to it but the whole RfP page is inconsistant. Rollback wants new entries on top, NPW wants them on bottom...should I maybe comb the RfP page so they all ask you to add your name to the top? If so I'd also put requests in date order like they should be.
Ceranthor's RfA
Hi! I hope you don't mind that I'm blatantly advertising your knowledge of the candidate at the RfA's talk page. Let me know if you have a problem with it and I'll withdraw the comment. Jafeluv (talk) 07:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey peds, haven't stopped by here in a while. I've been poking around the wiki a bit again lately. Just saying hi, hope your family is well, etc, and wishing I had a stoke at the moment. breath Keeper | 7602:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How you doing my man? All is well family fine, User:DaughterOfPedro now crawling (joy) and general mayhem as usual. I've had to drop back from editing a lot, sadly, but you know that feeling. Just active anough to pop in a couple of RFA noms and to wind myself up for a while...... Thinking the time may have come to give up the snout as it goes..... hopefully! Hope all is fine with you and yours. Pedro : Chat
question for Pedro
I recently noticed that you had deleted a page for Edward C. Harwood for copyright infringement. Could you please tell me if this was the Edward C. Harwood who founded AIER? We would like to update his profile at some point, and we need to use the same entry, don't we? (We're new at this.) Thanks.Stargazer1122 (talk) 12:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Yes, it was indeed that Edward Harwood according to the entry. The text was a cut and paste of this website, which does not indicate any release under a free licence such as the GFDL. See WP:COPYVIO for more help on what we can accept. Feel free to recreate the page with new content - you might find the links on this page useful as well. Pedro : Chat 13:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the request is probably going to be deferred to RFA, which is unfortunate considering more stress is the last thing this kid needs right now. Regardless, I'm confident that it will succeed, and I hope with as little pain as possible for Chet.
I'm drafting, just in case it does go to RFA, my nomination statement for him and wanted to ask if you would mind if I frame it based on your nomination statement from Peter's resysop RFA. You did well to explain the situation from August and to then layout Peter's administrative and editorial background. I'm not wanting to copy/paste it, but I expect that it will look very much like yours when I'm done, with mostly just a bit of reworking of prose.
Depending on when you get back online, I may have it completed for you to look at. See User:Jennavecia/Notebook to see if I've saved it yet. If you're not comfortable with me ripping off your statement, I'll rewrite it soon. Thanks for your consideration, لennavecia13:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenna. Please use anything of value from Peter's RFA. I think it's important to major on the fact that former admins are not an "unknown quantity" as it were. I'll take a drive by and take a look when I have a mo. Thanks for the note. Pedro : Chat 14:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have now all resolved itself. Good. And shame on "One" / Cool Hand Luke for his misguided and low brow efforts. If he had honesty and self respect he would resign from Arbcom.Pedro : Chat 20:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've found an article Ian M. Kintzle which appears to have some problems. I think a lot of the content has been lifted from IMDB [5] and I'm not sure entirely what to do if anything. I don't even know if the subject is worthy of inclusion under our notability guidelines. I am hoping you might run your administrative eye over this and provide some advice? Thanks, Teh Crafty One (talk) 21:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not going to have time tonight - my apologies. If it's a clear copyvio tag it with db-g11 or AFD it. Sorry to not add more input. Pedro : Chat 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Pedro. :) User:Allstarecho is asking at my talk page for my opinion on the need for deleting User:Allstarecho/Fuglies are not notable as opposed to attributing. Since you express some concern that this method doesn't work at his talk page, I figured I'd better talk to you about it—not only for this situation, but as it has implications with articles as well. I run into a good many of these at CP, as it isn't uncommon for people to detect infringement from mirrors that are reflecting other Wikipedia articles (a heads up I look for in identifying licensing violations). So far as I know, these are routinely handled by giving belated attribution. When I'm doing it, I usually note it in edit summaries & at the talk page. (Coppertwig made a template that I frequently use when encountering such situations; in fact, I've used it several times in the past few days: Talk:2009 Rabat stampede and Talk:American football strategy for just this situation (one split having been done in May and another in June of this year).) If you think this is insufficient, we might need to come up with some community handling on that one to make clear at Wikipedia:Splitting, particularly since the only thing about it there is my note at the talk page stating that a belated dummy edit is adequate. :) With this particular page, I understand there may be BLP issues in history that should be deleted, though care will then need to be taken with attributing contributors to it. From an attribution perspective, however, I would think that at the most drastic it could be resolved with Template:GFDLSource which not only identifies the source but also timestamps it. Obviously, this isn't appropriate in article pages that are split, but {{splitfrom}} doesn't seem quite right for this situation, either, since it isn't exactly a project page or article. --Moonriddengirl(talk)23:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewing, I think the GFDL note now at the base of the essay seems to be sufficent from my understanding of attribution. I think Allstar (who is generally a great and motivated editor) really needs to take away two important issues from this - 1) Learn more rather than assume and 2) Don't think the "kill-joy" card means you can do what you want. Sorry to be blunt. Nevertheless, I think this seems resolved, neatly, and my thanks to you Moonriddengirl for your (as usual) welcome perspective and input. Pedro : Chat 20:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro
Hi Pedro, hope it's been an enjoyable weekend for you (and user:WifeOfPedro and users:ChildrenOfPedro). I had a question. Do you accept email from the wiki-link: "E-mail this user"? Nothing that's a big "secret" or anything, but rather just some questions and observations that might be considered overly socializing by some. Nothing that I'd even object to you reposting here if you thought it was relevant to the project - well, other than maybe sending you my private email address. The one registered to this account I only check once a week or so, unless someone says on my talk page "You've got mail". Anyway, when you get a chance to stop in, let me know - Best to you and yours. ;) — Ched : ? 16:08, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My email linked to WP is (although probably a bad idea) my main email account. Feel free to use it. Whilst most conversation should always be on wiki, I understand that there will always be issues where some discretion is beneficial.... As long as keeping the message private does not harm wikipedia that is. Pedro : Chat 20:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RfA Thanks
WikiThanks
Hi Pedro. I just wanted to thank you for contributing to my RfA. It wasn't one of the best RfA's held, but I've learned a lot from the experience. Sorry for sending you the message today, and not last week when my RfA was closed. I've been very busy the last time. Thanks once again! Kind regards, LouriePieterse10:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I do apologize for editing through protection, and I am dismayed if this is your "retiring" (or pulling a Keeper), but I do think you should leave your talk page unprotected. Users who come across your administrative actions may wish to inquire about them and I'm sure you have a long list of tps'ers who would be happy to respond to them. If this was an error and you've protected the wrong page, then, all the better. –xenotalk15:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - utter incompetence strikes again! My user page redirects to my talk, I clicked it and protected - not realising I was back on my talk thus protecting that! Thanks Xeno!!! Pedro : Chat 15:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I disagree that simply being a VP of a company is grounds for inclusion in WP, everyone's a VP of anything nowadays, could you please clarify what, if anything, Rilous Carter has done to warrent inclusion? Regards, RaseaC (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please reread what A7 says about significance/importance. The subject does not have to meet the criteria established by WP:N or WP:BIO, there merely has to be an assertion of significance/importance. Being a VP of a Disney Brand is clearly such an assertion. You might want to take a look at the essay, WP:WIHSD---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!22:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note:
Hi Pedro. I realize that your "Wikipedia status" is subject to real life, but I did want to drop you a note. If for no other reason, then to express my appreciation in all that you've taught me. I did send you an email, and I have no reservations to you posting any of it (in part or in whole) here. My eamil is simply a request for some personal guidance in a couple matters.
My attempt to be "bold". In regards to User:ChildrenOfPedro - enjoy my friend. Enjoy even the difficult things in your children's lives. They grow so quickly, and are gone before your realize it, to explore their own lives. I'm sure there are broken nick-nacks, crayons on the walls, and fusses that seem all so important at the time. Cherish even the difficult things Pedro. My daughter reached her own 28th birthday today, and I sadly miss those tender years we had so long ago. I apologize for the TMI reflections my friend, but somehow, I feel very comfortable talking to you. My very best to you and yours Pedro, Cheers. ;) — Ched : ? 03:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've hopefully fixed the image ... I was trying to make it so the caption would display, but I forgot to put in the file name ... duh! I dunno how it looks now, but I reworked the parameters of Template:Wide image per the template docs. BTW, I've also fixed a typo in your notice. :-) Graham8715:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for granting rollback
Just a quick note to thank you for how quickly you did this. I think I understand rollback pretty well (having read WP:ROLLBACK before applying) but if I have any problems / concerns I'll be sure to contact you. Dpmuk (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
I have moved the "badgering" of your !vote oppose to the talk page & offered my opinion that it is a legit oppose. I do over extend myself at times and sometimes stuff like that article that really needs fixing doesn't get done properly. I am sorry people reacted so strongly to your !vote, and hope you don't take that as a reflection on me.
Frankly I am surprised at the level of support I have received so far. I mean, I did think I would pass, but I expected more opposes along the lines of what you said.
You may be pleased to note that prior to you posting here I withdrew my oppose, based on your excellent and level headed actions and responses in respect of it. Good luck with the RFA and the tools! Pedro : Chat 23:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your speaking to Gavin.Collins about his unwarranted call for a block of AlbertHerring. Unfortunately, I do not think it will change Gavin’s views at all. Gavin is very firm in his opinions and interpretations of policies, and does not change them no matter how many people show him he is wrong. Gavin is still firmly convinced his actions were right and the correct interpretation of policy. [6]
Thank you for the links Edward. Gavin's views and actions are, well, pathetic. Frankly Wikipedia would be a better place if Gavin stopped editing it, as he clearly lacks any clue whatsoever. His user page asserts he has a tertiary level of education; that either demonstrates what a poor state our education system is in, or that he's lying through his teeth. Either way I guess his opinion has been ignored in this instance - and rightly so. Pedro : Chat 20:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to take a moment to delivery a personal thank you (not "thank spam" :)) for your involvement in my RfA. (It passed 117-2-7 in case you hadn't seen.) I am certainly not perfect and applaud you for having the guts to point that out in the face of (at the time) unanimous approval. I also appreciate the fact that you reconsidered your initial oppose - an openness to change one's opinion is always a positive trait. I will keep your mild criticism in mind as I work to improve myself as an editor and look forward to serving the community in my new role.
I wonder how long until someone badgers your oppose, condescendingly explaining to you that David's oppose was a joke? I'm guessing it will have already happened by the time I hit "save page". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can but hope. I spent a long time crafting some stuff to write, and then decided that the lulz was so easy I almost missed it! Pedro : Chat 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now, that was really bad language. Do I want you blocked for it? Not in a million years. That's what you thought so you said it. I appreciate that more than all the little so called polite snipes that some people take at others that can grind a person down. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 23:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I personally attack another editor? No. Learn the fucking policies Jack. Learn where WP:IAR counts and does not. Learn that I couldn't give a fuck about whose Irish, Jewish, Scottish or whatever. Learn that we are here to add to the sum of all human knowledge and no-one fucking cares about your opinion (see my talk page header). Learn that bad language is tolerated (sadly) but that when it is directed at specific people it is not. It really is not complex. Pedro : Chat 23:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a temper there Pedro. You really should take some time out. Do you think I'm impressed that you can say fuck twice in one sentence? Are you really that immature that you say it to try and impress me? Your not that complex are you. Take care. Jack forbes (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a temper Jack. You seem unable to understand how little I care about this and you seem unable to understand a fairly simple point when it is spelled out in front of you. That is, I'm afraid to say, an example of immaturity but not -ahem- mine. A quick bit of advice for you Jack - stop making assumptions, both here and I would also imagine in real life. They only serve to make you look rather silly to be honest - which I don't think for a moment you actually are. Good night. Pedro : Chat 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you would be right Pedro, I'm not in the least bit silly. I really don't give a flying fuck if you think I am! Do you find that rude? Well you said it. If I said your talking fucking shite is that ruder? Of course, policy says it is! Isn't policy a load of fucking nonsense. Goodnight. Jack forbes (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. And that's the point my man. Policy is not a load of fucking nonsense. The drivel attached to it is. Our policies on verifable information, not making legal threats and not making copyright violations (to name three) would seem to me to be rather sensible to be honest. I'm sorry if I'm not being clear here, and I suspect this conversation is drifting, but some policies are, incredibly, actually a good thing. And not attacking people is one of them. And that is, as it goes, a very good policy - assuming that it is read correctly and not confused with WP:CIV. Pedro : Chat 23:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did that post have any personal attacks.......? How much more can I spell this out Jack. It really is not a complex thing, but you seem to need me to lead you every step of the way on this, which is a bit sad. What are you hoping for? What's you aim? Why can't you understand? I'll help if I can but you really are not helping yourself to be honest. Pedro : Chat 00:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may be allowed to be serious just for a moment Ched, I've had extended discussions with others elsewhere about the use of words like "fuck", and the consensus has been that when used as intensifiers there's really no problem, as the "intensification" helps to make the point. Where it does become a problem is if those taboo words are used too frequently, because then they lose their bite, or, as Pedro says, they're used in an attack on another editor. Wikipedia's daft civility policy has much to answer for. "Please Sir, X used a naughty word." --MalleusFatuorum00:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Chaps, agreeing very much with Malleus but I must get to bed. Daughters first birthday party this weekend (eek!!) and the wife will kill me if I am less than the proverbial footballers 110%. Pedro : Chat 00:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorsing what Malleus said, for example, a violation would be: You are a fucking idiot, though most established users aren't that contentious. It's more of a vandal's "lawlz". ceranthor00:41, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I don't even know whether we are talking about weather or wether :P. Anyway, learnt a new word (which I'm sure I will use all the time :P).... The joys of working on an encyclopedia ;) - Kingpin13 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to limit it to zero (or possibly single) negatives
Hey Pedro,
Sorry, sometimes I like the challenge of multiple negatives too much to be clear. I was just concerned that your closing comment could have been misinterpreted as saying that anyone who opposed didn't want to improve the encyclopedia, and I suspect that's not what you meant. I'm not asking for a strikethru or anything silly like that, just pointing out a possible interpretation you might not have intended. And, BTW, if I was a Crat, your vote would count twice. (That should certainly sink any future WP:RFB/Floquenbeam) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid there seems to be a break down in communication here. Clearly the fault is mine. Naturally I will remove my comments. Pedro : Chat 22:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aw, come on Pedro, striking your support? You know that's not what I meant, and it hurts that you're implying that's what I asked you to do. "trolling" and "unhelpful" are nowhere in what I said. I think, and hope, that my comment above made it clear I have no issue with your support, nor was I asking for striking or removing it; it was just a suggestion about how your last sentence could have been read. I'll keep my comments to myself in the future if that's what you wish. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. The very point is that I welcome all comments, and that the input of others is vital. Discussion is, after all, two sided. I still have no clue what you are trying to get at. I support MZB and feel that to oppose him regaining the bit is a narrow view that does not look at the positives. As per WP:NETPOS. I apologise if you feel offended by this. Nevertheless if another editor objects to the way I have couched comments it is best to strike them and review. And, as noted, I guarantee my comments at RFA are pretty much pointless anyway - I suspect many current crats view my supports as a neutral at best.Pedro : Chat 22:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm no longer writing at the same time that I talk to my kids, so I hope I can be more focused and clearer; I think my being flippant before was misinterpreted. I have no issue, at all, with your support, or your rationale. Note that I supported too. My comment was solely about your last sentence, "If you don't want to help the encyclopedia then oppose". When I first read it, I interpreted it to mean "if you oppose, then you don't want to help the encyclopedia", and I thought that was unfair to anyone who did oppose. Then, I re-read it, and realized you hadn't actually said that. On the off chance that I wasn't the only one who would read it that way, I commented, figuring you could clarify, and we would avoid one of the opposers taking offense needlessly. Apparently I did it badly, twice, due to an overindulgence in what I thought was my sense of humor, and bad feelings ensued. It was a fairly minor point, and if I had known this would result, I would have simply kept my nose out of it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, my friend, that given you cannot spell realised </sracasm> this is one of those hideous American/British things. Your edit summary (badger Pedro's support) seemed to indicate you badgered my support...... No harm done, and as noted above I want input on my thoughts and welcome constructive critique. I'll fix up my support at the RFA. Thank you for your time and your kind explanation - and as an aside I know about the kids thing when trying to get on the computer!! Pedro : Chat 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I say intentionally hyperbolic things like "badger Pedro's support", I call it "wry humor". My wife calls it "being a snot". I am, indeed, a Yank, and since you and my wife both aren't, perhaps it is an American thing; I believe we do have a reputation for wryness/snotiness. Or, more likely, it's that I'm not as funny as I think. For example, if I point out that I didn't know the British spelling was "sracasm", that's just my sense of... well, OK, bad example, that's just me being a snot.
Anyway, seems it's mostly sorted, sorry for my part in it. Time to switch off the computer and start talking to the kids again. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear, Pedro. I do respect your desision and I understand why you did not give me rollback. What orangesodakid said was right andI hade nothing to do with it. I did try to help him out in a way that eventually hurt all of us. I have said that im sorry and have no other black marks on my record. I will not protest your decission nor request for another chance right away. The reason that I have asked for rollback in the first place is that I do not use Firefox nor Safari so I must revert vandals manually. It is very annoying to find that a bot or someother user beat me to it. I guess that means that I will be spending the nex week or so trying to revert vandals the old fassion way. Anyway thanks for your comments and I guess that I will have to reasses what will allow me to recive this special right. Anway on another note OSK aka Orangesodakid did change his password and I dont know it nor want to know it. He did act without my knowlege and I was very mad bvecause he got himself in a lot of hot water, and consiquently..me too. Well If you can tell me what else I need to do then that would be great. Cheers.--ColdplayExpert17:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Coldplay. As I mentions at WP:PERM I'd like to see a couple of weeks of reverts the "old school way" - heck that was the only option I had when I started on WP - rollback was an admin only function and I seem to recall even undo did not exist!!! It's not some kind of test, but rollback can be misused to quite serious effect and I need a little more confidence before handing out the bit. That said, please don't think this is some draconian admin forcing you to do things - you can do as you like, of course, but access to some tools is - as no doubt you appreciate - slightly restricted. Best wishes. Pedro : Chat 20:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What? there was no undo back then! wow reverting vandals must have been really hard! anyway thanks for your comments and Ill be sure to take your advice. After about a week or two of reverting vandals I will reapply for rollback. Maybe then ill be able to gain your trust. Anyway thanks for your comemnts and ill see you later. Cheers.--ColdplayExpert21:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to Floquenbeam and to Joey - WP:ROLLBACK is available to all admins and can be granted as a flag to non-admins as well. The category you saw is that I'm happy to grant the rollback right as opposed to being prepared to use it. Thank you as well for your vigilance and reporting those edits. Pedro : Chat 20:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
M80
Hey Pedro, you may recall me from the various edits I made to my company's m80_(agency) wiki page. I was wondering if you would please help advise me so I can get rid of the various "article has issues" bullets so we can honor the rules of wikipedia and have a clean looking page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.74.162 (talk) 23:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Children on Wikipedia
Hello. After running into a self-identified child with their contact information on their user page yesterday, I realized Wikipedia does not have any policy for protecting children. An attempt was made in 2006 to develop a policy, but it failed to reach consensus. I'm making another attempt and I'd appreciate your input. User_talk:TParis00ap/Protecting Children. Thanks.--TParis00ap (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback (permission)
Hello Pedro, since you are a administrator i was wondering if you can grant rollback to me, i was denied yesterday because the person that denied me said that you still show recent instances in which you have made substandard judgment as to whether or not an edit was vandalism. I only made 2 mistakes. People make mistake all the time. I was denied by someone that dose not have forgiveness.
--dwayneflanders (talk) 02:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Dwayneflanders. It's not really a question of "forgiving mistakes" it's a question of being comfortable that people are going to use tools accurately. Rollback, if misused even accidentally, can cause a lot of hassle and ill feelings. I'm not going to grant you rollback right now, but perhaps if you could demonstrate a week or so of 100% accuracy with twinkle / undo then I would be happy to reassess. Please don't think this is some kind of "punishment" for errors - I totally agree we all make them - just that I need to be fully confident before giving out the tool. Pedro : Chat 09:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pr3st0n
Thank you for your input, Pedro. I was hesitant to list this one on a broader forum. I worry that such a step might lead to the loss of the contributor, and I'd much rather see him editing...just without the copyright concerns. :/ I hope that he will decide to be straightforward about this question so that we don't have to worry about future deception. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Good luck with this editor. May I, as politely as I can, as you to check his talk page back a few months? You may remember the RfA, so from about then onwards should be enough. The copyright stuff from this user is confusing. I'll step out because I'll only make things worse. Kind regards, NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi NotAnIP - I've been reviewing this editor since his RFA so I do have stuff watchlisted and have a reasonable "grip" shall we say. Today was, well, disapointing. However I still believe Preston to be a valuable editor worthy of time investment. Please can you email any private concerns you have and I will follow them up. Pedro : Chat 22:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. I did think that you'd know, but I was just checking. Please feel free to remove my comments if you think it'd be useful. I agree with what others have said; I'm sure he'll be a useful contributor. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 07:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, I still very much trust you, but I'm afraid I have to withdraw my support of your offer. I did so, evidently, while you were int he process of posting, but since you made a new section I didn't get an edit conflict. My rationale is here. --Moonriddengirl(talk)13:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pedro, if the unblock goes through how would you recommend handling the Commons side of it? In terms of keeping an eye on the uploads, which I don't have time to do on a sustained basis. Durova32616:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or delete page two because I created page 2 (I did not know that (page) 1 already existed Both pages are same and one of them needs to be deleted Thanks for helping me out --NotedGrantTalk11:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care what you or anyone else says, I will continue to vandal EFCA, Dukes vs. Wal-Mart and the others until they are pulled off, those sites are nothing but lies and useless crap. So stop telling that I'm vandalizing because I am not, I'm putting in the truth, why don't you find something else to worry about and leave me alone!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.47.107 (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't apologise
Uff, well, it looks like that's that then. No need to apologise though, Pedro. Time taken where there's a chance of rehabilitation - even if only slight - is never time wasted. EyeSerenetalk16:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I have to say that was one of the better threads at ANI - cordial, informative and from people with a desire to help. What a shame about the outcome. Pedro : Chat 16:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being willing to help misguided editors who are obviously here to help is relatively easy; even I can do that. Being willing to help problematic users when it's not clear if they're here to help or not is hard, stressful, takes a lot more patience, and requires that you be willing to risk having your helping hand slapped away. Not many people are up to that; I'm glad that you were. Good on you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Due in large part to your efforts, Pedro, everyone agrees that he got a fair chance. No lingering worries over whether he might have been goaded, no hard feelings on any side. Here's wishing every ANI thread wrapped up so neatly. You lead by example. Warm regards, Hamlet, Prince of Trollmarkbugs and goblins19:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much all, and again what a pleasure to see a thread at WP:DRAMA of some 80+Kb in five sections that had - well no drama at all!! Just a simple discussion on what we needed to do to sort stuff out. BTW the pint turned into three.... :) Pedro : Chat 20:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you did indeed help to the best of your abilities to unblock Gareth. For that I am appreciative. I guess he took the WP:Ignore all rules guideline too far. Anyway, wish you the best in your wiki endeavors.--LAAFan00:31, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LAAFan has given you a cup of coffee, for taking the time to weather a dispute. Thanks for staying calm and civil! Coffee somehow promotes WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a coffee, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, bitter goodness of coffee by adding {{subst:WikiCoffee}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Wow, I just decided to get active on here again. Lo and behold, lots of my old colleagues have retired. Did i miss something? Kimu05:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings~
Per discussion[9] that you submitted... Farther down I asked about what kind of cleanup could be initiated about new content created and undos needed to existing articles edited or marked with his project tag. ...... Actually, Boo. You people are no fun and a lot of it seems handled already. Well no... hm... there's still stuff that needs undoing and combing through in general. I volunteered to go through and work on undos on tagged pages and a page by page overview of the stuff within the project space to affirm there was no actual new information that could be merged or added elsewhere... he has had recent good contributions and it should all be looked at. No replies with how to handle cleanup were posted so I'm writing you directly about what might be done. I'm not sure how projects are deleted from the system but I assume it'd need all subpages to be checked per normal criteria. An okay to undo edits (I will only do with admin permission since the project does technically still exist) or advice on getting the project pages cleared officially for higher powers to deal with would be much welcomed, even if it's just PROD or AfDs for all of it. I can't revert, but looking through existing page exits there are only a few multiple layered edits and they looked tagged already; Normal undo should be fine at every page not already tagged I looked at. Activities would be limited to edits made since his final recreated of his userMany thanks~ Datheisen (talk) 09:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for replying here, and my apologies - I'm not normally active at weekends. I'd say be WP:BOLD. Given we know that this editor introduce copy vios we can be certain to be cautious in the quality of his edits. Without looking at what has been done, so it may be covered, but I'd MFD the "wikiproject Prodigy", and all his sub pages. The one article he wrote I believe was at AFD anyway. Certanly feel free to undo anything but if in doubt please feel free to flag it back to me. Pedro : Chat 12:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page
That was a poor attempt at humour on my part, was putting myself down, did not mean to imply anything about you. Just a bad joke, sorry if I offended. Ceoil (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Okay. Sorry to be over sensitive and to seem to come overly agressive (which I did). 21:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
That, was not a suprise. As I said on the ANI thread orginally I expected a SOCK or two. Thanks for the note. More footwear will likely arise I guess. Pedro : Chat 22:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I forget to thank you? ..
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed nearly unanimously with 174 in support, 2 in opposition and 1 neutral votes. Special thanks goes to RegentsPark, Samir and John Carter for their kind nomination and support. I am truly honored by the trust and confidence that the community has placed in me. I thank you for your kind inputs and I will be sincerely looking at the reasons that people opposed me so I can improve in those areas ( including my english ;) ). If you ever need anything please feel free to ask me and I would be happy to help you :). Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian - 10:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the Rollback. You know, I really hate that historical block. I requested it myself when I realized a couple of edits were being made from my account by someone other than me. The very next day I put a stop to it by logging out of the public computer where I left myself logged in. Silly thing, really, but it's on my record forever... Nezzadar[SPEAK]17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro. I wonder if you were aware, when you granted rollback to Nezzadar, that Nezzadar was a few weeks ago blacklisted from Twinkle for repeated assumptions of bad faith. See here, here, here, and, most particularly, this diff. Are you quite sure you're comfortable with this? Hesperian23:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise, I was not aware of that, and ironically I recalled Nezzdar's name from somewhere so was more cautious than normal - clearly however not diligent enough. Having said that a review of recent edits, specifically rollbacks, looks like very good use of the bit. Of course the tool is "easy come easy go" and if misused will be pulled straight away. Are you okay with that? Pedro : Chat 20:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I had an earlier discussion about an application for adminship with Staxringold and my own feelings about my qualifications for the tools. I personally don't feel that I'm ready, but then again, I feel that overconfidence in a candidate, and thus an absolute confidence in his abilities with the tools, is a negative factor as well. Since you're the second person to suggest it to me, I will likely start consider it more seriously. Thanks again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly what a fine selection of typos on my part! Basically every admin has their own criteria for rollback, which do vary but we have a "broad brush" consensus. I generally look for 150 or more article edits (article = the mainspace). However in your case although you had made only 88 I could see that you had clearly got to grips with reverting poor quality edits. Sometime vandalism can be sneaky, and at other times edits that may seem to be vandalism are good faith efforts to improve an article. Spotting these and using the right process is key, and I have every confidence in your ability to do so. Hope that helps! Pedro : Chat 09:12, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! I apologize for my lack of knowledge of terminology; I'm still learning. At any rate, thank you for permission to use this tool; it should make fighting multiple instances of vandalism on the same page a lot easier. Take care! -Nick Klose (T/C) 20:15, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle is just a script which, if memory serves, allows you to use WP:UNDO in a way similar to rollback to all intents and purposes (altough it is not a server side rollback). Huggle is different in that it is actually independent of Wikipedia for it's operating envirnoment. Pedro : Chat 12:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having rollback myself, I use Twinkle's rollback feature, which in my opinion is far superior to the rollback tool, as you can much more easily leave appropriate warnings at the same time as rolling back. --MalleusFatuorum15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And that is one of the biggest drawbacks of rollback. The rollback edit summary is pretty unforgiving/blunt (there are I believe scripts you can use to change it however). Generally I tend to use WP:UNDO myself as us peasents can't get twinkle... :) Pedro : Chat 15:49, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another good tip I think is to look at the edit history and do a dummy edit on the version you want to revert to, which is the equivalent of several consecutive undos ... the more I think about, the less use I can see for the standard rollback. I certainly haven't missed it anyway. --MalleusFatuorum15:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You commented on my first RFA, and cited a lack of experience as your reason for opposing. The time since my last RFA is coming up on 3 months, which seemed to be the general timeframe that people wanted me to wait. I'm coming to you now to ask you if it would be possible for you to take another look at my edits, and see what other advice you might give to me (both in editing style, location, and experience in general). I would greatly appreciate the time that you take to do this, and I ask that you not "sugarcoat" your reply. Tell me honestly what you think is my best course of action as an editor.
(holy crap you're enthusiastic) For sure, definitely talk to KoH. Most people who regular RfA want at least 3000 edits and 6 months between RfAs (unfortunately...). I will probably support since you're really, really enthusiastic, and doing some pretty good work. One thing that stands out to me is that you don't have very many contributions in admin-related areas since your last RfA. Try new page patrolling and participating more in AfDs (which reminds me, I need to get back on AfD work too...). I'll reply with more later, as I currently have history homework to do...--UnionhawkTalkE-mailReview01:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll be happy to take a look at your edits. I'm a bit busy at the moment so I can't do it immediately but I will try to get back to you on this in a couple days. All the Best, FASTILY(TALK)03:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, new page patrolling, which Unionhawk proposed, is certainly an area where one can make many mistakes, so it would fit the bill of my first comment in your RfA. However, I disagree with the classification of any particular area as "admin-related". All of Wikipedia is admin-related. That said, Unionhawk's advice is probably good: It's just human for voters to expect a candidate to be good in what they do themselves, and there seems to be a preponderance of voters these days in the area of new page patrolling. My own preference, though, would be if you could show experience as a mediator. — Sebastian03:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I replied to the above before I realized that the page was transcluded. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's very unusual. I would have preferred a short message asking me to reply on this page, which would have been more transparent. — Sebastian04:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally do not care how long candidates wait before a rerun, but I always like to play it safe when actually running for something or nominating someone for something. The general wisdom seems to be to wait 6 months if the first RfA failed in uncontroversial circumstances. Now again, if you ran now, you would be more likely than not to pass, but waiting three more months will make your chances even better. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 05:03, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Heh - I thought my page was popular until I saw the above from Sebastian about the transclusion :) I'll have a look and get back to you. Pedro : Chat 07:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest MacMed, I would consider opposing you just for using a talk page template like this. Wikipedia can be a confusing place, and it is very important that we admins not communicate in overly elaborate or clever ways. This template is pretty cool, but not something that an admin should use. This is the type of intangible that any RfA candidate needs to be cognizant off when asking for suggestions. That said, the most important thing to take away from my comment is not that you should change your behavior simply to pass an RfA. Rather, you should ask if said change in behavior is something worth doing just to become an RfA. If you like working here in one way, and the admin responsibilities would prevent you from enjoying the project in that manner, is the mop actually something you want? Hiberniantears (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an honest reply, I figured it would be easier to watch just one page instead of the 6 talks. However, hindsight is 20/20, and per Sebastian's comment above I would likely follow his advice in the future and simply leave a link to this page. This isn't a big part of what I do on Wikipedia, and I don't think it would decrease my enjoyment to change a simple thing like a talk page message. Thanks for your opinion though. Regards, MacMedtalkstalk03:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
At least you got to figure that out with a group of pretty experienced editors, rather than a group of newbies. If you're going to do something like this, where you want input from a bunch of editors, I would post a link to a discussion thread (like this) to the talk pages of the editors, rather than transcluding it.--UnionhawkTalkE-mailReview03:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Hey, thanks very much for the barnstar . I've actually considered programming something to do it fully-automated since DustyBot is now broken (I made a semi-automated tool which doesn't work very well, which results in me doing most of the requests manually (although I have to use it at rollback requests because there are so many requests there )), but haven't got around to it yet . Anyway, thanks again :) - Kingpin13 (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not recognizing "Randy from Boise" as the subject of a humorous quote instead of a reference to another editor is definitely not incompetence, and should not be referred to as such. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
...and as the topic was basic revolving between Giano shouting 'Help me; I'm being oppressed!' and pretty much every one else saying 'We've asked him; let's see what he says.' I considered the topic effectively resolved. Or at least as resolved as it was going to get at the time. HalfShadow22:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason I can see limiting who can do renames is things like [10]. I did that rename at the low point for server load and it still locked the wiki for five minutes. I think something like renaming sinebot or cluebot would probably crash the software entirely and renames are destructive in that I have done about half a dozen that "broke" the accounts so badly a developer had to go in and fix the database. Tossing that ability to 1,700 people who lack an understanding of how to do it might be a bit dangerous. MBisanztalk01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI - Nezzadar asking to have TWINKLE block lifted
I have discussed the issues in the talk page but the user defending the Spin review keeps reverting the USA TOday review. While I agree Spin is listed as a professional review site on the Wikiproject's list of "some sources" for review sites, the reviews that are being removed by the user in place for the SPin review are more comprehensive in their coverage and criticism. Dan56 (talk) 21:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition
I apologize if you feel I was in any way dismissive of your opinion. I felt that the way it was written, it was not an anti-pedophilai opposition but one based on the judgment and actions displayed by Joe during the pedophilia incident. I based this on your using Ryan's diff about Joe's reaction during the Tyciol incident. Is that not what you wrote in #5? -- Avi (talk) 22:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you did not even vaguely read my opposition, which, without looking for the diff, I seem to recall was based on "I was neutral anyway due to lack of policy based xFD closes" and which I seem to recall I expounded on later in a futher response. And didn't Secret cite my non paedo related (note the a - no one else does) oppose. Complex stuff, clearly. Pedro : Chat 22:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at the RFB, re-read my words - yep that's fuck all to do with the paedo thing unless you're struggling with English Avi. Next time try and not misrepresent me please. Pedro : Chat 22:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, Pedro, I read every opposition at least twice before I decided to put it on hold and ask for a discussion. Here is your opposition in toto:
Strong Oppose Was all set for a weak neutral (lack of sound policy based AFD closing) but As long as he is abiding by the policies and guidelines here, I don't see how his personal life has anything to do with it. (Ryan's diff above) makes me feeel he will take hardline "Wikipedia knows best" attitudes (my words) in closing difficlut RFA discussions. I'd prefer someone more clued up as we dont have a pressing need for more crats.Pedro : Chat 23:14, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Dear me. Was all set for a weak neutral....makes me feeel he will take hardline "Wikipedia knows best" attitudes...I'd prefer someone more clued up. Look Avi, I don't know how to make this more clear without phoning you but can you understand, in plain English, that the conversation highlighted by Ryan simply bolstered my feelings that Joe was way to process driven and did not have enough experience in working out consensus. I am struggling to see what you find so complex here. It seems blatantly obvious to me that the paedo thing was "tits all to do with your mother" in southern english. It's the lack of demonstrated ability to determine consensus, coupled with an overly harsh policy based approach to everything Wikipedia I object to and thus I opposed his RFB. Pedro : Chat 22:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So is it accurate or inaccurate to say that it was Joe's interpretation of policy (to wit the judgment displayed) at the Tyciol incident that put you over the top to oppose; before which you had concerns about his judgment but not enough to oppose? Which is exactly how I understood your opposition to begin with; not a platform anti-pædophilia response, but one which Joe's actions, judgment, and handling of that particular incident crystallized your opposition, which was based on other points as well. If that is wrong, I'll just have to give you my phone # :-P. -- Avi (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is accurate. But the context of the issue (paedophillia) is unrelated to the request. Amd I feel you misrepresented me in that. Paedophillia is emotive. Heck, as most people know I have two kids under 4 so I am likely to be fully aware of said issues. But the context was irreleveant to the lack of judgement. One could say it put me over the edge. Or in hindsight that it affirmed my "gut feeling". Either way my opposition stands and yes, you have by and large summed it up. However you should note that I had not commented at the RFB prior to Ryan. If I had commented without Ryan making any !vote I would have made further due dilligence study and likely discovered the debate with Ryan and opposed on the basis of it. 'Ere lies the point. Pedro : Chat 22:44, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I will keep that in mind, Pedro; however, it should be noted that oppositions such as yours and BackslashForwardslash (ones that are not primarily, or at all, based on Joe's actions during the Tyciol incident) do not, on their own, constitute sufficient significant opposition. For what it's worth, I think the crux of the matter is what I posted here :Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Nihonjoe 4/Bureaucrat discussion#Brass tacks, and now the bureaucrats are going to have to earn their prodigious paycheck deciding which point best represents the 150+ people who took the time to opine at the discussion. Regardless, people are going to think we erred; it's like being on ArbCom without the fancy limos; we're always wrong, the question is how wrong . -- Avi (talk) 22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what you do in real life Avi, but I can tell you as a company director, prefered contractor to a global FM contractor, and senior manager I know that there is only one thing in this world that's both brilliant and broken. People. Trust me on that. Pedro : Chat 22:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in real life, I deal with numbers as much as I deal with people; I used to deal solely with numbers but I have much more client-facing responsibility now. Also, I'd like to thank you for your kind words on my talk page. I think all the bureaucrats tried to get it as "right" as possible, and do our best to represent the collective consensus of the franchised editors of wikipedia who took the time to comment. Speaking personally, I know that when I receive support on my talk page, as you have done, it goes a long way in giving me the impetus to continue to do my best (especially since the paycheck here leaves a bit to be desired :) ). As always, please feel as free, or freer actually, to drop a note (or a 20-ton salmon) if you think I could use some constructive criticism. -- Avi (talk) 04:23, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Pedro. User:ZooPro, who you gave rollback permission to last month, is misusing the tool and does not appear to understand what constitutes vandalism. There has since been a history merge of Triple Zero (000) Emergency and 000 emergency, but ZooPro used rollback to reverse the redirects that I initially had used to try to fix the cut&paste move. The editor then called my work vandalism, and even after another admin explained the problem with cut&paste merging, the editor called my attempt to discuss the rollback further vandalism and said I can not discuss this because I am a novice editor. That may be, but I'm still convinced that ZooPro does not understand how to use rollback. ~YellowFives03:58, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I noticed that nobody else had informed you, so this is just a quick note to let you know that a topic in which you're involved is being discussed at WP:AN/I under the sub-heading "feeling harassed". Thank you! Jhfortier (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Pedro! This is just a note thanking you for participating in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with a total of 93 support !votes, 1 oppose and 3 editors remaining neutral. While frankly overwhelmed by the level of support, I humbly thank the community for the trust it has placed in me, and vow to use the tools judiciously and without malice.
I've been complained about at ANI. I am a proper admin now. LOL. Nancy talk18:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)p.s. what is it with me and TL:DR people at the moment - I can't escape them.[reply]
