User talk:Pedro/Archive 37


Hey

Did you get my email? It looks as if we are going in April, you and NuclearWarfare being the noms. Are you down with that, or should we discuss it more? Hope RL is going well! Best, ceranthor 16:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Email received, agreed and I'll be there for you sir! Apologies for not replying. Currently launching new venture in RL which has me heavily commited. But I promise I'll be with you for the nom. Pedro :  Chat  18:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, sounds good. Got to get off the computer now, I'll be sure to talk to you sometime soon! ceranthor 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Update: As of now it looks like I'll be running the weekend after this coming one... fit your schedule? I'm flexible! ceranthor 23:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou (rollback)

thanks alot for giving me rollback, I won't let you down.--intraining Jack In 21:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE

How am I wet behind the ears? Am I doing anything wrong? Wikipedia is not censored you know!--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because you are over sensetive, read into comments aspects that are not there, and because you need to mature. Your even noting that "wikipedia is not censored" is exactly the issue CPE. Yes - Wikipedia is not censored. So what? en.wikipedia is also not in arabic. en.wikipedia is also not a cook book. en.wikipedia is also not a bath plug. All of which is not relevant to you being wet behind he ears - Do you understand yet? It really is not complex. You're a nice chap with a clear dedication to wikipedia and with a lot of skills. I'm a big fan of your U-boat articles and I'be seen the DYK's. Quality. But you seriously need to sharpen up your editor-to-editor interaction and not see everything as a personal afront. Just hints, good sir. Pedro :  Chat  22:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit that I need to work on interaction a bit more. Although I don;t a have a clue as to why your a "big fan" of my U-boat articles. I never took anything personal and I tried to let you all know. My social skills that involve relevant topics needs a bit more work, I'll admin but I still do not get what I did wrong in the situation.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have your talk watchlisted and I've seen your DYK's. They are good work - really good - informative and engaging. You're a nice guy CPE but you just keep on suddenly acting like a thirteen year old at times on talk pages - I think you have a huge complex that "everyone is out to get you". So, some free advice for you that you are welcome to ignore;
  1. No one is "out to get you"
  2. You write excellent articles
  3. People around here appreciate your commitment
  4. You're an earnest and dedicated fellow, which is very admirable
  5. The work you are doing is, in my opinion, for the greater good of writing a free encyclopedia
  6. You're unlikely in the extreme to become an admin before you've got bored of Wikipedia
I hope thise observations help. I'm off to bed so alas no more replies till later, but hapy editing. Pedro :  Chat  22:37, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Alright then. I guess that the scenario of Jan 1-2 and the WR incident are gone. I only thought that people still hated me. But I have one question, what do you mean by #6?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I say. I believe you would like to be an admin - and yes I've seen your comments both here and on Wikipedia Review. But I'd say you would need at least 12 - 18 months from now and I expect you'll be bored of the place by then. That's not a rude comment - just my personal position and feeling. Feel free to proove me wrong. Pedro :  Chat  22:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well your wrong about the admin thing. I do not want to be one in the foreseeable future. It's just not needed. And no, I don't think that I'll get bored in the since that I'll quit.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 22:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you don't quit. Watch the copyright thing though please :) (c.f. Malleus' talk} Pedro :  Chat  23:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but that was not me :)--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm seeing the debate at MF's talk. Please, don't mis-understand - I think you're a nice guy and a great editor but you are still a little wet behind the ears - that's a brit phrase that is not meant with any derogatory connotations - just that you still have some learning to do (as does everyone I might add!) Pedro :  Chat  23:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I'm not offended or anything. Thanks Pedro.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 23:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good! Pedro :  Chat  23:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, might want to stay away from WR. Jussayin'. Tan | 39 00:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably good advice from my new friend Tan, especially if you ever have any aspirations towards adminship. WR is for those of us who are tired of life. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 01:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, whatever you say...--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 01:05, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Huh... –Juliancolton | Talk 14:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. Pedro :  Chat  15:54, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Coaching: Reconfirmation

I was looking through the coaches at Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Status and saw that your entry was commented out. I have moved it to the "Reconfirmation" section.

Could you let me know if you are still interesting in being involved with Admin Coaching, or if you would prefer to have your name removed from the "reconfirmation" list and placed on the "retired" list. If you want to be involved, could you please move your entry from "Reconfirmation" to "Active" and indicate how many students you would be willing to have (obviously, if you are actively coaching at the moment, then please indicate this!)

If I do not hear from you within a week, I will assume that you would like to have your name removed from the list of coaches and moved to the retired list.

Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hello

I would like you to ask you to express your opinion about the format that should be used for the localities from Romania where Hungarian has co-official status (where at least 20% of the population speaks Hungarian)


Variant 1. Romanian_Name (Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 2. Romanian_Name or Hungarian_Name (Romanian: Romanian_Name; Hungarian: Hungarian_Name)
Variant 3. Romanian_Name(Romanian) or Hungarian_Name(Hungarian)

There are used different formats on different articles and I think it should exist a standard format used for all of them


Thanks in advance for your answer Umumu (talk · contribs)

I've raised this at WP:ANI in order to centralise discussion and hopefully prevent an edit war over the issue. Feel free to join the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think?

Hi, I nominated myself for Adminship about one year ago and you commented that I didn't have enough experience, etc. (the usual RfA stuff). Now one year later I haven't necessarily made millions more edits, but I feel as if I've gone from excited youngster to mature adult in a Wikipedia sense. Last time it was closed per SNOW, but if I were to RfA myself again, do you think I'd stand "a snowballs chance in hell"? I value your opinion very much, as you are an admin and admin coach. Thanks, -  A ML-Talk-Cont-Count

I'm afraid that you'd probably get WP:NOTNOWed at RFA. You still only have 600 or so edits (you need to fix the link in your sig by the way - Soxred's tool needs the correct capitalisation of your username). Without at least 3,000 edits in the current RFA climate you'd not pass. Even then that's the bare minimum and a lot of people require more. Having said that your edits look good, plenty of mainspace in an area you're interested in. Please don't be put off - honestly adminship isn't an end result of editing here. My most useful advice would be to go for a WP:GA on one of your road articles. Hope that helps. Pedro :  Chat  07:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Pedro's prediction here. I would add that folks will look at 31 edits in the Wikipedia space (half of which to your first RfA and requests for Rollback) and they will say "no experience in any admin areas". They will be looking especially for WP:AIV, WP:AFD, and in a similar vein, some evidence of activity around WP:CSD (nominations that look correct in this department). If adminship is a goal (or even just a "this would be a good place to help" sort of thing), you'll need some experience in the areas folks believe it is most important. No comment on whether or not that belief is true; it's the community's consensus and that's what is needed here.  Frank  |  talk  12:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sage words as ever Frank, hopefully that advice will also be useful for you Amlnet. Pedro :  Chat  14:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is simply if he or she wishes to maintain their sanity, avoid RfA altogether, let alone adminship. Wisdom89 (T / C) 01:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is one advantage to becoming an administrator, and that's an almost complete immunity from being blocked. The price is too high to pay though, I agree. Malleus Fatuorum 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Amlnet49. I agree with all of the above (except Malleus, of course ;) } and would add that 6,000 edits might be better than 3,000. I recommend looking into a tool like TWINKLE if you have not already to help with the laying on of templates and reverting vandalism. I prefer TWINKLE 'cause it gives me time to look over what I'm reverting and review the user's talk page before warning. Dlohcierekim 02:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teh Cabal

Hi Pedro, greetings on this most Pedroish of days. WereSpielChequers :  Chat  00:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh noes :) Pedro :  Chat  06:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

?

Remember me? Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 07:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Thanks! I'll let you know if I have any questions. ScottyBerg (talk) 12:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics

I'm still a little confused as to why you feel [1] it would be unethical to do something entirely legal here just because it is considered illegal in another jurisdiction? By analogy: In some jurisdictions it is illegal to have sex with a member of the same sex, but that doesn't make it prima facie unethical in another jurisdiction where it is legal. –xenotalk 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not the best analogy to prove your point, Xeno, in a couple ways. I'd say a better one is gambling; is it unethical to gamble in Las Vegas because it is illegal to do so in Utah? Tan | 39 22:47, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. –xenotalk 22:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tan's right and you're clueless Xeno. Utterly fucking clueless. So it's all good to do something unethical because it's legal where you live ???? You cretin. I'm going to bed. Pedro :  Chat  22:50, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it unethical to have sex with someone of the same sex or gamble. Both these things are legal in Canada, but illegal elsewhere. Ethics are subjective. That German laws considers certain forms of data mining and aggregation an invasion of privacy do not make them necessarily unethical: you said yourself you consider the law a crock. I must be clueless, because I'm really confused at your line of argument here. –xenotalk 22:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness all around, I wasn't either right or wrong, Pedro... in fact, I don't really know what the fuck Xeno is talking about. I briefly saw the hoopla and dismissed it as "boring". However, since I read your talk page with some enthusiasm, I caught Xeno's analogy. In my layman, noob, utterly douchenozzled opinion, creating an analogy using gay sex is asking for disaster no matter which side of any given fence you are on. So, I brought it down to a less-polarizing level; namely, gambling. That's it, that was my one big contribution and now I'll exit stage right before I become a cretin also... Tan | 39 22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the attack comment BTW. You're still clueless though aren't you Xeno? A checkuser (there're a whole page just a bluelink away you might want to read) says "hey - it's illegal in Germany so no probs - I'll host it in the US" and you honestly - I mean honestly - think that's a great idea given the context? Hey, I'm all for "not censored" but I still don't shout fire in the crowded theatre. Honslty Xeno, dear me..... Pedro :  Chat  22:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: I'm clueless. You yourself said you considered the German privacy law a crock. Why should we kowtow to their peculiar laws? What other peculiar laws in other jurisdictions should we blindly respect? Perhaps women shouldn't be allowed to edit here without the permission of their husbands? –xenotalk 23:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Way to go Xeno. Nice. Go away now please. I'm not interested in your bizarre logical failures. Pedro :  Chat  23:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This may help you Xeno. Good Night. Pedro :  Chat  23:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wish I knew what happened to the old Pedro. Good night. –xenotalk 23:13, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake.

Thought I was reverting the other guy. I re-reverted. HalfShadow 19:12, 12 April 2010 (UTC}