RE: reference tag. No, that's ok. I got the information from that link to the Kuroda webpage in Japanese. I changed the article to reflect this. Thanks very much!
hello, i am the user known as onopearls. although i feel that you have every right to criticize a nominator, to call their intentions questionabe is, in my opinion, uncouth. How long a user has been editing wikipedia or how long an account has been active shouldn't play such a significant role in your judgement of a nominator, and saying that the noms intentions are "fishy" is unjust without background knowledge. i have been editing wikipedia for close to three years, but never felt that a account was nessecary. i have also edited much more than 167 times. my short sentence can be attributed to the fact that i have never nominated a user before. i will write a longer one the next time nominate a user, should i ever do that again. please dont consider this a personal attack, but i felt that your accusations were misguided, and that i needed to set the record straight. best wishes, Onopearls20:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at this you will see I specifically refrained from commenting directly and noted that I had ignored your contributions or otherwise in my assessment of the candidate. I understand your concerns regarding "something fishy" and indeed I hope this reply and exampled diff demonstrate I did not base my comment (!vote) on anything of the sort. You will of course understand that on Wikipedia it is hard to gain "background knowledge" through any other medium than reference to contribution history. Very Best. Pedro | Chat 20:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My recent RfB
Thank you so much for your participation in my recent RfB. Though it closed with 72% support (below the required 90%), I'm still quite pleased at the outpouring of support shown by a fair percentage of the community.
I'm currently tabulating and calculating all opposing and neutral arguments to help me better address the community's concerns about my abilities as a bureaucrat. If you'd like, you can follow my progress (and/or provide additional suggestions) at User:EVula/admin/RfB notes. Thanks again! EVula// talk // ☯ //04:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was looking for a prettier way to do this, but I'm not very artistic, so I'll just say thank you for your support in my RfA, which was closed as successful. I look forward to serving the community in a new way. Take care! --But|seriously|folks08:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. My Oppose of your RFA is not a personal thing. I see great work from you but you have really shot yourself in the foot with your answers to the questions. I'd sugest a withdraw but it's up to you. As I said at RFA I'm always happy to help out. Pedro | Chat 08:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Pedro. Mmmmm "shot myself in the foot", you can't really be saying that if I had been less than honest and answered all the questions just the way that they should be answered, I would have stood a chance? Surely it's better to have the devil you know, than the devil you don't know? It'll get snowed before I withdraw anyway. Mike3308:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mike you are very right. Your approach is honest and refreshing. There is so much politics at RFA it's not true, and it's getting worse IMHO. I guess that sometimes you have to play the Politics and Politically Correct games because you know that you want the tools to genuinely help the project. At RFA, people will cut you down for the slightest and often oddest reason. If you're true to yourself (i.e. you want admin tools to genuinely help out) then whether one's RFA passes or fails becomes less important - at least you know you offered your time and commitment to this project for worthwhile reasons, and if the community can't see that it's their loss not yours. Of course, there is the issue of failed RFA candidates leaving the project in disgust - but that doesn't allways happen (I withdrew my own RFA last month when an editor pointed out a serious ommission in my knowledge and I'm still here!). Stick around mate, keep helping out and don't view adminship as a trophy. It really isn't - you don't even get paid !! Pedro | Chat 09:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose people participating have to be cautious of who gets the tools. I admit that some of the reasons to oppose over the last few months have been outlandish. Everybody who has opposed me has done it on the grounds of vanity. I wonder how many of the people actually reading those two sentences have really thought about the whole process over the last few months? Anyway thanks for all the assistance, I might give it another try next summer, if Wikipedia hasn't collapsed in on itself. Mike3309:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn - hey now you've promised me if you need help.... so make sure your door is open :-) again thanks for advice, kind regards, Mike3313:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support in my recent unsuccessful RfA. I am grateful for all of the advice, and hope that it will help me grow as an editor. Sincerely, NeraneiT/C11:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstar
Pedro, let's put our little squabble to bed. I'm sorry if you thought I was being argumentative with you, I do fully respect your opinion (far more so than most at Rfa) and I hope there are no hard feeling betweem us. Hope this helps......
The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your valued research that you make into each RfA comment - too many people jump on the bandwagon with their comments, but you put thought and time into fully reviewing candidates. Well done! Ryan Postlethwaite17:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey,
no problem. But now you are confusing me. Just seconds ago you told me that he had only been testing, (Diff:1) but now you say that is unlikely testing on my talk page. I think perhaps we were both, to some degree, incorrect - I dont know if reporting someone based on a possible link between a (non-violative) username and several 'tests' is the right thing to do, but it may be worth the forsight. As it is, the user has stopped. Maybe it was just a case of you needing to watch the user for further vandal contributions, and then reporting to WP:AIV. As is possible, the user may have been just testing, and it would be unfair for him to be blocked because he had a username that slightly implied intent of ill-will, when he could have turned out to be a good faith user. Thanks a lot, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh. How sad. Hes been indef blocked for three blankings... wait a second - caution, warning, final warning... he should be on his final warning by structured policy. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk15:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AD - when I say test1 I mean a test1 vandal warning - I can't really say that three page blankings are "tests" - they're not. But protocol says don't jump straight in with all guns blazing. It's a judgement call and a tricky one - leave them to vandal, revert it and go to AIV or nip it in the bud as a combination of things - i.e. slightly dodgy username but probably borderline okay, coupled with three page blankings looks unlikely to be good faith. As you rightly say - forsight is the word. It's a balance of WP:AGF and WP:Don't assume good faith to the point of ignoring things that look pretty dodgy !! As you say, the account seems to have stopped so i suspect the admin for th epage will ignore it - but I don't personally like to remove reports there or AIV - if you want to however please do ! Cheers!! Pedro | Chat 15:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Oops. Im more tired than I thought. Oh well, thats that then. he's blocked, everyone's happy. When it all comes down to it, he probably was a vandal, but, knowing a reformed vandal myself, I know that people can turn around. Oh well. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk15:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per CU
"as per the checkuser, OWB is not a puppetmaster…"
You misunderstand CU. It doesn't say who is the same individual. If one posts even the very same thing from two different places from two different computers, it should register as unrelated, provided one has not deviated from this plan. CU showed the accounts to be from the same metro area, which, while not in itself mandating sockpuppetry, is not in any way inconsistent with it (or with user bio claims,) or specifically with the work/home scenario which was painted even before the CU results. There is no surprise here.Proabivouac10:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With respect I understand CU better than you seem to think I do. I am working on WP:AGF and the statements on wikipedia from the report - specifically Jonashart and Oldwindybear are Unrelated -- no IP-relationship exists between them or the other two. Whatever evidence you have or believe you have is not relevant to my statement at ANI that the CU identified seperate IP's for OWB and SS. Whilst other things may point to evidence of sock puppetry it has been implicitly stated to the satisfaction of a third party wikipedian with CU rights that the IP's are different. Pedro | Chat 11:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for participating in My RfA which closed successfully. I am honored and truly more than a little humbled by the support of so many members of the community. It's more than a bit of a lift to see comments on my behalf by so many people that I respect. I'll do my best to not disappoint you or the community.
On a personal note, I know that you took an unpopular stance and asked a difficult question. I believe you when you imply that it was a pre-emptive strike, and I appreciate that you took the time to do it. Thank you for your kind words. - Philippe | Talk07:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
May I beg a favour? Could you do one for me: "I'm a liquorice allsort" ?
(as in:"Gaimhreadhan: Thank you for your lovely response. In common with almost everyone in the British Isles, I'm a licorice allsort, with a large dose of Welsh, Celtic (as opposed to Anglo-Saxon) English, and Scottish blood, and an Irish link through marriage. If I bothered to go down to the nth degree, I'm sure that I'd find a goodly chunk of Anglo-Saxon, French, and Irish blood as well." here [1]...Gaimhreadhan • 13:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John is actually a very courteous and knowledgeable chap. He may be concerned about intellectual property issues and matters of parliamentary privilege[2] in the UK even though the WP servers are in Florida. Don't forget to listen to BBC Radio 4 tomorrow morning for a WP program...Gaimhreadhan • 21:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well done
Hello Pedro. I've been very impressed by your excellent work lately. Although I (weakly) opposed you on your first RfA, I now recognize you as an excellent admin candidate and hereby offer to nominate you should you decide to launch a new RfA in the near future. Keep up the good work! :-) Best regards, Húsönd17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dear All. Your kind words and thoughts are much appreciated. Out of respect for the RFA process I do no intend to seek the buttons until September time (to alow three months to pass). At that time if you would like to review my contribiutions again to ensure they are of the standard you expect your nominations / support will be much appreciated. Best, and as ever Happy Editing. Pedro | Chat 07:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing 3 months is a wise decision. I'll be honored to nominate/support you then. Just contact me when you feel ready. :-) Best regards, Húsönd12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am like, so gonna nominate you again next time around! I'm actually a bit grumpy that Husond beat me to it :P GiggyUCP06:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was very kind of you and a very prompt response to my wheedling - I've changed it a wee bit to add a reference to Heterosis in the "Allsort" part of "Liquorice Allsort" just to balance up my Green Nazi image since I found that I was too far left and libertarian on the political compass scale test to be a convincing PoV Warrior. Now if I can just get my signature up to scratch...Gaimhreadhan • 10:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support of my recent unsuccsessful rfa, which concluded today with a final tally of 22/15/3. The comments and suggestions from this rfa, combined with the comments left during my first rfa, have given me a good idea of where I need improvement. —TomStar81 (Talk) 05:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Pedro
My dear Pedro, to my shame, it has taken me way longer than I wished to get back to you, and thank you in person for the beautiful words of kindness you've woven at my talk page... so I think owe you way more than a mere "thank you!" :) How about, if I bribe you with a preview of your upcoming Day as an Awesome Wikipedian...?
With you I shall ever be;
Over land and sea
My thoughts will companion you;
With yours shall my laughter chime,
And my step keep time
In the dusk and dew
With yours in blithesome rhyme;
In all of your joy shall I rejoice,
On my lips your sorrow shall find a voice,
And when your tears in bitterness fall
Mine shall mingle with them all;
With you in waking and dream I shall be,
In the place of shadow and memory,
Under young springtime moons,
And on harvest noons,
And when the stars are withdrawn
From the white pathway of the dawn.
Worry not, my friend, for I'll select another poem specially for you! :) Once again, thank you, and may you have a beautiful, happy weekend! Love, Phaedriel - 09:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy birthday to you~ happy birthday to you~ If I sing any further someone-is-going-to-flag-this-page-with-a-copyright-violation~ you smell like a shoe. --Lie!13:58, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Wiki Birthday! My mom doesn't let me anywhere near the kitchen, so I couldn't bake you a cake. Instead, have a digital one! Happy editing! --Boricuaeddie14:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It does take a certain degree of "toughness" to oppose any RfA, but one shouldn't shrink from doing it when one feels it is warranted. If everyone allowed natural feelings of friendliness and goodwill to override their judgment when commenting at RfA, the project would suffer greatly from many less-than-stellar admins. It is an easy thing to support a fellow contributor; it gives everyone involved a smile, and offends no one's feelings. Opposition takes a bit of courage, and a readiness to receive a little "flak" for what is sometimes an unpopular view. Of course, opposing is very serious, and should never be done lightly, or with a complete stubbornness against all discussion. Still, you should be proud of yourself for your ability to stay true to your convictions; never let objectors depress merely because they disagree with you, however fiercely they do so. It is your responsibility to judge each candidate honestly, and you do Wikipedia a good service when you stand against someone you feel is unqualified. Thanks for your courage, Xoloz15:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm involved in a bit of a battle over the article sebaceous cyst. A number of anonymous editors (who may be the same person) have removed one of the article's illustrations no fewer than five times. I hesitate to call this vandalism, as I suspect it is more an "eww gross" reaction, but anyway it is very tiresome and they will not engage in any discussion. I simple don't have time to revert their edits every day. Would it be possible to find some other solution, e.g. have someone else watch the article, or maybe semi-protect it? Empressario02:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My RfA
Hi, Pedro, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Sleep well :P Thanks again, GiggyUCP04:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
