User talk:Pedro/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfA

Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) asked a question that I replied to which may answer your concerns about my RfA. It can be seen at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Rough Couple of Days?

Hey Pedro, I know I haven't been around much lately (school will have that effect), but I've been keeping my finger on the pulse of a couple of RFAs in which a particular editor who makes comments and registers !votes on RFA that are generally not well-received. I've noticed that recently you seem to be going through a good deal of stress about it. Let me be the first to say, please don't let it get to you! I'm not in any way suggesting a violation of WP:COOL. I just wanted to let you know that the help you have given me in the past (see Wikipedia:Editor review/Bwowen) and the comments that you make on RFA are some of the most valuable and constructive of any editor. I value your opinion greatly and often give it great weight when when I do decide to !vote in an RFA (which is a rarity). I don't know if I've made any kind of discernible point here, but what I'm trying to say is the following: You're a great editor! I'm sorry that you have been (or seem to have been) stressed out by other people's potentially disruptive actions! Hang in there, you are an asset to the community! =] Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of service. Keep up the good work! By the way, your son is amazing! He looks like a lot of fun! =] Take care, bwowen talk•contribs 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Hey Pedro. I recently decided I should probably change my signature from the default and when I decided to do so, went about looking for those which I like best. I decided that yours was great and easily adaptable to my own tastes. As you can see, I have adapted a similar version. However, I figured I would check with you that you have no objections to it. Thanks for your time. Cheers. SorryGuy Talk 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Anon IP Comments

why can e-one else have fun with Lara, but not me? 64.147.0.70 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

i cannot log in from work because i don't carry my password with me. i never said i dont know how it works here. of course i will log in when i get home because you need a good reminder about biting and welcoming and what trolling actually is. your soapbox is even bigger from the other side. 64.147.0.70 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

WP nickname please ? Pedro : Chat 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

This time has come for us to discuss. Let's put aside who I am, and discuss fun. And the assumption of trolling. Then the Insisting on an account for sake of you not reverting. I'm inclined to keep this as anonymous because your demonstration on how you handle anons 'reeks' of someone who does not feel that anyone is free to edit. But please, tell me which edit deserved reversion, as you know as well as I do that altering talk page comments should be done with caution. It's comical to me how there is 'no cabal' yet innocent edits are worth censoring to you. Take a break, Peter. This really is going to get you nowhere. I would like it clearly stated to where my edits were worthy of reversion and how your inclination to decide that I knew my way around Wikipedia can or could be used as an excuse to out someone using an IP address, as registered users are still given the right to edit anonymously. You're bitey, and assuming good faith to you simply does not exist. If you don't recognize it, you kill it, then eat it, then go about your day. But try a checkuser instead, then you can rest, knowing that it's time for a break. Even anons can request for comment. And if I am one, as anons can and do learn policy from lurking, you deserve it. Perhaps you can request it for this event? Many logged in users commenting on the beauty of a woman, but my edits are immediately reverted, even with a disclosure. Nice work. 68.5.48.85 (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Assuming you're the same IP let's look at the story. An edit that just says please revert it? Okay. [1]. Then an edit saying I want her (whoever here is) to revert my edits [2]. That looks like IP trolling to me. Where was the positive input? Incidentally, there are about three people on Wikipedia who know my first name, so I guess you must be one of them. I'm sorry if this looks bitey or not assuming faith but try and see it form my point of view and the diffs supplied. Pedro : Chat 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

When we are making comments about the aesthetics presence of a woman, I would think that 'revert my edit' or 'edits' would be seen as simply humor. When I explained that the edit was directed towards Lara, in humor, it was still reverted. It's the equivalent of an overzealous fan screaming 'murder me' to Charles Manson: it's humor. But you didn't assume faith because you confronted me with knowing how this place works. Is that your MO? I can guarantee you if I was signed in, making the EXACT same commentary, your action would have been different: which means you treat anons differently than not just registered users, but users of which you are aware of. I tried to get a word in edgewise and you reverted it not once, but twice. I am only gracious that you didn't start you soliloquy with "I am an admin, but..." because if this was a testament to your skills, where a benign comment or two was made, you fail good faith, you fail any humor, and you fail the most basic testament, which is to assume nothing, but to only revert comments on OTHERS' talk pages when they are personal attacks - and even that, my friend, is up for debate. I suggest you leave talk pages alone, as your edits, or reverts, will never satisfy any policy we have. However, if you feel that 'supposition,' 'pre-emption,' and urging registered users to 'come out' is part of policy, then have at it. If not, you simply, fail X3. Anymore bullshit like this and RfC is exactly where I take this. You had no idea who I was, but BIT a newcomer, reverted edits other than vandalism, skewed a talk page, and decided to make accusations fly, all on an assumption that was only validated by me. Nice work with that. I suggest you re-evaluate just exactly what you wanted to accomplish with your reversions. And a fun little fact, the Bathrobe Cabal, which is where this started and continues to exist was a creation of my OWN hand. How is that for some sick irony, when I cannot even contribute, because others are apparently not welcome. Like I stress, the same exact comment made, logged in, would never have been reverted - but were met with trolling accusations, reversions, and urging to register. Pathetic, Pete. the_undertow ^talk 11:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I always wondered what MO meant. Lara_Love^Talk 14:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA Thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.

Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.

I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great success!

Click that-a-way to open your card! → → →

I just have to

...laugh at this lol. Thank you, that's classic. Thankfully, Wikipedia seems to have thought of everything with regards to things like this, and of course, that comes in quite handy, yes? :D Thanks for making me laugh! Ariel♥Gold 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome! I saw the subject line on RC Patrol and just had to shove in my two pence! Pedro : Chat 10:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hee hee, you might want to see it now, it has taken a rather amusing turn. Ariel♥Gold 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It just gets better! Goodness me, that's cheered me right up after the stress of this morning so far. Pure class! Pedro : Chat 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Point to this

You and I are obviously never going to frolic through the wilderness, hand in hand. Regardless of me being your archenemy, I would NEVER stoop to revealing personal information about you. It would never happen. I am a lot of things, including arrogant, combative, and have even been known to hold a grudge - this is a shock, I know. However, Pedro, I believe that you are a good person, filled with the best intentions. I would never reveal any personal information about you, even if I was tortured. Okay, if I was tortured, I would probably sell you out dood, but short of that, I am not vindictive and the last thing in the world that I want to see is another user who is stressed because of my actions. This is as sincere as I really get, and I am apologizing for the discomfort that I have caused. We tend to butt heads, but I there's no way I would take this outside the site, as in making it personal. I'm not like that. It may seem like it, but I'm really not. You could have RfC'd me instead of ANI. If others agree that I am revealing personal information to poke and prod other people, then I deserved to be desysopped and then banned. the_undertow ^talk 23:31, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Cobi's RFA

Hey, I was re-reading our conversation at Cobi's RFA.... I think I could have been a lot more understanding / civil / AGF'ed a little more myself, and I'm sorry about that. SQL ^{Query me!} 05:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ruiner of clean pages

Pedro, I don't think you should go straight for the tongue piercing when it comes to a child so young. Tattoos are much more cost effective, because say you get him a full-sleeve now, it will be inexpensive given Pedro's son's size...and as he grows, it will grow with him - like a spidey-suit. This is really good advice. Ya think? the_undertow ^talk 18:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Not adventurous enough? Without you guys, I wouldn't be living here and the poor natives would have been forced to live in peace and harmony. I've seen a few of you guys put cream in your Earl Grey, and that's all the adventure I need in my life, Pedro. the_undertow ^talk 18:38, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Genuine Laugh Out Loud! Quality comment buddy. I'm still smiling - cream in Earl Grey - yep, that's the Brits allright! Pedro : Chat 18:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning behind supporting Walton's RfA is something I'm going to remember. How interesting it is to think that any of us can forget why we are here? But in real life, we do it all the time. the_undertow ^talk 21:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. Given our recent difficulties I strongly appreciate your sentiments. I'm just trying to do what's best. Thank you. Pedro : Chat 22:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 18:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Re

Thanks, and thank you also for the RfA support. I know you don't like reconfirmation RfAs in principle, and I'm pleased that you decided to support me anyway. I'm not sure whether my RfA will pass (atm it looks like it will, but there are still three days to go and a chance it will dip below 75%), but if it doesn't, I'll run again in a couple of months (and go back to concentrating on article work in the meantime). Walton^One 15:09, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Deadbubble

Why can't I create that new page? I'm just working on it at the moment, that's why I put the hangon tag. Cheng Liu 16:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you refer to WP:NFT for guideance in this instance. Sorry. Pedro : Chat 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks.Jerry Liu (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

AfD closure of Delvina Dahlheimer

Hi Pedro, I was very surprised by your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delvina Dahlheimer as "keep", particularly by your comment that "notability of super centenarians seems intrinsic". That proposition has is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#Supercentenarian, where it has received almost no support, and there are countless other current AfDs where the proposition that supercentenarians are inherently notable has been rejected. No-one at that AfD disputed the point that there is no substantive coverage, as required by WP:BIO, and there are no sources to support the claim that another supercentenarian is her sister-in-law.

In any case, the article has it stands has references for only her date of birth and date of death: everything else is unsourced, and I have been unable to find any references. Please will you reconsider that decision? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I like keeping discussions in one plce, so I have replied at my talk: see User talk:BrownHairedGirl#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FDelvina_Dahlheimer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Thanks for supporting my RFA

Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday!

I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia.

Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 16:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi there: I have a question about something I noticed today. There's a fairly new article at Idols 4 that had never been edited by anyone except its creator, and it was created (according to the edit summary) with semi-protection. The creator is not an administrator (I checked) and the page has never been vandalized. My best guess is that the semi-protection template was copied from another article, because there was absolutely no reason for it to be there that I could see. My question is, does that mean the page was actually semi-protected? I'm thinking I don't know as much about page protection as I ought to. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Review ItsNat

Pedro can you review again ItsNat and remove the "tag for notability" if possible? try with Google. Thanks.

Pedro puedes revisar de nuevo ItsNat con el fin de evaluar si puede quitarse el "tag for notability"? una búsqueda con Google te puede ayudar. Gracias.

Jmarranz (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Done Pedro : Chat 23:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Son Of Pedro and the Cabal

I went and specified which cabal he was in. ;) Hope you don't mind! GlassCobra 00:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries at all.! Pedro : Chat 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

re. RfA

Support without nominating? What are you, <Monty Pythonesque voice>mad?</Monty Pythonesqe voice>

I'd be delighted to have your support, old chum. Cheerio, pass the bangers and mash, old chap, and we'll have us some tea, eh? — Dihydrogen Monoxide 07:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Hey there! Just a note to say "thanks very much" for your kind comments on my recent successful RfA. I appreciate your comments on my question responses - being neutral is an important thing for me in my job, and I hope to do my best to keep that up here on Wiki. I'll be using the tools carefully and for the benefit of the encyclopedia. Thanks again! Tony Fox (arf!) 06:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CSD A3

Hello. I am on my morning-boredom routine, and just came across the article Dorset Coast. WP:CSD#3 states that disambiguation pages are not eligible to be deleted under this criteria. But at what point does an article constitute as a disambiguation page? The article in question contains only th {{disambig}} tag, nothing else. Never came across this before, and I just noticed you were online, so I hope i'm not bothering you too much. Thanks. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, the page has been expanded now, sorry for the interruption. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries - typically I went off line just before your message! Pedro : Chat 12:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of article on the London Accord

I note that the article on the London Accord has been deleted three times now. Most administrators when seeing the rebirth of an article that has been deleted three times will (undertandably) automatically re-delete it without looking at it.

I am writing to request you not to do this, as I honestly believe that the reasons given have been addressed now.

I have recreated the article at User:Mike Young/LondonAccord. I have expanded it and added other stuff to make a useful article which cannot resonably claim to be copy vio (remember the London Accord website is open source). I see no reason why the article in its present form should be deleted. However you may. Please feel free to comment on the article on it's talk page, or even better to help me improve it by editing it into a form which you will find acceptable as an article. This is a much more sensible course of action than engaging in a deletion war. I would appreciate a "Yes this is OK" on the talk page if you think this is not an article that warrants a speedy delete.

Thank you very much in anticipation for your time. Mike Young (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Camaron1

Hello, if you remember quite a long time ago you offered to co-nominate me for adminship. Now as we are about to enter 2008, and thanks to a lot of admin coaching by The Rambling Man, I now feel ready to go. I have put together a RFA with the questions answered and optional statement given. First, after looking through my contributions, are you still willing to co-nominate me for adminship? If so, feel free to add your nomination comments to the page. Note that Dihydrogen Monoxide (talk · contribs) has offered to nominate me as well. Once the nominations are complete I will formally accept the nomination and when we are ready, transclusion can occur. By the way, nice to see pictures of another Wikipedian in the making at the top of this page! Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Yay, a co nom with Pedzorz...sounds fun :) — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know I replied to your comment on my talk page. Camaron1 | Chris (talk) 22:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Touche

If you're an outcast, what does that make me? Don't say Aussie... — Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 23:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ROGUE. But probably not this time around I'm afraid. It will happen though. Pedro : Chat 23:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)