User talk:Pedro/Archive 19

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

Riana's RfB

I've replied to your oppose. I would appreciate your serious consideration of what I say as your oppose has become one that others cite and which is possibly pivotal to the RfB failing. Your points raised are valid but I don't think they necessarily imply that she will have bad judgment around closes, renames, and bot changes, so I would ask you to consider changing to neutral or support. I rarely do this but I do feel strongly about this, Riana is one of the best candidates to come a long in quite a while. Thanks for your consideration, all the best. ++Lar: t/c 11:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to back this statement up here. Pedro, you know I trust your judgment enormously. But I really find it hard to believe that Riana nominating a user who subsequently bombed her own RfA with atrocious answers and incivility could lead to closing other RfAs improperly. I only do this because Riana is right on the line here, and every vote counts. GlassCobra 16:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If my contribution to an RfB is pivotal that's a poor look out for Wikipedia. People should make up their own minds. However, I respect your input here Lar and GC, and have asked the hard question at the RfB. I will make a statement and change or reinforce my position according to Riana's reply. The one thing I know for certain is I can trust Riana to be one hundred per cent honest in her response, and I promise to be the same in mine. Pedro :  Chat  20:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Early opposers are often pivotal, that's just the way things are, it's not necessarily bad. I saw you asked the question, and I thought it an exceedingly good one. After all, what we learn from a thing is often more important than the thing itself. I agree with you about Riana's honesty, and I am completely certain of your own as well. Thank you very much. Happy editing. ++Lar: t/c 20:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your question and your faith in my honesty, Pedro! It's very touching. Really :) I've responded. ~ Riana ⁂ 20:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read the answer. I note Keepers response. I'm going for a ciggie to think about how to couch this. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
zOMG. I really really want a cig. I quit about a year ago. I could really use one right now. You don't perhaps live near Minneapolis do you? I'd do a meetup, if only to get a cig. I can taste it. Sweet, sweet nicotine.... My brain hurts. Only because I desperately want a cig....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • insert lecture about how those things are really bad for you!* ~ Riana ⁂ 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • insert large support rationale in RfB :) Pedro :  Chat  21:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.

For taking all that time out of your day. It's not for changing your opinion. I plan to say something alone these lines to any opposers with well-explained comments also. It makes me - and this - feel worth it, whatever the result is. ~ Riana ⁂ 21:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I can but hope it helps. I don't ever comment lightly or without regard at RfA or RfB. But I have always prided myself on changing my perspective. And I allways try to do what is right for Wikipedia, wether it makes me feel bad or good in the process is academic. On a less serious note, I've got a few socks of mine needing the admin bit when you've passed - okay? Deal? :) Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive {{hugs}} for you, sir!! A lot of thought and soul-searching went into both your oppose and your support at RfB. Just ... wow! - Alison ❤ 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this SonOfPedro? He's so incredibly cute, I'd do a rouge +sysop. Most definitely. Might do a better job than us too! ~ Riana ⁂ 21:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
He! Thanks Alison - very much appreciated - I feel rather warm and fuzzy actually! And Riana - yeah - bring on the admn bit for the boy... when he can speak properly.... and type.... and errr.. not just pound the hell out of my laptop..... so you might have a few years grace yet! Pedro :  Chat  21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Torture. In my mind, along the lines of Waterboarding

Ok, that's just mean. Do this: Inhale deeply. Exhale. Inhale again. And exhale. Isn't that wonderful? (I'm crying, actually sobbing, now) I hope you enjoyed that you bastard. I am no longer allowed to partake. Oh, cripes, how I desparately want a cig. You don't even know....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm breathing easier today, but I have to admit I almost stopped at the gas station (or do you call them petrol stations?) for a pack last night after logging out, telling myself I would have "just one" and throw the rest away. *** Lies! All lies! Satan be gone!!!! *** ...sigh.... You know what I mean, surely. You should quit. Quitting sucks, but life really is better on the other side. I don't by the Allen Carr crap about quitting being "no big deal". Quitting sucked. In a bizarre RL similarity, User:SonofKeeper76 just turned two last month. User:WifeofKeeper76 would not approve if User:Keeper76 lit up anywhere near either of them, seeing as they firmly believe I've moved beyond the pleasure sticks coffin nails. Hopefully the parallel lives of Keeper and Pedro, regardless of similarities IRL, don't turn up an ssp report. Mwa ha ha ha ha ha.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Ok, and the caption under your friggin cute kid's picture totally reminds me of a Jack Handey Deep Thought (Jack Handey is a 1990s humor icon across the pond, appearing almost weekly on SNL). Your life would be richer to know his work. Anywho, the "Deep Thought": "I believe we should make the world a better place for our children. But not for our children's children. Because I don't believe children should be having sex." -Jack Handey. Cheers and good night! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for your participation in my admin application, which recently closed successfully (36/3/1). Even though you opposed my application, I can understand your concerns. But don't worry, I'll go easy using the tools and will not do anything without being certain that I am doing the right thing. If there is any way that I can help out more, or if you have any handy tips for a freshly-hatched admin, please drop me a line. Thanks again. - 52 Pickup (deal) 22:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Editor Review

Hi Pedro. (Hope you still remember me) Since I plan to run for an RFA in about 15-20 days, I was wondering if you could do one last editor review, and find my weaknesses. I want to improve them before the RFA. As you said "...RFA is a funny old place, and it's the 2% bad things that make it fail" Thanks again. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Will endeavour to do this tommorow (WP time) Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments Pedro. You really deserve this:
The Reviewers Award The Reviewers Award
For throughly reviewing several editors several times on Editor Reviews, I - Milk's Favorite Cookie hereby award you this Barnstar. Thanks, also for comments and review on my two editor reviews! - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Pedro :  Chat  08:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

My (ongoing) RfB

Hi, Pedro.

Being that you have so eloquently expressed what seems to be the only, but serious, issue with my being able to serve the community as a b-crat, may I ask what you feel would be sufficient participation in the event that this nomination does not pass? Thanks. -- Avi (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Avi and thanks for dropping by!. To me it is pretty clear cut. You have asked for B'Crat tools based soley on RFA judgement and not based on the other techincial abilities that 'crats have. Yet you have poor participation in the arena you wish to be involved in. This is, as I said before, like an editor requesting sysop tools to help at CSD when they only have AIV input. To answer: Simply, there is no number. My opinion is, however, that whilst you may have the knowledge of current RfA expectation (per yourself) you cannot demonstrate it through repeated and valuable contribution. Best. Pedro :  Chat  00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

that whilst you may have the knowledge of current RfA expectation (per yourself) you cannot demonstrate it through repeated and valuable contribution.

– User:Pedro, 00:16, 3 March 2008

Did you mean can, or cannot? Because if you meant the way it is written, you have just said that there is no way to demonstrate the knowledge of current RfA expectation. Also, I would like to know in your opinion how one would demonstrate knowledge of an RfA consensus by opining on any given candidate, unless what is necessary is being seen regularly at RfA/B's which would in-and-of-itself suggest currency in the process? Thanks again for your time. -- Avi (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I mean it as written but emphasis on the word you - e.g. you have asserted that you understand the ever shifting sands of RfA (as best as anyone can!) but your recent lack of contribution to RFA's / Talk RFA means you can't demonstrate it. Pedro :  Chat  09:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Norman Bettison

Thanks: protection was a good move. Out of interest - I can't find one, but it would be useful: is there any standard message, akin to the one used on for AFDs, advising newcomers and anons who have just come out of the woodwork for the argument what the Talk page is for? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

No Problem. I've never seen a template for users that says "please use talk". But there may well be one somewhere! Pedro :  Chat  09:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
{{uw-chat1}} or {{uw-talkinarticle}} may be what you are looking for. -- Avi (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah - there's always one somewhere! Thanks Avraham. Pedro :  Chat  17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This grid may be helpful regarding warnings Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, and this one for any and all admin- or editor-related work: Wikipedia:Template messages. Here I go giving away all of my secrets . -- Avi (talk) 17:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Cool - that's very handy. I love this site - you find more everyday :) Pedro :  Chat  17:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Enjoy, but make sure to spread the wealth :) Knowledge shared is knowledge multiplied! -- Avi (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Pedro! With less than 24 hours left in my RfA, I was wondering if you had (re)formed an opinion. Watching from the sidelines, I have come to respect your judgment and would welcome your opinion, whether it be yea, nay, or neutral. Cheers —Travistalk 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Well, that's just me, I exude class and a certain je ne sais quoi. Or maybe that's just perspiration; I dunno :) -- Avi (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Rollback

I have some history of contention and blocks. I don't need to give myself any further trouble. However, you could ask Wknight's honest opinion on whether it would be appropriate. He knows me pretty well. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I would certainly NOT use it in any edit wars that I might be participating in (which are hopefully not many nowadays). I'm not even sure how it works, but I gather its purpose is to revert a vandal's entries all at once instead of having to do it individually. Is that correct? In any case, that's all I would use it for. The reason I haven't asked for it is not really out of fears of misusing it (I'm more disciplined than that) but simply out of not thinking I would need it very often. But it does get tedious messing around with 10 or 20 individual vandalisms. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I also express some concern over allowing this user access to rollback. I've had some unpleasant run-ins with this person, and am not yet convinced that they are ready for the additional tool, as they haven't mastered the usage and rules regarding the ones they already have. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 00:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Your concerns are understandable. Keep in mind I didn't ask for it, it was offered to me, probably for help in rolling back vandalisms (not legitimate albeit questionable edits). Having just read the chapter they pointed me to, it confirms my earlier suspicions that it could be dangerous and is something I would seldom use - which is why I didn't ask for it in the first place. I like to have things under control instead of running some cascading function that could go nuts. But I can imagine rare occasions when it might be needed, like when I've had to painstakingly revert 20 or 30 gibberish or obscene edits or blankings made in 20 or 30 articles by some character. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I understand your concerns Arcayne. However as easily as it is granted so can it be removed, and I do see a need for Baseball Bugs to have it. I'm trusting he won't let me down. Pedro :  Chat  07:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I tested it on my own talk page, and I understand now. It's simply a way of executing a series of "undo" steps, which is a feature everyone has anyway. So in that context, it's merely a time-saver. And the other way to use it would be on, for example, an IP address page where he has, for example, 20 vandalous edits against, for example, 15 articles (some of them vandalized twice consecutively), and I can "undo" them all in one shot. And if someone else beat me to it, or if someone else added something to an article, then it has no effect in that article. Is that correct? And if so, is there any way to know which articles were affected and which were not, other than checking each article individually? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I also went back to see what the issue with Arcayne was, since I try not to dwell on those things too much. It was a content dispute over The Natural (film). Old news, from January 12 or so. The primary editor that I was arguing with then, User:JimDunning, and I have worked in concert on other things recently. Don't confuse my passion with lunacy. I usually stop short of that. No hay problema. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Roll back only works on the edits within an individual page, not all edits across all pages. So if an IP made one bad edit to Cheese pressing rollback on that edit will revert the edit from that article back to the previous edit. If they made four edits to Cheese it would revert all four. If they made one bad edit, someone else edited the page, and then they made two more bad edits it would only revert the last two - not the one prior to the third party editing - so you still need to check the article history. If an IP made one bad edit to Cheese and one bad edit to Brie then you need to roll back seperately at each individual article. It really is just a handy one quick tool when seeing blatant vandalism on RC patrol. And don't forget it doesn't give out warnings, so these must be done manually. Pedro :  Chat  11:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I understand that part. What I'm referring to is Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback#Mass reversions which supposedly can be done on the offender's Contrib page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:16, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, I think I get it now. You can do it from the Contrib page, but you still have to do rollback on each article the guy has affected, i.e. on each place where the word "rollback" appears. There is no "roll 'em all back at once" button. That's good. OK, we're square. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I've used it successfully a couple of times now. The need for it is not widespread. Regarding Arcayne, he's had a few scrapes of his own, including with an admin recently. Nobody's perfect. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)