User talk:Pedro/Archive 30

Re:RfA closed
Thank you. Never mind, eh. I'll follow your advice and keep at it. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 12:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
I had someone ask me this question, "How do I submit an article for inclusion in the biography section of Wikipedia?(Observerrelate (talk) 07:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC))" I'm not sure how you do it either so, could you help us pleeze?  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  01:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no "biography section". Just write the article. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There could be some confusion relating to WP:BLP rathern than a biography section. There is, as Malleus rightly points out, no "biography section" - however our policies and guidelines on living people are all included at BLP, and it may be very useful to point the editor in that direction. Pedro : Chat  06:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Restored WP:COMMUNISM redirect
Hi there. I've restored WP:COMMUNISM. The reason is that you deleted it as vandalism, but I think if you look at the contributions of the user who created it, I think it's pretty clear that the person isn't a vandal. Wikipedia has a proud history of humorous redirects, which I consider harmless; but if that history is over, it at least deserves a discussion at Redirects for discussion. -- SCZenz (talk) 07:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I noticed you did that. As far as I'm concerned it might be as humourous as WP:DRAMA but it I'm not rolling on the floor with laughter. I also note you marked your restore with no speedy deletion reason given when there clearly was. That was a little disapointing. Maybe I've had a sense of humour failure this morning. I've watchlisted the page and will engage in the forthcoming debate. Pedro : Chat  07:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for writing "no speedy deletion reason given." It's not what I meant to type, and I was honestly surprised to look back and see that I had written it!  I can see why it would bother you.  Nevertheless, the redirect was actually in use, and it wasn't vandalism; the CSD don't apply.  -- SCZenz (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No biggie. Debate is best any how. I really think these kind of redirects cause more harm than any benefit from the humour (I'm imagining the context on an article talk page - one editor using that re-direct to describe ownership issues to another editor and the eventual flame war that will happen...). However it is best to thrash it out rather than my unilatteral decision. Ta. Pedro : Chat  08:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, then we agree then on what to do next. (The rest I wrote while you were replying, then edit conflicted.)  To add to my apology, I know the instant restoration was a little precipitous, and that we've started on the wrong foot because of it.  My frustration stems from the fact that I had already told people on Wikipedia talk: Ownership of articles to take it to redirects for discussion, and then people kept trying to find an easy way around it.  I'm sure you're aware of none of that context, and I apologize for taking it out on you. -- SCZenz (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No I wasn't aware. Hands up I didn't do enough checks. It was the usual thing - created by a name with a red link, looks a bit pointy, and I added 1 and 1 and got 3 and hit delete. My fault. No issues with the restoration and no issues with yourself. Pedro : Chat  08:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

D!ZTRACTION
Hi! I was the person that put the speedy tag on D!ZTRACTION. I think that the page also meets G4 of CSD. Just letting you know on that. leujohn ( talk, contribs ) 11:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I deleted it under G11. It hasen't ever been through WP:AFD so G4 wouldn't apply. Not that it makes much difference now as it's gone anyhow as blatant spam. Pedro : Chat  11:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

American Accounts Payable Association
Hi Pedro

I don't disagree with your denial of speedy for the above-captioned article when looking at it on its own. In the context described at Articles for deletion/American Accounts Payable Association, however, I think the answer is more clear--but I am happy to run it through the AfD process. I would be interested your opinion there (even if it differs from mine!).

Thanks, Bongomatic (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * AFD is best. At CSD it's not really the wider context - it's "does the article meet the Speedy Criteria" - if yes and there is no better version in the history then delete. If not, or there is any doubt, default to keep and recommending AFD or PROD. G11 is fairly broad but I didn't see that article, on its own, as being nothing but promotional. It's a good decision starting the deletion debate - I'll chime in when I have a moment. Pedro : Chat  12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Floform
Hi there. I noticed you removed the speedy deletion temp from this article, but I don't necessarily agree with your reasoning. The article doesn't assert it's notability. Per wp:n there aren't any independent secondary sources establishing notability. As such I believe it qualifies to be speedily deleted. (As a side note, the whole first sentence is a copyvio from the company website.) I probably should have added a note to my deletion template stating the above, which I apologize for. --Wizard191 (talk) 12:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that it will probably fail to meet WP:N. But in terms of a speedy A7 the mere assertion of notability (in this case "global supplier") means it's not really eligible. I've looked at their website and yes you could argue a G12 copy-vio but the article is so short that one (slightly reworded) line is not to big a copyright thing. I'd suggest WP:AFD due to notability. Pedro : Chat  13:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh ok...thanks. --Wizard191 (talk) 14:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hi Pedro. I was wondering why you decided to delete the page wikipedia.org/somebody_stole_my_pancreas_productions but leave pages like 70/30 productions? I am not suggesting you delete 70/30 productions, as a lot of people would be very upset, but my point is that both entities have, for all intents and purposes, the same significance. They're both production companies located in Atlanta that are associated with Adult SwimWhat can be done to have the page added again without being victim to speedy deletion? Thank you for your time.

PetePancreas (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The key thing is that the article has to assert some notability. Mere existence is neither here nor there, and the text as was gave a description of the company but not why it is important or notable. For example there is a hardware store down the road from me. It exists and is an established business. But an article on it would not be encyclopedic. Although Wikipedia is vast, and covers many many companies, they still need to assert why they should be in an encyclopedia. This article did not do that. Alas, I can't comment on the other articles as the existence of another article does not justify the inclusion of any other. To sum up, if you can write an article showing why the company is important - to the readers of an encyclopedia - please feel free to do so. You may find it handy to develop it in a sandbox first. Pedro : Chat  20:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Pedro, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA
Remember me? Anyway, thought i'd give you a heads up that as of thursday afternoon (GMT) my immediate real-life stress should drop significantly, the best time for to try an RFA. So i'm giving you this time to make sure that you still think its worth going for and that i haven't made any major cock-ups in the last few weeks. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 02:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Leave it with me! Pedro : Chat  11:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers--Jac16888 (talk) 13:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Thank you
No, thank you! D ARTH P ANDA talk 14:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Decision time
I'm not putting myself in that torture zone anytime soon. I'd rather take your advice and let it take til' I have a beard to run at RFA. Anyway, great nom. for Jac. Just wanted to let you know, and stop bothering you constantly about it. Cheers! &mdash;  ceranthor ( strike ) 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries may man - best to just enjoy the place and worry about adminship a bit later. Beard not mandatory! Pedro : Chat  07:27, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not mandatory? - now he tells me..... :) Nancy  talk  08:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Did I say NOT? My mistake. Pedro : Chat  08:17, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait? Does this mean i'll have to grow a beard if my rfa passes? All i can manage is a bit of designer stubble, and thats only because i'm too lazy to shave right now. Maybe i should withdraw--Jac16888 (talk) 08:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL - love Nancy's "self protrait" ! Pedro : Chat  09:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Extreme lol! But seriously, I don't need the bit right now. &mdash; Ceranthor-elda  ( Atra du flauga, fricai! ) 15:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This needs to be a guideline. Facial hair is required for administratorship, I'm definitely writing it. &mdash; Ceranthor-elda  ( Atra du flauga, fricai! ) 15:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that would be a very good little essay to throw around the arguments (on both sides) concerning the perenial debate of "candidate is 12 years old - oppose". Pedro : Chat  15:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Just saw it go blue linked on RC Patrol! Pedro : Chat  15:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Add on, add on! &mdash; Ceranthor-elda  ( Atra du flauga, fricai! ) 15:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Mia Riddle
Hey Pedro. You've speedily removed my article about Mia Riddle, a New York-based Indie band that has toured the UK several times. The article was small, but that's a lot further than most music groups ever get - hence, notability. I'm not advertising for them, but I think they deserve a mention. Care to reconsider? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidjmerrill (talk • contribs) 21:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfied and replied on user talk. Pedro : Chat  21:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Hydrangea Blue/AutoQuotes
Greetings. You deleted the above but the deletion log just refers to a G6 deletion. Did someone nominate it? I thought the user was still working on it. Thanks. – ukexpat (talk) 21:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. The work was moved to AutoQuotes and thus a redirect was created to the article namespace from the user space - it was simply the redirect I deleted as there is no value in it. Hope that helps! Pedro : Chat  22:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops yes I just noticed that - sorry to bother you. – ukexpat (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Serious question
It's been almost a year since my first RfA, and almost six months since my second. As hard as I've tried, I still haven't been able to put the bitterness of those experiences behind me, although even I can see that they have jaundiced my view of wikipedia, its processes, and its administrators.

I will never again submit to that ritual humiliation, but I'm curious. If those RfAs hadn't happened, and I'd come to you today asking if you thought I'd get through RfA, what would you say? Feel free to be as honest as you need to be, or even to ignore this question altogether. I'll understand and won't mind either way. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll review, have a ciggie and reply. Meantime, how about you ponder on this one - if you looked at my contribution history would you oppose, support or go neutral on an RFA for me if I ran now? Pedro : Chat  22:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not fair! You first. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You show me yours and I'll show you mine? :) Looking, just trying to deal with a WP:HELPDESK thing. Pedro : Chat  22:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * From memory, I think I've only voted neutral once, but I switched to oppose, so that doesn't really count. I'll have a look through your contributions and let you know what I think. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. In the full realisation that I'm handing you a stick to beat me with, I'd be critical of your article building, and might well oppose on that basis. On the other hand, if you, as an established admin, were forced to go through RfA again for whatever reason I'd be lining up in the support column without a second thought. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you see that's the rub. My article work is rubbish - 4 DYK's - three before getting the bit and one after. Minor gnomish stuff. Nothing else. But I've done six and half thousand deletions with only one overturned at DRV (which I overturned myself). So although my encyclopedia building skills are poor I'd argue my use of the tools are excellent. I passed my RFA through popularity - let's make no bones about it - I did the right things, added constructive comments and lent guidance to newer editors. I didn't get involved in controvesial stuff not to avoid it but I just wasn't that fussed. My role was exactly administration before and after. I admit that when you get +sysop you somehow feel "more free" but I'm honestly sure I'm no more argumentative before or after.
 * So to yourself. It's impossible to be neutral I think - my NPOV suffers! At you last RFA I felt frustrated by the opposers because I knew you would be able to handle the tools with total dispassion. But of course few editors who commented there had built up the rapport we have through sustained interaction. I do believe your edits in the project space are tainted by your experience. I understand, for example, your position on 12/13 year olds getting the bit. But the key thing (to me) is the community view. Wikipedia is viral, changing and dynamic and we need to evolve with it, not kicking and screaming against it. You need to get it under your skin that whilst there may well be a whole bunch of kiddie admins going "look at me how good am I" no-one else cares. I believe you know that on a logical level but I also think it still grates that we have some rampant HUGGLE user with the bit, when sound rational adults do not. It happens. It's not great but it's not that bad either. Fundamentally your view of Wikipedia is in line with its purpose - the sum of all human knowledge - and you write and edit and graft to give that away. I simply run along behind wiping up the mess by the bloke reading The Sun who put too much ink in the printing machine.


 * Would you be an effective and decent administrator? Yes. Yes. Yes.
 * Will the community agree with me? No.
 * So for all those "Per Pedro Nominated" RFA comments I'm not some infalliable RFA God. I just know what the community expects. It's like Rhubarb. It doesn't mean I have to like it or agree with it, but I do know what it is. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. I have very little respect for consensus, on the basis that most people are mostly wrong. I think my time here may be coming to an end. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why? I though you liked giving away free knowledge? Dude, 'm off to bed - have to feed the newbie and get some sleep. Please relpy and I'll catch up tomorrow. Pedro : Chat  23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I did, but I find that incompatible with not being trusted. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a wealth of users who do trust you though. That's not to be overlooked. --Jza84 | Talk  00:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to make a big resignation thing over this, but it's undoubtedly the case that my bitterness has clouded my contributions. I am what I am, I can't pretend not to care when I clearly do. Let others donate their time for free and put up with the abuse. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We're all here to write articles, or at least we ought to be..... And I don't think anyone can question your article building skills, your collaboration and your work at FAC. For those reasons alone Wikipedia needs you. Pedro : Chat  06:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer is for me to steer well clear of the project space. I've made my views on, for instance child administrators plain, and nothing anyone can say will induce me to change my mind. Just as nothing I can say will change anyone else's. I have no great respect for what is laughably called "consensus" on wikipedia anyway, as must be obvious. Back to core values. If the kiddie admins and admin wannabees keep out of my face, then I'll be quite happy to ignore them. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference the "kiddie admins" (should we not say temporal existence duration challenged admins?) I think you'll find the pointed question I just asked at my recent noms RFA of interest. Pedro : Chat  20:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you mean this? Naughty Pedro! Just for the record, I have nothing against administrator candidates who are old enough to be allowed to choose their own bedtime. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. Do you reckon I'll get a WP:POINT telling off :) Pedro : Chat  21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Inevitable. I'll be surprised if you don't get the whole pack, including WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK. See, I know all those weird wikipolicies, even if I do choose to ignore them most of the time. Allegedly. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah mate. I'm an admin. I get a WP:TROUT. You lesser mortals get a block. Didn't you know that as an ADMIN ON TEH WIKIPEDIA !!ONE111!! I'm simply so much better than you ..... The irony is a bit like Gold - only made of Iron Pedro :  Chat  21:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is one other difference I think. When someone pops along to my talk page to offer me a civility warning I do have a tendency to tell them to shove it up their arse. You are perhaps a little more diplomatic than I am. Hell, who isn't? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have kids - I don't know if you do, but that certainly taught me diplomacy.! Pedro : Chat  22:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you allow your children to become administrators before they'd even reached puberty? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. No way. For their sake. Good point, well made. Pedro : Chat  07:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Adminship
Hey, Pedro. I have been asked to run for RfA as the second user to try the experimental new format after Ironholds' is done, and he recommended you for a possible nom. Could you look over my contributions and see how I'm doing in regard to adminship, and maybe think about a nom? Thanks for your time, Erik the Red  2    02:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look! Pedro : Chat  06:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, J.delanoy has offered to nom me instead. Thanks for your time! Erik the Red  2    19:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hope to see you soon, sir
I'm taking an indefinite break. Life has grown more and more stressful with each day, and I'm not risking anything any longer. Hope to see you soon, my friend. &mdash; Ceran  [speak] 01:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Surprise!

 * Thank you! Pedro : Chat  14:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note and Questions from Patches1998
Hey, Why did you delete the A to Z mysteries page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Patches1998 (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You need to refer to User:Tanthalas39. I deleted the page when it was redirecting to a non existent other page - Tanthalas39 deleted the version you created under our critera at WP:CSD - the article did not contain enough context to give the reader an understanding of what the article was about. Pedro : Chat  06:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Good call
on Archiving the discussion on the one RfA...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But you might want to look at Caspian's latest endeavors...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh - that didn't end up very pretty did it? I was optimistically hoping that by archving the discussion it might calm things down - the conversation had seriously moved from being a debate about an oppose to general name calling and tongue poking. Instead it looks like CB just pushed and pushed and forced it to spill over to BN, your talk and Scribe's talk. Template vandal warnings as well....... disappointing. Pedro : Chat  07:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was hoping that you were still on when I posted here... I TRIED to get away from it, but knew that CB needed somebody else... anything I might have done would have been called "Oppression."--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 12:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro, Enough. Unlike your false note, everybody including you do not move on per this conversation. Just leave me alone and let me move on.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * He is leaving you alone. We had all gotten over this. You're the only one who feels hard-done-by here, and you're the only one who is continuing old circular discussion for no apparent reason on various talk pages. You're simply making yourself look worse than you already do. -- how do you turn this on  15:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We? Why can't you just stop following me? You've been following here again. You're the one who wants to continue the dramas and feels satisfaction of "oh, I've done good today". Just mind your own business.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid so Caspian Blue. This conversation thread started last night, as you will see from the date stamps, when the issues were still ongoing. My note is not "false". You, however, are becoming disruptive. Please don't continue down that line. Pedro : Chat  15:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why can't you just stop chasing me and talking about me? I replied to only Balloonman for his lecture. So please, please, mind your business. Yesterday is over.--Caspian blue (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, you can't really say Pedro isn't leaving you alone when you're posting on his talk page. Pedro is well within his right to respond to you here, regardless of who you were talking to. (and that's ignoring the fact that anyone can respond to anyone) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I've kept quiet about this despite watching it curiously unfold. CB, you are posting on other editor's talk pages. How on this great green earth can you feel that these good standing editors are hounding you? My advice to you is simple. Refrain from responding to anybody anymore about this entire situation. This is my first and last comment regarding this.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to EVula and Wisdom for the input. Pedro : Chat  20:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

1800 PHONEHOME
Hello Pedro...I styled my 1800 PHONEHOME entry much like the 1800 REVERSE entry. I have been operational for a short time and have not attracted negative press. Is this what makes the 1800 REVERSE entry acceptable? If that has nothing to do with it would you please give me some hints as to how to style the entry.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gravestein123 (talk • contribs) 11:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * They key thing is to establish notability. 1800 REVERSE seems to be notable when 1800 PHONEHOME isn't. The main problem however was that the phonehome article read more like an advert for the company than a description of why it is notable enough fo rinclusion in an encyclopedia. If you can find some independent third party reliable sources showing why 1800 PHONEHOME is important and notable, and make sure the article is fully neutral in tone then that would be fine. Pedro : Chat  12:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro.

I do not have any notable articles. IP Australia has accepted my 1800 PHONEHOME word trademark. Suffient evidence of use has been demonstrated over two years. This is a significant step as only a few phone names have been accepted. See below... Trade Mark : 1135933 Word: 1800PHONEHOME Image: Lodgement Date: 18-SEP-2006 Divisional Date: 06-MAR-2005 Sealing Due: 16-APR-2009 Date of Acceptance: 02-OCT-2008 Acceptance Advertised: 16-OCT-2008 Class/es: 38 Status: Accepted Kind: n/a Type of Mark: Word

Will I have another go and keep it neutral as is required? If you agree could you put the entry up again and I will look every hour and edit it immediately. Thank you. Gravestein123 (talk) 03:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Justy a note, but you should also review WP:COI - is that actually your company that you are writing about? Remember that Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. Pedro : Chat  06:47, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes...it is my company. The entry is noteable because IP Australia, the Australian government authority on trade marks, has accepted my mark 1800 PhoneHome as a word used in the Australian language that no one else can use in the telecommunications industry. It is now accepted via significant evidence of use that this term is seen and regarded by the community as a term that means and is associated with reverse charge calls. I tried to put up another entry without a space between the 1800 and the phonehome but it got immediately deleted even though I put hang on at the end of the article. The Australian government IP Australia is thorough and relentless in ensuring that sufficient evidence of use is submitted to them before they accept a word as a trade mark. Could I have your advice please...and could you drop a copy to the other editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.139.57.166 (talk) 02:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll have a look and come back to you. Pedro : Chat  06:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings
Hi Pedro, keeping well? As a courtesy, I am just informing you that I endeavour to operate an informal mentoring scheme not dissimilar to yours. While I rarely post on WT:RFA, I always have an understanding of its status quo among the community. I'd like to think that many are familiar with my cool and collected disposition among tricky subjects (I think my RFA is testiment to it), and it is something I look forward to actively extending to WP:RFA. Best, WilliamH (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good luck with it. Alas my WP time is more limited than it used to be :( but if you need any help please feel free to tap me up. Pedro : Chat  12:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb talk  20:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. Your strong support early in my RfA helped greatly in getting me past those crucial first few hours. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  21:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there
Do admins get to see the deleted contribs of editors ? Just curious...I know deleted articles can be seen... --  Tinu  Cherian  - 12:31, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, admins can see all deleted contributions unless they have been oversighted. Pedro : Chat  13:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed your comment at Requests for adminship/Jac16888 - I've actually used this nomination format on a number of other RFA's - you can see some at User:Pedro/RFA Pedro : Chat  13:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec)OK. Thanks for the prompt reply..Just clarifying after reading one of your RFA noms. Btw Good and very precise nomination style.I really like reading them..I must say :) . --  Tinu  Cherian  - 13:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ya. I know...Honestly, your nom give lots of weightage to the candidate, mainly bcoz it is blatantly well researched and very thoughtful nomination. ! Other nom I like is of Balloonman's. --  Tinu  Cherian  - 13:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you!I think it's only fair to the candidate to do your best during a nomination. Okay, their contributions are what "sells" them, but it helps the community to deliver a concise and structured statement. Well the outcomes of most of my nominations seem to speak for themselves! :) Pedro : Chat  13:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Echo Pedro... thanks. I try to take my noms (!votes) seriously and only do so when I feel the candidates fully deserve it.  And try to give both the good and the bad  (and why the bad should be overlooked).--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * yes man,As I had once said, your nom leave very less for others to research about the candidate, both good and bad :) --  Tinu  Cherian  - 14:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like there's very little point in going through the formality of an RfA. Why not just let Pedro and Balloonman choose administrators, without all that unecessary hoo-hah? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Dis-enfranchise the community totally, let applicants supplicants come to Baloonman or I, and at our discretion we inform the 'crats that they must do our bidding in adding the bit or crush the aspirations of editors mercilessly with a flat refusal. Yep, I'm thinking that just about matches my uncontrolable lust for power :)....... Hmmm, maybe not on reflection! RFA sucks but it doesn't suck that much. Pedro : Chat  14:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Shut up Pedro you're messing with my retirement plans ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone know the current e-bay value of sysop accounts? Pedro : Chat  19:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * he might--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh! Naughty Naughty! But I think Peter would appreciate that joke. :) Pedro : Chat  19:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I hope so... I (as his nom) I was disappointed about that whole affair... and am glad he came back... ;-)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 19:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cough! co-nom with some over bloke actually ........ Pedro : Chat  19:54, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL, that makes it even more humorous ;-) --- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Having fun guys :) ?

MF, Just because this didnt succeed doesnt mean either the system is completely bad or your contributions are not worthy. RFA seeks more temperament and behaviour from the hopefuls. If it didnt succeed once, working on the oppose reasons surely leads to more appreciation in the community. As they say Third means gold  ! :) . If the system has a problem, a solution is better appreciated than just the blaming the system. My personal opinion, though --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:Early promotion
Yup, I occasionally promote a few hours early if consensus is clearly established. Its a pleasant surprise for the candidate. PS I liked your nomination. Really innovative. :) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  14:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been happy to close the last three RFAs after more than a month. I rarely get a chance to close RFAs these days, they mostly end during my offline hours. And when I do get the chance, I end up edit conflicting with other bureaucrats. :( I have closed RFAs early in the past 12 hrs is a bit too early, my standards for early closure are a maximum 6 hrs before due, near unanimous support, and a lack of any significant activity on the last day.  =Nichalp   «Talk»=  17:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

West Bexington
Sorry I missed that. Was looking at the rest of the drivel they had posted. No harm done in the end. Thanks Waterden (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you Pedro, without your support, and your amazing nom, this would have been a lot more difficult.--Jac16888 (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Great quote
I love this quote. I want to add it to my userpage, with credit to you of course. A question though, did you mean "imagine" when you wrote "image"? It doesn't really make sense otherwise, and I would rather quote with the word you meant to write ;-) Best wishes, -- How do you turn this on (talk) 00:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to use it, and I think I did mean "imagine" not "image"! Pedro : Chat  06:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been...
email pinged : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll go dig it out of the spam box :) Pedro : Chat  06:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Careful now, you're open to recall!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just making sure though, did you receive my email? I ask only because I've never really emailed anybody from Wiki before : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - no probs - will be the weekend before I can do much is all! Pedro : Chat  07:41, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh that's fine - take your time. You're a busy guy. Just wanted confirmation that you received it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 07:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for removing someone else's spam from my (and I guess a bunch of other folks') talk page. --Big_iron (talk)

Block query
I think you should unblock and then reblock indef --  for block evasion of other indef-blocked accounts. Requests for checkuser/Case/Kermanshahi came up "possible", but behavioral evidence strongly suggests the user is the same as, who was previously confirmed to be the same as indef-blocked. Cirt (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, if you don't object I can do it. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind I see you already said you had no objection to an extension of the block. Cirt (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, figured that would be the outcome but I was away from my PC so that's why I noted I had no objections. Pedro : Chat  11:35, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback
Many thanks! Andrew (My talk) 13:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

How to make friends and influence people
Some people never learn – I'm talking about myself. I should have started off by saying "With respect ... ", but I keep forgetting. :lol:
 * With respect Malleus, I do think writing that changes the meaning of the sentence - as you say, "How to make friends and influence people"... -- How do you turn this on (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With respect, and I don't wish to point out the flaws in your argument, not saying you're totally wrong but ......... what was the point I was trying to make again? :) Pedro : Chat  14:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Reality check (for me, that is)
Hello, Pedro. Hey, that rhymes, heh. But I don't have have the time to make up rhymes, as I want you unbiased opinion: How am I doing (on WP, that is. It would be rather odd and creepy if you knew how I was in real life. If you could, you would probably be reading my mind, which wouldn't end well for you because I tend to wander... Wait, what was I saying? Oh well, Thanks)  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  04:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll have a look! Pedro : Chat  07:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you.  RC-0722 361.0/ 1  13:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Pedro : Chat  09:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

AfD
it's no problem jimfbleak (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

dotPhoto Article Deletion
Why did you delete this page as blatant advertising? All of our competitors have similar pages. Bradmurray (talk • contribs) 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please take a look at WP:CORP, WP:NOTABILITY, and WP:CITE for details about why this article has been deleted three times so far. Frank  |  talk  14:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All of our competitors.... - please also see WP:COI and WP:SPAM Pedro : Chat  19:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Rollback rights
Hello Pedro, I am Very interested in the rollback rights, and wanted to know how i can become one, you advise would be greatly appreciated. Please Message me back on my talk page Thanks --Elite Rhodes (talk) 11:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

About the Undo Feature how do you tell if someone has Vandalized a page. (I know of Obvious vandalizm). But as soon as a vandalized page appears someone else would have reverted before me can you help Hello Again I have Resently been patroling the Resent changes page and undid all the Vandalizm can you confirm that i am doing it right. --Elite Rhodes (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Request for input
Hi there Pedro, seen you online, hope you are still. Would you mind giving your 0.02€ to this protection request? It's a bit complicated and I like a second opinion. Feel free to overturn my decision if you think it should be protected, I trust your judgment. Regards  So Why  14:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi SoWhy - I've commented at RFPP - I agree with your assessment. Pedro : Chat  14:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Advice please
Hi Pedro, I came across this user page and I thought I'd come to you for advice. IMHO the last three words merit an indef block, but I'm not sure which route to take it. 3 weeks ago makes WP:AIV  not appropriate, the user name is in theory inoffensive - it could be that person or someone trying to get that person into trouble, and it doesn't seem like a big enough deal for wp:ani. So two questions, is a quiet notice to an admin the best way to handle this and am I right to regard it as unacceptable?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Deleted, user blocked indef. Definitely unacceptable. Tan   &#124;   39  16:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In answer to WereSpiel - yes, and yes. Best handled sans-drama by asking an admin quietly, and totally unacceptable. Good work. And to Tan, thanks for taking care of the matter. Cheers all. Pedro : Chat  20:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks to both of you. I'm assuming that this long dormant vandalism only account merits similar treatment. But I'm less sure about this, this, or that, they are possibly trolls - the last has something of the Icke about him. Reading wp:block these are personal attacks or extreme views but not threats, and though they have not been persistently made they have persisted as pages here for a very long time. So while my gut feel is that for the good of the project that these pages should be deleted and the userids blocked I'm not sure which policy allows that, and I'm conscious that some of these have been here for a long time - though I hope that means they were overlooked rather than tolerated. However it would be embarrassing for Wikipedia if some journo listed these as "views of wikipedia editors", or someone more easily offended than I came across one of those user pages, or worse still this one.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The policy you are looking for is WP:IAR! I've deleted the first lot, the last probably ought to go but I'll ponder. I've not bothered blocking the accounts as they are no doubt abandoned anyway. Thanks for your help on digging this stuff out. User page content like that is not acceptable. Pedro : Chat  14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Question
Would you be interested in being a bureaucrat? J.delanoy gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds 21:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha! Do you want the long or the short answer?! Pedro : Chat  21:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter, really. If you're not too busy, the long answer would be nice. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  21:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose any admin active at the various discussion pages around RFA would like the crat ability to add +sysop and any admin close to BAG would want the ability to flag. As far as rename goes, that strikes me as just being CSD. You fly over, do the work and then carry on with something else. I can't imagine any 'crat who seeks the tools expresly to be able to do renames! So the answer is, yes, of course I'd be interested. The difference is wether I'm particularly desperate to be a 'crat and the answer is - not really. It seems we have a reasonable number of active bureaucrats at the moment. Whilst surplus is never a bad thing I'm not sure the community has any massive will for more crats at the moment. I also have strong reservations that having the bureaucrat flag is seen by some (inclduing more than one of our current crats) as a "promotion". I certainly dislike the "career wikipedian" concept and don't want to tar myself with that brush. The short answer is, therefore, I'm interested but at present there is no difference in benefit to Wikipedia wether I have that particular right or not. Pedro : Chat  06:54, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, based on my interactions with you, as well as my snooping around WT:RFA and various other places, I think you would be an excellent crat and a welcome addition to our team, even if there isn't a huge backlog of crat requests. I trust your judgment, and your extensive experience around WP:RFA and WT:RFA only confirms my trust. Your comments in support or opposition on all RFAs you participate in show clear evidence of your depth of perception, as from what I can see, you practically always neatly summarize the candidate's strengths and weaknesses. IMO, getting your perspective closing RFAs as "successful" or "unsuccessful" rather than simply "per NOTNOW" would be particularly beneficial to this project. I don't know if you knew this, but you are the primary reason I did not leave Wikipedia after my first RFA snowed under. And I have seen you leave similar comments to many good-faith but clearly inexperienced candidates. I have very good reason to believe that you would be able to convince a "real" failed candidate who is depressed that a failed RFA is not the end of the world, possibly stopping a good contributor from leaving. As far as the "career Wikipedian" thing goes, you demonstratively have a need for the crat tools (Or rather, the project has a need for you to have the crat tools ;-), and I do not think that you becoming a crat after doing so much work around the hardest part of crat-ship (RFA) would be seen as you attempting to "move up the ladder". Rather, it would merely be a natural extension of what you are already doing (which is generally what I look for in RFA candidates, so why not RFB?)


 * tl;dr version: I have no question that you would be an excellent crat, your promotion would obviously be a positive for the project, and I trust your judgment. In short, I am prepared to nominate you as soon as feasible (probably tomorrow), if you wish.


 * Before telling me yes or no, please note that I have only nominated one RFA candidate (successful, but that matters little), and I have only voted in 2 or 3 RFBs, so I may or may not be able to write a good nom statement. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  15:28, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi JD - I'm going to be out all day tomorrow away from my machine, so will reply in detail on Thursday. Many, many thanks for your kind words. Pedro : Chat  19:13, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've done some thinking. I'm really flattered by the above, and I'm glad I was in part responsible for keeping you here. However I think at th emoment there really is no pressing need for the extra bit, and I'm not sure there would be sufficent community will to grant it. I've seen some fantastic potential crats opposed for really quite diverse reasons (and some that are totally irrelevant to RFB if I'm honest) but I would also fail for those reasons. It's not that I'm bothered about running and not passing, but I don't want to waste the communities time. Maybe in another couple of months I might ask for the bit - a lot depends on the activity level of the current bereaucrat team to be honest. If there seems to be some "fall out" then this would demonstrate better why my services might be able to help. Again, my thanks for your input and kind words. Pedro : Chat  08:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. As I said, I trust your judgment, and no one is in a better position to judge your strengths and weaknesses than you yourself. Unfortunately I have also seen many of the things you describe. [insert long rant here... :-)&thinsp;]
 * Anyways, if/when you decide you want to have a go at it, give me a ring and I'll be happy to nom you. Cheers! J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  21:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Pedro : Chat  21:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ditto on the nom bit from me, my friend -- I've had your RfB on my watchlist for a long time. Glass  Cobra  21:27, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very kind. Thank you. Pedro : Chat  21:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

mmmmn....
Have you seen this ? Hopefully won't be a problem but I think somewhat premature so will be keeping an eye - I was following your conversation yesterday as I was reminded of an old friend of ours, and for a brief time thought he might have returned. Nancy talk  07:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Call me Mr suspicious but yes, I did wonder if I was about to get an offer to be a sysop, crat, oversighter and whatever else on another wiki yesterday.... Good catch. A close eye will be maintained I think. Pedro : Chat  07:56, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Another request for input
Hi there Pedro, sorry to bother you again, but you have been so helpful, so I trust your judgment. Could you please take a look at a block I made? I got a message about at my talk page, which I replied to, but I am unsure if my assessing of the situation was correct, so could you tell me what you think about it? Regards  So Why  18:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

 So Why  has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching! For providing help for a poor newbie admin like me.

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Fistgate
Fistgate is not an attack article, it is meant to be informative on the issue.

An understanding of Fistgate is neccesary to have a proper understanding of why Silder disbanded the gay straight alliance club at BUA.

I have tried to tone down the article some and make it more neutral. The fact that mainly those who dislike what occured have been willing to speak out lessens its strength.

On the other hand it might be better if it was more explicit about the nature of the churages and what occured. However, I am not going to be more explicit. You are welcome to edit it and make the article more clear and explicit about what occured, but I think it says enough.

I have to say I have no sense that you have assumed I posted the article in good faith. The Weekly Standard is a reputable source, Nat Hentoff is a reputable wirter. This is a real event and deserves coverage.

You should not delete articles because you do not like the tone when editing them to alter the tone is a perfectly workable method.Johnpacklambert (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok
Pedro, I'm fine with that, and I'll talk to him and if I get a good reason its over. Mistakes happen, and if it was out of character, and he is respected by other editors; no problem, whatever, move on. Ceoil sláinte 20:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks man. My regards to wifeofpedro! Ceoil  sláinte 20:36, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I have apologised to Ceoil here. Cheers Pedro :-) Scarian  Call me Pat!  20:47, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Noted. Thanks guys. Got to go, and I really hope this is done. In the end you both prooved me right - quality editors the pair of you. Pedro : Chat  20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pedro; his apology was so transparently insincere, but so nicely stepted and grounded in ASF, well if you cant see that then, god save you. Apart from lying (had heard absolutely nothing), the begrugging tone should set alarm bells in any clear thinking person's brain: someone you had never had any contact with asked someone else to ignore you, right when it's imperative not to be ignored. Huh? and I had heard absolutely nothing about the fiasco and later losing my temper etc. And so on and so forth. Tell me this is sincear.  Ceoil  sláinte 23:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Okay, I'll look again. I really can't see how this is helping anybody but i do wish to dispel this "admins can do what they like" rubbish. I'm tired. Pedro : Chat  00:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree perdro, bad admin is a cheap card to play, even if they they are out there. I'm sick of this now, you have been a grand fellow through out, lets live in peace. Ceoil  sláinte 00:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have no disagreement with yourself or Pat. You're both great people with a lot of generosity. Disagreements are vital to improving the enyclopedia; in that through disagreement we will, if we make the effort, find agreement, impartiality and a common consensus. Pedro : Chat  00:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I figured the worst that would happen is an admin might revert it.
I didn't see it as doing anything wrong, per se; if I wasn't allowed to archive topics, I simply wouldn't be able to. Half Shadow  23:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Recall page
Sorry if you felt I was overstepping the line there. They are, of course up to you. Best wishes, – How do you turn this on (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No probs at all, but it is one of those things that I really don't want people to add to or remove from given the nature of it. Pedro : Chat  00:12, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Disgrace
Your attitude is so creepy (as judged by Colonel Warden's talk page) that I just have to say I to God and pray that I never, ever have to anything to do with you. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The best way to have nothing to do with me is by not posting on my talk page. Complex stuff, obviously. Pedro : Chat
 * I think Firefly's comment was completely out-of-line, fails WP:AGF (which he or she was just warned about) and could easily be viewed as a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 01:20, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have often noticed Firefly makes almost constant references to AGF and that people should assume good faith to him, yet he displays virtually no good faith to anyone else - ironic really. Perhaps he should start considering his attitude to other editors. As for the personal attack, it only would be if I actually held his comments in any regard. Regretfully I do not. Pedro : Chat  12:51, 26 October 2008 (UTC)