User talk:Pedro/Archive 32

e-mail
I've sent you one. :) —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you! (Not yet downloaded it but I'm off to bed in a mo and will reply in the morning!) Pedro : Chat  22:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. Good night then. :) —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied. Pedro : Chat  13:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for sorting out my request for rollback. Kosack (talk) 13:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome! Pedro : Chat  13:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Net Positive
Hey there Pedro, I'd just like to ask your permission to use your Net Positive idea in my responses to RfA's. I'd like to become more active there and I like the Net Positive policy, and would like to make use of it. Thanks! [ Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do? ] 19:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously it's not a policy, just an essay on my thoughts, but of course you are more than welcome to quote it! Pedro : Chat  19:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Was I the first to ape you, Pedro with regards to this essay? I hope so. You've rubbed off on me : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't know, but perusing recent RFA's the various terms "net plus" "net gain" "net benefit" seem far more common than I remember tham. What a lasting legacy ...... not.... :) Pedro : Chat  21:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Just keep in mind that when you tell someone that they are a net positive, it's a lot like saying, "You're positives possibly just barely outweigh your negatives." ;) لenna  vecia  22:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * And sometimes at RFA that's the case ;) Pedro : Chat  22:44, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * True point. Just adding the disclaimer. :P لenna  vecia  22:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You're quite right though. Easy supports should be just that, there is an inference that "net positive" might imply I was marginal when I'm not at all. Pedro : Chat  22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Pinged
Email for you! Not that important though. : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Got it. Best to just step away? Pedro : Chat  21:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Rollback question
Pedro, I was just wondering if there is anything that the rollback feature can accomplish that can't be done by Twinkle. I have been on Wikipedia for some time now and it was always my impression that the Twinkle scripts serve a similar, if not same, function as the rollback feature. However, I just noticed that one of the users that you granted rollback rights to said that it would be a perfect complement to Twinkle. Am I missing something? — Ł ittle Ä lien ¹8²  09:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Twinkle still does things on the client side - so when you use it to revert an edit you are still doing a WP:UNDO i.e. reload the page locally to the previous version and then save it. With Rollback it's done server side - the software removes all edits by the most recent editor back to the last version. Rollback is therefore particularly good at removing, for example, three bad edits in a row. It's also marginally easier in terms of performance (but that's not a big concern). In terms of speed, if you're on a good net connection I believe there is very little difference but rollback is quicker. The other factor is that rollback is compliant with Internet Explorer wheras I belive Twinkle is Firefox only. Pedro : Chat  10:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that makes sense. Thank you for the response.  — Ł ittle  Ä lien ¹8²  17:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

No Tools/Skomorokh
I find your recent dialog with User talk:Skomorokh in the "No Tools" section interesting. Like Skomorokh, I find the need for tools in my own editing a pretty rare event, and usually the tags like db-user or the notice boards like WP:ANI do the trick nicely. Besides, too many things should and do require administrators using the tools to be uninvolved administrators. However, I do miss the tools on things like expiring WP:PROD patrol or old-XFD-patrol where all I can do is rescue things that might otherwise be deleted or in the case of IFD and TFD, orphan the image or template. Skomorokh would probably make a good admin, in that he wouldn't abuse the tools. The question for him is "does he need/want them" and he's already answered that in the negative. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually you hit on one very interesting point there that I have mulled over before. RFA's (current) vogue is requiring a reasonable level of article writing from candidates. Whereas an argument can be made that actually we want admins who are impartial and unbiased, and those with vested interests in certain articles may well actually be the worst people to be admins all other things apart. Of course the counter to this is that article writing evidences policy knowledge and an understanding of why we are here.
 * With regard to Skomorokh it was very refreshing to see his reponses. We see too many people here that seem to want adminship for it's own end as opposed to the two main reasons (IMHO);


 * Because they take a great interest in the back end work and are more motivated at that than content creation / photography / gnoming / mark-up / bots etc. etc.
 * Because they need the tools to be effective - very common for those working on templates, active in moves, clerking at the main page (DYK for example) or working on images.
 * To me the "wanabee" admins are the reasons that adminship is still seen as a big deal - because editing for the sake of adminship is very much the wrong thing to do (and ultimately will bring no reward when they realise what adminship actually is). Editing and getting the tools when you both want and need them is ideal. Alas, of course, we don't live in an ideal world or work on on a utopian wiki! Pedro : Chat  15:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I've been "editing for the sake of adminship" but not in the pejorative sense. I've been doing things like xFDs knowing full well it looks good on an RFA, but I'm doing it for the very reasons it does look good on your wiki-resume:  because it builds experience and lets you know where you can get yourself into trouble before you get the tools that let you really make a mess.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh - you're an honest and intelligent fellow - adminship will be simple. What you're doing is editing for the sake of gaining the experience of adminship not gaining adminship. Rather different IMHO. When are you thinking of asking for the tools good sir? Pedro : Chat  16:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No sooner than January. It won't be until I feel better prepared and I expect to actually use them more than once a month though, so it may be later.  Besides, I hear RFA can be brutal and I want to be my best.  Seriously, Christmas rush is taking up a lot of time.  To "grease the skids," or should I say "help me know when the time is right," it would help to have a couple of experienced administrators who will take the time to keep an eye out on my edits and tell me "no, you are making mistakes that, if you had the tools, would cause major problems" or "you really should practice in this area before running for admin" so I'll know if I need more study before asking for a nomination.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * By the way, in the interests of full disclosure, there is some prestige and feel-good about being an admin and if accepted I will no doubt feel proud of that fact. NBD notwithstanding, being "!voted in" for adminship is among other things a formal recognition of experience and of a behavior pattern suitable for the task.  It's not the only way to get such recognition, WP:AWARDS and some user pages are full of even better ways to be recognized.  But recognition shouldn't be a goal in and of itself, any more than a promotion at work should be a goal:  The goal for a promotion on the job should be wanting the responsibilities that come with the title.  The goal of "wanting a wiki award" may be a goal in and of itself, but it's only a good goal if it pushes you to work harder and more effectively.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC) PS:  yes, I do like to brag :).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  17:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ping
Hi again. I was wondering if you could check your inbox. Best regards, -- 'Kanonkas' : Talk  15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Wilco skipper! Pedro : Chat  15:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for rollback
Hello, thank you for granting me rollback. I see that it adds a separate "rollback" link to click on, apart from Twinkle's "rollback (AGF)" "rollback" "rollback (VANDAL)". Perhaps something should be said in the instructions about what rollback does when you have already installed a tool like Twinkle. Thanks again. Loves Macs  (talk) 17:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not familiar with TW as I don't use it. Please feel free to be bold and add some instructions! Pedro : Chat  21:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wrote some instructions about rollback and Twinkle on the rollback main page. Feel free to edit them for clarity, and thanks for the encouragement! Loves  Macs  (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could you comment on his unblock request? Thanks,  Sandstein   19:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Commented on the user's talk. Thanks for the heads up! Pedro : Chat  21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

WTF
Please tell me that there was no IRC mucking around with regards to Realist's RfA. First mine, then his? Jesus Christ.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * There wasn't any that I saw. J.delanoy gabs adds  21:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, I don't use IRC ..... Pedro : Chat  21:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I know you don't, but someone must have uncovered the truth. Hopefully it was just a rumor that has been dispelled. I saw something about it on the RfA and other talk pages. Obviously something like that would immediately catch my eye.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:30, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked a question at the RFA trying to head of the issues. Regretfully Kingturtle (not our least effective bureaucrat, but one of the worst) decided *he knew better* and challenged it in his support comment. Realist gave an excellent answer that could have helped, but no doubt the IRC cabal, enboldened by Kingturtle's lack of judgement (read : incompetence) felt ready to push ahead to sink the RFA. Dear goodness me. No doubt Kingturtle will read this, and I'd just say to him that if you were so keen for me to use Balloonman's talk why didn't you use mine? Pedro : Chat  21:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I was trying to head off the IRC crowd by bringing up the rumors that I heard and by !voting early... granted, I don't use IRC, so what I heard was all second hand (at best). Was it a legit threat, I honestly couldn't say... but I did have two people email me.  One said that there was a group on IRC and identified who in general terms.  The second was more vague, but in light of the first one, I read it as collaborating evidence.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 21:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you're receiving emails about it, something was obviously brewing. Nothing like a bunch of idiotic kids stirring the pot - and that aptly describes the emailers if they were exaggerating or lying too. Sometimes I wonder why I even bother around here anymore.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You and me both, Kingturtle's response was that he's sorry I have a vendetta against him. Sublime. The guy's a card. He cocks up and blames a vendetta. Is there some way we can reconfirm every admin and crat? I'd be happy to loose my bit if it meant taking a lot of the rest of them with me. Unlike some, I'm actually interested in what's good for WP rather than what looks good on my CV. Pedro : Chat  21:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, I wasn't implying anything with my comment on R2's talk page (I was referring to KingTurtle and the IRC issue only) - although, after rereading it I can see why you thought I meant it was inappropriate to discuss these things on his page. hehe.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:57, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That wasn't aimed at you! More an apology to Realist for the relentless orange bar! Pedro : Chat  21:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, your comments are totally out of line. If Kingturtle misread something, that is not a reason to spew baseless attacks against him and call him our worst crat, accusing of IRC canvassing, and calling on him to resign is utterly unacceptable. Please reconsider.  Maxim (talk)  22:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Err???


 * 1) I have not called him our worst crat. I specifically said there are worse.
 * 2) I have not vaguelly called for him to resign - I'm mystified where you get that from.
 * 3) I have not accused him of IRC canvassing.
 * Please provide diffs where I have done this. Pedro : Chat  22:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd have to agree with Pedro though, I have serious doubts about Kingturtle's judgement as a bcrat. I find it difficult to trust someone who stopped using tools for several years, and then launched straight back into it. I've seen numerous instances from where I can see for certain he'd never pass a bureaucratship request today. I'd never heard of him before he became active again. I'd propose his bcrat flag be removed, but I'd probably get shot down and attacked for suggesting it.  Majorly  talk  22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Diffs?  Maxim (talk)  22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd obviously need to do more research, but his comments here are a great example of what I mean. RFAs have never, and never will be a ballot. I know it's from nearly a year ago, but things haven't improved in his knowledge of bureaucrat areas imo.  Majorly  talk  22:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, while you haven't done any of this things directly, this comment implies Kingturtle, you called him one of the worst--that's pretty unjustified IMO and unnecessarily harsh and divisive, while for the IRC issue, I did misunderstand your comments, but it originally seemed at first that you implied that KT was conspiring via IRC. I've combed through some diffs and I found a lot of comments that are really, IMO, unbecoming of an admin: this one insults his intelligence, here you accuse him of incompetence over one comment, and here you call him unskilled and a coward. Please tone down your accusations, Pedro, you're a good admin and it would be a shame if you got into a nasty RfC/ANI or something similar over an RfA comment Kingturtle made.  Maxim (talk)  22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (ecx2 BTW)On Kingturtle's talk page you asked him twice to 'consider his position.' In fact, your exact words are, Will you reconsider your position in light of you lack of awareness and demonstrable lack of judgement?  I would call those calls for stepping down.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As explained below, not even vaguely and I'm staggered you can read that. I asked him to reconsider his position on my question at the RFA. This is a surreal line to go down that I can only attribute to language issue between Brit Eng. and Am. Eng. Pedro : Chat  22:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case I retract what I said, but I read it as his position as crat. Perhaps others did to?  I reached that conclusion based upon your other posts/comments.  My apologies.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think from Maxim's post other did, but WP:ENGVAR is my defence :) Trust me, if I wanted him to resign I'd say resign. If I want him to look at comments another way I say something else. To "reconsider your posiiton" means only one thing to me. To "consider your position as a bureaucrat" is quite another. Pedro : Chat  22:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I haven't done any of the things you suggested directly, and thank you for your acknowledgement. Admitedly I could have been far, far more civil and I apologise for that. My frustration at Kingturtle's actions have been vented unproductively. Kingturtle could have avoided this by 1) not adding his PS at the RFA or 2) (better) having the common courtesy to engage in dialogue when I bought it to his talk. He did not and I have asked him repeatedly to recognise the comment at the RFA which he has not done either (my meaning of "consider you positions" - I assume you saw that otherwise on reflection). Therefore I stand by my comments with regard to his lack of skill. Given our small group of 'crats to call him one of the worst seems fair game (wikilawyering aside) - in my opinion he is. For other comments (cowardice, incompetence) they are unfair and I do apologise - they are unacceptable. Pedro : Chat  22:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder, Pedro, as you fight for justice over the comments one made in their support of a candidate, and your subsequent inclination to place at least partial blame for premature withdrawal on them, that you did, in fact, withhold support for a certain RFA candidate (whom you had soon before encouraged to run for RFA) because others supported said RFA before it went live. This is quite a lot of harsh words and claims being thrown in response to one sentence. And it seems quite odd considering the things you've opposed or otherwise withheld support for candidates in the past. لenna vecia  05:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair comment, but I'm not sure if you've read all the bits relating to this. I'm not on some fight for justice regarding one RFA. I'm not debating supports or opposes. I am stating, quite clearly (I think) that Kingturtle not only made a poor error in questioning my question (!) but a further one in failing to make any constructive effort to address my concern. However I am also out of line here and your comments are taken as a good reminder of my general approach to RFA. It's a pity KT thinks this is bullying and "scapegoating" - the second allegation being particularly surreal - but there we go. Pedro : Chat  07:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for granting me rollback. :) Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Most welcome. Don't break the wiki with it :) Pedro : Chat  23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Internet Brands
Thanks for the unprotect. I was just about to ask you if you could at least fix the typo on the locked version, whilst knowingly linking to The Wrong Version. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 08:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome. It was only a very short ptortect so I could see what the situation was. As there was an AIV report I needed to be sure what I was looking at before hitting the hammer, and a quick ultra short protection seemed the way forward. Pedro : Chat  08:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Always better to err on the side of caution than to be hasty and take the wrong action. Thanks again. Dreaded Walrus t c 08:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Request for rollback
Thanks for that, Pedro! &mdash; Peter McGinley (talk) 10:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for NPWatcher
Thank you for approving my use of NPWatcher to patrol new pages and help to stop vandalism. --  Ra nd or  Xe us . Remember to Be Bold! 20:33, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize...
I just realized that you admitted you smoke. You do realize how bad that is for you... 50 carcinogens! Aah Ped! &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 20:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a bad habit that I should free myself from (not quit - that implies giving something up which is a bad thing). Pedro : Chat  20:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you smoke cigarettes or cigars? Both are bad, just wondering... ;p &mdash; Ceran [  speak  ] 22:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Both. Cigars at Christmas and on special occasions through the year, cigarettes generally. Both are bad, I agree, and I would never ever recommend smoking to anyone. However life presents choices, and through choice comes freedom; and the freedom and liberty that my grandfather fought for include the freedom to do things that are stupid. That's they key thing, if you get my drift. Freedom to choose (even if your choice is wrong) is far better than freedom to only do what is right and good. Pedro : Chat  22:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * He's trying to goad WP:GOD into nominating him for Editors for Deletion :). j/k davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  22:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Now that false WP link was very, very clever! Pedro : Chat  22:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * False?!? davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  23:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposal
Hello Pedro, I have proposed some guidelines here. You may wish to take a look at it. Thank you--NAHID 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I'll take a look! Pedro : Chat  19:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Arbcom Clerk
Strange, isn't it? Although I have a genuine dislike of drama (and I suppose ArbCom cases by connection), I do take interest in the conflict resolution matters of our community. I suppose becoming a clerk trainee was a spur-of-the-moment type of thing, but it hasn't caused me any problems since, and let's hope it stays that way. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Hi. Thanks for the message; I did follow the link but I didn't go down that far. I actually could give you a humor barnstar if they have one (if there is one, give it to yourself, that would be real humorous!). I didn't take offense much. To be honest with you, I knew I had the typo, I was just waiting for someone else to catch it, and someone did.

Again, thanks for the message, for the "apology." K50 Dude ROCKS! 00:58, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S....I had a sig earlier, but I forgot the coding (I reset something I think...) but how do you get such a cool signature? Just curious

From one of your TPS


 Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate the Winter or Summer Solstice, Xmas, Eid, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hannukah or even the Saturnalia this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to your friends' talk pages. Dear Pedro, may you and yours have a happy Winter Solstice!  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Peace on Earth, good will to men...


Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas


A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. --A NobodyMy talk 02:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Pedro, I wish you and yours all the very best for the new year. Best wishes, —  Aitias  // discussion 02:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Your kind thoughts are reiprocated - very best wishes for 2009! Pedro : Chat  21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Dear Pedro,

Wishing you a happy a new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.

Kind regards,

 Majorly  talk  20:18, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * At least I was second on your list! He! Thanks Majorly, and we are indeed friends - friends disagree which we do - but they still have the kindeness to consider each other. My best to you and yours. Pedro : Chat  21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA-related request for more eyeballs spam
I'm asking a few RFA regulars (no offense intended!) to review two threads I'm thinking of posting to WT:RFA at User:Barneca/RFA sandbox and give me a little feedback on:
 * Whether you think I'd be wasting my time
 * If you can think of any drastic improvements I could make prior to posting this
 * Which option you think I should pursue (I don't think proposing both, and having people "vote", is a good idea; far too easily sidetracked)
 * If you think there's a good Option 3 that I haven't considered
 * Any other feedback you're interested in giving me

I'll probably post something to WT:RFA next week, after my schedule eases a little bit, so no critical rush to reply; you've probably got 5+ days before I post anything anywhere. If someone comes up with significant changes I think are good ideas, I'll probably delay even longer.

If you're interested, please post to the sandbox's talk page. If you are not, but one of his talk page stalkers reading this, you're welcome to comment as well; I'm not trying to hide this from anyone, just iron out any obvious kinks before it goes live, to prevent minutiae from sidetracking the discussion (that seems to happen quite often). I'm hoping against hope that this leads to actual change, rather than fruitless discussion, so I really want to try to get all my ducks in a row before springing this on WT:RFA.

Thanks in advance, and sorry if this spam is unwelcome; I won't bug you again. --barneca (talk) 17:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * okay, I'll swing by if not to late to do so! Pedro : Chat  21:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people
FYI, I've reverted the article to an older version of the article, but am asking for input on whether or not that version should be kept.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 02:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I g4'd it.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 02:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me wishy washy
Ok, I was asked about deleting Articles for deletion/Stereotypes of white people per G4 because the article up for nom was a somewhat different nom and the august 27th version I had reverted to was not the same article nominated on August 28th. I've reopened the debate and invite you to put in your two cents concerning the reverted to version. The version as of Jan 3 was a clear G10.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 04:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Signature
Hi Pedro. First of all, apologies if I sound a bit blunt, arrogant or stubborn here. I personally do not believe that my signature is that much of a bother. The two specific reasons that subst'ing is not allowed are, as can be read at the page you linked to: Now, my signature, as you can see by editing this thread, is nowhere near 255 characters. The reason I subst a template is because the colours are randomised in a way that can only be replicated by subst'ing a template, if you get what I mean. Otherwise, the signature would change colour whenever someone refreshed a page I had signed on. (Sorry if this is all Greek to you, it's something I learned from East.) Now I feel this does not violate any of the two reasons given for disallowing the subst'ing of a template. Thanks, Garden. 19:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ... violate the reasonable length restriction of 255 characters
 * ... will be redundant to using the same content as a raw signature.
 * After the debacle earlier I couldn't give a toss. Do what you want - no-one else gives a fuck about the guideline so I'm buggered if I need to. If you, as an admin, want to ignore a guideline based on comments from our developers to make your fucking signature pretty that's your sad look out. Pedro : Chat  21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And no, it's not all Greek to me. I own a fucking web design company so I do actually know a thing or two. Pedro : Chat  21:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Rudery struck. Thanks, Garden, for replying. Pedro : Chat  21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, my friend ("friend" as in "friend", not "friend" as in "I'm civily patronizing you so you can't do anything about it"), if you'd like to have some tea and a chat, I'm around and bored; the tea room is open. With all due respect, unless something's happened that I'm not aware of, Garden wasn't part of that ANI debacle; you might be venting at the wrong person. I'll stick my nose back out of your business now. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, I've never thought I would suggest this to you, but I think you need to take a break. A month or two ago, I thought you were on the 'crat track and would be a shoe in.  But over the past month, your edits, your attitude, and your language has gone down hill.  I don't know what's happened, but man, you've been uncharacteristically short with people lately.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, you're both very right. Apologies. Pedro : Chat  21:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Intersting comment though, Balloonman - "the 'crat track" - like it's some kind of hierachy or something. I'm here to help for my own reasons - and careeer mandarism is not one of them. Pedro : Chat  21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I said that because that's how much respect that I have for you... you've always been a person whom I've respected on WP and thought was a shining light... but over the past month or two, you've seem to take things so much more personally and respond a lot more negatively that I remember seeing from you previously.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 21:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec) Just saying, Ped, that that reply didn't make good reading. Roux and I are not the same person. Your reply (if now struck) was bang out of order. If you hadn't struck it I would most definitely have gone to ANI. But you did, and as I'm not vengeful, I'll accept the apology. Thanks. Garden . 21:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (to BM)Yeah, and I promised myself I'd be more refreshed and open in 2009. I've ruined that already. You're right, my frustration at this place is making me more harm than help. Time to fix that. (to Garden) Again - apologies for my rudeness - perhaps RFC and a desysop would be better than ANI - get the teeth in deeply, not a flesh wound. Pedro : Chat  21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No way in hell would I do that. Besides, wouldn't go through :P.   Garden . 21:40, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll save you the trouble. Pedro : Chat  21:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)Hey ummm... as apparently the proximate cause of all this, I think you're way overreacting. You pushed the sig thing too far, you said something rude, you've now struck it, time to go have a cup of tea and move on. FWIW, I for one would vehemently oppose any move towards desysopping you. If you want to resign your bit, that's your lookout I guess. But a community-imposed desysop? Fuck no. roux    22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That had better not mean what I think it means. --barneca (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No, that's petty gesticulating - anyhow WP:FORMER seems to be gettig rather crowded and the crap at CSD mounds higher daily. But BM is right - I need to chill. Pedro : Chat  22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A few months ago we lost an admin due to a stupid reason, you tried to talk said admin out of quiting... I hit you with a trout for talking about quiting yourself... if you continue to talk this way, I'll hit you... but with something bigger. You are way to valuable to even joke about it... but that being said, I can see you take a short wikibreak if necessary.  I'd rather loose you for a few days, than forever.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon CSD Survey Results 23:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I've contacted Garden before about his signature. I'm not quite sure it does meet the guidelines as the username policy does clearly state; no transcluded signatures. He's not the only one, though. I guess that it is up to him to decide. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 21:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Pedro, please tell me I'm thinking rubbish. Please.   Garden . 21:56, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have a new plan - I'll delete the main page and replace it with a fine pair of breasts under WP:IAR because consensus can change than we don't delete the main page. :) Pedro : Chat  21:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Depends on who's breasts... not yours, right? Actually, this isn't half bad; perhaps instead of deleting the page, there's just a new "Naughty bits" section, highlighting one of our 1000s of uncensored articles? The much sought after male adolescent readership would increase 10x fold. --barneca (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (shudder) I take it back; I'd rather see yours. --barneca (talk) 22:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * LOL Dude - great comment! Mine are, however hairier - but somewhat smaller (to say the least) Pedro : Chat  22:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While I am certainly a lot more prone than Pedro to bursts of "fuck off" behavior, I have to say that the Wikipedia pendulum is swinging a certain direction now that can really piss off an admin. See my latest run-in with Bugs on my talk page for an example - sometimes it's amazing we volunteer any time on here. Tan   &#124;   39  22:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say anything of the sort, unless you're talking generally. Garden . 22:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus, those are huge. Garden . 22:36, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are, but why the hell would you want them that big? A pair of hooters is nice, but aren't those pretty much a sign of over-aggression? ;) No, but take that seriously. ₪ Ceran →(cheer→chime →carol) 22:51, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, Pedro, unfortunately I can't offer you breasts. However, what about this nice cup of tea and this yummy-looking cake? Hugs, —  Aitias  // discussion 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)