User talk:Pedro/Archive 40

For your consideration
Following up on our RFA talk discussion, I decided to bluelink WP:NOTNOTNOW. Your thoughts and input are welcome. 28bytes (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At first glance that looks excellent, and well overdue. I'll take a further look soon. Thank you for your hard work and dilligence on that. Pedro : Chat  18:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. It's my first attempt at a WP essay; I was somewhat surprised that there wasn't one like that already. 28bytes (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It's really good actually. I've made a few tweaks but nothing major. Good job. Pedro : Chat  12:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the compliment, and for the tweaks. I'll refrain from pointing to it on the currently active RfAs (I've probably badgered enough on Erik's as it is), but the next GiantSnowman-type RfA I see that gets a NOTNOW, I will probably offer a friendly pointer to it. 28bytes (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:RfA
Either leave a matter lie, or don't, as you see fit. But please don't do one, and then condescendingly tell someone else to do the other. Good night. —WFC— 22:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a fucking hypocrite when engaging in honest debate? Fascinating. Pedro : Chat  22:16, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your response was thought provoking and perfectly valid. Your decision to then me that I'd better not reply to it was anything but. Ever wondered why RfA standards are so high? It probably has something to do with the fear (justified or not) that people will that sort of approach with the tools. —WFC— 22:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I apologise for dropping the f-bomb. That was over the top. Regards, —WFC— 22:24, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the bit where I asked that we carry on the discussion on the RFA talk page or on our talk pages or where you to busy throwing fucks to read that? I apologise if you think it was condescending - it certainly wasn't meant that way and re-reading it I honestly don't think it was; nevertheless you clearly do. So, again, apologies because it wasn't meant that way. Pedro : Chat  22:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Self gagging ? How does that help? You really missed the point WFC. I never challenged any opposers - I specifically said the opposition was valid. You questioned my use of the term "idealogical". I responded as to why many arguments where idealogical - but still that this does not make them invalid. My response is not questioning the opposition; Your reply is questioning my use of a word but not my support. After typing a great big response, being careful to get all my markup together and all, I decided it's best to be clear that I'm not challenging your oppose, and also invite discussion elsewhere as it's not germane to the RFA - you are challenging my use of a word and I'm challenging your response - it's sod all to do with the candidate. It strikes me very likely that if the conversation had continued on the RFA a 3rd party would have moved it as off-topic anyawy. Realising it's best to be clear I come to your talk with a "Hi WFC, hope you're well, let's chat about this somewhere else" and for my trouble get called a "fucking hypocrite". That's my take on it, and I'm sorry if you think I was trying to "gag" you. Hopefully this shows that was furthest from my mind. Pedro : Chat  22:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Are RfA standards high? They don't seem very high to me, more like a "how popular are you" contest. Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you help me with my draft article?
Hi Pedro, we last discussed an entry about Edward C. Harwood in June of 2009. You suggested I try a rewrite. I have done so, and I could use your input, especially about adding a photo of Mr. Harwood. I have access to family photos and can get permission. Can I just add it? Should I put limitations on its use? Here is the link |link to my draft page. (Sorry if that doesn't work for you, and if not, how do I give you the link?) Thanks for any help you care to give me.Stargazer1122 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Stargazer. this is the link. Well, it looks a perfectly fine article to me. Of course I can't check the printed references but on the face of it it's all good. To upload a picture see Uploading images. In particular check out Image use policy for help on the right licence in respect of the permissions you mention above. As it stands though I can't see a reason why the article couldn't be in the main space now - if you need help to move it let me know or see WP:MOVE. Pedro : Chat  09:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much, Pedro. I moved it, and now I've uploaded the photo. Stargazer1122 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need to get written permission from a family member to upload the photograph under one of the acceptable wikipedia copyright licences and forward that to wikimedia. The procedure is explained here. An email would do, which you could just forward on. Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like it's already gone to OTRS. Thanks to MF by the way, as I didn't make that clear. Pedro : Chat  20:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to you both, Pedro and MF. I hope I have responded properly to the situation.  I have deleted the red template and the third (orange?) template, I have filled in information in the description part, and I have sent the e-mail of written permission to the permissions department.  Let me know if I've screwed up.  Thanks for everything.Stargazer1122 (talk) 23:29, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Images are a bit of a nightmare I'm afraid. You need to add a copyright tag, to say how the photograph can be reused, something like cc-by-sa-3.0. It's sort of explained here. Malleus Fatuorum 00:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, thanks for the help, MF. I'm a little confused:  I added the tag "OTRS pending" (of course between the proper double brackets) in the descriptions space.  Doesn't that suffice?  Or do I have to put what I think will be the final tag?  And if so, where do I put it?Stargazer1122 (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The OTRS allows you to upload the photograph, but you need to specify the terms under which it can be used/reused, for instance by adding one of these tags. cc-by-sa-3.0 for instance. Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Pedro or MF, could you look and see if the image licensing issue is properly expressed now? Thanks for your help.Stargazer1122 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure cc-by-sa3 cover ...and the image's source are cited... Also, taken in 1958 in the US - again not sure but the original photographer may still hold copyright (I can't remember if the US is 50, 75, 100 years for original work). I'll have a further dig. Pedro : Chat  22:09, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Digging, and I confess I'm not sure here, but the potential looks like the unknown original photographer (or his/her estate) may actually own copyright on this. You could do well to ask at Media copyright questions to get some input from those better qualified then I. It may be that this could work as non free content. The risk exposure of that seems minimial (for the Wikimedia Foundation]] and it might be easier given the image is unlikely to appear on other pages. Whilst ideally we should encourage free content, it's better some restricted use of non-free than you licensing something as free use that isn't. Pedro : Chat  22:22, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Snottywong
Pedro, I'll be the first to say it... but that neutral was, indeed, unnecessary. Perhaps you can be the better person and remove it? AD 22:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? Pedro : Chat  22:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * More specifically, why are "vested editors" alowed to come up with utter bullshit and poison the well, yet it takes days and a mega thread to get a stricken (stricken mark you - not removed) comment? Yet you want me to just remove mine, no questions asked? Pedro : Chat  22:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said, it's unnecessary. What are you trying to achieve by posting it? AD 22:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * What are you trying to achieve by posting here? Perhaps me removing my neutral altogether? No striking - just a removal of my fatuous comments? Would that be a good idea? Pedro : Chat  22:44, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I've sent you an email. AD 22:45, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay. You're right. Thank you. Pedro : Chat  22:49, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Pedro, thanks for removing the comment, although I don't fully understand the original text of your comment. Are you saying that you think I might be a sockpuppet of someone trying to game the system into regaining adminship that they lost awhile ago? If that's the case, I understand the need to be careful with handing out the mop to those who might aim to do harm, as the harm an admin can do is a lot more severe than a regular editor. I'd be happy to voluntarily submit to a checkuser to address your concerns. Snotty Wong  comment 23:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hardly necessary good sir. It's a lightly blue in colour "point" surrounding a different current RFA. Sorry I took it out on yours. Good luck - I'm off to bed bvut will take time to review your contribs in the morning and I'mm sure I'll be supporting. Pedro : Chat  23:07, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I got a good laugh out of your remark, thanks. Qrsdogg (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. I haven't been keeping up with the other current RfA's, so I missed the meaning.  Cheers.  Snotty Wong   squeal 23:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback
I noticed "[rollback]" next to some pages in my contributions and I thought that everything went well. Don't worry, I'll take my time.--The Master of Mayhem 12:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Jeffpw/Memoriam
Thanks, I was going to ask for that myself, but I was about to fire off an email to Jimbo and didn't want to forget what I was going to say. Rodhull andemu  21:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries mate - I'd been thinking for a while it needed it so that was the final straw. Pedro : Chat  21:29, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Good call, though it saddens me that it even became necessary for semi-protection to have to be placed there. Acalamari 22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It saddens me too, and I worry that surviving relatives may be disenfranchised, however these slow but relentless posts of hatred need stopping. Pedro : Chat  22:22, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In relation to that point, I think Jeff's relatives have moved on, after all Wikipedia was only part of, although an important part of, his life, and giving autoconfirmed status at least to his sister might not be contra-indicated, should she still wish to comment there. Rodhull  andemu  22:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah - thanks Rod - good points. Pedro : Chat  22:31, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Incivility at RfA
I agree entirely - there were issues on my own RfA, but not quite so bad. Fortunately I finally passed with an overwhelming number of really good, well commented support votes from mostly admins and crats. I don't think there's much that can be done other than keep plugging away at WT:RfA for change. Certainly there is much argument for insisting that the crat who is watching the RfA should remove such tripe. Perhaps a central RfC? --Kudpung (talk) 03:00, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Heck! Please don't consider retiring. --Kudpung (talk) 03:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I replied on the talk page, but I'll just say here that I don't think an RfC would solve anything. Gross incivility is blockable. Is it not up to administrators such as yourself to do so? Is there truly a precedent of admins being desysopped for blocking users for incivility at RfA?  Swarm   X 17:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Incivility is too often in the eye of the beholder unless it's a clear racial, sexist, religious, or other similarly incontrovertible personal attack. No administrator ought to block for what they perceive as incivility as opposed to very clear serious, and repeated personal attacks. Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I fear I'm missing your point: The user in question has a history of making personal attacks.  Swarm   X 18:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You didn't say "personal attacks", you said "incivility". The two are not synonymous, not matter what the civility police might try and tell you. Malleus Fatuorum 18:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If it means anything, I could amend to "The user has a history of personal attacks and incivility."  Swarm   X 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

All, some good thoughts and healthy arguments from both sides. Regretfully I've had a death in my immediate family today (well last night) and whilst I'd like to explore these thoughts further now is not the time for me personaly, so I'll revisit at a later date. Pedro : Chat  20:36, 14 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So sorry to hear that Pedro. Malleus Fatuorum 20:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Same here: best wishes to you and your family. Acalamari 20:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Very sorry to hear that Pedro, I wish you all the best.  Swarm   X 00:19, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Take care Pedro. Hope to see you around again  soon. Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks all. It was my grandmother, and frankly at my age even still having a grandmother was rather impressive! She'll be sadly missed but not an overly unexpected death; clearly I didn't want to edit whilst dealing with the surrounding issues. Perhaps the above conversation is now for another day. Pedro : Chat  20:59, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

distrust
Hi, I am surprised to read that you distrust me personally, as I haven't had many close interactions with you. If you like, I'd like to learn why, whether or not you are a voice to the concerns of others who choose to remain silent, and discuss any issues which have caused this distrust. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Pedro, but you are an Arbitrator; in the current climate, that's enough for distrust to exist, and if you don't know why, you've missed some basics. That's all. Rodhull  andemu  02:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry John, yes on deeper reading I can see that your statement in the nomination does indeed represent a personal opinion, followed by commentary on ARBCOM's notification and not the two together as I previously parsed it.
 * I don't think the reasons for my distrust of you, and indeed some of your colleagues, are particularly important - they should be self evident in many ways. I have been gently "advised" (deliberate quotes) that ARBCOM are "looking" at me. Whilst I may be surly and grumpy at times, and react in a less than civil manner all to often (something I'm trying to fix), I've yet to see a complaint about my use of the admin tools. Indeed with just one deletion overturned at DRV (and that when I was but newly minted) out of several thousand admin actions I assume(d) all was fine. I do pride myself on apologising if I'm wrong - something that would not be unappreciated in general I might mention.
 * It seems the communities' previous desire for ARBCOM to have some "teeth" may have backfired a little; by voting in sharks where we expected cats. Pedro : Chat  20:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Further addition. I'd suggest, John, you get over to the RFA as your personal capacity only comment is increasingly |looking like a lie. Please try and reconcile "I told ARBCOM" with "Personal Capacity Only". Honestly, I'm not having a go but this does not, on the face of it, stack up. Pedro : Chat  21:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wot's up Doc?
I don't know what's prompted that Arbcom box at the top here, but perhaps now you can begin to get a sense of what it feels like to be stalked by the civility police. Malleus Fatuorum 23:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Very much so. Pedro : Chat  08:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yo
In case you miss it:; User_talk:My76Strat. Cheers,
 * Thanks for the heads up kind sir. Pedro : Chat  08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for reviewer
Hey man, you granted my rollback a couple years back, could you approve my reviewer application in Requests for permissions/Reviewer Thanks. Cliffsteinman (talk) 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - no problem. Happy editing. Pedro : Chat  08:46, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was real quick! Thanks a lot. I'm just trying to get all the tools I'm eligible for to help the most. I don't think there are too many more besides createaccount which I won't use. Good luck in your admining. Cliffsteinman (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Pedro : Chat  08:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

"Jimbo censored me"
+9001 points. All good :=)  Chzz  ► 08:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You should have slapped him with a uw-tpv1 :) -- Club Oranje T 10:24, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

E-mail
Hi Pedro, I've sent one. Best. Acalamari 11:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied, kind sir. Pedro : Chat  16:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Request for user right
I saw no ability to effect this request at WP:PERM. So I directly ask if you could consider granting the researcher user right. There are many deleted contributions I would like to research in support of a current endeavor to evaluate consistency. It would be useful to me, and my research, itself intended to benefit Wikipedia. If this is a temporary right, I would ask if 30 days is not excessive. If the right can remain active, I have no ill intentions so there is no danger. Thank you for considering this request. My76Strat (talk) 02:32, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello kind sir. I regret that this particular userright is only allocatable by the Wikimedia Foundation itself, no tby admins. Sorry! Pedro : Chat  12:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That is fine, thank you for considering the request. I hope to interact with you again. Until then, Enjoy! My76Strat (talk) 20:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your Question on my RfA
I answered your question to me on my RfA. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  •  Coor. Online Amb'dor  • 19:10, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform
H Pedro. I've not seen you  comment  here yet. I'll fully understand if you  do  not  wish  to  participate  in yet another attempt at RfA reform. The page will shortly be moved to Wikipedia space.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:56, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Huh?
To quote you: "Can someone put this thread out of it's misery? I tried but got caught in a conflict that moved another editors post. Given ARBCOM's stated intentions towards desysopping me I can't be dealing with anything to tricky anyway. Not allowed guv. More than my job's worth etc. etc. Pedro : Chat  21:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC) "

This is news to me. What stated intentions? Is this what you were going on about when you posted on my page that your email was enabled? I have no idea who or what has given you this impression, but it is mistaken. If you have any questions, please feel free to email me or another arbitrator or the arbcom-L mailing list. Risker (talk) 01:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)