Ah, well im using Twinkle so im still getting used to it. It said "Creation of previously deleted material" and it looked like it fit so i used that one. I was trying to use the cat that was most relevant. Sorry for the confusion, Thanks for the advice. Cheers. AnnaJGrant ( talk) 10:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Daryldadude Has continued to remake the same page, filled with nonsense. I have given him a last warning after the 3rd recreation of the page with nonsense in it.
AnnaJGrant (
talk)
11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied. I hope I'm not overreacting. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-send, if you'd be so kind. Pedro : Chat 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to be back. Thank you for talking with D.M.N., it was much appreciated! iMat thew 20 08 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: I was blocked back in january. Can I still adopt? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Pedro, just wanted to let you know I was interested in co-noming Wisdom when the time comes around for you to nominate him. If you would not mind letting me know when you do so as not to miss it? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't you a bureaucrat yet? :) - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You were upset about something - I forget the exact context - one of the AFDs. Anyway, I made a mental note to give you a link to a story which speaks to our different roles here. It amuses me and may entertain you. FWIW it can be read at:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Pedro. I just noticed that on 23 January you deleted my user page, citing WP:CSD#G11 ("Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.")
Since a user page is not an article, I checked [2] for appropriate user page info. It says "In addition to the author's username, a user page might include some of the following details:
* Occupation * Interests * Web site URL"
Based on this information, I do not understand why my user page was deleted. My User Page said only that my occupation is Manager of Information Services at the Education and Research Institute -- a nonprofit organization that hosts a free online archive of scanned United States government (public domain) documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act -- and provided the organization's Web site URL. (The Web site is free, and does not require anything, install anything, or sell anything.)
Can you explain why this information is inappropriate? Any help you could give here would be much appreciated. Thanx! Mark LaRochelle ( talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice. Majorly ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I was wondering if you could admin coach me? Tell me what you think. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This user is getting much problematic including uninformed WP:POINT prodding of articles and personal attacks against other editors.
In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [5]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.
Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [6].
I have filed a case in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Firefly322. Please look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left a couple of messages, that their response to the first was to past entire policy pages into my talk page (rather than a link) doesn't make me hopeful. Particularly when that policy doesn't actually support their actions. They seem to have gone quiet for now though, so fingers crossed. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you (mis)deleted the page "anti-cnn", which I believe is not what you thought it was as you said in the deletion log. It is NOT a dedicate page to attack some certain company, nor is it unsourced. It is a page for describing the website www.anti-cnn.com, a site boasting a collection of pictures and video evidences of the obvious and probably deliberately distortion of the recent events in tibet, by some of the most popular news sources. It is aimed at their bias and lies, and hopes to remind viewers worldwide that what they see on some of the "most" global media is far from relative truth. A page linked with that website is anything but ungrounded attack, and I am looking forward to a opportunity to elaborate that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
, Thanks for your contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - this article was recreated, but I chopped it mercilessly and removed the POV and OR - can you have a look and see what you think? (Note that another editor keeps reverting and adding back in OR, though, so check the history). Black Kite 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If I was the one to PROD, can I go back and add a speedy instead? Because that is what happened in this instance. Wongm ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Pedro. I don't generally revert edits of good, established editors like yourself, but I had stumbled on that Jerry Covington mess yesterday. The guy's been blocked and has been using a bunch of sockpuppets to try and avoid it. This is just the latest. User:Ukexpat has been pulling out his hair over it. There is certainly the establishment of notability, but it's totally COI if we're dealing with Mr. Covington and totally against the rules regardless of who he is. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
PMDrive1061 (
talk) 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!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The speedy tag was added by an experienced user. Speedy tags should not be removed - as stated, they could be contested. I felt that the deletion of the speedy tag by the concerned user was a disrespect to the user who added it, whether it was a mistake or not. Since you disagree too, then I agree with its removal. Thanks. Herunar ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Long time no see -- rare to find you on-line at the same time as me. What bad luck for you <grin> since I was looking for a friendly admin to keep an eye on User:74.234.39.218. Simply put, this is the most disruptive user I have ever seen in my life, and I figure someone's going to ban him in the next 20 minutes or so, but due to some interaction I've had with him already, it can't be me. The page he's whingeing about is something that I deleted because he blanked the page and left some nonsense on it about hoaxing. The page's creator asked me to look into it -- I did, and Googled enough information to make me think that the topic is 100% legitimate, so I restored the page. (I've been fooled before, but I think I'm right this time.) Anyway, the IP user will NOT leave this alone, he's determined to have the page removed and everyone to admit that he (I just know no woman would/could be this offensive) is right. I'm at the end of my rope with him, and I'm sure a number of other people are as well. Whatever you feel like doing would be just fine with me, but I think someone should be keeping an eye on this individual for the next few hours, and I'm pretty much going off-line. Thanks for any oversight you care to exercise -- and of course, my best to you and your family! (I'm way too busy these days to spend any time talking about bathrobes, unfortunately.) Accounting4Taste: talk 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, my AGF levels must be running ultra high! Just remember it when I do an RFB! Pedro : Chat 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. - Jéské ( v^_^v X of Swords) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Pedro, I hope you don't mind but I'm using your code on my signature. It really looks nice, so I choose yours. If you don't like that then contact me and I'll remove it :) -- Kanonkas : Take Contact 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you semi protect his/her page to prevent further editing, as the IP has attempted to revert/delete all warnings. Dusti talk to me 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a good decision to give you the Barnstar! You have such as great signature! :) Acalamari : Chat 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rollback! Foobaz· o< 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please check out my talk page and provide your input. I feel that with the more input, the better I will feel about the outcome (if that makes sense). Dusti talk to me 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King#Neutral :) Gary King ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm unable to log in because I salted my password yesterday. Is there not anohther way I can do it. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 ( talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you had it watched or not, but I replied. Thanks. - Milk's favorite Cookie 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo, question, isn't the last sentence of this violating the neutrality guideline? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that someone else had a problem with it too, and he managed to get it changed. Cool huh? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Heya Pedro, Hows everything going? Just wanted to ask do you know what has been the most successful RFA as in the most support votes and no oppose votes. I was just wondering thats all. You know there are so many stats and trivia questions that im interested in, i have found most of them but this one is hidden from me. Do you have any clue? Just wondering thats all. BTW what tool for reverting vandalism is the best in your mind? What do you normally use? Thanks, keep up the great work. Im always looking at the RFA page for your contributions, i can learn so much from you. I think you deserve to become a bureaucrat one day. You've got my support. Take care Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 10:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did a some more AfD's. Now what? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you deleting on my watchlist. How's things? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Hampus Hellekant called me and asked that I had the article deleted. Considering that he is a convicted murderer, I have decided to comply. If speedy deletion is not the way to go, I will have to request Oversight - a tedious procedure! I ask you to reconsider your decision and re-interpret CSD:G7. Jobjörn ( talk) 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have declined speedy again. I'm afraid my interpretation of G7 is correct. If you have been contacted by the subject of the article then I would recommmend WP:BLP/N is the correct place to go to. At a read the assertions in the article are cited, and simply a request from the subject to delete it does not guarantee deletion I'm afraid. Pedro : Chat 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I reduced it to 24 hours ... I forgot for a second that it was an IP (a registered user with this edit history would, of course, be blocked indefinitely). Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pedro, please be more careful in assessing AIV reports in the future. The user in question DID vandalize recently, twice today, in fact, which was what prompted my report in the first place. I provided diffs as well. He has a pageful of final warnings, and a 100%-vandalism edit history (which I hand verified myself before submitting the report). I realize you are intensely busy with admin work, but when you decline a block such as that, I do not believe you are adhering to either the letter OR the spirit of WP:BLOCK. Due to gross inconsistency in the enforcement of policy on AIV, many users now simply no longer bother to report ANY vandal out of resignation that it will simply be ignored. I think the fact that an IP editor can make 48 consecutive vandalism edits (in almost every single month in the last 2 years) without a single report to AIV confirms what I am saying. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to speak to this as the blocking admin.
While the vandalism was not, indeed, ongoing, the report made it clear that all the edits from the account had been vandalism, and that two such edits had occurred today. I don't think we should automatically dismiss all AIV reports that don't meet the standards if the greater good of Wikipedia would be served by taking some action against the user reported. There has never been any sign that this IP has been used for any productive editing. I have seen other admins block users who have a continual pattern of going to the edge and then stopping (much as we block people for 3RR violations who continually make those three reverts and then wait 24 hours before doing them again). Perhaps they would not have vandalized again during that time anyway, but this way they'll know their activities will result in blocks. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been having a problem with this admin raul654. He keeps deleting my stuff. Thanks. Sumba ( talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I need some help here. Two users seem to be edit warring. I have to get offline now, but if you could check my contribs and talk page, you should be able to figure it out. Thanks and happy editing. If you need something else, drop me a line on my talk page, considering you wont get an ( edit conflict) lol :) Dusti speak and be heard! 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you turned down my AIV report on this user as "stale". Whilst I have no beef with your decision, how was it stale??
Mayalld ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove my reporting of this vandal without leaving a warning on the user's talk page? this vandal and his buddy exist for one reason. to try to get their name onto the Steve Bedrosian article. If you check their history, you will see that they have contributed nothing else to WP at all. They are merely puppets and should be blocked. You could have at least left a warning on their talk page. EraserGirl ( talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation, however I am still confused at how merely removing my comment actually did anything but negate my involvement. I didn't expect you to block anyone at that stage, but leaving another warning would have at least acknowledged the infraction. EraserGirl ( talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words in my RfA. Regretfully I had to withdraw my application as per the opposers comments, although it looked like towards the end I may have succeeded given enough time. Anyway, thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you with my next RfA application. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently blocked User:66.103.50.157. Today I discovered that he/she had vandalised yet another page. Judging by the amount of vandalism warnings on his/her talk page, is there any way of getting this person permanently blocked? Howie ☎ 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I had someone offer to nominate me for admin, and I was wondering what you thought of my chances of succeeding. My reason for asking this is that I don't want to waste the community's time with a dead-on-arrival RfA and possibly take a blow to my wikimood. I greatly appreciate your advice on this and I await your response. Thanks. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "sorting out", last night I actually wrote out a rough draft of answers to those wonderful main questions. : ) Wisdom89 ( T / C) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw the comment you left on VanTucky's RfA, and all I can say is...your signature is spreading! Here's one that, while it's not the same as yours, it's a descendant! WP:PEDRO is becoming policy, and the dominant one at that! :) Acalamari : Chat 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some serious help. Everybody seems more interested in ID vs. Darwinism that talking about the actual article. Any help would be appreciated; especially on this post. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Woah! What happened with the co-noms? I guess I'll leave it then. No matter, I can always support it. Rudget 10:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, didn't expect all of that. Pedro, you are a quick one. The one night when I don't have access to a computer, the page is created and I can't transclude : ). Ah well!. The both of you, thanks so much for your kind words. Very thoughtful! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[8] You are welcome, it was getting out of hand. I asked around on IRC to find that there was a lot of opposition to more than three co-noms. Tiptoety talk 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a conflict of interest to support Wisdom's RfA since he supported mine? I'd really like to support him, but I don't want to do something I'm not supposed to do. Thanks for the help. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it isn't going as well as I had hoped, but, that's ok. It's trust. Frankly speaking, this "double standard" business and references to my RfA voting are beyond strange to me. In fact, I'll flat out say that I have never manifested such a behavior. I feel there are now pile on opposes to the point where there is a slim chance for success. If there is a small flurry between now and the end of the day, in the same vein, I'm going to be forced to withdraw prematurely methinks. Anyway, must get to work, cheers! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I read the oppose !votes, the more despondent I am becoming, not because the RfA is going to fail (which I am certain it will), but because there are some outrageously cynical comments about my work/behavior. Sigh. I hate to say it, but, considering my personal experience here, and in light of other editors I've seen (as well as the numerous WT:RFA discussions), I feel that the RfA process is horribly misguided. Scrutiny is one thing, but, a few diffs (one 3 months ago!) from rspeer and it spirals downhill with "per user"? Users don't like my RfA !voting? I'm manufactured? I was told what to say? And the latest oppose..my answer to question six is scripted. Yikes...Sorry, but the process is a fishing expedition. Talk about Wikistress. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand that I am supposed to be on a wikibreak. But, I got an e-mail telling me that I was being refered to as "ignorant" and I should "educate yourself before trying to spread this kind of ignorance farther." Now, I'm no expert on the civility laws, but wouldn't being refered to as "ignorant" be a violation of those laws? BTW, the discussion is found here. I'm going to go back to my Wikibreak, and pray that God will soften his heart and that I won't recieve any more e-mails like that one. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Pedro! Could I get your help over here? I figure it might be quicker to ping you directly... if you think I should go to a project page or something... I'm open to suggestion. I want to make sure that I get some help this person. -- Swerdnaneb 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
man y do u hate me? point out all my faults. so racist :( --Thfrang 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
lol soz bro i didnt mean it dat way, i meant it as a joke, but i guess it didnt come across dat way and i apologize. pls help me become a better wiki dude so i can one day become admin because i think i have potential. gimme advice if possibleh! ciao--Thfrang 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
omg i sed i wos sorry, didnt think anyone would take it soooooooooooo seriously. wat do you want me to do for you to forgive me, kiss your feet? kill myself? god, i thought a part of wikilove is forgiveness.--Thfrang 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
This made me laugh. :) A good description though. Acalamari 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up dude, you may want to visit the above page and list your two new recruits that you've begun coaching. I just remembered to removed myself just now. Lata! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You for supporting me! Sorry for the late message as I hadn't realized someone had supported me! Thanks for the advice. I know that I edit my sub pages more than real articles! Anyway thank you for the moral support and I hope that we can work together in the future. JayJ47 ( talk) 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can try, but myself and MZMcBride are running clones of the same adminbot in different directions already. Thanks for the offer, but I think we've got this covered. :-) east.718 at 20:55, April 23, 2008
I think it's fixed now. thanks for the heads up (I can never decide if the heads in heads up needs an apostrophe...) Van Tucky 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, good point, I should have just placed another warning on the user's talk page, as you did. However I did want to get quick attention to the matter, as it was obvious vandalism on multiple WP:BLP articles. Thank you for dealing with it and for adding the final warning to the user's talk page. Cirt ( talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm flattered. :) Walton One 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This looks just like it did before it was nominated for speedy delete -- any suggestions as to what to do now? Doug Weller ( talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You seemed to removed the disputes with out leaving any discussion. I added references, I added relevance and importance to the workstation and minicomputer industries in the 1980. I added categories. You left nothing behind, just removed the dispute. Did you look and see if this page had been added before? Some feedback would be nice. Robert.harker ( talk) 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my confusion. I will admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie and one of my other pages was deleted with out comment even after I had tried to fix its defects, relevance and references. Will some one come along and look at the improvements? Do you have any idea of how long this might take? Thanks for the help Robert.harker ( talk) 10:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[9] Why thank you kind sir. I also never knew my mother was having an affair, you learn something new every day. :D Tiptoety talk 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's on its way.... Keep your eyes open for it. Ah dang, is this canvassing? Delete it if it is :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi you did say that I could always knock you up if I needed advice. Until yesterday I wasn't aware that User rights logs were visible. I'm not sure if I ever cared to look. I'm a Crat on Wikia and stuff like that is visible on all user logs including watchlist (its only in the past week or two its been visible on wikipedia watchlists).
I had presumed that rights logs were only visible to sysops here. You granted me rollback rights on 2nd April, but according to the rights log I had been granted them twice before. 1 in error and 1 quickly oversighted. A recurring theme on the rights log was aggressive behaviour. If I had have known before that this dead weight had have hung over me during the last 15 weeks, I would have quickly vacated wikipedia. Now I understand the hostility some editors have shown me. The "aggression" is well within scope of tracing back. I have certainly made no attempt to hide it ( my talk archive with annotation).
I have asked to leave the project - my user page was deleted earlier and my talk page blanked. Morally/ethically/realistically what concerns are there about editors leaving and starting afresh? A blank page and editing under a new username without recourse to stigma which made them bad?
Can you please reply on this user page. AOL may well decide that this IP is needed by another computer before you can reply and the message is probably flashed to an innocent. -- 172.200.5.68 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sad it has come to this. I would urge you to consider returning under you existing user name and moving on from this - I believe this is the easiest way forward. Let me know your thoughts. Pedro : Chat 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not some convoluted form of sock-puppetry. I don't have an agenda to push anything on Wikipedia apart from the usual bumpf we welcome new editors with. A possible drawback in the course of action (It was suggested to me by Dbiel incidentally) is that all editors have unmistakable individual styles of prose and it would be impossible if another editor were to ask me outright if I were Bpeps for me to deny it.
It cannot be stressed enough the particular shame and embarrassment I feel about the branding "aggressive behaviour". If it was on a school report it is not something you would flash to your mom with delight. The addictive quality of Wikipedia makes an outright leaving unthinkable; as would joining the army of disaffected wikipedians who fill the gap of Wikipedia by attacking the project.
I have a lot of thinking to do over the weekend on what to do. Wikipedia is all about learning both in terms of Groupthink (thanks to the other editors who have been so patient with me) and reading up on articles to improve them. I am very unsure of what to do next, but thanks for your consideration and again kind regards. -- 172.213.188.128 ( talk) 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes. I trust that the Wikipedia experience will be better for you. I would ask, to avoid any conflict, that you do not advise me of your new identity, either on or off wiki. Sorry to be blunt, but I play this straight and take my admin "position" (bad word - but better than the dreaded "status") seriously. I want to be fair, and I only want to deal in honest and peer reviewable terms. Good luck, God Bless and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a request to ask of you: You voted neutral on my last RFA, and I've noticed that you seem to give some of the better thought-out opinions on RfA in general. I'm coming up on when I was planning on running again, and I was wondering if you could give me a simple appraisal of how you think I'll do. As I have other things to do around here I'd rather not expend the amount of time and energy necessary just to fail again.-- Dycedarg ж 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor? Could you look at this diff, this diff, and this diff and tell me what you think? I took the issue to the talk page like I was told. The reason I want it changed is because science is not atheistic. Your input would be appreciated. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If even looking at it offends you, then please feel free to ignore it.-- Filll ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not and do not accuse you of not having good faith. The challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises. It is just a name that I thought was funny. Some wanted to call it DR Challenge for Dispute Resolution Challenge.-- Filll ( talk) 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The name of the test is terrible. It makes it sound as if it's a test of your own good faith, but anyone who reads it sees immediately that that is not what's being tested. Just ask anyone who's taken it. It is a series of hypothetical DR situations.
What seems "self-evident" turns out to be false if you simply scratch the surface.
Filll, you chose a horrible name for your otherwise excellent set of thought-experiments. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
One could argue that I have not displayed the best of faith here, and I apologise. As GTBacchus sums up above, totally accurately, it was acombination of things that made this look like an inopportune request. I accept that this is not the case, and hope we can all move on. Pedro : Chat 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
I've been dishing out Oreos to various users and you're no exception Pedro. Since Barnstars are like..you know..old news, you're getting these. Thanks for all your help over the past few months! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
I could do with some User:Beer and cookies courtesy of Pedro... dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, well im using Twinkle so im still getting used to it. It said "Creation of previously deleted material" and it looked like it fit so i used that one. I was trying to use the cat that was most relevant. Sorry for the confusion, Thanks for the advice. Cheers. AnnaJGrant ( talk) 10:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Daryldadude Has continued to remake the same page, filled with nonsense. I have given him a last warning after the 3rd recreation of the page with nonsense in it.
AnnaJGrant (
talk)
11:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Replied. I hope I'm not overreacting. D.M.N. ( talk) 13:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Please re-send, if you'd be so kind. Pedro : Chat 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! It's good to be back. Thank you for talking with D.M.N., it was much appreciated! iMat thew 20 08 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I have a question: I was blocked back in january. Can I still adopt? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 22:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey there Pedro, just wanted to let you know I was interested in co-noming Wisdom when the time comes around for you to nominate him. If you would not mind letting me know when you do so as not to miss it? Thanks, Tiptoety talk 00:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Why aren't you a bureaucrat yet? :) - Mtmelendez ( Talk) 12:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
You were upset about something - I forget the exact context - one of the AFDs. Anyway, I made a mental note to give you a link to a story which speaks to our different roles here. It amuses me and may entertain you. FWIW it can be read at:
Colonel Warden ( talk) 14:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Pedro. I just noticed that on 23 January you deleted my user page, citing WP:CSD#G11 ("Blatant advertising. Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note that simply having a company or product as its subject does not qualify an article for this criterion.")
Since a user page is not an article, I checked [2] for appropriate user page info. It says "In addition to the author's username, a user page might include some of the following details:
* Occupation * Interests * Web site URL"
Based on this information, I do not understand why my user page was deleted. My User Page said only that my occupation is Manager of Information Services at the Education and Research Institute -- a nonprofit organization that hosts a free online archive of scanned United States government (public domain) documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act -- and provided the organization's Web site URL. (The Web site is free, and does not require anything, install anything, or sell anything.)
Can you explain why this information is inappropriate? Any help you could give here would be much appreciated. Thanx! Mark LaRochelle ( talk) 20:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Meetup? Hope it's not too short notice. Majorly ( talk) 14:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Pedro, I was wondering if you could admin coach me? Tell me what you think. Thanks. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This user is getting much problematic including uninformed WP:POINT prodding of articles and personal attacks against other editors.
In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [5]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.
Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [6].
I have filed a case in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Firefly322. Please look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 13:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I've left a couple of messages, that their response to the first was to past entire policy pages into my talk page (rather than a link) doesn't make me hopeful. Particularly when that policy doesn't actually support their actions. They seem to have gone quiet for now though, so fingers crossed. -- BrucePodger ( talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I noticed you (mis)deleted the page "anti-cnn", which I believe is not what you thought it was as you said in the deletion log. It is NOT a dedicate page to attack some certain company, nor is it unsourced. It is a page for describing the website www.anti-cnn.com, a site boasting a collection of pictures and video evidences of the obvious and probably deliberately distortion of the recent events in tibet, by some of the most popular news sources. It is aimed at their bias and lies, and hopes to remind viewers worldwide that what they see on some of the "most" global media is far from relative truth. A page linked with that website is anything but ungrounded attack, and I am looking forward to a opportunity to elaborate that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helloterran ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
, Thanks for your contributions. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk) 14:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi - this article was recreated, but I chopped it mercilessly and removed the POV and OR - can you have a look and see what you think? (Note that another editor keeps reverting and adding back in OR, though, so check the history). Black Kite 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
If I was the one to PROD, can I go back and add a speedy instead? Because that is what happened in this instance. Wongm ( talk) 14:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Pedro. I don't generally revert edits of good, established editors like yourself, but I had stumbled on that Jerry Covington mess yesterday. The guy's been blocked and has been using a bunch of sockpuppets to try and avoid it. This is just the latest. User:Ukexpat has been pulling out his hair over it. There is certainly the establishment of notability, but it's totally COI if we're dealing with Mr. Covington and totally against the rules regardless of who he is. -- PMDrive1061 ( talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
PMDrive1061 (
talk) 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!
Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{ subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
The speedy tag was added by an experienced user. Speedy tags should not be removed - as stated, they could be contested. I felt that the deletion of the speedy tag by the concerned user was a disrespect to the user who added it, whether it was a mistake or not. Since you disagree too, then I agree with its removal. Thanks. Herunar ( talk) 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi there! Long time no see -- rare to find you on-line at the same time as me. What bad luck for you <grin> since I was looking for a friendly admin to keep an eye on User:74.234.39.218. Simply put, this is the most disruptive user I have ever seen in my life, and I figure someone's going to ban him in the next 20 minutes or so, but due to some interaction I've had with him already, it can't be me. The page he's whingeing about is something that I deleted because he blanked the page and left some nonsense on it about hoaxing. The page's creator asked me to look into it -- I did, and Googled enough information to make me think that the topic is 100% legitimate, so I restored the page. (I've been fooled before, but I think I'm right this time.) Anyway, the IP user will NOT leave this alone, he's determined to have the page removed and everyone to admit that he (I just know no woman would/could be this offensive) is right. I'm at the end of my rope with him, and I'm sure a number of other people are as well. Whatever you feel like doing would be just fine with me, but I think someone should be keeping an eye on this individual for the next few hours, and I'm pretty much going off-line. Thanks for any oversight you care to exercise -- and of course, my best to you and your family! (I'm way too busy these days to spend any time talking about bathrobes, unfortunately.) Accounting4Taste: talk 22:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, my AGF levels must be running ultra high! Just remember it when I do an RFB! Pedro : Chat 22:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No. - Jéské ( v^_^v X of Swords) 22:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey Pedro, I hope you don't mind but I'm using your code on my signature. It really looks nice, so I choose yours. If you don't like that then contact me and I'll remove it :) -- Kanonkas : Take Contact 16:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I recommend that you semi protect his/her page to prevent further editing, as the IP has attempted to revert/delete all warnings. Dusti talk to me 19:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
It was a good decision to give you the Barnstar! You have such as great signature! :) Acalamari : Chat 08:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the rollback! Foobaz· o< 15:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Please check out my talk page and provide your input. I feel that with the more input, the better I will feel about the outcome (if that makes sense). Dusti talk to me 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gary_King#Neutral :) Gary King ( talk) 07:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm unable to log in because I salted my password yesterday. Is there not anohther way I can do it. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 ( talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if you had it watched or not, but I replied. Thanks. - Milk's favorite Cookie 21:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Yo, question, isn't the last sentence of this violating the neutrality guideline? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 14:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it turns out that someone else had a problem with it too, and he managed to get it changed. Cool huh? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 15:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Heya Pedro, Hows everything going? Just wanted to ask do you know what has been the most successful RFA as in the most support votes and no oppose votes. I was just wondering thats all. You know there are so many stats and trivia questions that im interested in, i have found most of them but this one is hidden from me. Do you have any clue? Just wondering thats all. BTW what tool for reverting vandalism is the best in your mind? What do you normally use? Thanks, keep up the great work. Im always looking at the RFA page for your contributions, i can learn so much from you. I think you deserve to become a bureaucrat one day. You've got my support. Take care Roadrunnerz45 ( talk) 10:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I did a some more AfD's. Now what? RC-0722 247.5/ 1 00:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Just saw you deleting on my watchlist. How's things? dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 10:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Hampus Hellekant called me and asked that I had the article deleted. Considering that he is a convicted murderer, I have decided to comply. If speedy deletion is not the way to go, I will have to request Oversight - a tedious procedure! I ask you to reconsider your decision and re-interpret CSD:G7. Jobjörn ( talk) 10:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I have declined speedy again. I'm afraid my interpretation of G7 is correct. If you have been contacted by the subject of the article then I would recommmend WP:BLP/N is the correct place to go to. At a read the assertions in the article are cited, and simply a request from the subject to delete it does not guarantee deletion I'm afraid. Pedro : Chat 11:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I reduced it to 24 hours ... I forgot for a second that it was an IP (a registered user with this edit history would, of course, be blocked indefinitely). Daniel Case ( talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Pedro, please be more careful in assessing AIV reports in the future. The user in question DID vandalize recently, twice today, in fact, which was what prompted my report in the first place. I provided diffs as well. He has a pageful of final warnings, and a 100%-vandalism edit history (which I hand verified myself before submitting the report). I realize you are intensely busy with admin work, but when you decline a block such as that, I do not believe you are adhering to either the letter OR the spirit of WP:BLOCK. Due to gross inconsistency in the enforcement of policy on AIV, many users now simply no longer bother to report ANY vandal out of resignation that it will simply be ignored. I think the fact that an IP editor can make 48 consecutive vandalism edits (in almost every single month in the last 2 years) without a single report to AIV confirms what I am saying. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 21:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to speak to this as the blocking admin.
While the vandalism was not, indeed, ongoing, the report made it clear that all the edits from the account had been vandalism, and that two such edits had occurred today. I don't think we should automatically dismiss all AIV reports that don't meet the standards if the greater good of Wikipedia would be served by taking some action against the user reported. There has never been any sign that this IP has been used for any productive editing. I have seen other admins block users who have a continual pattern of going to the edge and then stopping (much as we block people for 3RR violations who continually make those three reverts and then wait 24 hours before doing them again). Perhaps they would not have vandalized again during that time anyway, but this way they'll know their activities will result in blocks. Daniel Case ( talk) 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I've been having a problem with this admin raul654. He keeps deleting my stuff. Thanks. Sumba ( talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I need some help here. Two users seem to be edit warring. I have to get offline now, but if you could check my contribs and talk page, you should be able to figure it out. Thanks and happy editing. If you need something else, drop me a line on my talk page, considering you wont get an ( edit conflict) lol :) Dusti speak and be heard! 22:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I notice that you turned down my AIV report on this user as "stale". Whilst I have no beef with your decision, how was it stale??
Mayalld ( talk) 10:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove my reporting of this vandal without leaving a warning on the user's talk page? this vandal and his buddy exist for one reason. to try to get their name onto the Steve Bedrosian article. If you check their history, you will see that they have contributed nothing else to WP at all. They are merely puppets and should be blocked. You could have at least left a warning on their talk page. EraserGirl ( talk) 15:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Thank you for your explanation, however I am still confused at how merely removing my comment actually did anything but negate my involvement. I didn't expect you to block anyone at that stage, but leaving another warning would have at least acknowledged the infraction. EraserGirl ( talk) 20:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your kind words in my RfA. Regretfully I had to withdraw my application as per the opposers comments, although it looked like towards the end I may have succeeded given enough time. Anyway, thanks again and I look forward to hearing from you with my next RfA application. Regards, CycloneNimrod talk? 22:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that you recently blocked User:66.103.50.157. Today I discovered that he/she had vandalised yet another page. Judging by the amount of vandalism warnings on his/her talk page, is there any way of getting this person permanently blocked? Howie ☎ 13:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
I had someone offer to nominate me for admin, and I was wondering what you thought of my chances of succeeding. My reason for asking this is that I don't want to waste the community's time with a dead-on-arrival RfA and possibly take a blow to my wikimood. I greatly appreciate your advice on this and I await your response. Thanks. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Speaking of "sorting out", last night I actually wrote out a rough draft of answers to those wonderful main questions. : ) Wisdom89 ( T / C) 13:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw the comment you left on VanTucky's RfA, and all I can say is...your signature is spreading! Here's one that, while it's not the same as yours, it's a descendant! WP:PEDRO is becoming policy, and the dominant one at that! :) Acalamari : Chat 21:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This article needs some serious help. Everybody seems more interested in ID vs. Darwinism that talking about the actual article. Any help would be appreciated; especially on this post. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 22:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Woah! What happened with the co-noms? I guess I'll leave it then. No matter, I can always support it. Rudget 10:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, didn't expect all of that. Pedro, you are a quick one. The one night when I don't have access to a computer, the page is created and I can't transclude : ). Ah well!. The both of you, thanks so much for your kind words. Very thoughtful! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
[8] You are welcome, it was getting out of hand. I asked around on IRC to find that there was a lot of opposition to more than three co-noms. Tiptoety talk 15:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Would it be a conflict of interest to support Wisdom's RfA since he supported mine? I'd really like to support him, but I don't want to do something I'm not supposed to do. Thanks for the help. Thingg ⊕ ⊗ 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it isn't going as well as I had hoped, but, that's ok. It's trust. Frankly speaking, this "double standard" business and references to my RfA voting are beyond strange to me. In fact, I'll flat out say that I have never manifested such a behavior. I feel there are now pile on opposes to the point where there is a slim chance for success. If there is a small flurry between now and the end of the day, in the same vein, I'm going to be forced to withdraw prematurely methinks. Anyway, must get to work, cheers! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 12:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The more I read the oppose !votes, the more despondent I am becoming, not because the RfA is going to fail (which I am certain it will), but because there are some outrageously cynical comments about my work/behavior. Sigh. I hate to say it, but, considering my personal experience here, and in light of other editors I've seen (as well as the numerous WT:RFA discussions), I feel that the RfA process is horribly misguided. Scrutiny is one thing, but, a few diffs (one 3 months ago!) from rspeer and it spirals downhill with "per user"? Users don't like my RfA !voting? I'm manufactured? I was told what to say? And the latest oppose..my answer to question six is scripted. Yikes...Sorry, but the process is a fishing expedition. Talk about Wikistress. Wisdom89 ( T / C) 20:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I completely understand that I am supposed to be on a wikibreak. But, I got an e-mail telling me that I was being refered to as "ignorant" and I should "educate yourself before trying to spread this kind of ignorance farther." Now, I'm no expert on the civility laws, but wouldn't being refered to as "ignorant" be a violation of those laws? BTW, the discussion is found here. I'm going to go back to my Wikibreak, and pray that God will soften his heart and that I won't recieve any more e-mails like that one. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 16:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, Pedro! Could I get your help over here? I figure it might be quicker to ping you directly... if you think I should go to a project page or something... I'm open to suggestion. I want to make sure that I get some help this person. -- Swerdnaneb 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
man y do u hate me? point out all my faults. so racist :( --Thfrang 10:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
lol soz bro i didnt mean it dat way, i meant it as a joke, but i guess it didnt come across dat way and i apologize. pls help me become a better wiki dude so i can one day become admin because i think i have potential. gimme advice if possibleh! ciao--Thfrang 10:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
omg i sed i wos sorry, didnt think anyone would take it soooooooooooo seriously. wat do you want me to do for you to forgive me, kiss your feet? kill myself? god, i thought a part of wikilove is forgiveness.--Thfrang 11:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thfrang ( talk • contribs)
This made me laugh. :) A good description though. Acalamari 18:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up dude, you may want to visit the above page and list your two new recruits that you've begun coaching. I just remembered to removed myself just now. Lata! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 19:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank You for supporting me! Sorry for the late message as I hadn't realized someone had supported me! Thanks for the advice. I know that I edit my sub pages more than real articles! Anyway thank you for the moral support and I hope that we can work together in the future. JayJ47 ( talk) 07:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
You can try, but myself and MZMcBride are running clones of the same adminbot in different directions already. Thanks for the offer, but I think we've got this covered. :-) east.718 at 20:55, April 23, 2008
I think it's fixed now. thanks for the heads up (I can never decide if the heads in heads up needs an apostrophe...) Van Tucky 22:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Okay, good point, I should have just placed another warning on the user's talk page, as you did. However I did want to get quick attention to the matter, as it was obvious vandalism on multiple WP:BLP articles. Thank you for dealing with it and for adding the final warning to the user's talk page. Cirt ( talk) 10:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm flattered. :) Walton One 13:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This looks just like it did before it was nominated for speedy delete -- any suggestions as to what to do now? Doug Weller ( talk) 07:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
You seemed to removed the disputes with out leaving any discussion. I added references, I added relevance and importance to the workstation and minicomputer industries in the 1980. I added categories. You left nothing behind, just removed the dispute. Did you look and see if this page had been added before? Some feedback would be nice. Robert.harker ( talk) 09:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, my confusion. I will admit that I am a Wikipedia newbie and one of my other pages was deleted with out comment even after I had tried to fix its defects, relevance and references. Will some one come along and look at the improvements? Do you have any idea of how long this might take? Thanks for the help Robert.harker ( talk) 10:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
[9] Why thank you kind sir. I also never knew my mother was having an affair, you learn something new every day. :D Tiptoety talk 14:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It's on its way.... Keep your eyes open for it. Ah dang, is this canvassing? Delete it if it is :-) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi you did say that I could always knock you up if I needed advice. Until yesterday I wasn't aware that User rights logs were visible. I'm not sure if I ever cared to look. I'm a Crat on Wikia and stuff like that is visible on all user logs including watchlist (its only in the past week or two its been visible on wikipedia watchlists).
I had presumed that rights logs were only visible to sysops here. You granted me rollback rights on 2nd April, but according to the rights log I had been granted them twice before. 1 in error and 1 quickly oversighted. A recurring theme on the rights log was aggressive behaviour. If I had have known before that this dead weight had have hung over me during the last 15 weeks, I would have quickly vacated wikipedia. Now I understand the hostility some editors have shown me. The "aggression" is well within scope of tracing back. I have certainly made no attempt to hide it ( my talk archive with annotation).
I have asked to leave the project - my user page was deleted earlier and my talk page blanked. Morally/ethically/realistically what concerns are there about editors leaving and starting afresh? A blank page and editing under a new username without recourse to stigma which made them bad?
Can you please reply on this user page. AOL may well decide that this IP is needed by another computer before you can reply and the message is probably flashed to an innocent. -- 172.200.5.68 ( talk) 22:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I am sad it has come to this. I would urge you to consider returning under you existing user name and moving on from this - I believe this is the easiest way forward. Let me know your thoughts. Pedro : Chat 07:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly not some convoluted form of sock-puppetry. I don't have an agenda to push anything on Wikipedia apart from the usual bumpf we welcome new editors with. A possible drawback in the course of action (It was suggested to me by Dbiel incidentally) is that all editors have unmistakable individual styles of prose and it would be impossible if another editor were to ask me outright if I were Bpeps for me to deny it.
It cannot be stressed enough the particular shame and embarrassment I feel about the branding "aggressive behaviour". If it was on a school report it is not something you would flash to your mom with delight. The addictive quality of Wikipedia makes an outright leaving unthinkable; as would joining the army of disaffected wikipedians who fill the gap of Wikipedia by attacking the project.
I have a lot of thinking to do over the weekend on what to do. Wikipedia is all about learning both in terms of Groupthink (thanks to the other editors who have been so patient with me) and reading up on articles to improve them. I am very unsure of what to do next, but thanks for your consideration and again kind regards. -- 172.213.188.128 ( talk) 11:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Best wishes. I trust that the Wikipedia experience will be better for you. I would ask, to avoid any conflict, that you do not advise me of your new identity, either on or off wiki. Sorry to be blunt, but I play this straight and take my admin "position" (bad word - but better than the dreaded "status") seriously. I want to be fair, and I only want to deal in honest and peer reviewable terms. Good luck, God Bless and Happy Editing! Pedro : Chat 23:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I have a request to ask of you: You voted neutral on my last RFA, and I've noticed that you seem to give some of the better thought-out opinions on RfA in general. I'm coming up on when I was planning on running again, and I was wondering if you could give me a simple appraisal of how you think I'll do. As I have other things to do around here I'd rather not expend the amount of time and energy necessary just to fail again.-- Dycedarg ж 23:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Could you do me a favor? Could you look at this diff, this diff, and this diff and tell me what you think? I took the issue to the talk page like I was told. The reason I want it changed is because science is not atheistic. Your input would be appreciated. RC-0722 247.5/ 1 12:35, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [10] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.-- Filll ( talk) 15:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
If even looking at it offends you, then please feel free to ignore it.-- Filll ( talk) 22:37, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I did not and do not accuse you of not having good faith. The challenge is to see if you can use AGF to solve these 8 exercises. It is just a name that I thought was funny. Some wanted to call it DR Challenge for Dispute Resolution Challenge.-- Filll ( talk) 22:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The name of the test is terrible. It makes it sound as if it's a test of your own good faith, but anyone who reads it sees immediately that that is not what's being tested. Just ask anyone who's taken it. It is a series of hypothetical DR situations.
What seems "self-evident" turns out to be false if you simply scratch the surface.
Filll, you chose a horrible name for your otherwise excellent set of thought-experiments. - GTBacchus( talk) 23:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
One could argue that I have not displayed the best of faith here, and I apologise. As GTBacchus sums up above, totally accurately, it was acombination of things that made this look like an inopportune request. I accept that this is not the case, and hope we can all move on. Pedro : Chat 07:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
Cookies! | |
I've been dishing out Oreos to various users and you're no exception Pedro. Since Barnstars are like..you know..old news, you're getting these. Thanks for all your help over the past few months! Wisdom89 ( T / C) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{ subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{ subst:munch}}! |
I could do with some User:Beer and cookies courtesy of Pedro... dihydrogen monoxide ( H2O) 11:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)