User talk:Pedro: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:53, 25 January 2009

Back from a hiatus to find...

...a strange and unsettling development at Enigma's RfA. I've read the talk page, but I somehow feel I'm missing the big picture. Care to enlighten me in case I decide to weigh in? Also, despite that it's placed..err.."on hold'..are !votes allowed to be cast.. because I don't foresee my opinion changing. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, it was protected anyway - and looks as though it maybe reopened. Sigh. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circumflex redirect

Hi Pedro,

After having tried to reach a page titled Ṱ, I noticed that you have deleted all of the following redirects to Circumflex: Ḙ, Ḽ, and Ṱ. Why is that? Ḓ, which has a circumflex below, redirects there, as does Ṷ, too (plus lots of other characters with circumflex above). I think it's pretty common practice to redirect a character to the article on its diacritic, if nothing more specific is written on it. The reason why I did try to access Ṱ, was that - being unfamiliar with the character and seeing it being used in a linguistic transcription - I just copied the character in my browser's address field preceded by en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ to find out what it is used for. Could you please restore the redirects back? Malhonen (talk) 11:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done You make a good point that a user might cut and paste from another document to find out about the character. Thank you. Pedro : Chat 11:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Admin coaching

Hi. I'm interested in beginning admin coaching, and noticed you have a slot open. Would you be willing to start coaching me? I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have regarding what I've done on enwp so far. Thanks! — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 16:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, all though I would warn that "coaching" has been seen to harm at RFA rather than help.....! In addition I'm not really into "go make twenty AFD contributions and I'll review" kind of coaching - more an informal discussion forum to review actions, for you to ask questions and really find your own feet with the odd bit of gentle guidance or input. If you're after something expansive or task based I'm not the guy. If you're hoping that it will increase your chances at RFA I'm also not the guy. But if you like the sound of a useful page to monitor and review your actions, where I can ask a few questions and where I can point you to the few bits you do need to know then I'm up for it. Let me know. Pedro : Chat 18:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I was hoping for. I'm not looking for a strict program to follow, but rather some helpfull pointers on what to pay attention to, get some feedback, and a place to ask questions or help when needed. All in all, what you're proposing sounds perfect. — Twinzor ^{Say hi!} 19:02, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro's coaching style is one that I respect and thinks works...---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 19:14, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, that's not even a sentence it isn't. (oh, and Hi pedro!) Keeper | 76 19:16, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, ilu. لenna vecia 20:03, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes one of us :P ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 20:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah see, that was the problem all along! You were talking with your tongue sticking out in the shape of a capital P. Explains everything. And don't worry B-man, iljv/ll. :-) Keeper | 76 20:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(and by the way, your "correction" above is still grammatically uncorrect. Keeper | 76 20:26, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:-P ---Balloonman ^PoppaBalloonCSD Survey Results 21:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and Twinzor, I should point out that the odd interjection from Talk Page Stalkers is possible ....... :). I'll set up a page for us. Pedro : Chat 07:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page created at User:Pedro/Twinzor Pedro : Chat 09:58, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Gah, was just about to get that. :-) I was using the undo button though. Thanks for your help. — RyanCross (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It staggers me that no huggler beat me to it :) Pedro : Chat 11:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I was never really a fan of huggle. Actually, I was never really a fan of any automated tool. Well, I do use Twinkle, but only for RFPP reporting really. Other than that, I only use rollback and undo. That simple. :-) Again, thanks for your edit. — RyanCross (talk) 11:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution about OB10

Hi,

The article on OB10 that was deleted in April 2008 has been re-written. Can you please advise on what can be done to create the page again? --OB10marketing (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've uploaded a pfd with the new copy.

AIV

Thanks for the hard work. Sorry to keep filling it up. --Chasingsol ^(talk) 09:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramon Flecha

Hi Pedro! You have deleted the article in the past. Thought you may want to know that it has been recreated and to take a look at its current state of affairs. Best regards, gidonb (talk) 15:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up - I'll take a look. Pedro : Chat 15:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problems here - it was uncontroversial WP:CSD#G7 deletion last time and with the books and refs notability is asserted here - could do with a tidy up I admit. Pedro : Chat 15:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are most welcome. Thank you for giving the article an extra look! Best, gidonb (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Temporary lapse in judgment. Happens to the best of us :).- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Pedro's Day!

User:Pedro has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as Pedro's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Pedro!

Peace,
Rlevse
~

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Thank you! Pedro : Chat 07:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you review my question I left on CRG's RFA | here

This has to be terribly discouraging for CRG to read some of those oppose voters' reasoning. I haven't checked to see how you voted on him, but its a sad RFA. Its almost like the oppose voters are hazing him. I don't need but 5 minutes of your time, just 3 quick easy answers. Thanks Sentriclecub (talk) 06:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've actually supported this RFA per my essay here. I have replied to your question on the RFA itself. Best. Pedro : Chat 07:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS/RFA/AC

After rereading Peters talk page, I noticed you had said a few days ago you were awaiting communication from ARBCOM before a planned RfA. To be as short as possible, I cannot, at present, see why this is a necessary step. A motion was initiated August 31 2008 and passed September 1 2008 (diff) with the conclusion that either was permissable (through request for arbitration or by request for adminship). If you have time, I would like to know what exactly the hold up is? :D Synergy 22:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing. Peter doesn't know about me posting here (yet). Synergy 22:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well that is interesting. I emailed User:Deskana who was an active arbcom member, and whose post to ANI at the time of the events [1] indicated that only an approach to ARBCOM was acceptable. We have been indiscussion since (which I cannot discuss as it was by private email) but given that motion there seems to be no issues now. Pedro : Chat 07:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I was just a bit anxious and wanted to see this started. :) Synergy 20:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is - this is one that needs to be "by the book". If half way through some numpty from ARBCOM wades in with "they can't run" we just get mega drama on "community v arbcom" etc and the RFA fails. I'm really glad you found that link (curse me for being too lazy and not looking!) as given current ARBCOM performance we would still be waiting in July 2011 for permission if I asked. Thanks for the heads up. Pedro : Chat 20:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, I would have hunted them all down (the sitting arbs) to make sure Peter had a second chance. The best way to cut through the drama, is to nip it in the bud as soon as possible. I was one step away from filing a request for clarification, when that link fell on my lap. <cracks open a beer> Here's to 2011! :) Synergy 21:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(already on the plonk actually!) The interesting thing is that 3 arbs commented in support, and Calisber mentioned that they had been discussing this (I asked Deskana to forward my email which he obviously did). The RFA is actually less drama fuelled than I feared, but I did want certainty that there would be no "procedural" opposes - that diff was a darn good find my man. Pedro : Chat 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was slightly involved back then, and I remembered a number of us were concerned with future events (on ANI). Just happy to have helped, and thanks for taking this initiative. Synergy 01:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oops?

(Deletion log); 16:08 . . Pedro (Talk | contribs) restored "User:Pedro" (262 revisions restored: doh)

Ha, :-P iMatthew // talk // 21:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - trying to fix PS's RFA, hit the wrong button thinking there was another old page after the move, went for a ciggie and then came back to find a redlink at the top right of my interface - DOH! Pedro : Chat 21:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oooooooo....breathe in, breathe out, breathe in, breathe out........ Keeper | 76 04:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone has been to one too many Lamaze classes. :D Synergy 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC) Couldn't resist Keeper! Where you been hiding buddy?[reply]

Re: Rollback

Indeed, especially after I told them to wait a couple weeks. Oh, well. Thanks for the note. :) –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Pedro, thank you for granting me rollback privileges. I plan to honour your faith in me. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete and block?

Hi Pedro, I don't think that we'd want this dormant account to ever restart and work with the parts of the community that they think should live.... Were Spiel Chequers 15:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Page deleted - block is pointless to be honest as the account is delinquent. Pedro : Chat 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My sincere thanks

Thank you Pedro for nominating me - I successfully made it. Is there anything you would like to recommend to a new admin? *Cough* same signature again. --Kanonkas : Talk 17:43, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - you sort out your left from your left ........... (see image caption) :). Nice one. Pedro : Chat 19:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Now in the hall of ~~fame~~ shame! Pedro : Chat 19:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that sounds spooky. Fixed caption! --Kanonkas : Talk 19:57, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh great, now there's a Pedro's Signature Cabal. kotra : Chalk 21:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous suggestion. PeterSymonds : Chat

Absolutely There is no Cabal. WereSpielChequers : Chat

I don't know what came over me! kotra : Chaat 00:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shhhhhh! - people will realise you are my socks.....Pedro : Chat 07:41, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is freaking me out. Keeper : Chat 16:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you couldn't resist. What's with all the sockpuppets of yours, Pedro? --Kanonkas : Talk 21:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppets? I've never heard of such a thing. --Juliancolton : Chat 14:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Sock Puppet List

Is top secret, and retained in my sandbox for my eyes only. Thank you. Pedro : Chat 14:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thankspam

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which failed with 90/38/3; whether you supported, opposed or remained neutral.

Special thanks go out to Moreschi, Dougweller and Frank for nominating me, and I will try to take everyone's comments on board.

Thanks again for your participation. I am currently concentrating my efforts on the Wikification WikiProject. It's fun! Please visit the project and wikify a few articles to help clear the backlog. If you can recruit some more participants, then even better.

Apologies if you don't like RfA thankspam, this message was delivered by a bot which can't tell whether you want it or not. Feel free to remove it. Itsmejudith (talk), 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denbot (talk) 22:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deep sigh of relief

It's over *deep breath*. I am absolutely shocked at how well it went, and the constructive feedback I received in all three sections. It went so much better than I ever imagined it would go. Just want to thank you personally for putting your faith in me again. Had it not been for your gentle prodding, that link would still be red, because when I returned I never thought of going back to RfA again. I won't let your trust (and the trust of others) go to waste again, that I can assure you of. :) Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Almost 200 supports. Yes, I have to say I anticipated a slightly rougher ride, but after the first two days it was clear where it was heading. Welcome back to the tools! Pedro : Chat 07:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Cabal

That page is too funny! :P

What's it for, though? iMatthew : Chat 00:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry - it was a light relief from C:CSD. I'd had enough there. I'll delete it over the weekend. Pedro : Chat 00:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will I..er..you? :) PeterSymonds : Chat 00:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing ...... ;) Pedro : Chat 00:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find this funny. Not in the slightest. This completely ruins my chances for a 4th RfA now. Just ruined! Synergy : Chat 00:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!! Pedro : Chat 00:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL. Majorly : Chat 00:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doh! Pedro : Chat 00:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Email for you. Majorly talk 00:43, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replied - will reply further later. Pedro : Chat 00:48, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pedro/Sandbox

I lol'd. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 05:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As did I. holy crap! Man, I didn't quite make the list, did I? I guess content contributors (who are non-admins) don't make the cut? *winks at all those sockpuppets* Ceran^→//forge 17:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some admins didn't make it either. :P GlassCobra 17:27, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to keep you two socks in reserve in case anyone else finds the list.... uh oh ..... Pedro : Chat 17:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Juliancolton: If you have the right access level, you can see the double-secret-hidden category List of Wikipedian secret sockpuppets. If you don't have the access, the category shows up as an empty redlink category. Davidwr : Chat 18:18, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Pedro : Chat 18:25, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the smiley off too

Now that you've hopefully calmed down a little Pedro,[2] I just wanted to say that I had no intention of making a "snide" remark, I just regarded it as half-serious throw-away comment to provoke some thought.

I had no intention of belittling the work you do as an administrator, and nor would I ever do that. I'm upset that my jokey comment offended you, and for that I apologise. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed this opinion multiple times, Malleus; I'm surprised to see you claiming to not be serious. GlassCobra 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'mm quite prepared to discuss with you what number of armed administrators are required to deal with a rather smaller number of active editors than the millions too often touted about. But not here.

Please note as well that I'm not apologising for my point of view, but for inadvertently having caused offence by voicing it inappropriately. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 194: / Line 194: @@
 I had no intention of belittling the work you do as an administrator, and nor would I ever do that. I'm upset that my jokey comment offended you, and for that I apologise. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 :You've expressed this opinion multiple times, Malleus; I'm surprised to see you claiming to not be serious. [[User:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Glass</font>]]'''[[User talk:GlassCobra|<font color="002bb8">Cobra</font>]]''' 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
+::I'mm quite prepared to discuss with you what number of armed administrators are required to deal with a rather smaller number of active editors than the millions too often touted about. But not here.
+::Please note as well that I'm not apologising for my point of view, but for inadvertently having caused offence by voicing it inappropriately. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 16:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)