Jump to content

User talk:Pedro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Guido Avesnes (talk | contribs) at 15:15, 28 September 2007 (→‎Darragh Park: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The Signpost
14 August 2024

Hi, please leave a message.


Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page. Please sign you name if you'd be so kind by typing four tildes e.g. ~~~~ at the end of your message.

Re: Your RfA was unsuccessful (Captmondo)

Hello there:

I appreciate your vociferous support, and your consolation when this did not pass.

Am still digesting the critiques, and I think it a pity that a consensus could not be reached in my case, despite my long track record as a solid editor in my area of expertise. My current plans are to improve the existing Ancient Egypt WikiProject, and to smite vandalism in the pages I keep watch over.

I am open to suggestions from someone clearly more experienced in the field. Where/what would you suggest I do to better improve my chances for next time?

Cheers! Captmondo 13:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE Our beloved Leader

Ha... certainly more accurate than the BBC's coverage of him, anyway. :-) Looking forward to voting in my first general election (I still hold out hope that this guy, if elected, might restore some sanity to the country). WaltonOne 14:14, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worship of Hitler

Can you take a look at this page please? The page has been tagged for CSD-a1 by at least three editors but the author merely removes them. Currently, it's displaying a bogus {{protect}} banner, which probably needs investigating. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Presumably "with extreme prejudice" means hitting the keys very hard while you're doing it? :)))) --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[Chuckle] --ROGER DAVIES TALK 15:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Vaughn

Hi Pedro,

Why was the Scott Vaughn page deleted besides the A7 comment..thank you24.110.207.71 16:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi the article was deleted under the speedy deletion criteria of WP:CSD#A7 - the notabilility and importance of the subject of the article was not asserted. In addition, although these are not criteria for speedy deletion, the article was original research, was not neutral in tone, had few citations and read like a resume. It was deleted without prejudice. If you wish to recreate it (perhaps on a user pgae first) in a way that fits Wikipedia policies I'd be more than happy to review it to see if it's okay. Sorry to have deleted your work. Best. Pedro :  Chat  17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your note on the speedy deletion nomination of Satanic ritual abuse and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If you wouldn't mind (and only if you have time), I wouldn't mind you also giving the article a brief read-over, as now the same editor has nominated it to be reviewed for neutrality. If you like doing that sort of thing—I'd be much obliged. Thanks. Unfortunately, the nominator hasn't really set out his concerns in detail, so it may be hard to check anything specific. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 10:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What this user (Rich Uncle Skeleton) fails to mention is that he abuses numerous other pages and thinks it's fine. He cites WP articles as references, and then erases ones others do. He focuses on articles to which he has no, or limited knowledge. He uses references that are not readily challengeable, just to make it look legitimate, and is very quick to point out others flaws allthewhile looking past his own. If I were you, I'd monitor all the pages he edits for neutrality and bias as I'm sure you'll find they are VERy bias. --Carterdriggs 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you review http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rich_Uncle_Skeleton#Accusations_against_you_at_User_talk:COGDEN.23User_Probelms you'll see he has a history of abusing pages related to the LDS movement. I'll leave you with that. I've just had it. I'll be professional from here on out, but I'm just tired of having to revert his edits because he doesn't like what I do. He, for instance, deleted an internal link to the 'mormon' page for NO good reason. None. Said the link was unnecessary when it was the only link to that article on the page, and when Mormonism was the cause for the article in the first place. there are at least three documented cases of Mormon bias on this user. Please assist me in ending it. Carterdriggs 11:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I said some things I shouldn't have and I apologize, but as documented above, bigotry is frustrating when it goes unpunished. Carterdriggs 11:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, and I don't want this to be a huge battle, but based on his edits, I just don't know what other conclusion can be drawn than he is out to damage the image of my church. Anyways, thank you for your review, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Carterdriggs 11:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to apologise. Helping other editors and remaining neutral is what administrators are supposed and expected to do. We're only editors with extra buttons. Pedro :  Chat  11:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol—I don't really know what to say to these comments. In a nutshell, to provide you with background—this user appears to be holding a long-term grudge against me. I nominated an article he had created for speedy deletion because it was 100% copyright violation of a website. This upset him. The article survived because he deleted the tag. After he had added a bit more so it wasn't 100% copyvio, I deleted the portions of the article that were still blatant copyvio, and this upset him again. I'm not attacking others or targeting a faith group. I work mostly on LDS articles, but if you care to review my work, I think you'll be find that I edit in good faith and that the allegations above have little to no basis in fact. (This editor seems to be assuming that I myself am not LDS, which I may very well be for all he knows.) Thanks for your time—but I really don't think your involvement in this way is necessary and I'm sorry you had to be involved in this little "spat". I know you didn't ask for it, but that (as you say) must be what being an admin is like sometimes, eh? Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assure it's no grudge, and were the user LDS, half of the userboxes on his page would not be there, and the one on my page stating I'm a memeber of the lds faith probably would be. Anyways, review with an unbiased mind and I'll pursue the matter no further and leave the other user well alone. Carterdriggs 11:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the other conflict cited did not involve a member of the LDS Church. I was being accused of "edit warring" when there was no basis in fact to the accusation. I asked for details from my accusee so I could explain my edits, which he refused to do. In fact, it was a member of the LDS Church editor who backed me up and vouched for me that my edits were not POV or out-of-line. The conflict was mediated by a neutral admin (who was also LDS), who decided that as far as he could tell, all my edits were done in good faith. See HERE if you are interested. (I can't imagine why you would be...) And yes, I am a member of the LDS Church and I self-identify as a Latter-day Saint. :) Rich Uncle Skeleton (talk) 11:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • The joy's of adminship! Yes. It is what being an admin is about. For information for all I am totally disinterested (n.b. not uninterested) in the subject matter at hand. My objective is to ensure Wikipedia has content applicable to the five pillars and to try and help foster a culture of collaboration. As, I am sure, is the end desire of all concerned here. Pedro :  Chat  11:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh God no, not him again!!

Hi Pedro, I've gone live with the Debbie Taylor article and notice today that it needs "wikified". Is this good or bad? Cheers, Paul. Stax o' wax 14:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Can I get you to have a peep at the Oh, you mean WP:CIVIL... lol thread on my talk page and offer a suggestion about what to do here? I left a message on the user's talk page asking them to be civil on the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolum sewell page (User:Kayteepirate is the article's author) and it appears to have escalated! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry... it appears someone else saw what was going on and has blocked them! -- JediLofty User ¦ Talk 09:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I got it. SQL(Query Me!) 09:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna, but, it seems someone's quicker on the draw than me :) Thanks, btw, for you're support during my RFA (Well, your neutral, and, excellent advice :P ) SQL(Query Me!) 09:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, bit of advice time :) Talk:Kolum sewell.... Should that stay, or, go under G8? SQL(Query Me!) 09:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) SQL(Query Me!) 09:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hobobill235

I really think this user should be blocked indef. The account appears to me to be a vandalism-only account. I didn't want to undo your block, but I figured I should let you know what I think. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you with copyediting or resolving disputes?

I need some manpower for various things and I want to know what you're good at so that I can best use your skills. Tell me what abilities you have on Wikipedia so that I can determine what you can help me with. Thanks. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instant Deletion of Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne page

Pedro,

Hi. Your A7 comment to the page I put up on Lucinda Bruce-Gardyne is - ahem - completely a fair cop.

That said, I had attempted to make the article:

  • entirely neutral in tone,
  • verifiable internally by the Macmillan author page listed
  • demonstrably notable in that she has had two books published by major publishers.

I have listed it for deletion review and it has received an almost instant overturn on these grounds.

Whilst I accept that there is a CoI, I don't think that this alone is sufficient to merit deletion. If there are questions about its neutrality, then I'm more than happy to edit/take suggestions. Let's talk. Hew BG 14:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh Park

Dear Sir:

I was hoping to begin this article as a stub. Would appreciate any advice as to how to do so, so as to not have it deleted.

Kind regardfs,

Guido

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&oldid=160927344"