Jump to content

User talk:Pedro

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pedro (talk | contribs) at 20:46, 1 April 2009 (→‎WP:PEDRO: aaargh!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Apologies

I'm terribly guilty right now for what I did, so I want to apologize for the mistake on my behalf. You were right to call me out on something I said that could have been terribly misconstrued, so I immediately removed it upon seeing your message. I'm sorry that I affected your trust. It won't happen again. bibliomaniac15 00:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to apologise for my responses to you on Biblio's talk page. Since the conversation was all about interpretation in the first place, it was highly inappropriate of me to post a comment such as this, which, in hindsight, I see could be interpreted as being impudent. My intention was to lighten the mood (and was certainly not to make a comment which could be interpreted as being a smart alec response, but I see what you mean) - put simply, I didn't think, and I should have. All I can say is that I am sorry, and hope that there are no hard feelings between us (there certainly aren't from my end). — neuro(talk)(review) 12:20, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The conversation became overly heated and I did nothing to help calm it down either. I appreciate your kindness in taking the time to make the above comment today, and as far as I'm concerned it's forgotten and we should all move on. Certianly no hard feelings - I've allways considered our previous interaction to be totally positive Pedro :  Chat  12:32, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Deletion

Can I ask you why you deleted Giambigarchy? I don't think that was necessary and it offended no one.

I have already advised the author of the reasons, prior to this request - we evidently were typing at the same time. Pedro :  Chat  16:52, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


You have strict guidelines against what? Putting up an amusing article about something I believe in, I don't mock your beliefs do I? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bh6thman (talk • contribs) 16:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And it was posted again, might this be treated with a bit of salt? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to have been well sorted! Pedro :  Chat  20:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Nz26 | Talk | Contribs has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thanks for the rollback permissions, Its made my life that little bit easier —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nz26 (talk • contribs) 08:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Pedro :  Chat  09:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Not my favorite part about being an admin, but sometimes it's just gotta be done. Can you take a look at [1], my talk page, and especially User talk:Syjytg, particularly my message yesterday, and suggest an appropriate course of action? I'm not condoning User:Antti29's behavior here; I think that should be toned down and said so, but I do understand the frustration being displayed and I think we're on to a case of WP:DISRUPT here. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  12:53, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for you. Pedro :  Chat  13:15, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syjytg just got a 24hr for 3RR. I note only one effort on the article talk to try and resolve this which was by Antti29, so the block seems justified, although very regretable. Antti29's comments were, I think, born from frustration but it was right to warn him - he could have been on a block as well if it wasn't for his efforts to take to talk. Crazy how we get 1 blocked editor and 1 disgruntled editor over a couple of decimal points............ luving Wikipedia. Pedro :  Chat  13:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I issued that block :-) But what next?  Frank  |  talk  13:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tempodivalse

Hallo. Thanks much for your input at my RfA, your comments are appreciated. I would like to apologise if I appeared rude or arrogant there, please understand that it is not usually in my nature to be boastful. I was in a hurry to go somewhere in RL and sort of wrote the nomination quickly, without really spending much time on it (a bad idea if you want to create the right impression in a admin request). I've withdrawn my request, because I feel that I am probably not ready for the extra responsibilites. Perhaps I'll consider trying again in a month or so. Thanks, and happy editing. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick reply. Wikipedia does indeed have the most high standards of any Wikimedia project for becoming a sysop, I think. On Wikinews, all you have to have is a few months' active contributing, and about 700 edits. Also, Wikinews has a smaller contributor base (about 60-70 active editors), so every editor will eventually become acquainted with every other editor on the project. Here, it's far less personal. Ah well, as they say, better luck next time. Cheers, ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 16:52, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Flaming Butterfly

Please point out where I have removed useful edits, and I will surely make sure that doesn't happen again. Also, I have repeatedly tried to connect with the user in question over how to handle the page. The user in question deliberately ignored me, similar to how he ignored many other users on different article disputes as well. Arbiteroftruth Plead Your Case 15:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This revert also removed some useful edits (such as marking the article was uncategorized). I appreictae when you are trying to protect the article some colateral damage occurs, it's not a big issue. Pedro :  Chat  16:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flaming Butterfly Edit War

The edit war has continued on this page after your protection and un-protection. I don't want to step on your toes, so I thought I'd notify you rather than blocking them myself. Camw (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protected for one day - major SSP issues that I don't have time now to sort out :( Pedro :  Chat  16:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - forgot to say thank you for the note! Pedro :  Chat  16:26, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RfB

I'm wondering why you don't run for 'cratship, I think you will be a good one. I like your high standard on civility as well.--Caspian blue 18:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all honesty, I think Pedro would be a good 'crat too... which is why I looked at his edits a few months ago... and concluded that while he would probably be a good 'crat, I would be surprised if he would pass an RfB. 99% of the time he is civil and has extremely high standards, but the 1% he speaks his mind too bluntly, which I think will garner a flock of opposes---especially in light of his outspoken criticism of the current 'crats. Again, being a good crat and passing an RfB are often two different beasts.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Becaue I have a history of some incivility to be honest (or, saying it how it is, which often amounts to the same thing), and because there are others who are better than me, and who would be probably be more effective with the extra bit; However I certainly appreciate your kind words - a little feel good for the weekend! Pedro :  Chat  20:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are the odds on that edit conflict given the time from when Caspian posted! Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, but I respect "honest" and "outspoken" admins (of course with civility) because they do not seem to be afraid of changing thingsrather than to remain in present with problems on Wiki. I think you're one of them, so if you run for RfB, you get my full support. :)--Caspian blue 20:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're most kind, and I appreciate your words very much. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're always welcome. I appreciate your administrative works :)--Caspian blue 20:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And a further comment - I think too many people view the editor-admin-OTRS-Bureaucrat-Oversight-ARBCOM thing as some kind of "promotion" wiki-career. I've got a pretty damn succesful real life career (though I say it myself) so have no need to go seeking a pseudo one. I find the concept that a wiki has "promotions" to be off-putting or poorly constructed as a concept at best. That's why I'm outspoken about a number of our current crats; they seem to think they are in someway "more senior" or "better" than others just because they have access to one extra feature on a checklist and a rename user link. Sadly, and more importantly of course, may admins seem to think they are in someway better than editors without +sysop - and that's where a lot of the project's issues lie. Enough ranting by me - again my thanks for your kind words. Pedro :  Chat  21:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You raise the very valid and acute point, but I would rather want to believe that admin or editors with extra tools are more "versatile" and can handle difficult situations in better ways. So people trust them, and our anonymous community is based on such trust. The Wiki promotion concept somewhat reminds me of the famous catchpraise used by Kurt, haha...--Caspian blue 21:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very perceptive comment. Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, so is yours. Then, have a nice evening or night!--Caspian blue 21:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for cleaning up my small mess

Thank you getting rid of my misbegotten redirect page for "Tulsa Central High School". As you could perhaps tell from my garbled edit summary, I was having a bad couple of minutes at the keyboard--not only did I fail to notice the quotation marks in the redir page title, but then I accidentally hit the "enter" button while I was still in the middle of writing the edit summary for the speedy-delete request. How embarassing! My apologies, and thanks for cleaning it up for me. --Arxiloxos (talk) 22:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all - no need to apologise. That's what the mop is for - good luck with the article. Pedro :  Chat  22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback reply

Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting my request for rollback, I will fully read the Rollback feature article and only use rollback the right way. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:13, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and have already read the article with my understanding of Rollback even stronger now I will definitely make sure I use it accordingly. DaisukeVulgar (talk) 23:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HUG

I originally contacted my mentor about this, but since he seems to be absent, and I'd REALLY like to download Huggle tonight, I'd like to contact another rollback-granting admin about the matter. Looking over my recent reverts/warnings, would you trust me to use Huggle? →Dyl@n620 23:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Doing... Pedro :  Chat  23:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would - I wasn't aware you needed a permission to download Huggle - only that without Rollback it's not much use - and you have that. I assumed you could just download, install, and get going ? Pedro :  Chat  23:32, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need permission (aside from Rollback) to download Huggle, I just wanted some reassurance from an experienced rollback-granter that I was ready. →Dyl@n620 23:35, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Pedro :  Chat  23:39, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! Although, would you recommend the main version (more features) or the lite version (faster)? →Dyl@n620 23:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend the Lite Version, but I was unaware that there were two versions now. I used Huggle for maybe a couple thousand edits, but that was several months and 10 or 12 thousand edits ago. But I never used any of the advanced features, it was strictly for rollbacking vandalism. Therefore, I would propose that the Lite Version would better suit my style, but perhaps you could get the full version and if you use the features, then great, but if you don't, you could replace it with Lite. Useight (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try full. Thanks for the input, Useight. →Dyl@n620 00:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion: Bachelor of Business Studies

You deleted the Bachelor of Business Studies due to blatant advertising?

I had visited the page a few times last year as it had valuable information about the difference in abbreviated titles (BBS, BbusSt). I've just attempted to revisit the page but alas it is no longer there.

Could you consider making the page available again? If there's blatant advertising within the page maybe it could be edited instead.. I notice other pages such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Engineering and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bachelor_of_Science haven't been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Touristsaila (talk • contribs) 13:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've taken a look at the article Bachelor of Business Studies (redlinked for any on else with admin rights watching this page to easily find) but there is, in my opinon, nothing of encyclopedic value within the content - clearing out the spam would leave an article with no context so I'm afraid I will not undelete on this occasion. Please feel free to get input at the deletion review page if you disagee. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please rethink

At least sleep on it... Majorly talk 22:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm a man of my word [2]. Malleus will tell me when I should take the tool's back, if ever.Pedro :  Chat  22:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please rethink this. Synergy 22:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Too late - sorry! What the community gives, it takes away. I have a recall list for a reason, and even if it did not match my criteria (3 people) then so what? I should honour the principle not the letter. I'm not retiring or anything - I'll still be here - just tagging the G10's not deleting them! I trust Mallues to let me know if/when I should ask for the tools backPedro :  Chat  22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another admin Malleus has driven off the project. Fantastic. Majorly talk 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not down to Malleus - it's my choice. Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is... it was he who came up with the absurd idea you need a break. It is he, not you, that needs the break. Majorly talk 22:19, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come on Pedro...don't SoWhy 22:16, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I implore you to wait seven days, as per your recall criteria, to see if two others request desysopping. Because they won't. Useight (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, please don't be the only intelligent person who listens to Malleus. Synergy 22:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect your willingness to do this, but I really wish you would reconsider. This is stupid, and there is no reason you should not have your admin tools. You have done absolutely nothing wrong. If anyone needs to take a break, it is Malleus. J.delanoygabsadds 22:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't have to do this to prove your willingness to be recalled to Malleus - at least sleep on this, come on, man. — neuro(talk)(review) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generous comments, but let's cut to the chase. I don't have to do this, and yes I can get it back anytime at BN. So, Malleus points out that this is deeply unimpressive [3] - he is the one constantly bemoaning admins who cling to the bit for dear life - well that's not true. If I just go back to BN and ask for the bit I'm proving Malleus is right -that admins have some horrible fear of being desysopped. Well, at least in my instance, he's wrong. I'd fail an RFA - we all know that - so I'm happy to just hand back the tools sans drama to keep Malleus happy - and prove admins aren't actually as bad as he thinks they are. If I can at least get that point over to Malleus it will be worthwhile. Pedro :  Chat  22:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We should maybe talk about this tomorrow Pedro, but not now, feelings are running too high. I didn't mean for you to give up your bit, just to stand back for a while and regain some perspective. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tomorrow is good for me. I hate the clock changes! But I'm very clear on this Malleus - it's up to you (that's not an onus or anything, apologies if it sounds that way). I'm not going to lawyer my way around this. If I can't act honestly to the spirit of my own criteria then I should not have admin rights on Wikipedia irrespective. Anyway, bed time I think. Pedro :  Chat  22:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to say that this was good decision, but then i'd be lying. How could you? Most people would kill to be admin and you just give it up! The question is, why? The Cool Kat (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would "most people" kill to be an admin? You tell me. Who says that "most people" give a shit about being an adminstrator on wikipedia anyway? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd kill to be an admin, chances are you're not suited for the position. –Juliancolton | Talk 22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(multi ec)Ah, well there lies the point! If most people would "kill to be an admin" then we really have an issue here. It really is not that big a deal - the problem is one only truly realises this when one actually get the "tools". Pedro :  Chat  22:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is literally "killing" anyone or anything - it's just a hyperbole (obviously) expressing the desiring to have the buttons, hopefully to help. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:47, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really inaccurate to say that most administrators want to have their flags? Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Being an admin is a big honor. And i don't mean to soun selfish, but who would give it up? I hope reconsider soon Pedro, because as of now, you're just a normal user a big target for vandals wth an axe to grind. The Cool Kat (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really inaccurate to say that most administrators display a rather unhealthy obsession with retaining their flags? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I? Pedro :  Chat  22:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you didn't, and you clearly don't, for which full respect. It would be a very great shame if wikipedia was to lose one of its more honest administrators just because I thought you were talking bollox when you thought that I was talking bollox. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm convinced it's bollocks not bollox - but you're the writer and I'm the maintenance guy so I won't second guess :) Pedro :  Chat  23:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surviving on a knife edge here; "bollocks" may have been one step too far. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'd insert a VIZ stlye "some bollocks recently" image from Mr Shankbone's collection on to my user page, but as I am now at the mercy of the almighty admins I guess I'd best not :) Pedro :  Chat  23:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the issue is want over need. I want the flag to help out - specifically at CSD on en.wikipedia. I don't need it, in the sense that my life really is not empty without those tools on this site. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And no, adminship is not an honour. Pedro :  Chat  22:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would however contest that having the trust of the community is not something to be ashamed of. — neuro(talk)(review) 23:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, although wether I have (had) that is questionable in itself, sadly. Pedro :  Chat  23:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to help out, please continue to do so. The community hasn't taken the bit away - even Malleus doesn't seem to want this so that makes a count of zero people wanting you to quit. I also think you would pass a RfA with flying colours. But in a way I quite like the "I'm calling your bluff" element of this - as long as it doesn't go on too long. Dean B (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no bluffing here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have respect for your decision to give up the tools, but I have always thought of you as a good admin. I look forward to seeing you with the tools again when you are ready. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am glad to see you have changed your mind. I hope a bureaucrat grants your request. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sucks

[4]. We really do need more admins. Pedro :  Chat  23:31, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tom borril and this G10. Pedro :  Chat  23:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One day soon it will perhaps be possible to discuss this "too many admins" idea without everyone flouncing off and getting into a huff. I hope so anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've stated before that it's a valid idea, I've also stated I'd like some facts and evidence behind it. And the dross that new page patrol throws up, coupled with the CSD backlog at my general editing time, indicates "all hands to the pump" is actually the answer. Maybe DougsTechs means "too many crap or inactive admins". But that's my personal take. Pedro :  Chat  23:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A bold idea

Pedro, lets edit some articles! :) Lead the way. Synergy 00:01, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is this "article editing" you speak of? I though Wikipedia consisted of CSD, AIV and WT:RFA? :) Pedro :  Chat  06:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dude...

...not helpful. Why? you being pointy? Did I miss something?  Frank  |  talk  00:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, man come on. Why? iMatthew // talk // 00:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pointy, and I'd be disapointed if people read it that way. Per my recall criteria "If three or more of the above think I'm abusing adminship then it is un-questionably time for me to hand the bit back." - well it was only one, and even then it wasn't admin tools but my general manner; however I think there is no need to lawyer around it - that would show recall to be broken. Pedro :  Chat  06:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe I get it a little bit, but as you are a voice of reason around here, I don't know how helpful it is to give up the bit. Not that one can't be helpful without it - far from it - but certain editors can be more helpful with it.  Frank  |  talk  14:17, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats

I'm not going to call you decision pointy or anything, but rather a decision that I think more people should be willing to make... of course, I am firmly of the opinion that moving in and out of adminship should be no big deal. If more people had the courage to do so... or were willing to do so... I think WP would be better off. Obtaining and loosing the Bit should not be something sacrosant... it should be a common occurence ala rollback. People should be able to relinquish the bit and regain it without the dhrama that seems to be associated with it... I commend you my friend for giving it up.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 05:51, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  06:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda had a feeling this was looming on the horizon - It's encouraging because abdicating the buttons shows (ironically) a desire to benefit the project. Adminship saps the strength of great editors. Wisdom89 (T / C) 11:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've only ever had a desire to benefit the project - however I readily admit that at times my abrasiveness and rudeness has probably not indicated that. Pedro :  Chat  12:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look...

...at this MfD. Also check my deletion log; the page was deleted three times under three different names. I am soliciting the opinion of others as well. Thanks!  Frank  |  talk  15:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IAR delete, but I've voiced my opinion at the MfD. Pedro :  Chat  15:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done, and thanks.  Frank  |  talk  15:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - good outcome - thanks Frank (and Nancy and Gwen) Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A little clarification ...

Just a little clarification in view of some of the misleading and downright dishonest comments made above:

  • "I implore you to wait seven days, as per your recall criteria, to see if two others request desysopping ...".[5] I did not request Pedro's desysopping, it has never been in my mind to request Pedro's desysopping, and so far as I'm aware nobody has requested Pedro's desysopping.
  • "Pedro, please don't be the only intelligent person who listens to Malleus."[6] Curious how civility seems to be a one-way street on this project.
  • "You don't have to do this to prove your willingness to be recalled to Malleus." Quite right, and you may note that I never asked for any such proof.
  • "Yet another admin Malleus has driven off the project".[7] I'm not aware that I've driven any admins off the project, although I am aware that you have Majorly.
  • "... I'm very clear on this Malleus - it's up to you".[8] If it's up to me Pedro then I demand that you request your bit back and return to work.

--Malleus Fatuorum 18:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For goodness sake. Another resignation! Please request your tools back as soon a you feel you want them. Wikipedia needs to keep a favourable ratio of good to bad admins. Your resignation doesn't help this ... I'm sure Malleus would agree. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate this, but this is something I'd prefer we address before I consider going and ask for the bit back. Pedro :  Chat  19:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - I'm not being negative but you raise a good point about recall and a rather large hole in the system - admins can look "Oh so honest" but if they just then go back to BN and ignore their recall then the whole recall thing is a pointless exercise. Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've been critical of that for as long as I can remember, and I do think that it stinks. On the other hand I also think that RfA stinks, and to be brutally frank I wouldn't be at all confident that you'd pass another RfA. Not because I don't think you'd deserve to, but well, that's just the way it is. The other thing that stinks is the "administrator for life" mentality that too many have. In short, I don't think that any one of those things can be fixed in isolation; they all need to be fixed together. You know that ain't gonna happen, and I know it ain't gonna happen. So if you're looking for my blessing to ask for your tools back, then you have it unreservedly. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:50, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS. I didn't ask for your recall, and so far as I'm aware nobody asked for your recall. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No you did not - but you (rightly) stated I needed some perspective. And my criteris where not just about the letter - they are the spirit. I think I've gained some, rather rapidly. Pedro :  Chat  19:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a majority of the admins today would pass a second RfA. Even those who deserve it would probably fail.---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 19:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I'm quite certain you're right, so my comment was no reflection on Pedro. Rather it was a reflection on the RfA process. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, fully, with the above. And, yes - the admin for life mentality is a particulalry big issue. How we fix it is another debate of course. For the record (that's on wikispeak if I recall?!) You did not request my desysop, I did not do it to "proove a point" and frankly CSD at 07:00 wikipedia time was not too hot - and (sadly) CSD is the one thing I can say I do well. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then whenever you feel ready, get back to it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done with puerile innuendo as well. Any chance to mention VIZ - it has to be done. Really should work on that article... Pedro :  Chat  20:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see that your bits have quite properly been returned to you. Believe me, if the day ever dawns that you call me a hopeless idealist and I respond by calling you an unappealing fascist results in either of us leaving a project that we both obviously have some regard for, that would be a very sad day indeed. Don't get too cocky though, I still think you were talking bollox. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still upset you didn't seem to get the many sticks reference - an ironically interesting thing on a wiki actually. But, no - I'll try not to get cocky. If I do - let me know a bit faster next time. Pedro :  Chat  20:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You assume too much grasshopper. Remember the dog who didn't bark in the night? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mea cupla. Well said. Pedro :  Chat  21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose my comment of "two others request desysopping" listed above could, at worst, be considered misleading since it does imply that you (Malleus) requested desysopping, which you never officially did. Although, here you do recommend a "break", which, in context with the conversation, could be taken as either Wikibreak or a break from the tools. To call my statement "downright dishonest", which I'm sure you're not, would be wholly inaccurate. Perhaps I inferred an excessive extrapolation, but I'm not going to outright lie. Useight (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's call a spade a spade. I am most definitely saying that your comment was dishonest, and that you are continuing to be dishonest in not recognising that. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:23, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether you're being sarcastic or trying to stir up some sort of argument between you and me (or perhaps some third option), but if you're looking to start sparring about this minutiae, you're barking up the wrong tree; I don't get involved in heated debates, but merely impart my opinion briefly and then go back to my work. Useight (talk) 22:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am telling you like it is, not trying to be sarcastic. You behaved dishonestly, but you refuse to admit to your dishonesty. Take that as you will. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've learnt a lot from this. Let's move on guys. I've just found out I'm now travelling round our beloved isles for the next few days, which has not exaclty put User:WifeOfPedro in the best of moods and frankly I don't need a sea of orange bars (with apologies to the Bard) when I next log in. I've been a bit of a dick over the last few months - Malleus was dead right - but at least I've stood firm on the spirit of my recall pledge. If Malleus has upset others then, in the nicest possible way, please discuss it elsewhere. Oh - and please try to find a middle ground.

One other thing - a thank you to everyone who took time out to comment in the threads above. I'm sorry if this is viewed as needless drama. Pedro :  Chat  22:34, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back Pedro - let's hope this episode doesn't crop up in the future as a sign of being "temperamental". You know how accusatory some users can get. Wisdom89 (T / C) 22:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You already know this, but I thought I'd remind you of it anyhow. Next time you feel like throwing in your bits, don't :) Intead, walk away for a day or two. Cheers, Kingturtle (talk) 23:52, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April fools!

Happy april fools, Pedro! X! :  Chat  00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Happy April Food day! iMatthew :  Chat  00:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happy (month) (jester)'s day! Wizardman :  Chat  00:01, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(DUDE e/c x 4) - Yes, what a grand day it is... the_ed17 :  Chat  00:02, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is why I had to submit an RFS. Useight (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"You are all Pedroviduals." "We are all Pedroviduals." "I'm not!"Avi :  Chat  01:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...On Wheels!!!" Parsecboy :  Chat  02:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heyyyyyy Icewedge :  Chat  03:32, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC TINC and have a nice day, Pianista :  Chat  04:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assimilate: LuciferTiger :  Chat  04:52, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doppelgang – Your evil doppelganger from a parallel universe has appeared. Muahhahaha!!!!!11!one!! Chat   : Pedro  05:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE kotra :  Chat  05:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be mistaken with Gotcha DayI'm Spartacus! :  Chat  05:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use this signature per consensus. Neurolysis :  Chat  07:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I approve the above messages

Hey, why is everyone stealing this unique signature I just thought up today? You people are evil!!!!! SoWhy :  Chat  07:33, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secret Pedro sig cabal shows its face. Amalthea :  Chat  09:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, what? I'm confused Jac16888   Chat  09:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I must assimilate too. Steve Crossin :  Chat  10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hee. Joined the cabal club. Queenie 12:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to say that I more-or-less legitimately cribbed Pedro's sig something like a year ago, so I beat y'all to it. Frank :  Chat 

HAGGER? JamieS93 :  Chat  14:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hagger rulz. D.M.N. :  Chat 

I don't get the joke. I don't like the signature. I refuse to change my signature as part of some stupid joke. Cyclonenim :  Chat  16:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Subject to change without notice. Terms and conditions apply.

WHO, WHAT, HOW AND WHY????

I suspect IRC has been fully mobilised to get half the regulars to copy my sig for the day.......... Should I be flattered? Nahhhhhhhhhh :) Pedro :  Chat  08:40, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the funny part. Half these people don't use IRC. It started with myself and about 10-15 others, and quickly spread like AIDS!! iMatthew :  Chat  10:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hahaha, it's being spread quicker than AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa!! *abrupt record scratch*.....*slowly backs out of room* GlassCobra :  Chat  12:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
 Jac16888   Chat  12:23, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools warning

Please stop. It appears that you have been self-canvassing—letting others reck your talk page with messages to notify you of how loved you are—and how well considered you are all over the place. While sober and emotionless notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect Jimbo's point of view. Please do not allow post notices which are indiscriminately all with blue boxes, which espouse a certain huge image right above and violate our signature copyright policy. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus and that !votes inserted by users with the same signature do not count, as they are considered automatically sock puppetry. One of our million bots will be glad to automatically ban all users involved, thus effectively banning all admins from Wikipedia. (See what you did?) Thanks. Udonknome :  Chat  09:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me. It was my little brother, I only left the room for a minute and he got on my PC - honeslty, really, it's true.
This user is banned. By decision of the this arrogant user, this other user is banned from editing Wikipedia for a period ending when the apocalypse begins. You have cause a virus-like spread of your signature and slowed my dial-up connection with your humongous images. Please refer to Conficker C for more information. (By convention bans are enforced with blocks of an equivalent length; this account will also be blocked and locked up forever.)
This notice is posted by The Person U Don't Know for the April Fool's Day Committee.
(Account information: block log • Time well wasted.)
Waarom de bovenkant van Astley van de Hooimijt - neer? is. Gebruiker: Eenvoudig zuiden Dit is misschien het slecht vertaalde Nederlands. Evha gaodo arlpi lofos yda! 12:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to announce...

...that I love you all. Super srs. GlassCobra 13:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ GlassCobra - <3 u2
@ Pedro - total respect 4u (and as a side note - actually, I'm kinda liking the sig., I just may keep it a while) — Ched :  Yes?   : ©  15:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey - I think it suits you! Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC) Pedro :  Chat  15:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not me. I keep looking at all these talk pages of people I revert, and I'm like, "Wow, Pedro really gets around. Wait...." :P J.delanoy :  Chat  15:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PEDRO

I don't know if you saw it or not, but before a load of discussion on WT:RFA got archived, your signature was being used at lot there as well. In fact, it's being used everywhere at the moment. It seems that WP:HAG...er...WP:PEDRO is flourishing freely at last. :) Acalamari :  Chat  16:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow - and I love that edit summary :) Pedro :  Chat  19:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never knew I could start something this big... O_O iMatthew :  Chat  18:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not even sure I want to change it back... Perhaps we could all leave them this way? Jake Wartenberg :  Chat  19:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now that would cause a LOT of confusion! Pedro :  Chat  19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, Pedro, are people using your sig today with whom you've not even had any previous interaction? Because, quite frankly, this is hilarious. hmwith :  Chat  20:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I know or recognise a great many of the editor names, but there are several (liberally scattered over dozens of project pages now) I don't know. The en.wiki World has gone Pedro signature mad :) I believe someone even asked Jimbo to change his signatuire to match. Lol - I was going to run a Wikipedia:Request For Founder Status attempt today, but maybe when people realise Jimbo's my sock anyhow it will no longer be required. :) Pedro :  Chat  20:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:PEDRO now exists... X! :  Chat  20:43, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaargh - wiki imortality.....:) Pedro :  Chat  20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&oldid=281150163"