User talk:Pedro/Archive 27

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Jack Byrne

Hello - I believe your G3 of this page was in error, as it was only the most recent revisions that were vandalistic. I've taken the liberty of restoring the non-vandalistic ones. If this is not an acceptable solution to you, please go ahead and re-delete and we can go to WP:DRV. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Brides Television

The site is known to be the only resource online for people looking for a comprehensive directory of wedding related television shows . Many wedding TV fans do not know that more than 3 or 4 wedding TV shows even exist and are broadcast in the United States. Would like a reconsideration on deletion of BridesTelevision.com .

Stormfly (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


Go ahead and place it in a sandbox for me to edit. I will make revisions to it. I would like to ask how TV.com has done what you have said?

Stormfly (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for you http://goldplanning.blogspot.com/ just do a search for bridestelevision.com . Samantha Goldberg is one of the top wedding planners in the United States and has been featured many times on "Whose Wedding is it Anyway?" If you could help me "usify" the article I would very much appreciate your contribution.

Stormfly (talk) 08:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am looking to follow the guidelines buy need some direction here. Let me know your input as to my last comment.

Stormfly (talk) 08:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Spinelli

Ta for putting in that redirect when I requested the speedy on "Spenelli". I missed spotting that one. --  Chzz  ►  12:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Quick as lightning...

You can thank my watchlist and the refresh button! You actually edit-conflicted me when I was giving a {{uw-vand4}} but it was probably better to nip it in the bud anyway. Regards, EJF (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] BRC & privacy concerns

Hey buddy, glad to have you back. Would you mind dropping in your opinion here? I'd especially like you to lend a voice because of what just happened to you. Thanks. GlassCobra 01:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Done, good sir! Pedro :  Chat  07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being behind the times: welcome back. I was worried the community was about to take another hit for a bit there. --Bfigura (talk) 03:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think me leaving would be on a par with the loss of that fine editor! However I was never "leaving" at all - it was an emergency deletion due to very genuine privacy issues (and some insistence from she who must be obeyed!) Thanks for your kind words my friend! Pedro :  Chat  07:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

For the fix on my talk page, and for the block. If they react with insults when I ask him to read policy it's unlikely to go well... Ha hum. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help

Question: Why does it say "Logging you out from Wikimedia's other projects" when I log out? RC-0722 361.0/1 15:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

At a guess WP:SUL would be the reason! Pedro :  Chat  15:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Right. Thanks. RC-0722 361.0/1 15:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
If you log out and log in it also shows as "logging you in to Wikimedia's other projects" on your return. Pedro :  Chat  15:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. It only does it if I log out. RC-0722 361.0/1 15:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh - wierd - could be a browser thing - mine does it on both log-in and log-out. Doesn't matter though I suppose. Pedro :  Chat  15:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, just wondering. RC-0722 361.0/1 17:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me for butting in, but non-administrators who want SUL have to merge their accounts. Once you've done that, you'll what Pedro sees. Well, within reason anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hee hee hee

The following edits made me smile. :) Acalamari 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Five pillars, and who is invited to participate

Hey, I meant to reply to something you said over at Wikipedia:Requests_for_bureaucratship/EVula_3 and I apparently forgot. Sure, "anyone can edit" is mentioned as part of one of the five pillars. Anyone can edit, sure, but this is really short for "Anyone can edit. And, anyone who can't collaborate reasonably with others can be shown the door." And, yes, we welcome everyone. Those who can't behave like reasonable adults use up that welcome very quickly. I don't think it's remotely contrary to the five pillars to admit that sometimes we have to show disruptive editors the door. Getting rid of those who are causing trouble helps make the environment welcoming for those who are here to do useful work. They're the ones who count. Friday (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. What I'm confused about is how you think this is relevant to my arguments at EVula's RfB. At what point did I mention disruptive or non-collaborative editors? I'm talking about geuine editors (including those whose only contribution may be 1,000 almost entirely HUGGLE related edits). Editors who perhaps will never have the right temprament to be administrators, but who nevertheless are valued - well at least by certain sections of the community. Or do you believe that we should also be "showing them the door"? With respect, I'd ask you to read my arguments at the RfB, and the diffs provided, and consider wether your words above actually reflect the argument and concerns I was putting forward, or actually points that you think I was. Cheers. Pedro :  Chat  07:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It's entirely possible this is just off-topic ramblings. :) Friday (talk) 13:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I re-read this and (I think) figured out why I had this thought. We should not be trying to retain all good faith editors. Good faith is a given- we assume everyone is trying to be useful. Good faith is necessary but not sufficient for being a constructive editor. The other half of the coin is competence- the actual ability to edit usefully. Lack of competence manifests itself in a couple common ways around here. Someone may have the best of intentions but is simply too immature to work in a collaborative environment. Or, someone may be too hot-headed and unable to take constructive criticism. Or, someone may be a kook - overly obsessed with one single issue so it clouds their judgment. We see these problems very commonly. And, in my opinion, as a community we're horribly bad at dealing with these situations. There's always a huge crowd of people who show up saying "So-and-so tries really hard.. we have to give him another chance!" Trying hard doesn't cut it. Competence is required. (And yeah, this isn't really relevant to the RFB, it's more of a general comment on Wikipedia and how we could solve some of the recurring problems we see here.) Friday (talk) 14:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well said. Have you thought of clarifying and expanding this into an essay, Friday? KillerChihuahua?!? 14:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I do agree, and I agree there seems to be some horrible thing at RfA with people supporting based on "Oh, they've been around made 10,000 edits with automated tools so they deserve adminship" - like it's a reward. My point at the RfB was that EVula has, in the past, expressed the opinion that if we loose an editor after a failed RFA then it doesn't matter because they weren't fit to be an admin. This is where I disagree. Yes, not everyone can cut it here at all. And an even smaller percentage can cut adminship (at least if they use the buttons!). But just because someone is fundamentally unfit to be an admin doesn't mean we don't want them at all. The best possible outcome of RfA is two fold - 1) Competent editors with the janitorial bent of mind as well are given + sysop. 2) Editors not having the administrative "ability" are retained as editors and don't leave. And if they do leave we don't go "oh well, they'd have never cut it anyway".
Fundamentally it is up to the community to make the place more welcoming so that no good faith and well intentioned editor leaves through any other reason that no longer being interested or having the time to help. If we loose an editor through a failed RfA it is my belief that we should look to ourselves as a community to see where we went wrong, and not just hold our hands up in resignation of "what will be will be". </diatribe> :) Pedro :  Chat  14:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Policy question

Sorry to bother you -- I'm wondering if you can guide me to the Wikipedia policy that says, in a nutshell, "Thou shalt not be paid for work on Wikipedia". I'm not sure that WP:COI covers that precise situation. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Whoops -- never mind. It does cover that precise situation. Other than that, how's it going? <grin> Cheers! Accounting4Taste:talk 23:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IRC log releasing

I *may* be mistaken but I thought that was another young aspirant and not Giggy? (There may well be two separate incidents involving separate characters) Orderinchaos 13:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Giggy Failed due to a poorly thought out template and release of IRC chatlogs. Pedro :  Chat  13:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. For some reason I had always thought that was somebody else, no idea why. Orderinchaos 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Welcome. It may have happened elsewhere as well, but of the top of my head I can't recall so. Pedro :  Chat  15:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mentor page again

Hey Pedro. I added another Gwynand situation to the mentoring page for comment. Not sure where that page stands... will it be an ongoing project? Not really getting any traffic.

I've saw recent comments re:DHMO's RfA. Not sure what to say. If that can't be properly refuted... although I am already in the boat that in the vote-war that this RfA has become, I'm not sure how it can be argued that any real consensus was formed at the end to promote. Crats have a tough job, indeed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look for you. yes, I'm not sure if it's really working, but I've not been giving full energy to it recently. We shall see. Regarding DHMO's RfA this could be a killer. At this point I'm awaiting input from Giggy, but if it is as East718 lays it out (and I have no reason to doubt him) then the 'crats job may suddenly become a lot easier. At present the loss of just 15 or so supporters into oppose (assuming they actually oppose and didn't just go neutral) could be enough to sink it in raw numbers. Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
It certainly could work... I certainly would like a venue that is totally appropriate for me to post my conduct and look for feedback from a general group of experienced editors, the key is though for it to get some traffic. As for DHMO, the percentage had already been at a steady decline from about 85% a few days go... assuming East wasn't improper with his statement (which I agree with you on, don't see how he could make such a thing up), then this could be over. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Looks like it is already occuring. Unless East is flat out lieing in order to sway this thing (which under AGF and knowing him I'll totally rule out), when DHMO returns online, I think now might be the time to actually consider withdrawing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Big sigh. Yes, I agree. When a few more people come on line in the US I can see this bombing before DHMO even gets to try and justify his actions (which on the face of it will seem pretty hard). This RfA is messy as it stands, so much bad feeling and accusations, which is why I've largely kept away from it since supporting. It's only going to get worse, methinks. Pedro :  Chat  15:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I refuse to edit that RFA anymore as well, too much by way of hurt feelings and misunderstandings. I really want what East added to be an additional misunderstanding, although it doesn't appear to be, and I wish water didn't live out in the ocean...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Agree Keeper... my comments here of course aren't meant to be harmful to DHMO, really he has always been pleasant to me. On the other hand, the RfA doesn't need some mass exodus of support votes that either refrain or move to oppose/neutral. There is no consensus now, I don't think there can be in two days from now, a withdrawal would probably be the best for him if he tries to run again 6 months down the line. Two more days of this circus is just too much. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
At time of writing the RfA is 304/80 plus neutrals. It would take just 15 editors to move to oppose to put the RfA at 75% by the numbers. Which taking into account the weight of the neutrals would then look like a default no consensus close to me at this time. However there are issues of canvassing / meat puppetry that have been alleged and would need to be weighed. The RfA is not beyond "success", but I am now in the position of wondering whose success that would be - DHMO's or Wikipedia as a whole? As has been noted, it is a shame that his timezone precludes a response, and we may yet see the RfA at 75% or less before he can even reply to East's comments. Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, he is still garnering new supports. I hate to say it, but I'd guess that several of the newer votes (oppose or support) aren't reading the entirety of the RfA, which of course they don't have to (but should). The last two supports really don't indicate they saw what East wrote, I doubt they did. In a way, that's a note to this consensus thing. I'm not gonna stand here and tell you that 304 supports is a clearn "no-consensus". What I will say, is looking at this RfA by itself, considering the warring between supports and opposes, the amounts of votes that seem to be trying to cancel out support/opposes, and admitting that this really has turned into a circus, regardless of DHMO's actions, I just don't see how a person can look at it and say "Yep, there is a consensus here to promote this candidate". It has become so massive, that I really don't think that many of the newer votes are really looking at all the info. Hard to find consensus from that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
We should make the new crat close it :-) (actually, I think he !voted in it, so that would make it extra juicy! ) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
The issue, of course, is one has to AGF that the current supporters have done their review properly. On an RfA with some 400 comments that's tough going! As a whole, there's just everything in this RFA that's wrong - Meatpuppets, socks, SPA's, bad hand / good hand accounts, allegations of block voting from people in the same wiki projects, supports with precious little thought behind them, and opposes just the same. It's a mess. A bad joke. And poor old DHMO is sat in the middle trying to maintain his composure. So I do feel for him, and wonder if the stresses of the RFA have lead in part to the incident East has highlighted. Not that this would be an excuse. I can see either a withdrawl or possibly the need for an extension (though goodness me with 400+ comments you'd not expect that!). At this moment I could see a promotion. But I don't expect that situation to be the same in the near future. However it's both unfair to Giggy and pretty pointless to speculate on what might happen. Time will tell. Pedro :  Chat  15:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] scribble wiki guy...

Just indef blocked another one that turned up. What was that guy? Peter something? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris19901 or similar ..... Pedro :  Chat  15:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
User:Chris19910 - I'm going off line now - best of luck! Pedro :  Chat  15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Excellent, adding templates now...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:59, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:HAU

Hello yet again. I regretfully inform you that the bot we were using to update the user status at Wikipedia:Highly Active Users, SoxBot V, was blocked for its constant updating. With this bot out of operation, a patch is in the works. Until that patch is reviewed and accepted by the developers, some options have been presented to use as workarounds: 1) Qui monobook (not available in Internet Explorer); 2) User:Hersfold/StatusTemplate; 3) Manually updating User:StatusBot/Status/USERNAME; or 4) Not worry about it and wait for the patch to go through, which hopefully won't take long. If you have another method, you can use that, too. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Useight (talk) 22:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DHMO rfa

Is there some reason not to say that the candidate blanked the RFA? I can't see why not. I can't see why "courtesy blanked" was correct - that would only be true if someone else had blanked it. In fact I can't see why it was blanked at all - it doesn't usually happen with failed or withdrawn RFAs. I assume that its because there is stuff there that DHMO doesn't want people to see, which is odd, because the history exists William M. Connolley (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed you edited through my protection, so thank you for also coming to my page. I asked DHMO if I could change his wording (which he in turn changed from yours), as it struck me as having far to much drama around it. You will note, assuming you have looked at the history, that I have tried to achieve a totally neutral statment of facts in the blanking message, and personally have not used the word "courtesy". The facts at hand are simple. The RFA is blanked. DHMO blanked it. Therefore your current edit seems acceptable. The intention is to draw away even more drama from what has been a disapointingly drama fueled exercise. Again, thank you for coming to my talk page to advise that you made that change. Pedro :  Chat  07:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't come here to advise you that I'd made the change; I came to ask the question I asked; which you've answered, thanks. You haven't answered the auxillary question - why it should be blanked - merely stated that DHMO blanked it. Thats not an answer; DHMO doesn't own the page. But we can let that go by; there are enough wounds here already. I will say that DHMO has done himself no favours by blanking it; it just looks petulant William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
While yes, DHMO doesn't own the page, traditionally we honor such requests. No policy, just courtesy. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you EVula. Mr Connolley, I hope that answers your auxillary question, and I'd appreciate it if you'd note that courtesy has historically also extended to not editing through another administrators page protection without discussion. Pedro :  Chat  07:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] G10

That article was a G10 because it was attacking the person the article was about therefore qualified for the attack page tag. Chemistrygeek (talk) 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think this? I am not a sockpuppet please feel free to check with a checkuser but I am willing to bet my life savings that I am not a sockpuppet. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Just because I have geek at the end of my name is that why I am suspected of being a sockpuppet? I had a look at that users contributions and they are nothing like mine at all so I dont see how I am a sockpuppet of this user. Chemistrygeek (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi there Pedro was just letting you know that I am going to stay away from the speedy delete button for a while, if the article needs it because it is an obvious reason to delete then I will add the tag but I have read the guidelines 3 times so that I dont get into trouble again. Chemistrygeek (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of Whittard of Chelsea

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Whittard of Chelsea, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Whittard of Chelsea seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Whittard of Chelsea, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you bot :) Pedro :  Chat  17:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
For a moment there, I had thought you had created an article or something! Did you get my email about some collaboration? giggy (:O) 09:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically it was created, deleted and then recreated and referenced by me. But it's not on my huge WP:DYK list :) as it's kinf of a one paragraph stub. Yep, got your e-mail. Just as soon as RFPP, CSD and AIV are empty I'll be working on an FA ........... :) Pedro :  Chat  09:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In the spirit of my award winning RfA nom for you (I'm sure you recall it!), 2007 Rugby World Cup? giggy (:O) 10:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You know who

I've namechecked you at our favourite sock's talk page. Precis: P & I know who you are, could block you right now but are giving you one final chance, screw up on this one and any future socks will be blocked on sight. nancy (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You saw it already! nancy (talk) 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Saw and commented my dear! WP:AGF says one more go. I read his lengthy note on your talk page. He knows the score, and I think we're doing right by the editor, Wikipedia, and ourselves here. Hopefully! Pedro :  Chat  19:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for rollback. I hope that this is not too unusual, I see other users doing the same. Cenarium (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. Pedro :  Chat  20:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)