User talk:Pedro/Archive 8

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). Walton^One 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]

I shall review. Thank you for logging back in and not making comments as an IP. Pedro : Chat 11:38, 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]

Have you been able to familiarize yourself with the dispute yet? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 20:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:48, 1 October 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guido Avesnes (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darragh park

Guido Avesnes 15:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Thanks- my first attempt at this; will follow advice.[reply]

Peter Marks

Thanks, I don't think it needs AfD, so I've left an expand tag on it. --Rodhullandemu 15:25, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

H Pedro, I've had a quick Google around and added some stuff to this page, also emailed the Co-op to see if they have any online personal biog details. Perhaps this can be made a usable article, WP:BIO & possible WP:COPYVIO notwithstanding! --Rodhullandemu 16:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for my very first Barnstar. I feel honoured and humbled. Really. --Rodhullandemu 19:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declining A7 on Phil Swern

Thanks for the notification on declining the Speedy on Phil Swern. I've been a little trigger happy on the A7s for new articles and I'm beginning to think I should really cut back except in the most obvious of cases. "Ah," you say, "But marking an article A7 should only be done if it is obvious to any observer!" And that's the root of my problem. So thanks again. I'm trying to learn the lesson. I'll go see what I can do to improve the article as penance. Best, Pig^man 15:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Credits

Me think socky. But whom. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah good idea. If he/she strikes again will take it to ANI. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 20:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

I know that I may have been prematurly applying, I may need some help. Do you thing you can help me become an admin?

STORMTRACKER 94 Stormtracker94 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already replied mate! Pedro : Chat 21:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your son is

Adorable. So cute! Just had to say it :) 86.138.190.45 11:53, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me and his mum think so - but we're biased! Pedro : Chat 13:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! And thanks for the note. Now where's the pic of Pedro? Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 01:01, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Total cutie :) - Alison ^❤ 20:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. But sorry DHMO. I can't put a picture of me here. I'm too damn ugly. The boy got his looks from the wife ....... Pedro : Chat 20:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh hum, this is one cute little dude. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:27, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to add my comment too! Nearly as cute as me when I was young. On second thought I don't even come close! Phgao 10:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Aktron

Your oppose on Aktron's rfa is unclear. Do you know what an interwiki link is? How is adding one grounds for opposing someone's rfa? Please clarify. Picaroon (t) 23:54, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarified at RfA, but also strucken oppose. Pedro : Chat 08:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a new administrator!

Thanks, Archive 8!
Thank you for voicing your opinion in my RfA, which passed today with a unanimous 79/0/0 tally. It feels great to be appreciated, and I will try my best to meet everyone's expectations. If you have any advice or tips, feel free to pass them along, as I am sure that I will need them! Cheers, hmwith talk 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on a personal note, thanks for bringing some humor into the RfA... even if I was a little too slow to get it at the time, haha. hmwith talk 21:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian's RfA

Thank you for supporting my successful RfA, which passed 63 to 1. I really appreciate your comments and questions, especially since you have such a tough reputation. I hope to do as well as you made me up to be. :-) Bearian 21:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Wang

Yes, well I did consider that he was on the list, but then wealth doesn't mean he needs an article but the donations information which you mentioned in addition to the Forbes list probably does life him over the speedy bar. Thanks for informing me. Phgao 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red to blue

Thanks for your note. I appreciate the question. Yes, I was just thinking that I understand policy etc. well enough to use the tools constructively. But I'm just back from a long wikibreak and I've spent hours welcoming new users without looking closely at their user names. <sigh> I have a vacation coming in December. Hopefully, I can remedy my deficiencies in time to consider an RfA then. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I certainly appreciate that and I certaioly will. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 14:16, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question!

Hello Pedro, I have a question re; speedies. There is the option of "nonsense" (G1), is it ok to tag article written in other languages as nonsense? While of course it is not nonsense in their language. If not, what should it be tagged? Phgao 20:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, often I have no idea whether it is on the other wikipedia, it could just be made up or someone's essay/ own written work. So I dont really want to tag an article saying it comes from another wikipedia, when it could in reality be meaningless/ own research. But for example I had trouble choosing what to do with this; [1]. Could you have a look? Phgao 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add that I will tag with {{notenglish}} from now on, never knew about that tag! Phgao 20:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

declining to speedy William Jurgens

Fair enough. Thanks for letting me know! Esrever 12:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disinterested vs uninterested

How refreshing to find someone who knows the difference! Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald A. Carson

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ronald A. Carson. Since you deleted and/or restored this article at one point in time, you might want to participate in the deletion review if you have not already done so. -- Jreferee t/c 23:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. You're so busted. Along with the other eight or so who also deleted the article! the_undertow ^talk 02:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey...

could you deal with this: User talk:203.109.33.35 ? thanks, nat^tang 08:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet anther question

This page [2], what is it for? It seems it is for ClueBot reporting... but what does TB stand for, and why is it TB2. Also, why can't the bot add users to [3] as that has a bot reported section too. Phgao 10:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've done that, thanks again. (You seem to always answer very quickly; you're most likely to be on when I'm on :). Phgao 11:35, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]