Caspian blue (talk | contribs) →Your bad-faith accusation: not so too fast |
the irony of Caspian blue accusing me of bad faith is simply hysterical - thread removed |
||
Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
Hi Pedro, |
Hi Pedro, |
||
I think I'm a bit lost. I'd already read all of those discussions. My current stance is that I'm looking for a bureaucrat to confirm that the statements made by Allison are correct and that there are no major issues with the person's previous account or overlapping use of accounts. Apparently one bureaucrat has gotten that information, so I'm waiting... Until I see that, or something similar, my intent is to remain opposed. I strongly suspect it won't matter either way in the result of course, but I think if we are going to pass these kinds of things, there should be a standard scheme for doing so. Traditionally bureaucrats are entrusted with all things RfA, so that seems like the right way to go. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
I think I'm a bit lost. I'd already read all of those discussions. My current stance is that I'm looking for a bureaucrat to confirm that the statements made by Allison are correct and that there are no major issues with the person's previous account or overlapping use of accounts. Apparently one bureaucrat has gotten that information, so I'm waiting... Until I see that, or something similar, my intent is to remain opposed. I strongly suspect it won't matter either way in the result of course, but I think if we are going to pass these kinds of things, there should be a standard scheme for doing so. Traditionally bureaucrats are entrusted with all things RfA, so that seems like the right way to go. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
||
== Your bad-faith accusation == |
|||
Do such personal attacks archive anything for you and the RFA?, really? I'm disappointed by your behavior after your outburst on Jan.3. I think I too highly regarded your "straightforwardness" back then.--[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 01:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I'm rolling about laughing. Honesty never won any Brownie points here; quite the reverse in fact. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:BTW, It should be "bad faith", not "bad-faith", although I do recognise that the wikizealots have co-opted the term "bad faith". I blame the teachers. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 01:24, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank for the lesson, but given your [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pedro&diff=338104247&oldid=338103814 rolli<big>'''m'''</big>g about laughing] I guess English is also a challenging language to "English" as well. :-) --[[User talk:Caspian blue|'''Caspian''' blue]] 02:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:14, 16 January 2010
Rapulu
Hi Pedro, why is Phil Bridger so hard on me? Even if he didn't find my submission worthy of Wikipedia, shouldn't he have been nice in telling me? I'm new here and was hoping to get some help if I make mistakes, but he attacked me as if I just entered a lions den. He had edited most of his insults and attacks so you didn't get to see them. Is this how Wikipedia is supposed to be working? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapulu (talk • contribs) 20:47, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Ping
I replied again, in case you didn't see that. ceranthor 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
- No probs - got it, but will need some time to review - and wiki time currently limited by ANi debate on my gross misconduct .... or something. Pedro : Chat 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
My talk page
Hi Pedro, thanks for trying to protect me by reverting the talk from User:24.138.75.74 on my talk page, however just for future FYI, I prefer to leave those comments there. I may be in the minority, but unless comments are blatant attacks or filled with profanity, I see no reason to convince other users that they're being "silenced" by removing their talk from my talk page. Accordingly, I undid your revert and responded to the comment. But thanks though, and keep up the great work. --Shirik (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pedro. I would also like to thank you for dealing with Pedro by blocking him. I had no idea users on here could send messages like that, and now my daughter has read the foul things he wrote when she tried to access Wikipedia. He should remain blocked permanently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.115.46.71 (talk) 02:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
MrKIA11 (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Comments like this are unwarrantable if you want to tell people to stop swearing or using other forms of offensive language on here. I don't endorse the actions of User:RMHED at all but saying that you'll "fuck off now" is not practicing what you preach at all. If you don't want someone foul mouthing, do not foul mouth yourself in your edits either because doing so only promotes bad language to continue. An unacceptable comment on your part, no matter how you wish to justify yourself.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 02:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- For fuck's sake. From the best of my knowledge, Pedro has never asked anyone to stop "foul mouthing", swearing, or otherwise stop using some form of offensive language simply for the sake of it. We're not fucking censored. "Bad language" is something your mommy taught you, not something that needs to be preached against here. Tan | 39 05:38, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Sky Attacker are you fucking kidding me? Fucking Pedro would be one of the last fucking people to tell people to stop fucking swearing. It was all in context of the thread. Secondly, if RHMED had an issue with it they would be more than capable of fucking saying so. «l| Promethean ™|l» (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you
[1] Lara ☁ 21:52, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
- Most welcome. Whatever our past issues, I have no doubt about your abilty to use the extra tools on this website, and indeed I opposed and still oppose the removal of them as detrimental to Wikipedia. Pedro : Chat 20:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
Yo ho ho
Huggle Bot Acc
Hi, I was just wondering, because I'm not to keen on my Huggle edits clogging up my Contribs, and I want to use another account, would I be allowed to create a account called LcawteBot I for example to use for Huggle? And what process' other than creating the account and getting rollback would I have to go through, if any? --Lcawte (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- You shouldn't use the word "bot" in any alternate account as that's reserved for accounts that are actually bots. Choose something like "Lcawte Alternate" or whatever. If you create the account and link it to your main one (log in to you main account and post to confirm) then I can grant rollback to the alternate account and you can install huggle into your css. Pedro : Chat 16:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
What about for bot accounts for AWB and Pywikipedia? --Lcawte (talk) 16:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Don't know what py. have as a policy so can't comment I'm afraid.For AWB - if the account is being operated by a human for the purposes of making changes on WP avoid the word "bot". If it's automated (even using AWB as the vehicle) then that's fine to have as a bot name - but don't forget it should have a bot flag (see WP:BRFA) Pedro : Chat 16:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
LcawteHuggle has been created: Log --Lcawte (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Edit: Your Bcrat/Sysop right? So you can see Deleted Contribs, could you look up when my first edit day is for Lcawte and WebCoder11, thanks! --Lcawte (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I've added rollback to LcawteHuggle (talk · contribs) for you. What do you mean by "first edit day" ? Unless your first edits were deleted then anyone can see them.. ? Pedro : Chat 20:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yeah, first edit day in first edit I made, the day it was on. I'm not too sure what my first edit was as my account has been around a while and it may be that I edited a page that has been deleted since. Oh and hows the Account Creation thing on the Toolserver going? Need more users for it or are you on top of everything? --Lcawte (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
Help Desk response about legal advice
Hi, I don't know if you knew it, but there is a Help Desk Template about legal advice: {{HD/leg}}
, which gives:
We cannot offer legal advice. Please see the legal disclaimer. Contact your lawyer.
Regards, -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
Pedro is a Fagggot (sic)
[2]. Alas, I'm afraid I am not a rather tender and tasty meatball. Oh, and as it goes, I'm not gay, not Spanish and not overly liberal. But I do suck lolly pops if it helps. Pedro : Chat 20:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do believe sic is meant to appear in [square brackets]. –xenotalk 20:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, only if you wish it to link to something?. Pedro : Chat 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- No I mean [sic] instead of (sic) ... Just trying to be an annoying pedant, you see. –xenotalk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- So now, if I ever quote Pedro on this, I should say "Pedro is a Fagggot (sic) [sic]"? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- No I mean [sic] instead of (sic) ... Just trying to be an annoying pedant, you see. –xenotalk 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- On Wikipedia, only if you wish it to link to something?. Pedro : Chat 20:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- What's a "spick"? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's "spick [sic]". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Piers Anthonys "Bio of a space tyrant" had much on this as I recall. And a good, although hardly taxing, read the books are. Which is more than can be said for the IP's comments that assume my username means I'm Spanish. On that basis Malleus is an Italian dead by some 1,500 years, Xeno is likely an ancient Greek and Floquenbeam needs to stop his or her fog lamps from glaring :) Pedro : Chat 20:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- It's "spick [sic]". --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually ...
Actually, only about half of the headline number of admins are nominally active,[3] which I think is a step in the right direction. Perhaps one day there will be the Nirvanah of no active admins, if the project can ever develop a more adult style of governance. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Reminds me of some words from a guy who was considered either a genius or a traitor: "Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one; for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries by a government, which we might expect in a country without government, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the bowers of paradise..." Tan | 39 03:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Barring
Would i get barred by you if I was rude about you personally? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bledmeister (talk • contribs) 12:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Pedro does not hold grudges and no, he would probably not block you if you caused him even mild discomfort. However, if your goal is merely to troll users on Wikipedia, please move it elsewhere since you will be block by someone for certain. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
- Speaking only from personal experience, I'd say say that Pedro was a rational adult who would not deploy his banhammer for a simple case of rudeness. Sadly the same can't be said of all his comprades though, so one of them may well descend on you for using a naughty word. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of all the admin tools that I (rarely) use BLOCK is the one I take most care of. Rudeness, incivilty, attacks - water of a ducks back. Blatant vandlaism, SPA's and trolling - it happens and one deals with it. However I think M just made my Xmas - rational adult?! Mind you I'm knackered from wrapping up a half-hundred weight of presents from *santa* so rational likely not, adult - sadly yes.. Pedro : Chat 00:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Happy holidays!
Merry Christmas
To those who make Good Arguments, who are appreciative, or supportive. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 19:58, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- And I add my wishes as well...Merry Christmas!
- Me too! Enjoy your family! Keeper | 76 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Lulz...! The Rambling Man (talk) 00:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Me too! Enjoy your family! Keeper | 76 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
Merry Christmas!!
Set Sail For The Seven Seas 34° 52' 30" NET 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Reminder about an offer you made a while ago
Hi Pedro,
You might recall your offer back in September to co-nominate me at RFA once I had clawed my way out of the WP:NOTNOW hole. I've been a bit more active recently, and I believe an RFA has at least a fighting chance of being successful now. If the offer still stands, I'd be honored. I've pinged Majorly too.
Before you agree, there's one wrinkle you should know about. I previously edited under another name. I retired that account for privacy reasons, so I don't want to publicly disclose its name. I've asked Alison to review the old account's edits, and verify on-wiki that I'm not hiding any blocks, bans, warnings, edit warring, POV pushing, or any other skeletons in the closet. I've also asked her to review my "privacy reasons", to verify it's a legitimate concern, and not a smoke screen. Her comments, once she's finished her review, will be here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Floquenbeam#Alison's review of my previous account.
I plan to basically say what I just said above in the RFA, and link to her comments. I'm convinced having privacy issues with an old account shouldn't preclude future adminship, and I'm being up front with it at RFA, so I don't think this will torpedo anything. But I'm not sure how you feel about this kind of thing, so I didn't want to spring any surprises on you. In any case, I certainly understand you'll probably want to wait to see her review before going forward. Let me know if you have any problems with this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- You've got email. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Indeed, madness and small children come first in Casa Floquenbeam too. No rush, hoping to get this started in the next week or two, not today or anything crazy like that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Pedro, I notice you haven't been onwiki much; is real life still taking almost all of your time? Alison has done her bit; I'm ready whenever you and Majorly are. If real life is still keeping you too busy, I'm happy to wait a week or two more. And if there's no end in sight, perhaps I'll forge ahead with one nom? Let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind nom. FYI, I anticipate starting this either today, early tomorrow, or next Tuesday, depending on how my real life schedule goes today and how Majorly's schedule works out. I don't edit much on Thursdays and weekends due to real life commitments, so I don't want to start an RFA on Wednesday afternoon and then more or less disappear for a day while the questions pile up. Now, I'm off to read WP:BANBLOCKDIFF, WP:COOLDOWN, and WP:CSD so it looks like I know what the hell I'm doing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
yo!
I will vote for you, pedro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editpowah (talk • contribs) 21:14, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Not that it matters
But the editor of the indented vote is not an "ip." His name just mimics one. Best.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Technically
the indent was for the pointiness, but that can be done by the closing admin. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- Bureaucrats close these types of RFA's not admins, but yep. Pedro : Chat 22:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
- By the closing beauracrat. But, yeah. If he does it again, I'll leave it, as the RfA won't go anywhere. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
(you'll have to hum it yourself, I can't link to youtube from this computer)
Per this: Happy Birthday! "For he's a jolly good fellow..." --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Rollback
I was wondering if you could grant me rollback permissions? I'd really like to use Huggle and it would make is so much easier to revert vandalism. Thanks!--iBendiscuss 04:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Err, sorry, but why do you revert my contributions all the time? --217.23.9.4 (talk) 23:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Edit summary
[4] Oops. Guess there's a backstory here I wasn't aware of. :0 Happy New Year, Kafka Liz (talk) 23:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Yo
Hope your holidays were wonderful, mine were pretty darn good. As for the RfA, I think I've decided on a date, which would be in 3-4 months. Email me if you have any questions; I certainly have some for you. ceranthor 17:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think I've decided on a date as well, Pedro. How does November 16, 2013 sound? Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Your comments on my post for Nancy
Hi Pedro, to save you looking I'll repeat my comments from my reply to your post on Nancy's page.
- I welcome all shoving of noses!! I've just gone back and looked again at the Aidan article, and am now in two minds. He does seem to have been mentioned or discussed in a context beyond BGT (redirect pointed to series 3 article previously), but I'm now a bit concerned that the majority of refs are either a local newspaper (bias?) and Aidan's personal website. Although there is one that seems to be in Turkish.. I'm thinking that this classes that article as WP:BLP1E, and I definitely think Jessica's article fits that description.
My main intent with that post wasn't about the articles I gave as examples, but more to highlight to Nancy that despite repeated warnings and subsequent promises here that user appears to be continuing along the same path.
Thanks for your input - it's made me look into the articles a bit more and confirm to myself that my original post stands. Bertcocaine (talk) 22:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
- My appologies Bertcocaine for not looking into that element. I think that it's important to judge the articles and not the editor behind them, although if an editor has had repeated problems in the past obviously one tends to look harder! Certainly you were right to flag the issue for admin attention but always remember that you can be bold in addressing most issues with an editor, short of blocking, your self. Sorry I didn't look further. Pedro : Chat 23:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
No need for apologies! I quite agree that the articles are the important bit. I came across that trail during the recent excitement over the Rage Against The Machine article, and those related, as the user in question had made quite a few edits to Joe McElderry and that led me to Nancy's comments. After a couple of years of dabbling I'm starting to find more of my time taken up with this Wikipedia thing! Also finding the different styles of the various Admins amusing.. such as the comedy replies by yourself and others on this very page. BTW, I'm usually quite bold (see my edits to RATM!!) but in those cases felt a little uninformed on the topics to start changing the articles he's been amending.
Hopefully we'll cross paths again in the future. :-) Bertcocaine (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
IShadowed
You're very right in that their oppose is valid, but I still find it shallow and perhaps lacking an adequate rationale. My intention wasn't to badger IShadowed, but instead to ask if she had any further rationale for opposing if for nothing else than my own knowledge. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- FWIW, I find that reasoning to be consistent with (bromidic as it may be nowadays) badgering, JC. If you were confused, or saw something wrong, then by all means, ask for clarification. Just because you find it "shallow", though, isn't a reason to stick your nose in. Disclaimer: I'm sure I've been guilty of this at some point or another. Tan | 39 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
- I continue to find it amusing and instructive that administrators hold themelves to far lower standards of behaviour than they hold regular editors to. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
- You're probably right. Back to the mainspace with me. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
RfA
Good nomination, imo, User:Floquenbeam. I really like his/her editing style, and think this user would make a good example for adminship on wikipedia. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I lost my crystal ball a little while ago. Where do you buy yours from? --Malleus Fatuorum 03:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Doris Stokes ???
Typo
Happy to fix it. (Your statement didn't make any sense to me when the date was "5th January".) --Orlady (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
RFA
He clearly asked that the Rfa be allowed to run for the full seven days. I opposed, but still, why deny that request? DustiSPEAK!! 22:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
RFA Explanation
Please elaborate on your decision to close my nomination for adminship. It was far from WP:POINT, and it was a serious attempt at gaining admin rights. Please explain what my current attitude is, and what is wrong with it. My previous attitude, that which I showed yesterday, is not my current attitude. In addition, I would appreciate knowing what exactly it was a disruption to.
I am not trolling, rather I am making a much more serious attempt at gaining the position I desire. Your response is appreciated. Alex (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
Talkback...
Hi Pedro, I think I'm a bit lost. I'd already read all of those discussions. My current stance is that I'm looking for a bureaucrat to confirm that the statements made by Allison are correct and that there are no major issues with the person's previous account or overlapping use of accounts. Apparently one bureaucrat has gotten that information, so I'm waiting... Until I see that, or something similar, my intent is to remain opposed. I strongly suspect it won't matter either way in the result of course, but I think if we are going to pass these kinds of things, there should be a standard scheme for doing so. Traditionally bureaucrats are entrusted with all things RfA, so that seems like the right way to go. Hobit (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)