User talk:Pedro/Archive 29

Thank you for not deleting my page. It is certainly not advertising, despite the fact that I am the author of the (free) subject library. The page is certainly a significant add to the branch that lists JavaScript libraries. There are about two dozen listed currently and most are incompetently written fluff with zero credibility from those in the know. That's the primary difference (mine is not fluff and much of it has been reviewed by the appropriate peers--see comp.lang.javascript archives.)

Cheers! Cinsoft (talk) 01:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your question, but i need help. Could you please help me out with that one? --Meldshal (§peak to me) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied! Pedro :  Chat  12:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now what? --Meldshal (§peak to me) 13:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. I was wondering what your next plans were for me? --Meldshal [discuss] {contribs} 23:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained why that reversion was made. The users account was less than a week old, had a history of making edits that were reverted and edit wars, and removed referenced information without any given reason. Removing referenced information without reason is vandalism no matter how you cut it. At the point of using rollback, I was under the impression I was dealing with a vandal, not an argument. As you can see through the edit history on that article, I switched to using the undo function once I found this information out. I was using good faith and you should reward someone not punish them for this. Rollback should not be used when it is clearly not vandalism but as I have explained, I was under the impression that it was. Therefore, how can this be defined as "clearly" not? I have shown that I have used rollback to revert only vandalism. If you were to disregard these edits I have rollback dozens if not hundreds of instances of vandalism without any of them being called into question and as I just explained I believed these were vandalism as well. I want to re-request it once again. --Xander756 (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. In the meantime, what should I do about User:Swampfire cyberstalking me? He simply clicks my contributions link and replies on literally any talk page that I edit. You can see he even replied on User:nufy8 which has nothing to do with him or anything else until he deleted it. I'm getting really sick of seeing his name pop up everywhere I make an edit and it seems admins are hesitant to stop him.

I'm about to go offline so will have to look later - however hav eyou got some diffs? Pedro :  Chat  15:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here he follows me to User:Rodhullandemu's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARodhullandemu&diff=228078823&oldid=228075383

Here he begins debating on User:Aktsu's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAktsu&diff=228075552&oldid=228074111

Here he follows me to User:Hersfold's page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHersfold&diff=228754059&oldid=228753999

Here he follows me to User:nufy8's page. (Note that this has nothing to do with our discussion at all) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANufy8&diff=228767383&oldid=228216204

Here he even posts a comment on my rollback request:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_permissions%2FRollback&diff=228763825&oldid=228756529

Hopefully this will be sufficient evidence of his harassment. --Xander756 (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll review tomorrow. Pedro :  Chat  21:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the diffs. I'm sorry, this is not a WP:STALK issue - whilst it would seem that User:Swampfire has followed your edits, some of the above are perfectly legitimate in providing further infromation (e.g. on your subsequent request for rollback). However, enough is enough now please. I think you both need to back off from each other, maybe find some other articles to work on where you don't trip over each other, and generally both chill a bit. I'd urge you both to remember that Wikipedia is not a battleground but a collegial environment with a common goal. And Xander, noting your user page, admins are not allways right, nor are they in any way above any other editor of this site - I'm sorry that you have that impression and apologise for it. Pedro :  Chat  07:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is following me to talk pages that have nothing to do with the debate at all (e.g. nufy8's) legitimate and providing valid information? In fact the one you cited as valid really isn't. Going to the rollback page and simply stating "that's not ALL he uses it for" is uncalled for and doesn't provide any other information other than him trying to continue disruption. I think the stalking here needs to stop. Have we all forgotten David Shankbone? While his stalkers were offline and online, this is how it starts. You need to put an end to this kind of activity and not simply say "mmmm...you should both chill out." It's dangerous. --Xander756 (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well no-one is going to be blocked over this - what exactly do you want me to do in terms of "You need to put an end to this"? I've advised User:Swampfire of this thread and he's seen the message (as he's removed it). More positively I noted this - that's exactly what I mean - an olive branch on one side may be enough to stop this before it becomes an altogether different situation (like that you noted above). Your conduct needs to be continually like that - 100% to the letter an spirit of our policies and guidelines - firstly I believe that this will then make future reoccurence of issues less likely and secondly if there is a flare up your productive attitude will count "in your favour" so to speak. Pedro :  Chat  06:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I got your note and deleted the material you suggested.--Maxwell2008 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pedro :  Chat  21:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I formally accept the nomination - many thanks for your statement; I am addressing the questions. I'll aim for the page to be transcluded on Friday, but if anything random crops up, the weekend at the latest. Cheers. WilliamH (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Auschwitz, I've put in a few bullet points, but I wouldn't really call what I've done significant expansion. Did you mean Criticism of Holocaust denial? That I have really developed. WilliamH (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedro, humbled once again : ) Thanks for the recognition. It's always pleasing when somebody takes notice of your work. One thing though, the project really hasn't treated me poorly (I ain't jaded yet hehe). I guess it can be frustrating at times (a la RfA), but nothing that this thick skinned diligent editor can't handle. Cheers matey. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I just wanted to drop a word of appreciation for your diplomatic comments to the author of the horse flag article. I believe his stress had more to do with having the article nominated and not because of the equine humour (which, truth be told, was extremely benign). I know that having an article snatched from you and held up for deletion is stressful, but I have to say his reaction was a bit much. Nonetheless, your reaction was classy and deserves to be praised. Cheers. Ecoleetage (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Eco! I made a comment at Keeper's talk as well - we're all in agreeance here, and I think we've "learnt our lesson". Pedro :  Chat  14:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of word is "agreeance"? ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it sounds so management blue sky thinking in the radar helicopter approach that it must exist..... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreeance with that. It must, therefore have existment. Keeper ǀ 76 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I though it might have been BushSpeak: "I'm in complete agreementisation with the hypothefication that all interested partnerships have been able to secure a lasting misunderstanding." --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounded more like Humphrey Appleby :) Pedro :  Chat  15:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But can we agreeance to disagreeance? :) Ecoleetage (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prepared to considerize that possibility. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up to say it's transcluded, and complete understanding if your online activity nosedives due to this. Best regards to you and all at the House of Pedro. WilliamH (talk) 13:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you my man - all seems okay so far! Pedro :  Chat  18:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man, about a week ago I applied here to help with the account creation process. I was approved by User:RyanLupin and can sign in to the interface and do my part, but I was wondering, is that the same as receiving the flag at WP:PERM? I ask only because I've ran into that limitation for the number of accounts a user may create (I think it's 6), thus preventing me from creating requests when there's a backlog :). Perhaps, there's a delay before the special userrights change/update? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User rights are instant AFAIK. You didn't have the account creator flag on your account, so yes,you'd hit the throttle at 6. I've just flipped the switch for that flag as well, so shouldn't be a problem now. I believe the current thinking is that if you don't continue to need the flag it just gets removed again - just so you're aware. Pedro :  Chat  12:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Pedro, for being prompt and helpful as always. I'll bear the last part in mind. Until next time : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone who participated in my RfA, regardless of their !vote. I have withdrawn the nomination as a failure at 19 supports, 45 opposes, and 9 neutral statements. As has been written and sung, you can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, you get what you need — and what I need is to go back to working on our shared project. Not everyone has to be an admin; there is a role for each of us. After reflection, I feel I don't have the temperament to secure community consensus as an admin at any point, and I will not be applying again in the future — and hey, that's all right, 'cause I stay true to the philosophy that adminship is no big deal: I tried, I failed, and now I'll return to doing what I've always done. I have an extremely strong belief in the consensus process, and the consensus was clear. I will be devoting my energies to volunteering at MedCab and working up a complete series of articles on the short stories of Ernest Hemingway, among lord knows what else. Thanks again to everyone who spared the time to weigh in on this one. It was made in better faith than it probably seemed. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your extensive and thoughtful !vote at the RfA. I've decided that I'm probably not cut out for adminship, and since there are so many ways to keep contributing to the project without the tools, it's no big deal. I can see your point that abusive admin actions have greater ramifications than they did back in our older days. I still think the process needs reform, but I can't unilaterally create new rules for myself on the fly, can I? Anyway, I'll be seeing you around in the project; I am glad to have so many fair-minded editors around to work with. Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 14:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 21:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it precedes Kurt. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as it's applied universally, I'll stop trying to dispute it. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit (and I have done) that the rollback and AIV reports were a mistake, based on a belief that speedy tag removals by non-admins were rollbackable and warnable (because the tag is "uw-speedy1", not "uw-speedycreator1", and TWINKLE's warn system doesn't make the distinction). I won't admit the AFD noms were a mistake becuase they're not. All of those articles have evident POV problems even if you don't look at the title. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, this just highlights hypocrisy, if anything. Especially with people prone to shout "abuse" at an honest mistake. Sceptre ^(talk) 15:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. If you recall, you granted me account creator rights a few weeks ago. Well I have come to the realization that I just don't have time to be dedicated to creating accounts and would like to have the throttle reinstated. I am doing this to avoid any possible drama that could arise later when another admin eventually sees that I have not been creating accounts and removes the right. I still may create the occasional account, but I most likely won't be doing enough to hit the 24-hour limit of six accounts. So if you could remove the right, that would be great. Thank you for your time, and happy editing. Cheers, Artichoker[talk] 02:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and advised. Pedro :  Chat  08:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1: "Before nominating an article for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere or be handled with some other action short of deletion. If this is possible, speedy deletion is probably inappropriate. Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete."

As Anders Levinsen is the founder of Open Fun Football Schools, an institution that seems to be worthy of being mentioned in Wikipedia, you could have done a redirect for instance. But I am still of the opinion that Anders Levinsen deserves his own article because the founding of Open Fun Football Schools is not his only achievement. He was also a high ranking officer of UNHCR and played an important role in the war in Bosnia. This could have clearly been seen from the bio.

Can the UEFA and the New York Times convince you of Anders Levinsen's notability?:

www.uefa.com/uefa/news/Kind=524288/newsId=213597.html

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CE3D61739F93BA35750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEFDB103DF937A35750C0A965958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Here is an academic paper that evaluates Anders Levinsen's work:

http://www.sport2005bildung.ch/deutsch/files/MA_Ds_SportAsACure.pdf

Here are some other interesting links and sources:

http://www.djoef.dk/online/print_tekst?ID=14741&type=artikel&navn=Fodbold+og+forsoning

Levinsen, Anders 2000: “Open Fun Football Schools – A tool for peace in the Balkans.”

Levinsen, Anders (2001): “Playing for peace. The football schools in the Balkans.”

http://peoplebuildingpeace.microhost.nl/thestories/print.php?id=162&typ=theme

http://www.fotball.no/files/%7BC3260817-DDA9-4F6D-8432-0D60A723FF9C%7D.doc

http://www.idrottsforum.org/articles/eichberg/eichberg080206.html

2: "If you created this page and you disagree with its proposed speedy deletion, please add: hangon directly below this tag, and then explain why you believe this page should not be deleted on this article's talk page. This will alert administrators to permit you the time to write your explanation."

I did this but you did not even give me a day to improve the article.

Please restore the article or at least let me know what improvements you think necessary.

Greetings Martinvie (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did note in the deletion summary that article had had no improvements in > 5 hours - there is no requirement to provide a day to work on it. I've moved it to your sandbox to work on. Pedro :  Chat  10:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, I don't know how to post. Just start typing at the top? I really knew that Jeff was very involved with Wikipedia, so I felt I had to try to let someone know who could tell others. We're devestated. Shoked. He wasn't ill. His sister in law found him in front of his PC. I'm flying out Tuesday for the funeral on Friday. This all just seems so impossibe... but it's true. I wish it wern't. Please forgive my lack of Wiki knowledge. Jeffssister (talk) 16:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)jeffssister \== thank you ==[reply]

pardon my intrusion and i really have no idea if i'm doing this right or wrong because last night was the first time i've seriously wiki'd anything. and it was to talk my friend El and her daughter Debbie thru posting a note on Jeffs page. actually im rather hopeful you can make this whole note im leaving you vanish after you read it because i think it probably makes me look really wiki-cluess. which i am. my name is Holly and i'm an irl friend of El, Jeffs mom. Thank you for verifying (such that you can) the information about him so the discussion didn't descend into everyone disbelieving as that would have been.. harder.. on El. I should have known when i helped them post that the possibility of doubts would arise and planned.. something (not sure what but i would have tried).. so that his friends here could verify. As it is, it will take something of a leap of faith for you to believe me as well. I would leave my yim stuff (sorry no icq) for live chat but as i'm not really sure i can make all this go away if i look too stupid.. if you have any questions or anything that i might be able to answer to.. prove (as it were) the events or that El is real as am i, please feel free to ask. El's friend (talk) 12:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)El's friend Holly[reply]

Replied. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 13:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, many thanks for your assistance in making it a pleasant experience! WilliamH (talk) 13:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC) On a side note, London 12 is tomorrow should you still be interested/available.[reply]

Heh, not to worry - another time then. Whether I can help help you as a gardener or groundskeeper then by all means contact me. I'll draw the line at being called this though, er, whoops. WilliamH (talk) 13:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking with El and she asked me a question i just don't have an answer for. She wants to know if there is any way to 'lock' that page so that it just stays there the way it is? El's friend (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)El's friend Holly[reply]

It can be protected to stop anyone except admins from editing it, or I can remove that section to prevent anyone but admins from seeing it. If you think that would be appropriate, let me know and I'll do it whatever the rules say, given the circumstances. – iridescent 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iridescent. I also received an answer from an admin person. I'm speaking with El now, and she thinks she wants to wait a few days and have the page locked (Jeffpw user page) and left as a tribute. But wants the delay of a few days as more folks seem to stop to leave final words. Thanks everyone for your support and answers and patience. El's friend (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)El's friend Holly[reply]

Hello, I have seen your signature (the blue block) and really like the way it looks. Would you mind if I borrowed the "blue block" look (switching it to a dark red, so it would be different) and use it for my signature? Take Care...NeutralHomer ^talk|edits 22:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! :) I will work on it and post it here when I get it done. Take Care....NeutralHomer ^talk|edits 22:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a couple changes, but I think it looks good :) Thanks Again...NeutralHomer • Talk 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah, the growing influence of WP:PEDRO...it's unstoppable! :) I even found it being used by a sock here. Everyone likes it! It seems that the signature of Pedro is, well, the height of perfection! Acalamari 23:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is, isn't it? With a couple changes, it can be customized for each user....colors, linkage, everything. I say a barnstar is in order. - NeutralHomer • Talk 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh :) - nice version! And Acalamari was kind enough to give me a barstar for it once before! Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 09:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It took me a couple to get it the way I wanted, but I think it turned out great. A barnstar well deserved :) Thanks Again and Have a Great Sunday....NeutralHomer • Talk 15:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a tonne for granting me rollback permissions Pedro! Now, to get Huggle actualy working on my computer... James.Denholm (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome - good luck and happy editing. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 09:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title says it all Metagraph comment 05:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, editors are not blocked on request. Useight (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed - Useight is totally correct. I'm sorry to see you've retired. I've removed rollback from the account. Hopefully you'll be back some day. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 12:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind deleting this page for me? It was an accident. Thanks. The image is 2004 stellar quake full.jpg. Alright, --Meldshal 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be gone! Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 22:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or not - did that file exist? One by a similar name seems to be at WP:FPC so I doubt you want that deleted. Can you clarify? Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 23:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I knew that, I nommed it, but I missed something in the process. I was wondering if you had any additional ideas for my mentoring page? --Meldshal 01:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look for you. Pedro :  Chat  06:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for continuing to take care of things for Jeff's family (and Wiki-family). Who knew the mop would ever be used to clean up tears? You are a Godsend to Wikipedia and to its editors. 1st class posts all the way peds, 1st class. Keeper ǀ 76 00:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks my friend. Pedro :  Chat  Is grieving 20:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied your ribbon for Jeff for my page with a slight modification in the wording. I hope you don't mind. Keeper's now using it, too. Aleta ^Sing 23:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

copied as well, let me know if it's a problem. TravellingCari 01:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I copied it from User:E - maybe a barnstar is due .... Pedro :  Chat  07:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for the deletes. I was just cleaning up my userspace. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, looks good, I saw what appeared to be a clearly unacceptable edit based on the summary and rolled it back, looking at the actual edit it looks ok, though I would point to WP:ES, which clearly says the edit summary should describe the edit, something that is obviously not true here. Prodego ^talk 19:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have mail. nancy ^talk 12:43, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The blackberry has just pinged. Looking at it. Pedro :  Chat  12:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thoughtful additions. Looking bleak I'd say. At the moment I'm thinking that my tools will be staying in the shed. nancy ^talk 13:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a simple risk / reward scenario I'm not sure the reward outweighs the risk. Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regretfully I agree. Thanks again for the second opinion - you confirmed what my head already knew, was just struggling to overcome my sentimental heart. nancy ^talk 13:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slept on it. Woke up this morning with firm resolution. Have mailed CG the bad news. nancy ^talk 08:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. Thanks for everything on this one - appreciated. Pedro :  Chat  08:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. Thanks for your "goodness me"-support at my RfA. I understand that it was at a difficult time for you. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise. Best wishes, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your name at WP:ADCO, and, would you be willing to admin coach me? Thanks for the consideration.--LAAFan 03:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I found an Admin Coach. Sorry for the trouble. Cheers.--LAAFan 00:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - sorry I wasn't around. Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Pedro. I saw your name on a deletion page and presumed that you were an admin and then when I came to your page saw that you are an admin. I wondered if you could explain how I become an Account Creator as when welcoming new users saw account created for example 'some one' and password was sent by email I wondered how I can help create accounts? BountyHunter2008 (talk) 18:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'll find out all about it at Wikipedia:Request an account/Administrators. Essentially the "Account Creator" flag removes the throttle applied by the mediawiki software to non admins, that limits them to creating five accounts per day. If you fell like helping out at the above, and start hitting the 6 account per day limit, please ask and I'll be happy to add the flag. Pedro :  Chat  06:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that coaches are rare and that a lot of time would pass before I get to the top of the requests list, I was thinking about contacting a coach directly and saw you have some free space. The boring statistics:

• about 4400 edits total
• about 3000 of them are mainspace
• about 330 in Wikipedia space
• 100% edit summary
• created about 50 various articles
  • Milan Bandić (B-class) nominated for GA, working on Šalata (DYK, C-class) and Zagreb (B-class)

Interested? Let me know on my talk page because I might not notice it on my watchlist. If you aren't, also let me know so that I can look for another coach. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 16:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks anyway. I'll request an editor review and you'll be welcome to weigh in if you have time. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The review is on. Also, premature congratulations on your oncoming new member of the family! Admiral Norton ^(talk) 21:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I’m looking for some advice. I submitted a Wikipedia entry in March 2008 which was subjected to speedy deletion. The reason was:

11:45, 19 March 2008 Pedro (Talk | contribs) deleted "Common Grant Application" ‎ (G12: Blatant copyright infringement: A7 issues, G12 issues, G11 issues.)

At the time I made the submission, and received the deletion notice, some things came up that prevented me from responding. Things have settled, and if possible, I’d like to revisit this article and understand the issues involved in its deletion and see if it can be massaged into a form that meets your criteria. In the interests of full disclosure, I am one of the co-founders of the Common Grant Application.

As I understand it, the issues were:

For G12 (Blatant copyright violation) - In March 2008, I had a series of communications about permitting the use of the Common Grant Application name under GDFL. I was a little confused about this, since I didn’t write any text that was directly lifted from the Common Grant Application web site, although I did make references to the brand name. Regardless, I thought I sent you a release permitting use under the GDFL, but to be perfectly honest, it isn’t clear to me if it was received or sufficient for your purposes.

G11 (Blatant advertising) – I’ve attempted to rewrite the article in a tone that sounds more neutral. I’ve also added a number of references from other independent sources discussing the general issues of the non-profit world, common grant applications and the Common Grant Application in specific. I guess neutrality is a subjective thing, so I’m interested in understanding if there are any additional issues.

A7 (Notability) – The Common Grant Application has had a number of articles written about it by independent and respected sources. Those articles are incorporated as references within the article. The Common Grant Application currently has over 3,500 non-profit users.

I’ve attempted to re-write this article. Is there a way for it to be looked at before putting it up so that it doesn’t fall into the category of being written by somebody that ignores the admins and doesn't learn?

Lulayellowlab (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've popped it into User:Lulayellowlab/Sandbox. If you can take a look at your convenience, and let me know what I have to do, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

Lulayellowlab (talk) 22:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me Rollback permissions. I will put them to good use. – Jerry^teps 07:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey ped. Kind of tired right now, but I was wondering if you were ready to put new stuff on my mentoring page. I noticed you were online, so I decided to ask. Thanks, --LordSunday 15:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC) Oh, this is Meld. Meant to tell you i got a username change. Cheers, --LordSunday 15:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool new user name! I will endeavour to, but RL commitment has hurt my editing time in recent days. Apologies. I will try tomorrow or later tonight. Pedro :  Chat  18:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it's quite all right. Thanks for the compliment, I just thought of book characters that i like. This character hasn't quite been introduced yet, but I am sure I will still like using his name, even if he is a villain. Thanks, dude. --LordSunday 23:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The good lady has gone into hospital with Pre-eclampsia (not too big a deal hopefully; she had full eclampsia last time and it all worked out okay but it's still a little unnerving). Naturally I'm not likely to be that active for a few days on Wikipedia. Just to let you all know! Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on the pending Child of Pedro 2.0. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:SonOfPedro2.0 or User:DaughterOfPedro1.0 - Might get both usernames just in case! As a note I actually bought my son's .co.uk domain name before I got his birth certificate! How sad is that! Thanks my man. Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Pedro! Pre-eclampsia is not all that uncommon. No need to worry. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers my friend. Yeah - we're not stressing too much (well I'm not - honest guv...) Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, my friend. May User:SecondChildOfPedro be a healthy one! GlassCobra 21:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you good sir! Pedro :  Chat  21:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my best wishes for you and your family; you'll get through easily, it just SEEMS like forever. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both - and now I'm off. Catch up with you all soon! Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro. Again, this ain't hectoring, more a response to your "Dweller's admin actions activity is pretty low (by my standard)" comment on Keeper's talk.

Q: Maybe that's a benefit?

Let me explain what I mean.

I am a conscientious admin who works on the backlogs; I just get through my work slower. My approach to my admin work is longhand. I think hard before I use my tools. I communicate at length with those affected by the decisions I take. (Just scan back through my log and see this in action, or through my contrib history as I take time again and again to gently point out why speedy tags were inappropriate and thank users for tagging). I'll AGF to the hilt, as I help out probable COI editors or trolls, up to the point that they condemn themselves, on the chance they might just be a whole-hearted confused noob.

All of that is perhaps that's why I've not been the subject of any serious complaints, nor has there been a DRV for anything I've ever deleted, that I know of. Perhaps that's why my talk pages fill with thank yous, rather than complaints, (or sometimes complaints followed by thank yous! You can see a good one of those from yesterday.)

It strikes me that Crat work is actually entirely suitable for someone like me, because it's not about high volume crank-through (Crat backlogs are usually irritating at worst), but (especially with RfA consensus judging, the real nub of the reason why we're so careful with RfBs) about thoughtful and, importantly, communicative application of policy. Immodestly, I think I'm good at both "thoughtful" and "communicative"... and "policy".

Anyway, just a thought-provoking start to the day from me. Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just spotted the message at the top of this page. That's far more important than any election. Good luck and may he or she bring you even more happiness than you currently imagine they will. --Dweller (talk) 09:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scrubbed oppose. Good luck. Pedro :  Chat  22:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...I do agree with you, but it's (a) commonly referred to as a promotion (adminship or cratship), and (b) I tend to pick up whatever language was used in what I'm responding to; if AGK had said something else, I would have used what he said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I realised after posting that it wasn't really a helpful comment, and thanks for your notes. I've always been rather picky on "promotion" - I actually prefer "demotion" - as an editor would seem to "rank" an administrator in any reputable publishing house :). Cheers EV. Pedro :  Chat  21:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bwuhaha, that's possibly the best rationale for a terminology change that I've ever seen. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I made a request to the crats, there was a large deal of confusion that led to me being warned at Wikipedia_talk:Bot_Approvals_Group/Archive_6#Clarification_of_Betacommandbot.27s_status, I was attempting to be crystal clear as to my role, before someone went and did something. MBisanz ^talk 22:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ped, didn't know about the baby. Feel free to wait until well after he/she is nice and stable. --LordSunday(₪Scribe₪)♦ 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For all your hard work with your future RFA candidates (like me), I award you this barnstar. Thanks Pedro for being so helpful to me. --Lord₪Sunday 02:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! Not to sound hasty, but uh, when are you gonna get back to me on that page? ;) More users are starting to bother about nominating me. Hehe, but I know I'm not ready, so i just keep declining. :) --Lord₪Sunday 22:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be back up to speed tomorrow to review things. Pedro :  Chat  19:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DaughterOfPedro, younger sister to User:SonOfPedro was safely delivered by c-section yesterday. 7lb 3oz. Mum and baby healthy and happy, with my massive thanks and credit to the dedicated medical staff of the Royal Hampshire County Hospital. Pedro :  Chat  20:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Pedro! Tan ǀ 39 20:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly accurate :) Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could drink with my feet. Horribly inefficient to only be able to use both hands....Keeper ǀ 76 21:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering where you had RUNOFT to! Congratulations mr pedro! Woot! Keeper ǀ 76 20:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you knew him all that well, I worked with him a couple of times, so i thought you would like to know he's retired. Yet another dedicated admin (former) gone. Wikipedia, -200, Real life +1000. Sorry for the intrusion, but I think you've worked with him too. --Lord₪Sunday 01:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A curious definition of "retirement". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And of course to Pedro's mentoring notice. —Sunday ^Scribe 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and thought you might like it. —Sunday ^Scribe 23:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, can you point me at the popular press info you're referring to? I haven't seen much lately, although I did hear a (terrible) piece on NPR about editing to a certain political candidate recently... Thanks! (This question is totally off topic to the original so I brought it here instead.)  Frank  |  talk  20:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that we share the same bit of land my man, but the Mail on Sunday and the Daily Telegraph have had some interesting coverage recently. Pedro :  Chat  20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to see you back again. We see to have been loosing a lot of valuable editor recently. :( Congrats on the little one btw. :) Regards, --Cameron* 20:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - and with that I'm back off line until tomorrow! Pedro :  Chat  20:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your message. —Sunday ^Scribe 19:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wander over for a look-see! Pedro :  Chat  07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Whenever you have a "mo". —Sunday ^Scribe 19:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I forgot to grab the edit history from this version of my Sidebar before requesting it to be deleted (which you did, thank you). I am fairly certain that I did quite a bit of development on it here. If so, could you please copy and paste the edit history to the Sidebar's new home at m:User talk:Willscrlt/meta/Sidebar. I've already copied the edit history from Commons there, but it's rather sparse. Thanks! --Willscrlt (Talk) 03:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for you! Pedro :  Chat  07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you deleted User talk:Pilot expert (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) under CSD G8. Please note that User talk: pages are an explicit exception to this criterion, so I undeleted the page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very slow. Didn't realize what was going on with you until I saw your name at AIV, realized I hadn't seen it in a while, and wandered over to your talk page to see what was up. Belated congrats. --barneca (talk) 15:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I've been (obviously) virtually inactive for two weeks but back up and running now - possibly at crazy times of the night with a bottle and nappy in the other hand! Pedro :  Chat  15:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTDT. :) --barneca (talk) 15:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buy The Damn Towel? Bring Three Daisies Tomorrow? Block Two Disruptive Trolls? I've got more. Keeper ǀ 76 15:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been There, Done That ... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's no fun. I prefer Binge Til Dawn, Ta. Keeper ǀ 76 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, you'll have to forgive Keeper; he's old, and not up on the latest internet slang we cool people use. --barneca (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm way cooler, Peds. Barn, YMMV. Keeper ǀ 76 15:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Make Me Vomit? That's a personal attack! Off to ANI I go... --barneca (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No no no! I make you violins! Violins!! Dam-nit, I don't need a nuther an/i wq/a report.....sniffle...i was just tryin' to make you violins....Keeper ǀ 76 15:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I kinda stumbled across the talk page for WP:NOTNOW and saw where you and another editor had a brief discussion about the name of the page. What would you think of WP:TOOSOON? I feel like it's less bite-y, but does not imply that a later nomination would be successful. Let me know what you think. Cheers! TN‑X-Man 15:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you probably saw, originally it was NOTYET but the discussion (at WT:RFA not on the page) was that we should avoid the implication that adminship was a certainty later on. The idea, of course, is that NOTNOW was set up to be less bitey than WP:SNOW (and in addition that SNOW related to AFD and other processes). I've no issues on a name change, but I wonder if TOOSOON my just be better as a shortcut? To get some debate going it might be best to use the NOTNOW talk page with a note at WT:RFA as it's probably not highly watched. Pedro :  Chat  06:47, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to chime in here a moment, I see both as equally "bitey", if there was any potential for it. That said, alliteration is always more catchy and easier to remember. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, that's the thing - I'm a sucker for alliteration! I'm interested why you think NOTNOW is a bit bitey though Wis - the whole idea was to get away from SNOW which was even worse. What do you think needs to be fixed? Pedro :  Chat  06:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in and of itself, it isn't bitey. I agreed with the change from SNOW, or at least changing where we direct new users at RfA. I was just saying that if one were to ascribe bite to NOTNOW, TOOSOON would be on equal footing. That's all. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 07:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - sorry matey, I'm with you now. Yeah, at the end of the day the only totally non bitey thing with newbies RFA's is to all offer moral support - and then they either pass (oops!) or the closing crat hits them with an even bitier close as unsuccesful. Bottom line is there is no really lovely fluffy way to tell a newbie their RFA is doomed. Sometimes we just have to be a bit more honest and say "sorry mate, thanks but no thanks but don't stress on it". That was really where I pitched NOTNOW - to let people down gently, explain it's not a biggie, and to stop them thowing in the towel and leaving the project in disgust. Any "biting" may be more in the eye of the candidate than those commenting (or one would hope) at times. Pedro :  Chat  07:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand a little better now. Maybe a better idea is just to leave an encouraging note on the nominee's talk page. NOTNOW (and any bitey-ness therein) is mostly a matter of interpretation. Hmm. I'll have to think on it some more. Thanks for being a good soundingboard guys! TN‑X-Man 12:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small discussion brewing at Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Administrators regarding account creation access and I wanted to get your opinion on the matter. Kurt Weber is making a pretty good point here, although I don't agree with some of the descriptive terms/rhetoric. Nevertheless, how would one go about getting something like ACC to be oversaw by the community? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Could you delete this? Its an obvious speedy delete, brought to AfD for some reason unknown to me. —Sunday ^Note 12:22, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a speedy. WP:CSD#A7 would be the criteria (web content that does not assert notability), however by having references it does assert notability - hence it doesn't fit the category. Best to let the AFD run it's course. Pedro :  Chat  14:11, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. CSD is not my thing. I've really shaped up on deletion, FYI. —§unday His Grandiloquence 18:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've noticed that in the discussion there's a possible SPA. Could you check it out? Cheers, —§unday His Grandiloquence 14:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, looks very much like an SPA. The closing admin will hopefully see that. Unless we refer it to WP:RCU there's not much more that can be done, but the AFD is only heading one way anyhow. I've watchlisted it to make sure that due attention is paid to any SPA issues on close and if not bring them to the closing admins attention. Pedro :  Chat  20:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your 10,000 edit link on your user page is broken....just thought i'd let you know :) Jakisbak (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some malicious admin clearing stuff up! Thanks! Pedro :  Chat  07:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert your spa edit? I had seen you place that in there and was going to place it for another account above (~20 edits total) but then I saw you reverted it.  Frank  |  talk  21:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pedro. As I was trying to get things right, and I am not all that experienced here, LilacSoul put the article up for deletion. Now I don't get an answer from same LilacSoul. I have asked her for help, but get no response. Can you, please, help me? Litter13 (talk) 10:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I was wondering if you could grant me the ability for the New Page Watcher feature? I would be happy to answer any questions you have, of course. Cheers --Superflewis (talk) 08:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a moment! Pedro :  Chat  08:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pedro :  Chat  08:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro, for some reason, it says that I'm not autoconfirmed. . .is there something else that I need to do? Thanks in advance, Superflewis (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look now for you. Pedro :  Chat  12:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of brackets were between you and the tool! Sorry about that! [1] Pedro :  Chat  12:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro.

First of all, thanks for your support, it's much appreciated. Given the general positivity of the oppose votes, I'm not particularly downhearted about it at all - it's given me some pointers on whats needs to be improved before I think about going for it again (which probably won't be till the end of the year at the soonest).

Cheers mate, Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 11:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries - and good luck Pedro :  Chat  11:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your patience regarding the whole G10 issue this morning. I admit I was a bit stubborn, but in the end I did see your point. Also, I would appeal to you to take a closer look at the Fox News Channel article and discussion. I think an objective opinion on the subject would be quite valuable. I don't see much progress is being made, and it seems to me that you have the patience and genuine enthusiasm to contribute a great deal. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - I'll take a look for you. Pedro :  Chat  20:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like a general idea of when you'd initiate an RFA for me, not saying now, not saying any time, just wondering if you have an idea? —§unday {Q} 20:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh :( Lord Sunday, I've been really happy to work with you, but at present I really do not believe that an RFA would pass, or that I would even support it. Your answers at User:LordSunday/Mentoring have been concerning and I'm not at all convinced that you have the awareness of the following;

1. Just how fine a line an admin needs to tread
2. That admins are still volunteers with no more "power" or "prestige" than anyone else
3. That admins are mostly accountable to themselves. De-sysopping is notoriously hard and sysops need to understand their duty of care and the damage they can unwittingly do.

I just don't feel you're ready, certainly not this year, to be an admin. I'm really sorry. I bet you hate me for it, but it would be dishonest to Wikipedia, the community, myself and most importantly you if I said otherwise. If you have received a nomination from othes please feel free to accept it. I suspect I would abstain from the RFA itself. I'd type more but I don't think it would help you. Again, my apologies and please do not feel too downcast by my reply. I've modified the header of this as we may get further input as well. I'm only one guy and I may very well be wrong. However my RFA experience says otherwise. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None taken. I'm working on it. Dear lord... —§unday {Q} 21:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: i'm going to take a long wikibreak very soon. :| —§unday {Q} 22:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, LS? Your friend Eddy of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 22:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely hope that your break is not a reaction to my comments. Enjoy it and we look forward to you being back on wiki soon! Pedro :  Chat  07:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I just don't understand it. Could you give me specific reasons for why you think I won't pass RFA? I'm not offended, just confused. —§unday {Q} 01:13, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And for me, adminship is really no big deal at all. I just want to know what I'm doing wrong. —§unday {Q} 11:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Question(s): How am I doing, and how are you? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey! How are you? Long time no interact! Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing pretty good, I've been pretty busy doin' non-WP based things, so I'm not as active as I used to be! But enough about me, how are you? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 21:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly less active due to the birth of User:DaughterOfPedro and RL work (got to earn the pennies to feed the kids!) Still editing daily but at the moment I'm juggling lots of balls and trying not to let any drop :) Pedro :  Chat  21:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're having fun, and congratulations on User:DaughterOfPedro! RC-0722 ^361.0/1 23:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy! I'm quickly tiring of Wikiport (talk · contribs)... from WP:POINT violations to outright lies (see my talk page), I am not sure how to proceed. ANI? RFC? Suggestions welcome. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 11:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported his continued disruption here. Additional comments are welcome and appreciated. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you recently deleted the redirect of Long Beach Armada of Los Angeles of California of the United States of North America Including Barrow, Alaska. That is the official name of the team, which is generally shortened to Long Beach Armada. The Long Beach Armada article makes note of this name. I do not recall seeing any discussion of removing this redirect. I would appreciate you restoring it as a valid title unless you have another reason for deleting. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what good does it serve? Remember that this means someone would have to type that entire name when it's far more likely that they'd type Long Beach Armada - indeed I can't see in anyway how they would type the redirect. I'm not that fussed, but really it seems a redundant redirect to have. Pedro :  Chat  14:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can see your point. I wanted to make sure it was not being removed because of its improbable, but valid, name. I'm okay with leaving it deleted. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Thanks for your level headed discussion (believe me normally when you've deleted something the last thing you get is a polite debate!!) Pedro :  Chat  15:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not stalking you; really! But I was reading over your talk page, and saw this conversation, and do honestly feel that the redirect under discussion is useful. As I said in my edit summary restoring it, "while this would never by typed in as a page name; it /might/ be linked to (from a List of teams, or a page discussing oddly long names, etc) and so, it is a useful redirect." I hope this won't cause too much fuss. What can I say, I'm a redirect lover. ;-) JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Redirects are cheap as they say, and if you love 'em then it's good by me. Pedro :  Chat  10:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, User:FatherofSonandDaughterofPedro LOL. I wonder if I could ask you to look at the last few days's worth of material on the talk page of Second Life with respect to the definition of SL as a "video game" and advise me how to proceed -- or take a hand yourself, if you're so inclined. I think this may have to go to some sort of arbitration, but since it's obviously not qualified for WP:Third opinion my limited knowledge of such conflicts ends there. What's the best first step? Thanks, as always, in advance for your cool and calm appraisal of the situation. (PS: And of course, continued congrats upon your second achievement of parenthood... it ends in about 25 years when they finally let go, so try to enjoy it till then.) Accounting4Taste:talk 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL Like so much that I think to bring to you, I believe it's now resolved itself -- I took some time and a few deep breaths, and in the interval, the individual breached 3RR, and I KNOW what to do about that. Thanks in advance, and my apologies for any of your time that I may have wasted. All my best to you and yours! Accounting4Taste:talk 20:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you fixed it! Cheers my friend! Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted two redirects Tamanend (disambiguation) and St. Tammany (disambiguation) as unused templates. Please be more careful in the future. As it happens, I disagree with the given reason as well; they are not redirects to misnomers, and as such, I've restored them. Thanks for your attention. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:32, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Replied on your talk. Hold my hands up to that - both were incorrect in the rationale (although I disagree we need those redirects to dismabigs but I'm not that fussed - redirects are cheap after all). As noted on your talk however, a less brusque and agressive note would have achieved the same outcome. Please remember this work is built on a collegial atmosphere not back biting and one upmanship. Pedro :  Chat  21:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No weaseling out, Pedro. You got caught red-handed making a typo. In fact, there were two of them. You're lucky you got off that easy; I notice you are still in CAT:AOR. --barneca (talk) 21:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are now empowered to prevent me making such similar errors in the future .... [2] Pedro :  Chat  21:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honored, Pedro. Now, all I need to do is find one other person on the list (I'm assuming I could persuade Keeper to participate by buying him a beer), and we can join forces, overthrow you, and divvy up your lands and possesions. --barneca (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OOOOhh! I like beer! I'll betray anyone for beer....or a cigarette. God I want a cigarette....Keeper ǀ 76 22:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely do this, but yeah, I agree with barneca. 40 lashes for Pedro, who is obviously abusing his administrative privileges. Recommend getting completely knackered this weekend, assuming your wife will care for the two littl-uns....:-) Keeper ǀ 76 21:27, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish on Friday for Pedro? Pedro :  Chat  21:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, so what happened, you deleted two redirects and accidentally called them templates? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:51, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. The standard script I use on my monobook gives you a puill down list of reasons when you delete a page. T3 and R3 are right next to each other so I guess I hit the wrong bit of the list. As it goes I can't ever believe someone will type in "St. Tammany (disambiguation)" into Wikipedia so I think the redirect is pointless but there we go - no wheel war today! Redirects are cheap. Just a shame I get a bolocking for pressing the wrong choice on a drop down I guess ..... :) Pedro :  Chat  07:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries Pedro. You aren't the only one getting lashing for egregious errors of judgment. Heh. Keeper ǀ 76 18:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes me feel better - Damned if you do, damned if you don't round here! BTW you may like to cast your eye over the section below if you have some moments to add input at the ER. It would be appreciated. (ditto any other TPS'ers) Pedro :  Chat  18:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you airmail me some beer if I do? I probably won't do an ER, I very rarely do them for two reasons: 1/the editor being reviewed often feels worse at the other end of it, regardless of the good intentions of the reviewers, and 2/the editor's that do the reviews feel worse at the other end of it for making the editor that is reviewed feel worse. I've seen too many fights. I'm not at all saying that's how LordSunday would act/react, far from it (I've never encountered him/her). Generally though, I'm not an ER fan. Now, about that beer...Keeper ǀ 76 18:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an ER fan either, never seen the point of it. Anyone who wants to know what people think of them around here just has to put their name down at RfA. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that when good users go to RFA prematurely, they're told to do an ER. But other than that, yeah. Keeper ǀ 76 19:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries guys, I do agree about the issues surrounding ER. Maybe I ought to bribe Keeper with some snout instead (Keeper see the bottom of Snout (disambiguation) in case you're as confused as you were over plonk!) Pedro :  Chat  19:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper's doing better than me. I went to see a friend I hadn't met in over two years last week. She's now a pub landlady. Got hideously drunk, ended up smoking my way through a 10-pack. Ended up gnawing on gum like mad on the train back. Good on you, Keeps. Gazimoff 19:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snout and plonk eh? Blimey, you blokes 'r a strange lot. casket nails and nickel ales, I call 'em. Keeper ǀ 76 15:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, here's my ER of Pedro. Keep up the good work, you should run for RfA, just make sure you don't make anymore typos, you silly man. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) I tread a dangerous line with my recall list selection I think. Goodness me if I went for RFA now it might even rival Malleus' "train wrecks" as he describes them. The irony of that theoretical situation will not be missed by Malleus I'm sure....! Pedro :  Chat  19:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to reply, and apologize for the tone of my original message -- it was unnecessarily brusque and abrasive in tone. In explanation, if not excuse, I would say that I'm mostly inactive now, and have been for a while, so when I wander back in, I tend to be more grumpy than I ought to be. I'm sorry you were the recipient of some of it. The incorrect deletion reason, and the whole existence of those redirects, is certainly is a minor issue. Thanks for responding to my grumpy comments with more grace than I demonstrated in them. (P.S. I like your recall page. If I wasn't already pretty inactive (and mostly avoided controversy (and socialization) even when I was), I'd strongly consider hashing up such a page for myself).JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you kindly comment on my editor review? Thanks. —§unday {Q} 14:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly will, hopefully this evening. Pedro :  Chat  18:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mucho gracias! :) —Sunday [+-+-] 22:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what happens, thank you Ped. —Sunday His Grandiloquence 12:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done for you. Honest and upfront approach. Pedro :  Chat  13:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro! I know a lot more now. That's what I've been asking the entire time! ;) —Sunday His Grandiloquence 15:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key thing is demonstrating that you understand that knowledge - do you see what I mean? It's like knowing technically how to use the remote control but not understanding the effect of turning the TV on during a funeral. You need to know not only the clear process but more why we have the process - and you need to demonstrate that through your edits. Pedro :  Chat  15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound confusing to you, but it's not that I want to be an admin, its that I want to know what I need to become an admin. Understand? ;) —Sunday His Grandiloquence 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell - the main thing you need to do to become an admin is to not be focussed on becoming an admin. Lord Sunday, I know you've had offers of adminship. I'm just one editor. Don't think my word is law! Please feel free to ask the community for the tools. Pedro :  Chat  21:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think His Grandiloquence LordSunday needs to sort his head out. "I don't want to become an admin, I just want to know what I need to become an admin" makes no sense at all to me. Why go through admin coaching if you don't want to be an admin? Why ask someone to nominate you only a few days ago if you don't want to be an admin?[3] --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. You just keep piling more and more stress on me. I've changed my mind since then. Why become an admin? I won't be able to focus on content building, the reason I'm here! —Sunday | Speak to His Grandiloquence 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<--All this aside, Pedro you just firmed up my criteria for "who to support" during there run for adminship. I've added you to my RFA criteria page with your quote from above (that starts with the key thing.). Absolutely golden advice. Keeper ǀ 76 18:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a decision, as you can see on Malinaccier's talk. MAybe adminship work will resume in 6 months, maybe never. It all depends on what I feel like doing in 6 months. ;) —Sunday | Speak 20:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, I may be wrong, but I have a distinct impression that there was an old AN or ANI thread where you got upset about Kurt for precisely the reasons you are now giving to ban him, but nothing came of that. I also (and may be completely misremembering this) thought that you had come to terms with Kurt's RfA behaviour and had moved on. Why support his ban for the same reasons now? I get the net positive argument (though that is a subjective argument to use, as in other cases what you may see as a net positive, others may see as a net negative). I also recognise that his recent behaviour has caused concern, but the way some people have piled in here to ban for that previously discussed issue (the behaviour at RfA) in addition to the recent behaviour is, frankly, disquieting, and seems like opportunism. If the ban sticks, and you still feel, in say six months time, that his absence has improved the atmosphere, then I will accept that. But I really don't think one person makes that much difference, and I say that after seeing many people come and go over the years (what will you do if someone else turns up with another annoying habit that rubs you up the wrong way?). Anyway, as I said, many people have come and gone over the years, which is why I'm not going to push this much more, but I am disappointed with what I've seen today. I wouldn't normally leave a message like this, but I had briefly thought "I wonder what Pedro will say", and my vague memory of the past had led me to think that you might have taken a less hardline approach. <shrug> I really should move on now, but it does pain me when I see people who can contribute constructively (as you said) being booted so hard out of the door. Carcharoth (talk) 20:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I found the old discussion I was thinking of. It was before the second RfC. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Kmweber 2. It was here and here. In the latter thread you said:

"However, consensus is that these comments are not trolling and should not be removed. I hold no animosity to Kurt for his view point (and even have defended him in the past). But twice in one day we see his RfA comments at ANI (once by me, of course) ? Either the community accepts it's all okay, and everyone complaining about him is wrong, or Kurt accepts that his actions could be seen to be disruptive, as per Ryan. Let's also not forget that Kurt is also a very valued contributor across the project." - Pedro : Chat 20:43, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is nearly a year later, but to go from that to this:

"Kurt has made significant edits that have improved the enyclopedia. He's also created more significant disruption. Logically our loss of his contributions is outweighed by our gain in seeing him gone and the disruption by him ended. His permanent removal from editing this work will make Wikipedia better." - Pedro : Chat 20:06, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm just a little bit surprised. I know people's opinions can change, and it is unfair of me to single you out for this criticism, and I do apologise for that, but I thought what I posted above initially needed further explanation. I said before that I was going to drop this, and I really am going to now, though I will go and add those two ANI threads to the list on the subpage. Carcharoth (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too address your points briefly, firstly yes my "net positive" argument is, by necessity, subjective. Secondly, yes, my opinion has changed. Since writing the comment in December I've seen more and more of Kurt that as gradually eroded the positives. In particular a conversation with User:Keeper76 where Kurt made a stance that anyone threatening suicide on Wikipedia should be brushed aside because it was their life and it was up them sticks in my mind. Now, I like to think I'm pretty liberal but that was clearly unacceptable. I know I should put together a pattern of diff's showing declining "behaviour" but I really don't have the time or inclination. My gut feeling is that Wikipedia is better off without him. I may be wrong. I'd prefer not to find out. My thanks to your good self for questioning my thoughts though, as my comment at ANI was fairly terse. Best Wishes. Pedro :  Chat  12:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, just wanted to say that your declining of my Speedy Delete tag on Oliver J Bridge turned out to be correct. I've acknowledged my error to the article's author [4]. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I can see why you were inclined to place the speedy tag in its original incarnation. It was..ehh..very borderline. Although, when it doubt, don't : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance with granting me the rollback functionality. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 20:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to write a rebuttal to Blaxthos's comments. I saw that it was a semi-protected page, but I didn't realize it would erase any comments by other editors. I certainly wouldn't have purposely erased comments that were basically favorable. This issue with Blaxthos is being blown out of proportion. Thanks for your input. Wikiport (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you just keep the discussion at WP:ANI within the current thread. There is no reason for you to use non-auto confirmed so I can't see why you posted there. I really don't know what to say, except that you need to consider that Wikipedia is not against you, but it's also not the place for you to bring your POV or it may seem like it is. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thank you for responding to my request and granting me rollback privileges. I have a small question about the use of this feature that you can perhaps help me with. Is it considered acceptable to use rollback to revert unexplained deletions of content (i.e. blanking sections without edit summary, but not adding any unconstructive content), or should the undo feature be used instead?

Thank you in advance for any help you can give me. Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 00:08, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Pedro, I wanted to leave you a quick note to let you know about the RFC I nominated at the FNC talk page. I know you have stated that you haven't followed the article from the beginning, but I think your viewpoint would be welcome. I realize and understand your opinions of my account and activity, but beyond that I appealed to you a couple of weeks ago and you mentioned that you would take a look at it. I want to make it clear that I'm not about "winning" here, I only want a different and objective opinion to check it out. Your patience is valuable, and I know you will give straight talk. Thanks. Wikiport (talk) 08:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to rewview it. Pedro :  Chat  08:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro, remember that article on Oliver J Bridge? It is in AfD now, but something interesting has happened: it appears the article's author is also the article's subject. You may want to look again at the AfD discussion on the issue. Cheers. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, interesting. As it goes, consensus is clearly delete so I don't think it matters. However FWIW I'm not sure a WP:COI necesitates a deletion. Certainly it makes one dig deeper, but I don't see that the conflict means delete - after all if Queen Elizabeth had started her own article I doubt we'd have got rid of it! I think WP:V and WP:N out weigh any COI issues. However, as noted, I suspect this will be deleted and the editor (assuming they are who they profess to be) has not helped their cause. On balance the notability is probably being stretched ot far and a does of self promotion does not help. Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to work on improving my work with bans and blocks. I understand the deletion process rather well, though. I guess you could quiz me on it, perhaps? All the best, Pedro. —Sunday · Speak 13:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll come up with some stuff, but it may be a day or so due to RL commitments - and I'm rather tired right now! Pedro :  Chat  21:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yup. you ready? I sure am. I've been working at UAA, with about 5 reports lately. Now that I've actually read through guidelines, they don't seem all that hard to remember! Cheers. — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 13:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting to work. I've been doing a lot of work at NPP lately, and UAA. Plus RFAA. Could you look over those contribs, if you have the time? And I apologize for being so hasty and reluctant and annoying lately, I'm just running all over the place and RL is hectic. Please accept my apologies. Cheers, — Ceranthor [Formerly LordSunday] 13:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peds, thanks for everything you've done to make me a better Wikipedian. Tonight is my last night of major editing, for an indefinite amount of time. Even though you've never airmailed me a cigarette like I asked so many times, you are one of the best wikipedians on this site, hands down. I'm looking forward to when you sail through RFB if that's what you'd like to do, I'll be lurking around and I hope I don't miss it. There are very few things that will draw me out of my lurking; supporting your RFB will be one of them. Be well, take care of your family. I'll look you up if I'm ever in the old country. Keeper ǀ 76 21:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just couching my reply now. Pedro :  Chat  21:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? I'm not worthy of inclusion on this esteemed list? ;-) Bearian (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you promise there's no ulterior motive! Actually a vacancy is sadly arising (see the thread above) Pedro :  Chat  21:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note peds. And I was always a vacancy anyway, because there is no situation, or silly botch-up that you could have ever done that would have gotten me to initiate a recall. A captain goes down with his ship. :-) Keeper ǀ 76 22:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I request de-sysoping of Pedro for the list! Irony always works best. Caulde 19:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I didn't want to be on your recall list anyway! :P GlassCobra 19:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have every active editor on my list before long - are you sure you guys aren't ganging up on me to make sure I push off ???!!?!? Pedro :  Chat  19:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could do a simple drawing, but that would take far too long! Caulde 19:50, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I get the drawing right :)? Pedro :  Chat  19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedro, thank you for your comments on my user page, i really appreciate your honsety and understand completely why my RFA was unsuccessful. I will try and gain more experince within the Wikipedia space. Thank you again. Londonfella (talk) 11:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Pedro, this is RC, I'm on a public pc and forgot my public user password, so I'm here on ip. I was wondering if you could have a look-see at this discussion please? Vielen Dank und einen guten Tag (Thanks and have a good day). 65.116.167.130 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be pleased to look but who is RC?? I'll look anyway, but after dinner! Pedro :  Chat  19:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh RC! Got you now! Pedro :  Chat  19:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Thank you! 65.116.167.130 (talk) 19:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On review, I think the issue of the date has moved on to some personal disagreement. To me it's simple. Wikipedia should ideally be based on secondary sources - not primary ones unless we have no other option. However I think this debate has spilled over from a content discussion to a bit of anger instead. My advice, FWIW - leave it for a while. Let the heat die down. And only use the articles talk page to discuss the article. I admit I find talk page comments of "don't post here again it will be deleted" to be way outside the collegial atmosphere we would wish for. But a laxity on user talk is commonly accepted and removal of comments is expressly permitted so it really is up to that editor in this sense if they choose to end the dialogue. I think a bit of WP:COOL and WP:TEA may be the order of the day. Pedro :  Chat  20:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice. I noticed it on his talk and I remembered something I had learned from my debates @ the expelled talk so I thought I'd just give my 2 cents. I'll back off for a while. Thanks. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry 'bout that. I'll try to keep that in mind for the future. I got away from vandalism patrol for the past few years, assuming the continuous improvement in bots was helping. But I see now that nothing will ever end it. Yet another reason to support flagged revisions. Also, as for my block length. I don't believe that anything less than a week is much of a punishment. For example, with persistent school IP's, I generally start at a week if it's new, and quickly jump to 6 months to a year if they've been blocked a few times before. It may seem harsh to some, but if we don't stop the major vandals, we can't even catch the minor ones. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 22:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Punishment? Since when have blocks been used to punish? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed Malleus - you are totally correct - see my reply here Pedro :  Chat  19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was a trick question. I know as well as you do that blocks are very often handed out as a punishment, no matter what the official wikipedia policy might be. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How shall I put this - I know the policy - I'm not a slave to the policy - but I believe this part of the policy is correct. Blocks stop damage. Blocks are not retribution. I think we are in total agreement. Pedro :  Chat  21:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we are in total agreement. I have the advantage over you though, in that I know what it feels like to have some idiot administrator turn up with his blocking tool, several hours after the event, because he believes that I've upset one of his friends. Leaves a lasting impression of the arbitrary nature and corruption in the present system. Not that I'm bitter or anything you understand. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I'm aware of this, and the specific series of events that led to your totally ludicrous and pointless block, I'm also of the belief you can't be sure every apple in the barrel is rotten just because the first one, two or three happen to be. Maybe you have to throw out a hundred apples but one at least will be edible, even if not totally palatable. And one might even make some cider. Pedro :  Chat  21:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For as long as I can remember, drinking cider has not been an altogether happy or healthy experience. Still, I do understand the point you're making. My point would be that it's almost impossible to get rid of the rotten apples, so why would anyone want to keep dipping into that barrel of corruption? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 02:24, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the hookup! I will contact you if I have any questions. --2008Olympian _chitchat^seemywork 00:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just letting you know that you have an impersonator, User:Pedro821. Just caught them at the RfA talk page. Acalamari 19:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers my friend! Pedro :  Chat  21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Welcome to the "Spoofer Club". :) Acalamari 01:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]