| Revision as of 10:25, 12 December 2007 editPedro (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators22,741 edits →I just have to: just superb← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:23, 12 December 2007 edit undoThe undertow (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users11,802 edits →Anon IP Comments: you have to be kidding me. anyone can edit, except those who you know.Next edit → | ||
| Line 25: | Line 25: | ||
| :::This time has come for us to discuss. Let's put aside who I am, and discuss . And the Then the on an account for sake of you not reverting. I'm inclined to keep this as anonymous because your demonstration on how you handle anons 'reeks' of someone who does not feel that anyone is free to edit. But please, tell me which edit deserved reversion, as you know as well as I do that altering talk page comments should be done with caution. It's comical to me how there is 'no cabal' yet innocent edits are worth censoring to you. Take a break, Peter. This really is going to get you nowhere. I would like it clearly stated to where my edits were worthy of reversion and how your inclination to decide that I knew my way around Misplaced Pages can or could be used as an excuse to out someone using an IP address, as registered users are still given the right to edit anonymously. You're bitey, and assuming good faith to you simply does not exist. If you don't recognize it, you kill it, then eat it, then go about your day. But try a checkuser instead, then you can rest, knowing that it's time for a break. Even anons can request for comment. And if I am one, as anons can and do learn policy from lurking, you deserve it. Perhaps you can request it for this event? Many logged in users commenting on the beauty of a woman, but my edits are immediately reverted, even with a disclosure. Nice work. ] (]) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | :::This time has come for us to discuss. Let's put aside who I am, and discuss . And the Then the on an account for sake of you not reverting. I'm inclined to keep this as anonymous because your demonstration on how you handle anons 'reeks' of someone who does not feel that anyone is free to edit. But please, tell me which edit deserved reversion, as you know as well as I do that altering talk page comments should be done with caution. It's comical to me how there is 'no cabal' yet innocent edits are worth censoring to you. Take a break, Peter. This really is going to get you nowhere. I would like it clearly stated to where my edits were worthy of reversion and how your inclination to decide that I knew my way around Misplaced Pages can or could be used as an excuse to out someone using an IP address, as registered users are still given the right to edit anonymously. You're bitey, and assuming good faith to you simply does not exist. If you don't recognize it, you kill it, then eat it, then go about your day. But try a checkuser instead, then you can rest, knowing that it's time for a break. Even anons can request for comment. And if I am one, as anons can and do learn policy from lurking, you deserve it. Perhaps you can request it for this event? Many logged in users commenting on the beauty of a woman, but my edits are immediately reverted, even with a disclosure. Nice work. ] (]) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::::Assuming you're the same IP let's look at the story. An edit that just says please revert it? Okay. . Then an edit saying I want her (whoever here is) to revert my edits . That looks like IP trolling to me. Where was the positive input? Incidentally, there are about three people on Misplaced Pages who know my first name, so I guess you must be one of them. I'm sorry if this looks bitey or not assuming faith but try and see it form my point of view and the diffs supplied. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ::::Assuming you're the same IP let's look at the story. An edit that just says please revert it? Okay. . Then an edit saying I want her (whoever here is) to revert my edits . That looks like IP trolling to me. Where was the positive input? Incidentally, there are about three people on Misplaced Pages who know my first name, so I guess you must be one of them. I'm sorry if this looks bitey or not assuming faith but try and see it form my point of view and the diffs supplied. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :::::When we are making comments about the aesthetics presence of a woman, I would think that 'revert my edit' or 'edits' would be seen as simply humor. When I explained that the edit was directed towards Lara, in humor, it was still reverted. It's the equivalent of an overzealous fan screaming 'murder me' to Charles Manson: it's humor. But you didn't assume faith because you confronted me with | |||
| . Is that your ] I can guarantee you if I was signed in, making the EXACT same commentary, your action would have been different: which means you treat anons differently than not just registered users, but users of which you are aware of. I tried to get a word in edgewise and you reverted it not once, but twice. I am only gracious that you didn't start you soliloquy with "I am an admin, but..." because if this was a testament to your skills, where a benign comment or two was made, you fail good faith, you fail any humor, and you fail the most basic testament, which is to assume nothing, but to only revert comments on OTHERS' talk pages when they are personal attacks - and even that, my friend, is up for debate. I suggest you leave talk pages alone, as your edits, or reverts, will never satisfy any policy we have. However, if you feel that 'supposition,' 'pre-emption,' and urging registered users to 'come out' is part of policy, then have at it. If not, you simply, fail X3. Anymore bullshit like this and RfC is exactly where I take this. You had no idea who I was, but BIT a newcomer, reverted edits other than vandalism, skewed a talk page, and decided to make accusations fly, all on an assumption that was only validated by me. Nice work with that. I suggest you re-evaluate just exactly what you wanted to accomplish with your reversions. And a fun little fact, the Bathrobe Cabal, which is where this started and continues to exist was a creation of my OWN hand. How is that for some sick irony, when I cannot even contribute, because others are apparently not welcome. Like I stress, the same exact comment made, logged in, would never have been reverted - but were met with trolling accusations, reversions, and urging to register. Pathetic, Pete. ] ] 11:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ==RfA Thanks== | ==RfA Thanks== | ||
Revision as of 11:23, 12 December 2007
 | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
 Archives |
|
/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3 /Archive 4 /Archive 5 /Archive 6 /Archive 7 /Archive 8 /Archive 9 /Archive 10 /Archive 11 /Archive 12 /Unfortunate Incident /Archive 13 |
Hi, please leave a message.
Please leave new comments at the bottom of the page. Please sign you name if you'd be so kind by typing four tildes e.g. ~~~~ at the end of your message.
RfA
Kim Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) asked a question that I replied to which may answer your concerns about my RfA. It can be seen at Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Wassupwestcoast. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:09, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Rough Couple of Days?
Hey Pedro, I know I haven't been around much lately (school will have that effect), but I've been keeping my finger on the pulse of a couple of RFAs in which a particular editor who makes comments and registers !votes on RFA that are generally not well-received. I've noticed that recently you seem to be going through a good deal of stress about it. Let me be the first to say, please don't let it get to you! I'm not in any way suggesting a violation of WP:COOL. I just wanted to let you know that the help you have given me in the past (see Misplaced Pages:Editor review/Bwowen) and the comments that you make on RFA are some of the most valuable and constructive of any editor. I value your opinion greatly and often give it great weight when when I do decide to !vote in an RFA (which is a rarity). I don't know if I've made any kind of discernible point here, but what I'm trying to say is the following: You're a great editor! I'm sorry that you have been (or seem to have been) stressed out by other people's potentially disruptive actions! Hang in there, you are an asset to the community! =] Best regards, bwowen talk•contribs 03:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- Glad to be of service. Keep up the good work! By the way, your son is amazing! He looks like a lot of fun! =] Take care, bwowen talk•contribs 01:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Signature
Hey Pedro. I recently decided I should probably change my signature from the default and when I decided to do so, went about looking for those which I like best. I decided that yours was great and easily adaptable to my own tastes. As you can see, I have adapted a similar version. However, I figured I would check with you that you have no objections to it. Thanks for your time. Cheers. SorryGuy Talk 03:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Anon IP Comments
why can e-one else have fun with Lara, but not me? 64.147.0.70 (talk) 21:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- i cannot log in from work because i don't carry my password with me. i never said i dont know how it works here. of course i will log in when i get home because you need a good reminder about biting and welcoming and what trolling actually is. your soapbox is even bigger from the other side. 64.147.0.70 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP nickname please ? Pedro : Chat 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
- This time has come for us to discuss. Let's put aside who I am, and discuss fun. And the assumption of trolling. Then the Insisting on an account for sake of you not reverting. I'm inclined to keep this as anonymous because your demonstration on how you handle anons 'reeks' of someone who does not feel that anyone is free to edit. But please, tell me which edit deserved reversion, as you know as well as I do that altering talk page comments should be done with caution. It's comical to me how there is 'no cabal' yet innocent edits are worth censoring to you. Take a break, Peter. This really is going to get you nowhere. I would like it clearly stated to where my edits were worthy of reversion and how your inclination to decide that I knew my way around Misplaced Pages can or could be used as an excuse to out someone using an IP address, as registered users are still given the right to edit anonymously. You're bitey, and assuming good faith to you simply does not exist. If you don't recognize it, you kill it, then eat it, then go about your day. But try a checkuser instead, then you can rest, knowing that it's time for a break. Even anons can request for comment. And if I am one, as anons can and do learn policy from lurking, you deserve it. Perhaps you can request it for this event? Many logged in users commenting on the beauty of a woman, but my edits are immediately reverted, even with a disclosure. Nice work. 68.5.48.85 (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Assuming you're the same IP let's look at the story. An edit that just says please revert it? Okay. . Then an edit saying I want her (whoever here is) to revert my edits . That looks like IP trolling to me. Where was the positive input? Incidentally, there are about three people on Misplaced Pages who know my first name, so I guess you must be one of them. I'm sorry if this looks bitey or not assuming faith but try and see it form my point of view and the diffs supplied. Pedro : Chat 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- When we are making comments about the aesthetics presence of a woman, I would think that 'revert my edit' or 'edits' would be seen as simply humor. When I explained that the edit was directed towards Lara, in humor, it was still reverted. It's the equivalent of an overzealous fan screaming 'murder me' to Charles Manson: it's humor. But you didn't assume faith because you confronted me with
- Assuming you're the same IP let's look at the story. An edit that just says please revert it? Okay. . Then an edit saying I want her (whoever here is) to revert my edits . That looks like IP trolling to me. Where was the positive input? Incidentally, there are about three people on Misplaced Pages who know my first name, so I guess you must be one of them. I'm sorry if this looks bitey or not assuming faith but try and see it form my point of view and the diffs supplied. Pedro : Chat 09:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- This time has come for us to discuss. Let's put aside who I am, and discuss fun. And the assumption of trolling. Then the Insisting on an account for sake of you not reverting. I'm inclined to keep this as anonymous because your demonstration on how you handle anons 'reeks' of someone who does not feel that anyone is free to edit. But please, tell me which edit deserved reversion, as you know as well as I do that altering talk page comments should be done with caution. It's comical to me how there is 'no cabal' yet innocent edits are worth censoring to you. Take a break, Peter. This really is going to get you nowhere. I would like it clearly stated to where my edits were worthy of reversion and how your inclination to decide that I knew my way around Misplaced Pages can or could be used as an excuse to out someone using an IP address, as registered users are still given the right to edit anonymously. You're bitey, and assuming good faith to you simply does not exist. If you don't recognize it, you kill it, then eat it, then go about your day. But try a checkuser instead, then you can rest, knowing that it's time for a break. Even anons can request for comment. And if I am one, as anons can and do learn policy from lurking, you deserve it. Perhaps you can request it for this event? Many logged in users commenting on the beauty of a woman, but my edits are immediately reverted, even with a disclosure. Nice work. 68.5.48.85 (talk) 09:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- WP nickname please ? Pedro : Chat 22:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
knowing how this place works. Is that your MO? I can guarantee you if I was signed in, making the EXACT same commentary, your action would have been different: which means you treat anons differently than not just registered users, but users of which you are aware of. I tried to get a word in edgewise and you reverted it not once, but twice. I am only gracious that you didn't start you soliloquy with "I am an admin, but..." because if this was a testament to your skills, where a benign comment or two was made, you fail good faith, you fail any humor, and you fail the most basic testament, which is to assume nothing, but to only revert comments on OTHERS' talk pages when they are personal attacks - and even that, my friend, is up for debate. I suggest you leave talk pages alone, as your edits, or reverts, will never satisfy any policy we have. However, if you feel that 'supposition,' 'pre-emption,' and urging registered users to 'come out' is part of policy, then have at it. If not, you simply, fail X3. Anymore bullshit like this and RfC is exactly where I take this. You had no idea who I was, but BIT a newcomer, reverted edits other than vandalism, skewed a talk page, and decided to make accusations fly, all on an assumption that was only validated by me. Nice work with that. I suggest you re-evaluate just exactly what you wanted to accomplish with your reversions. And a fun little fact, the Bathrobe Cabal, which is where this started and continues to exist was a creation of my OWN hand. How is that for some sick irony, when I cannot even contribute, because others are apparently not welcome. Like I stress, the same exact comment made, logged in, would never have been reverted - but were met with trolling accusations, reversions, and urging to register. Pathetic, Pete. the_undertow 11:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
RfA Thanks
Thank you for participating in my RfA, which was successful with a vote of 33/7/4.
Special thanks go to Epbr123 for nominating me and Pedro for the offer of help.
I am honoured by the trust placed in me by the community. I hope to repay this by the wise use of the tools, which I intend to use gradually. Mop & bucket is on the Christmas list - honest. Keith D (talk) 00:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Great success!
|
|
Dear Pedro,
Thank you for your participation in my request for adminship, which ended successfully with a final tally of (52/10/1). I was impressed by the thoughtful comments on both sides, and the RFA process in general. The extra buttons do look pretty snazzy, but I'll be careful not to overuse them. If you have advice to share or need assistance with anything, feel free to drop me a message or email. Thank you and good day! Cordially, Credits - This RFA thanks was inspired by Carlosguitar's RFA thanks and LaraLove's RFA thanks, which were both inspired by The Random Editor's RFA thanks, which was in turn inspired by Phaedriel's RFA thanks. |
|
I just have to
...laugh at this lol. Thank you, that's classic. Thankfully, Misplaced Pages seems to have thought of everything with regards to things like this, and of course, that comes in quite handy, yes? :D Thanks for making me laugh! Ariel♥Gold 10:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Welcome! I saw the subject line on RC Patrol and just had to shove in my two pence! Pedro : Chat 10:17, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hee hee, you might want to see it now, it has taken a rather amusing turn. Ariel♥Gold 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- It just gets better! Goodness me, that's cheered me right up after the stress of this morning so far. Pure class! Pedro : Chat 10:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hee hee, you might want to see it now, it has taken a rather amusing turn. Ariel♥Gold 10:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)