User talk:pablo X/Archive5

And I was so proud of finding that picture. KimChee (talk) 11:55, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But really, what do we learn about the murder or the investigation from a pic of a German-registered left-hand-drive car with cuddly toys in the window and on the parcel shelf? pablo 12:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. I do not have a particularly strong opinion about it as the car's role in the case is still uncertain. Next time I will try to avoid any bias against cuddly toys in the window. KimChee (talk)

[The kindly little darwinfish is alarmed ] [1] Run, mr user! Please! Run for the hills! [Mystified. ] Talkback.. ? Oh, no, I never talk back! darwin^fish 01:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC). [reply]

Apologies for causing alarm, but glad to hear about the talkbacks, there is hope for all piscocalcinosaurs. pablo 10:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-missionary. You have been one of the major contributors to the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Borock (talk • contribs) 22:55, 21 January 2011

Not really; just tried to make sense of the references so I could see what they said. I may comment at the AfD at some point. pablo 09:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you do it? --Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 10:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Using a magic word, if you put {{DISPLAYTITLE:DesiredTitle}} on a page it will change the er, displayed title. pablo 10:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Click this button.

Go on, I dares you! I double-dares you!!

1 Very interesting. I've never heard "run in" used to mean "arrest" before. I wonder if it's a UK thing. I'm an English teacher that grew up in Los Angeles. 110.47.110.233 (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It exists alright, may not be US usage. But definitely not the same as "encontrar"  pablo 22:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me what you mean by "take it to AfD", I am a newbie to wikipedia. 92.24.111.250 (talk) 15:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are new then there's probably better stuff to do than get involved with the deletion processes, which can be a bit of a minefield. AfD (articles for deletion) is here. pablo 15:39, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pablo, have I done it correctly? PandP2go (talk) 15:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so. pablo 15:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, appreciate your help. :) PandP2go (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nb spa, blocked, etc. pablo 20:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HOLY CRAP. His tool shows me to be a deletionist ! ! ! My own records goes back over a year and shows even more delete votes... but I do not match him.[2] Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Go on, Michael, admit it ... but remember, it's not a competition! pablo 20:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harumph. I'll stick with being an "Improve-inist". Better for the project... and more satisfying. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC) [More] The tool does provide interesting results... with many editors who have been often negatively impuned as being either one or the other actually proving to be rather moderate. I did find examples of extremes at both ends of the spectum... one fellow with a 96% delete record [3] and the other with a 96% keep record.[4] One might certainly think that being in the middle may be better for the project overall. :) Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have to consider also that we (well mostly) do not attend every deletion debate – to some extent we pre-select those we are interested in. So any figures from AfD will already be skewed to some extent. Still, it's interesting as a record even if of dubious use for prediction. pablo 22:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two examples I found reflect that there is a balance... a yin and yan... both required for stability in the universe. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here, did you mean to take out those other messages? --John (talk) 07:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shit! No. Thanks for pointing it out. pablo 07:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

This is to let you know that there is a question you may be interested in answering at User talk: Jimbo Wales#Can you please explain what this is about? Someone is wondering why their name appears on one of your lists?--5 albert square (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Seems to have been explained already though. pablo 19:22, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a header to the page to reduce future confusion, hopefully. It is interesting that nobody has ever asked me directly about this list. Odd way to communicate. pablo 22:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have an article ready for deletion here which remains stubbornly undeleted. I picked you because you're at the top of the "what links here" list. Og of Bashan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]

My userpage links to many articles which are scheduled for deletion. I'm not sure what you want me to do here – I can't delete it, but I'm sure someone will get round to it. pablo 09:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Been meaning to do this for a while ... makes it a bit clearer, no? Black Kite (t) (c)

Yes. I've been considering a table, but I think your idea is better, thanks! pablo 05:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}} Anybody feel like weighing in on this? Maybe a chat about personal attacks and the difference between stalking and whatever the hell this user imagines is going on? pablo 13:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will do it. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 13:52, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Diannaa – normally I would prefer the direct approach; would probably have been counterproductive in this case though! pablo 13:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've given it a shot as well.--v/r – TP 13:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well shit, I did not get mine posted, due to the edit conflict. Now Truth Mom has removed their post and TParis's, so I am not going to post mine. Let me know if you need anything, Pablo. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 14:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both, hopefully that should have an effect (or maybe this will!) pablo 14:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This made me chuckle. And, on the subject of that page, isn't it curious that three listed accounts, none of which seems to have been used in weeks (or, in the case of one, six months), should suddenly all start editing again within a 24-hour period? Of course, I shall infer nothing from these unusual coincidences. SuperMarioMan 02:57, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was kind of noticing that, too. But of course there's no off-wiki coordination going on, ya think?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 03:26, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up! SuperMarioMan 05:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that Bruce Fisher knows all about my opinions on the case; I believe I've only expressed them here. pablo 09:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have ever stated that I know all of your opinions on the case. I said that you created a hit list which is absolutely true. You are part of a group that has completely lost focus on what Wikipedia is all about. You have become obsessed with targeting a group that you are determined is here to harm Wikipedia. You mistake conversation about the article with "coordination" and you do this all while coordinating against that group right in front of everyone right here on Wikipedia. You claim that your only goal is to make sure the article is accurate yet you are doing your best to block users that are well educated about the case. You feel that you can provide the public a more accurate article using Google than I can with my research on the case. It's disturbing to see an editor like Berean Hunter completely lose focus and devote his time to targeting SPA's. Are there editors with bad intentions that come to Wikipedia, of course. This happens on both sides of the debate. You have made the determination that everyone that is working on the article, that has not devoted their lives to editing other articles, must be part of a grand conspiracy to destroy Wikipedia. You have now dodged the question twice so I will ask it again. What did you mean by this statement? "At lease one person at an external site (with which you may be familiar) has also found it useful for their purposes" BruceFisher (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't target SPAs, but I do use a list like that to help target Socks. As several on that list have been proven to be socking, it is justified. You & several others have misunderstood the list. Those who aren't socking have absolutely nothing to worry about. You are assuming that there is more negative here than there really is. Pablo hasn't done anything wrong and neither have I. Let's try to get back to the article and discuss the content, okay?
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 04:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Berean Hunter, I have misunderstood nothing. I have a very clear understanding of how Wikipedia works. I also know why Pablo's list was created. The little jokes between all of you are pretty easy to figure out. Wikipedia doesn't always get their investigations correct either. Last year a large group was targeted for meatpuppetry and was banned. Users like Charlie Wilkes were unjustly banned from Wikipedia in one bold sweep. Most recently Wikipedia wrongly determined that Candace Dempsey was using multiple accounts. The IP software used by Wikipedia does not tell the entire story. For example, if two people living in the same household edit the same article, the software will flag them. Same goes for college dorms and I'm sure I can think of other examples. It doesn't matter much anyway because Candace has had no interest in editing the article. She came to Wikipedia in the past because her credibility as a reliable source was called into question. The result of her brief appearance in the past has now caused her to be unjustly smeared by Wikipedia. The truth is that there has been an organized effort to target SPA's for a long time. Whether you would like to admit it or not you have been recently caught up in the behavior. I think it would be best for everyone to focus on the article. Unfortunately everyone involved is firmly positioned on one side or the other. It's okay for you, your side has all the power. Keep laughing it up with SuperMario and Pablo, Time will correct the inaccuracies of the Meredith Kercher article. Eventually you will realize that people that come to Wikipedia with knowledge on certain topics are more accurate than those with no knowledge and nothing more than Google to lead them. BruceFisher (talk) 06:07, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Bruce, you certainly do appear to have some insight, seeing as the bulk of your first post above consists of you listing my supposed motives. However be careful of presenting your opinions as fact. There are only two editors on that list which I thought were truly disruptive, and I don't believe I sought to get either banned, for instance.
Of the rest, there's only one really important statement you make: "you feel that you can provide the public a more accurate article using Google than I can with my research on the case. Well, no I don't, necessarily. But we certainly cannot build a Wikipedia article except by Wikipedia's own standards. You said elsewhere that Wikipedia is perhaps bad at articles like this, and I think there's truth in that – essentially Wikipedia is reactive, and as it relies on quoting sources for all but the most uncontroversial information, it will always be a few steps behind, particularly in reporting current, ongoing events.

To answer your question, seeing as you have finally actually asked it unambiguously and directly, I have had an e-mail from a poster on the 'Injustice in Perugia' forum who followed a link from there to the list of single-purpose accounts. Like you, this person is convinced that Knox is innocent (poor old Sollecito seldom seems to get a mention), but unlike you perhaps, xe feels that the 'cause' is possibly being harmed by various postings all around the internet – blogs, forums, comments on news articles, youtube, Facebook etc. I say you 'may be familiar' with Injustice in Perugia because I am assuming that the Wikipedia user "Bruce Fisher" is the same "Bruce Fisher" who started that site. pablo 08:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Pablo – have you seen this? The list has quite a following ... SuperMarioMan 13:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blimey. You try and be friendly, and you get called nasty names. pablo 13:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, perhaps she has a point about waving at the other two sites, I've never seen TJMK but have looked at Perugia Murder File (which was a bit mad, and seems to have divided amoeba-like into two sites with the same name!). But I've never spotted an account name on Wikipedia that matched with one there. Haven't looked too hard (at either PMF1, PMF2 or IIP) admittedly. pablo 14:05, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

→

You are cordially invited to User:MichaelQSchmidt/Newcomer's guide to guidelines as I feel its going live is imminent and I value additional eyes and input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully done with this waste of valuable pixels.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hi Pablo X! The policy on putting up the template:main states that it should be put up above a summary and linked to the main (more detailed) article. On the MoMK article, the template was used above a paragraph that was more detailed than the main article on the subject. On the talk page, I had indicated two options:

• removing the template:main
• moving the details to the main article, and keeping only the summary

Every editor who discussed the issue, including you, agreed that the summary had more details than the main article, and so there seemed to be consensus that the tag was not as per the policy. There were various views on the second option i.e. moving the details to the main article, but nobody objected to the first option. I took this as consent. In fact, you even stated: "It's not my concern – it's Tinpisa's if anyones. I don't care whether it says 'see main' or 'see also' or whatever". I communicated my decision to remove the tag, and requested all the editors to not to revert me; on the edit summary, I politely requested "removing {{main|Amanda Knox}} as per consensus on talk page ~ pls do not revert, but discuss your concern on the talk page. Thanks ~)". You brought up the topic for discussion at 12:28 and reverted me at 12:35. I did not like the way you made the revert (you had patience for only seven minutes), inspite of my polite request to discuss any revert on the talk page. Tinpisa (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Knox article has significant amounts of information on Knox that the MoMK article doesn't have. And the rule is WP:BRD, not Bold, discuss, revert with consensus.LedRush (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not particularly care for the way that you made the change; not replacing the {{main}} tag with anything at all, claiming a consensus which plainly did not exist, and your statement "all of you must respect this consensus, and not revert me" is at best misguided. LedRush's mention of this policy is something you should perhaps take note of, particularly when editing controversial articles such as this.
And sorry you had to wait seven minutes, I was busy. pablo 19:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought it reads like this:

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages. This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

Shortcuts WP:BRD WP:CYCLE

Explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages

Read carefully – does it say, its a policy? This is a possible way, when there has been no discussion beforehand. When there was discussion, it should not have been necessary. Consensus is defined as Consensus, on Wikipedia, is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections .... Were there any objections to removing the tag? I appreciate your apologies, and accept them. I hope you would be a more polite and more cordial in future. Tinpisa (talk) 21:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...the phantom consensus. Seeing as people had earlier reverted the removal, and people had voiced diagreement both in edit summaries and on the talk page, I don't see this consensus about which you speak.LedRush (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word "consensus" does seem to me to imply that more than one person has agreed to something. I really think that you are reading quite a lot of things wrongly. Goodbye, and good luck. pablo 22:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, I've been reading a lot! Summary of the discussion:

Before

• Overagainst – I brought up the issue of the main article template here for the AK page being misleading and was told that there is no problem. Maybe that's right, after all, everybody can compare articles and and see which one is the 'real deal'
• LedRush – why bother to define "main"? the point was that there is an article dedicated to that subject
• Brmull – If I understand pablo X's concern, he doesn't want a line in MoMK that says "see main article Amanda Knox"...
• Pablo – It's not my concern – it's Tinpisa's if anyones. I don't care whether it says 'see main' or 'see also' or whatever

After

• LedRush – I just can't find any justification for the removal. It should stay.
• Pablo – It's better to have something pointing to the Knox article than nothing.

Thanks for your good wishes! Tinpisa (talk) 22:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the summary. Still baffled as to how you managed to construe the discussion in the way you did. But at the risk of repeating myself, good luck in the future, and once again, and sincerely, goodbye. pablo 22:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem like a good guy at heart! Thanks once again! And hope we collaborate productively someday! Wishing you all the best too! Your friend, Tinpisa (talk) 22:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mcferran – Sitush (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{adminhelp}}

File:Mary Irene Curzon.jpg is actually a picture of Lady Alexandra Curzon. I cannot move the file to a different title, but it's probably sensible to do so. pablo 16:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Pablo. The file is now at File:Lady Alexandra Curzon.jpg – I've updated the article link. That seems to resolve the problem. By the way, have you considered putting in a request for the File Mover permission? Sincerely, SuperMarioMan 21:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never really had a use for it before! Thanks anyhow. pablo 22:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Love it. Reminds me of my childhood and part of my heritage. Our family's X-mas crib always had him sitting outside taking care of his business :)
Merry X-mas to you, TMCk (talk) 23:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's the farmer, returning the goodness to the land! Best wishes to you and yours. pablo 02:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one interpretation ;)
Thanks for the wishes. Same to you.TMCk (talk) 06:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Happy 2012 !!!
		Dear Pablo, May the Year to Come Bring You Great Happiness. Very Best Wishes, SuperMarioMan 02:35, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]