User talk:Roux/Archives/2008/December

Welcome Back!!!!!!!

Welcome back! We all missed you! I hope that guy got banned. *hugs you* (>'_')>Irunongames • play 02:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The guy-in-question is currently on a 3-week block (it expires December 4). GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to say hi. Glad you couldn't stay away :-) Safflle (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Scroll and Key "notables"

The box is an eyesore. Could you soon do better? SLY111 (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2008 (UTC)SLY111

An anon IP did that; I didn't want to just revert him/her again. But yeah, it's been a couple weeks since they did anything, and never bothered to respond on the talkpage, so I'll fix it. //roux   16:24, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Great job. SLY11164.61.144.67 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

lolz

hay watchu doing XP GlassCobra 10:17, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

OHAI im in ur wiki, fixing ur references. // roux   10:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

copyvio tag

An undoubted copyvio is where the material was added at one time by one person from a known source that you can specify. If you have not found the source, use the "copypaste" tag. Knowledge organization (management) , for all you know, might be copied from a PD source. DGG (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

turns out the situation is just a little different than I had guessed -- see my talk p., and my note to the author. DGG (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Hai!

Hai <3 --Mixwell!^Talk 23:31, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

BLACK FRIDAY! ZOMG!

Don't go shopping, it'll kill you.

...And HAI! *hugs* I've never edited your talk page, so here it is. Neuro√Logic 19:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Jclemens RfA

Jclemens' RfA Thankspam

		JClemens' RfA Thanks
		Thank you for participating in my Request for Adminship, which passed with 77 supporting and 2 opposing. Regardless of your position, I thank you for the time you took to examine my record and formulate your response. Jclemens (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

why did you delete my page? List of people that were on lists was notable. ^Law _shoot! 12:05, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tyler on AN/I (Your comment)

I appreciate what you said on the AN/I I posted about Tyler, however, this appeared to be a case of a user's actions putting another user's work on Wiki in jeopardy, by posting an offensive messsage on their userpage and sending it to them by email. This was, imho, a serious case involving an onwiki action (at least until I found out Tyler'd been taking the ****). I won't do it anymore, simply cause I don't want stuff like this to happen anymore. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Silly permissions

Further, Falcadore you may not be aware of this, but the creator of a page is not permitted to remove CSD tags from that page. I would like to know just how I might have been aware of it, and bear in mind there are a lot of WP documents, policies and guidelines, making it intimidating large amount of material for any new editor to read and be familiar with. I don't mind the verdict, but I do mind how it was done.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, what the author is or is not entitled to do is not stated sufficiently clearly. The annotation for CSD should more clearly indicate this. --Falcadore (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess then, I'm an idiot. --Falcadore (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Technical Problem

Hey there, I would like to divert your attention to one article "Shahid Masood", this article is not showing some of the sections which are present in the editing tab but not shown in the normal preview of the article. Plz have a look at this article and help correct it if you can. Regards.BurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 08:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

 Done // roux   editor review08:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

ThanksBurhanAhmed (talk • contribs) 08:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for input

Hello Roux. You had initially brought up the idea of a topic ban on Shutterbug (talk · contribs) and related accounts, in a WP:ANI thread that was later moved to WP:AE. As a result of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS, all Scientology-related articles are under Article probation, so technically according to Wikipedia:Article_probation#Types_of_sanctions any administrator may carry out the topic ban. However WP:BAN is clear this should be decided by uninvolved administrator(s): The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user, such as by authorizing discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator. You are not an admin, but you were the original uninvolved editor to bring up the idea of an indef topic ban. Would appreciate your further input in this matter. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote on Cool Hand Luke

Dear Roux, I noticed your vote statement on Cool Hand Luke, and I just wanted to encourage you not to blanket-oppose somebody just because they have a Wikipedia Review account. While I myself do not have one, I know many pillars of our community do-- New York Brad comes to mind as a shining example of someone who, I think, has used that forum from time to time for meta-discussions.

I've never spoken to Luke before the elections, I don't know him that well, I'm not writing you here on his behalf. I just notice that some very "battleground"-esque people have targeted Luke and are making some very intense accusations against him. Before his name was dragged through the mud, Luke was almost unopposed, a veritable shoo-in for election. Now, he's not.

Roux--if you think the accusations are true, if you've investigated them and are convinced Cool Hand Luke has acted improperly, then obviously, you have to oppose.

But please, don't oppose just because of innuendo, bold accusations, or generic labels of "drama" or "bad associations". Don't make the decision based upon a question like "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of WR". Don't let a tiny minority of users, through grandiose statements of mudslinging, sink an otherwise untarnished candidate. I don't think that's the kind of project we want.

Anyway, thanks for listening to this ranting. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured. I want to be clear, I wasn't saying you were voting that way, I just wanted to be sure. Truth be told, you've probably know the candidates and their stories better than I do, so no worries. :) Cheers! --Alecmconroy (talk)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question...

I know that requests for comment can be used on a Talk page of an article or user, but is it acceptable to do so on a WP:AE? I'd like to get some uninvolved opinions for the Scientology-related thread for which you suggested a topic ban. ←Spidern→ 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DoTTR

I fail to see why you think this needs to be posted to ANI at this point. ANI is too busy as it is. Your concern would be put to better use if you tried to help solving the issue right there. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Background Information Page

The Background Information Box on my artist's pageShaunarae (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the box on right side of the Marlee Scott page...am I in the right place now?Shaunarae (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes...the box on the right side of the Marlee Scott pageShaunarae (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

removing self-categorization

I greatly appreciate your help in removing self-categorization from categories. I wonder if you'd be interested in taking your efforts a step further and supplying one or more parent categories in cases where the self-cat was the only parent. Best wishes, -- Stepheng3 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had been.. what did I miss?// roux   editor review 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		For your auto-archiving help. has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

~SunDragon34 (talk) 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Really?

"I thought about it and feel that opposing other candidates just isn't right."

Really? So, when there are over 30 people running, you honestly think that a candidate doesn't have the right to promote which 7 he thinks should be there and that his opinion doesn't matter? Wow. I really hope that you don't ever run for any other position, because I will definitely have to point this out in order to show that you don't believe that people have the right to express their opinions, especially if you ever go and do the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? I think it's fine to support other candidates. Voting against other candidates is what I find distasteful, because it looks like you're trying to lessen their chances while improving your own. And I am not saying it was the intention, but people on ArbCom need as much as possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Supporting other candidates shows "I think this person would also be good"; it's an act against self-interest and is therefore commendable. At no point did I say his opinion didn't matter, so don't put words in my mouth. I also don't much appreciate being badgered for my vote, thanks. // roux   editor review 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, only you get to vote against opponents, and its perfectly okay if you vote against them for voting against others? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy? You created a standard that you do not live up to. At least attempt to create a legitimate basis instead of opposing a standard that you, yourself, refuse. Voting oppose is not improper. However, opposing because you don't want them to have the ability to freely speak their mind probably should be improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else. I'm not running, which means I'm not voting against any opponents. Please re-read what I wrote above, as it seems as though you didn't. // roux   editor review 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have mistaken people for someone completely else. Everyone running is a wikipedian. You are a wikipedian. It is disrespectful to claim that you have the right to oppose but other wikipedians don't. That is really rude and really unfair, and possibly even incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OKay, you know what? Who the hell do you think you are to come to my talkpage and badger me regarding my vote? I made my opinion crystal clear. Oh BOO HOO your favourite candidate had ONE vote against him for doing something that I found distasteful. Did I say he wasn't entitled to his opinion? NO. Did I say he wasn't allowed to show his opinion? NO. Did I say that he should be prevented from giving his opinion? NO. On the other hand, did you show up at my talk page and fucking accuse me of a bunch of shit I never did? YES. The next time you post here, unless you are posting an apology, you will be reported and blocked for harassment. // roux   editor review 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your current incivility is indicative of your constant incivility, which connected to the incivility in your hypocritical stance against a person for opposing others. Who are you, going off your own standards, to oppose another because they opposed someone? What gives you the right that you can then deny the others the same right? Hmm? This is not Rouxapedia. This is Wikipedia. You have no right to dominate others, to abuse them, and to claim that they don't deserve a say. Thats really unfair, highly incivil, and not up to the Wikipedia standards and policies. You can't bully your way like that, and that is extremely inappropriate. Go ahead, ask for me to be blocked, but your incivility here and there is extremely inappropriate. The only one who should be apologizing is you for your abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

roux is entitled to oppose standing candidates for any reason, or no reason at all. It's not unreasonable for him to have concerns about candidates who oppose other candidates (certainly I've thought about the implications of it.) His oppose are certainly not uncivil or rude - I can't speak to unfair. Feel free to question roux's vote(s), but don't come to his talk page to sling about accusations and hassle him in such a manner, that truly is uncivil. WilyD 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

WilyD, if what I did is "incivil" to you, I would suggest you reread the Civil policy, because there is nothing even close there to what you claim. However, the constant abuse by the above user, the flagrant cussing, the hypocritical standards, and the claiming that a candidate doesn't deserve the same privileges as another is completely against all Wikipedia policies. This is completely unacceptable, and your response is completely unacceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Ottava, you could try our policy of WP:mind your own business. I completely disagree with Roux opposing on the basis he chose and I was thinking about raising it with him at some point. However, for you to come onto the user's talk page and fling abrasive opinions around and make WP:CIV accusations toward them is a little out of line. State your piece calmly, without resorting to alphabet soup, then walk away. What more are you trying to gain here? Franamax (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Franamax, basically I feel it's not sportsmanlike--even though it's his right, and I would never and have never said he doesn't have the right to oppose other candidates--and it's a lapse in judgement that is worrisome. That's all. As I wrote in my vote, I support him otherwise, I just think it's distasteful to oppose fellow candidates. I'm sure his motives were good but the outcome wasn't. This badgering by Ottava is ridiculous. // roux   editor review 01:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux, can I suggest you blank this section and just tell Ottava you have no further interest in this conversation? WilyD 02:19, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Depends, is he going to be blocked to stop his harassment, attacks, and lies? // roux   editor review 02:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

As long as you continue to argue with him and cuss him out there's essentially no chance of this happening. If you disengage and he refuses to, then that option appears on the table. WilyD 02:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|Darth Panda|Beg your pardon?}}

I still need help editing my background info box...

I'm new to the talk pages, so I hope I'm doing this properly. I just need to edit Marlee Scott's record label info, as she has signed to a new one...I'm with her management team.Shaunarae (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I will do what you suggestedShaunarae (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

My votes are free speech

Although my votes will probably not be counted, at least I am entitled to express myself in the election. That is free speech. Neuro was trying to prevent it. That is censorship. And not very civil, I think. Thanks for noticing. Mervyn Emrys (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Drama-free?

Hi Roux, since we've engaged above, in the interest of allowing you to blank the section above should you choose, and in the interest only of discussing the idea and not your or anyone else's actions, here is why I think ArbCom candidates should be free to vote:

• First of all, I don't think the candidacy should disenfranchise the candidate. No matter what our "status", we are all fundamentally equal as Wikipedia editors and as editors we are all entitled to exactly the same rights. Others have expressed the only two basic rights available to us: the right to leave and the right to fork a separate version. However, we all have a derivative right after 150 mainspace edits: the right to vote for ArbCom candidates and have our votes considered equally.
• In theory, the candidates for ArbCom are all adults, the favoured candidates are among the best and brightest of us, and the selection process will generally promote mature adults. Again in theory, these mature and wise people are able to support and oppose other candidates without prejudice, and accept other candidates supports and opposes without prejudice. There should be absolutely zero problems going forward, these candidates are all able to accept honest opinions regardless of whether those opinions oppose their own. If this is not the case, that candidate should not be standing.
• I distinguish here the nature of the votes. If one ArbCom candidate opposed another with the rationale "I could never work with this person as a member of ArbCom", then I would be most inclined to oppose the candidate making that statement. Similarly, inflammatory oppose rationales would give me pause. Quiet support/opposes don't bother me at all, neither do effusive supports. The mere fact that another candidate makes a quiet oppose doesn't strike me as particularly "unsportsmanlike", since it's not intended to influence others, only to exercise the candidate's franchise.

I've thought about this a fair bit, before this little scuffle blew up. I really think that the fundamental right of an established editor to participate in the ArbCom voting process carries the day, subject only to the limitation that they shouldn't be excessively negative, i.e. add gratuitous negative comments. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, evidently I type way too slow! Sorry if this continued posting offends you, I need to catch up. :) Franamax (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got this horrible feeling in my stomach that I've done something to offend you, and if I have, please do tell me about it as I will try to rectify it as quickly as I can. DARTH PANDA^duel 03:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

ROUX! Go to WP:EFD and cool down a bit, get some tea, something....and when the next time someone comes around to insult over something like a vote (with the luck you have, it'll probably happen -_-)...just ignore them. Don't even dignify it with a reply - he can question it all he wants, but there is nothing he can do w/o a reply... And, ah, please don't sue for me becoming a TPS'er... =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 03:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

:(

Come back — Possum (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Badgering

I ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION! Kindly rethink your opposition to my adminship. NitrogenTSRH (talk) 22:12, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Stuff

I've no intentions of whipping you, Roux. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

MfD

Hi, I'm not sure if the above is a joke or what, but I'm wondering about the "speedy keep" on the MfD I filed. Is it a legitimate use of user space to attack another user as long as it is claimed to be a workshop for an AN/I? And should the page stay up long after the AN/I has been judged to be without merit and closed? The dispute he's allegedly "workshopping" is weeks old, and it's pretty obvious he is cherry-picking diffs and blatantly mischaracterizing them in order to paint some kind of picture of me as this disruptive editor. I think it's unfair to have to defend myself against junk like that; I'm here to edit an encyclopedia, not to cause trouble, and certainly not to fight with other users. csloat (talk) 01:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

no other way of shoing you this unless you are looking

But there is no article talk page to draw this to your attention on. Please feel free to delete it unread. User_talk:Privatemusings#Your_conduct_with_Wikipedia:Sexual_content is relevant. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

What, you don't want to hear a positive message from someone who thinks you're great? Well, allow me to live this token of my appreciation at your doorstep...

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for your efforts to expand the content and character of Wikipedia. FWIW, I think you’re super – and don’t ever let anyone tell you otherwise! Ecoleetage (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

???

??? —Ceranthor 22:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Your recent behaviour

Don't you think you're being a little immature here? First you start making incivil comments [1] then you replace our userpage with the words "I FAIL" [2], and start removing all comments from your talk page [3]. And all because some guy was being a dick [4]. For God's sake this is the internet. I would have expected more of you. Please, grow up...--Patton123 19:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a break

I really think you should just take a break if you're like this. You're obviously very upset and that's a sign you're too attatched to wikipedia. Maybe even don't come back if you don't feel up to it. One thing is sure, wikipedia is not doing you any good and you're not doing wikipedia any good while you're like this.--Patton123 20:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please remove this upon reading

Roux, I'm very very sorry for posting here but I'll make it simple, do you plan on participating in the WikiCup as planned? I'm setting up tables today, and I need to know. Sorry for posting here, ayematthew ✡ 15:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Cui bono

You made a constructive suggestion at diff. In my view, Cicero's Latin phrase -- Cui bono -- applies in that setting and it applies no less well here.

Cui bono = "Who benefits?"

Bluntly, I have benefited from your contributions. I have benefited from reading and thinking about what you have posted.

What reason compels me to hesitate to post this brief THANK YOU. --Tenmei (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Charming attack by User:NitrogenTSRH logged out

Hey, fuck you. I will do what i want, you dumpster dwelling homosexual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.71.79 (talk • contribs) 19:57, 7 December 2008

Augustus Mancuso

I guess you are taking a lot of heat from idiots, but I don't know anything about that. I saw you tagged Augustus Mancuso for speedy deletion, but I don't think it meets WP:CSD#A7 --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of Policy

I am sorry, but this is a clear breach of WP:OWN. You cannot prevent others from posting legitimate comments on your talk page. User talk pages are there to enable communication between users and to allow users to notify others about anything related to Wikipedia. You cannot stop users doing this. If Roux continues to delete legitimate comments and violate a major policy, I recommend that he either retire or be blocked. 217.205.232.138 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Help request

I needed your help again. Sorry.Romanfall (talk) 06:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion

It would be best if you left NitrogenTSRH alone; your comments are only making the situation worse, not better. EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Whipping boy?

Consider this your whipping for the day. You are hereby personally attacked. So there. >:) Aside from that, thanks for your input on the Fru23 issue on WP:ANI. After he said I was canvassing, I had on off-wiki discussion with an admin who basically laughed. Notifying 3 users who were already in discussion is hardly canvassing, as you reiterated in print. :) OK, that is all for today. You may delete this section at your convenience. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

J.O.N.A.S episodes

Sounds fine to me it's not a very good article anyway, there's not enough information. --Tweetsabird (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

archival

Hello. I'm a lil surprised that you archived the thread so quickly. I'm pretty sure that his redlinking and vanishing was just done so that someone would archive the thread, allowing him to continue his actions in a week or so once everything calms down. Any objection to my undoing it for now to see what comes of it? If this is just rv'd due to your "don't post here" statement, I'll assume that as granting me permission. Cheers, Wizardman 03:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Breach of policy

I am sorry, but this is a clear breach of WP:OWN. You cannot prevent others from posting legitimate comments on your talk page. User talk pages are there to enable communication between users and to allow users to notify others about anything related to Wikipedia. You cannot stop users doing this. If Roux continues to delete legitimate comments and violate a major policy, I will report you to an administrator. Your behaviour is immature- like a sulking child. Please reconsider your actions. Thank you. 217.205.232.138 (talk) 12:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

217.205.232.138 -- Not a breach of policy. An anonymous edit in this context is immature, wrong, ill-considered. Your tone is unwelcome, unsolicited, unhelpful. I disagree with the wisdom of your posting; and indeed, I'm uncertain about the helpfulness of my own ..., but there you have it. --Tenmei (talk) 13:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

217.205.232.138 -- I note with regret that your talk page seems only to contain postings which warn you for having posted inappropriate comments on a range of pages. That undistinguished history of questionable judgment creates a yardstick with which to measure what you've posted here; and it makes me a bit more comfortable with my own plausibly over-robust response. --Tenmei (talk) 14:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

'Warning' from ownership troll

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Don't post here

I hadn't spotted this before, because I've been a bit pre-occupied, but I stopped by today to have a look at how both you and G2 are doing, now that you are both back editing, and notice that you have put up a message telling everybody that they can't post on your talk page.

Now, I haven't yet gone back far enough through the history to discover just what is the proximal cause of you taking this step, but that isn't really particularly relevant.

I have to say, with considerable regret, that this is a hugely negative move, and I'm disappointed to see it from you. During all the aggro with G2, I felt that whilst it would probably be fair comment to describe you as highly strung, you always tried your best to be reasonable, even if others were not reasonable.

It is because I saw you as reasonable, and because of your willingness to step back from doing the wrong thing that I felt the RfC on you was in bad faith, and for the same reason, I felt able to support you in the RfC.

Banning everybody from posting on your talk page runs entirely contrary to the collegiate way that Wikipedia is supposed to work. I know it doesn't always work that way, but as my old granny used to say, two wrongs don't make a right.

I must now urge you to back away from this self-destructive path, and to remove the uncivil notice on the page itself, and on the editnotice. Mayalld (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Editing talk pages

It may not be a breach of policy then, but it is still wrong to 'protect' your talk page- it is there for communication- you cannot stop people posting just because they may write something you do not like. Most of the comments here were not vandalism (perhaps my comment was too harsh) so please let them stay. Editors will not get a good impression of your talk page is the first thing they see. Reconsider your actions, please. Thank you. 217.205.232.138 (talk) 09:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not leave Roux alone? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Because Roux needs to learn that his actions are wrong. I am not harassing anyone. Roux will not feel any better if he keeps playing the injured party. Accept my apologies if I have offended you. 217.205.232.138 (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Roux needs to learn no such thing. By contrast you need to leave Roux alone. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Protection

Hey there Roux. Sorry about everything that's been happening to you. Anyways, why don't you request protection to your talk page if you don't want anybody posting in it? I know that sounds... rather harsh, but think about it. Mkay? I hope you eventually change your mind. Happy Holidays. - UntilItSleeps PublicPC 20:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

Not that I have any idea what or who was troubling you, but I hope it is in the past. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I'm bored, so WTHN. // roux   23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell, I guess. I have a different philosophy. I leave shit on display in the fresh air. The stink passes and others can see it for what it is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In time for Christmas too. Good to see you again. (I am also very pleased you decided to put the old messages on here too. Showing some excellent judgement I feel.) Garden. 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot should be archiving them shortly. This whole community needs to wake up to the problem of harassment. // roux   23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you back

Not that I have any idea what or who was troubling you, but I hope it is in the past. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I'm bored, so WTHN. // roux   23:02, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Time will tell, I guess. I have a different philosophy. I leave shit on display in the fresh air. The stink passes and others can see it for what it is. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

In time for Christmas too. Good to see you again. (I am also very pleased you decided to put the old messages on here too. Showing some excellent judgement I feel.) Garden. 23:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot should be archiving them shortly. This whole community needs to wake up to the problem of harassment. // roux   23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, same here - good to see you back. (Not that you were really gone, but it was different :)) Chamal ^talk 01:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back Roux. If it helps, I agree; "Cyber Bullying" is basically legal harassment accepted by most major networked institutions. It's ridiculous. Neuro√Logic 05:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Wait, wrong queue—can you tell me where that stupid Australian mammal is in this zoo encyclopedia? :D Anyway, glad to see you back (with the same caveat as Chamal), and I hope that you got an lol out of that. :) Cheers! (the_ed17 at home) Allanon ^{♠The Dark Druid♠} 08:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. No, sixthed. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

:O :O :O!! :D Hey, you're back! Nice to see that you've changed your mind or... that your bored.. or whatever. Yeah, welcome back Roux. UntilItSleeps PublicPC 18:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

(Out) - Roux, very pleased to see you back on here. I publicly apologise for disturbing you during your time away, and I hope you don't mind me contacting you through here. Whatever happens, I hope you're feeling a bit better. Regards, Thor Malmjursson (talk) 02:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That's more like it, Roux. Welcome back to the Wiki community. GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Whoo!

Glad to see 'ya back... I thought your account was compromised, honestly. Well, let's just say you weren't thay guy from Violence in Larissa or whatever. Best, —Ceran [ speak ] 21:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar of brilliance

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For starting a new project at WP:OUTREACH, you are a fantabulous genious and a really nice person. Bearian (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: script

I THINK THE SCRIPT IS FIXED AND IT WILL NOT BREAK LIKE IT DID BEFORE AND THAT YOU WILL POSSIBLY USE THAT FACT TO YOUR ADVANTAGE IN THE NEAR FUTURE HINT HINT NUDGE NUDGE AND ALSO YOU ARE SPINACH GRACENOTES^T § 17:54, 19 DECEMBER 2008 (UTC)

You were about two months late. :D Garden. 09:31, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder

Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Wonderflonium

Thanks a lot. I'm brand new and (clearly) I have little idea what I'm doing. Thanks also for moving that page for me.

Take care, Wonderflonium (talk) 20:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi, I want to thank you for giving me one final chance. You can see my comments on my ban page. By the way, in my observation here, my sister's cat looks just like the cat on your page. Anyways, I just want to be clear, this is not a canvass right? I am really not sure, Please tell me (if this is considered one). You truly deserve the brilliant idea barnstar. I just honestly want to give you my most dearest thanks. With best regards, from Ariobarza.--Ariobarza (talk) 05:35, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

The discussion is happening on ANI. I think it's best if we keep all discussion there, don't you? Thank you for the compliment, but best to keep everything in one place. // roux   05:38, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Your right, I'll leave the discussion there, thanks for the advice though.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk

replied

I have replied, but basically, please don't get in the way of bot development. I would appreciate it. NonvocalScream (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah... basically, I had to pick a page the needed archiving so that I could call a valid template on the NVS bot, ANI is always needing a thread archived due to the traffic. In order to ensure that the NVS bot is configured correctly I needed to call a valid template with a page that has old thread, like ANI. I'm using ANI to devo the NVS bot. I hope this clarifies things, I'm sorry I did not say that in the beginning. Best regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Heya

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Sorry about our little disagreement earlier, but I was rather worried about you. Anyway, it's great to have you back Patton123 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for advice

Regarding [5] please advice what the next course of action would be.

Note that several regular users have stated that there seems to be going administrator abuse on. --Law Lord (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any admin abuse. I think your statement is probably (barely) within the rules, but is definitely skirting the edge, and probably isn't really all that necessary. Believe me, I understand the desire to flip the bird from time to time, and have only just stopped doing so myself. But I think seicer was well within discretion to say "Okay, this stops now." Keeping the statement there just keeps more drama. Removing it--especially if you remove it yourself--shows you to be the bigger person. You know how you feel, and by this point so does everybody else. So it's probably not necessary to keep it there, y'know? I think it's probably best for everyone involved to just let this matter quietly fade away. // roux   04:50, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I have been subjected to petty administrator abuse and filed a request for comment. In my view, several administrators have shown, that they are very small people. I am not accepting this kind of petty bullying from people. Really. Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Law_Lord --Law Lord (talk) 05:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Coat of arms of Scarborough

With regards to Coat of arms of Scarborough I would like to thank you for finding the information regarding the official coat of arms for the city. I would also want to know where information regarding the "crest" of Scarborough would then belong. The image and information removed from that article pertained to the "crest". Reference: City of Scarborough website in 1997 courtesy of the Internet Archives. UTSRelativity (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. A crest is part of a coat of arms. There really is no such thing as a crest as a standalone entity. The website you provided got it wrong--many, many people use 'crest' and 'coat of arms' interchangeably. // roux   01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, thanks for the clarification. It would look like the City of Scarborough had previously adopted a coat of arms but it may not have been granted by an external authority. The one described in my reference is different from the one currently described by the article. --UTSRelativity (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

So it would seem... hmm. // roux   05:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Notice

{{Newmessages|User talk:IRP#Rollback}}

Tuckerlivingston

Hi Roux, I have a wiki page about me that someone created some years ago. Actually, they went to my website at the time, and copied and pasted an old bio that I had written and put it up on wiki. I found it this year by accident, and I decided to add details to the facts that were being listed about me- seeing as they were my words anyway and could use some better adjustments. It was just adding dates and things that happened, but careful to do so without praise, of course. Having no idea how to navigate around wiki, I am writing you here. It looks like you flagged it for conflict of interest, but I thought maybe you could help me out with this one, seeing as I wasn't trying to write "I am the best, blah blah" and just trying to make things more clear. I didn't know I couldn't add anything on like that, and I was hoping you could take the notability/conflict of interest flag off, or at least advice me the best course of action to take. It is nice to have it up there on wiki, I don't want it to be deleted, I guess. Thanks! Tucker Livingston Tuckerlivingston (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

New message from Almax999

{{talkback|Almax999}} Here's the wikilink to my talk page: Almax999's talk page.

The first and only Lambang de Kabupaten Wakatobi award

		Lambang de Kabupaten Wakatobi
		I see you're interested in Heraldry, so I'm presenting you with the… Lambang de Kabupaten Wakatobi! (South East Sulawesi) Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Summer, Day 1327

New message

New message test... (as discussed over IRC). ;-) Jamie^☆S93 20:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Physician assistant

Would you mind putting Physician assistant on your watchlist for a few days? I'd like to have someone involved in the discussion that User:News4a2 might see as an ally, or at least as a neutral party, in the discussion of his edit warring, NOR violations, and POV pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

WikiCup notice

The 2009 WikiCup will begin on January 1, 2009. The first round will run through March 31, 2009. For more information on this tournament, read the "about" section on the main WikiCup page.

This year, we have a different system in calculating points. At User:Garden/WikiCup/Submissions, you will find information about submitting your article (and other) work to earn points. Each contestant will have their own individual subpage for submitting completed work to us.

This year, User:ST47 will also be running one of his bots to calculate mainspace edits and read your submission subpages to calculate the point values you receive based on our scoring chart.

Questions or comment? Ask at the talk page or go directly to Garden or IMatthew's talk page. Good luck and Happy Holidays! -- ayematthew ✡ and Garden. 14:04, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: Brrains

Haha! Nice one :P Garden. 17:47, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Colors

Thanks for the help you gave me with the colors. I have another question (hopefully the last one), and that is why the entire table's width takes up only 50% of the 100% page. Here's the link. I added | liststyle = width:100%;, but that did nothing to help. Thanks so much, Baltro [ talk ] 03:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what Wikia does with Wikipedia syntax; the template is probably coded slightly differently. However, adding 100% width in the liststyle would only make the list be 100% of the width of the whole box. I suggest looking at wherever Wikia keeps the navbox template and looking at the source code to figure out where width is handled. // roux   03:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, false alarm. I figured it out. But thanks for taking the time to reply. Baltro [ talk ] 05:59, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

TeleExpo

How you does not please itself article about TeleExpo? Рулсан (talk) 16:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RFA!

Thanks for participating! Although I feel I knew that it being closed as not now would be the result, the comments made me smile, and I did get some good advice out of it. Happy holidays as well! Inferno, Lord of Penguins 17:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Featured list candidate: List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty

Hi, Roux!! I noticed that you were interested in monarchy-related articles, which happen to be very underrepresented among featured lists. I have submitted the List of monarchs of the Muhammad Ali Dynasty, on which I worked on, as a featured list candidate. If you would be kind enough to take some of your time and review the list here, I would be extremely grateful. Regards. BomBom (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the note, but I not longer participate in monarchy-related articles due to behaviour from another user. // roux   00:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

A Heads Up

I noticed that you posted to User:TrinityAsianCoed on the Chad Dukes thread on ANI. Just wanted to let you know that the last two users that said anything to him (both of which were admins) were accused of being my sockpuppet (which I guess I have alot of apparently). Just wanted to give you a heads up. - NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 08:43

I noticed. I've been accused of sockpuppetry before, by a POV-pushing idiot, so I'm not terribly concerned about it happening again. // roux   08:49, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie...just wanted to let you know. I am not taking it seriously either. Take Care and Merry Christmas...NeutralHomer • Talk • December 25, 2008 @ 08:53

WP:NCSP

Your recent meaningful participation in an ANI on sports-figure article disambiguation suggests that you may be interested in participating one way or another in the development and/or discussion of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople), a draft proposal to clarify Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) as applied to sports.

PS: How did you get that "DON'T PANIC" box on your talk page's edit view? That's very nifty! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 04:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I've been keeping an eye on the policy talkpage.. honestly I don't think the policy is entirely necessary, as all points are sufficiently covered at NCP. Perhaps as a subhead at NCP, I don't know; I think writing policy to deal with something that only one person does is probably effort that could be expended elsewhere more constructively. But see my latest post to ANI; I feel that Tavix should be topicbanned from pagemoves anyway. As for the editnotice, visit User talk:SMcCandlish/Editnotice to create one. Cheers! // roux   07:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't created to deal with Tavix (his activities just spurred me to get on with it), but rather to deal with rampant "we'll just make up our own 'standard'" behavior by a number of WikiProjects. Thanks for the Editnotice tip! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 10:00, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, that's different then. I'll pop over in a bit. // roux   17:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Yay!

Thanks! –Juliancolton ^{Happy Holidays} 03:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome :D // roux   18:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Bstone

Thank you for cleaning that up (closing the debate). Should the page return to its prior state, I'll ignore it. I understand now that the community does not see this the way I see it, and I am ok with that. Sometimes we work at the pleasure of the group and place our own individual wants secondary to what the consensus of the group is.  :) Very best, NonvocalScream (talk) 06:15, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for helping me Roux at my talkpage.--Pre-Cautioned Watcher (talk) 02:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Juliancolton (talk) is wishing you happy holidays! This greeting promotes WikiLove and holiday wishes. Hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a season's greetings, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Juliancolton/Holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you :) // roux   07:06, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

		Merry Christmas!
		Roux/Archives/2008, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page. Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :( — neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:10, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! // roux   07:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits to List of Boston Latin School alumni

Now, that you are not deleting everything on your talk page, I can finally thank you for your edits to List of Boston Latin School alumni. Hopefully, thanks to your edits, it will be a featured list on the English Wikipedia. --Pgp688 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers. // roux   07:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry of User:Ciaravault, User:Diamond billionaire

Before you hunt down an admin, please check out the sockpuppetry report I created here. No objection if your way is quicker, but I thought I'd mention that it's already been reported. -kotra (talk) 06:25, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty much always quicker to find an admin. SSP has a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong backlog. // roux   07:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok. -kotra (talk) 08:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Silences Are Words

I don't know if you knew about it already, but if an album is by a red link artist, you can just tag it for speedy deletion per criterion A9. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD & vanity

While most likely you are right in your assessment please consider this comment in future wordings. Thanks Agathoclea (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Err... with all due respect, no. There's no community consensus regarding that. 'Vanity' is a perfectly apt descriptor for someone who puts their page in WP against policy (specifically WP:N), and doubly so if they keep recreating it after being warned. Vanity blogs, vanity press.. these are all perfectly accurate terms and are not attacks. // roux   19:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in on this conversation, but I thought I'd mention: there are words that mean "vanity" but are not actually "vanity". "Promotional", for example, comes to mind as one that I've seen used quite a bit. Or one could just say "G11" or "blatant advertising". None of these are personal attacks, but they get the same idea across as "vanity". Just a thought. -kotra (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Beta and offwiki

[6] This must be discussed and reach consensus on wiki this time, sorry. rootology (C)(T) 14:57, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message at my talkpage. I acted in accordance to a comment I made when the proposal that formed Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand 2#Community-imposed restrictions was being discussed (although I did not recall it immediately - I acted upon reading the debate up to your requesting a break while you discussed the matter). I did check that neither you or BC were using WP space for your discussion before enacting the block, and would also confirm that the indefinite tariff is the type that is open to variance upon any consensus for change. I should be pleased to read what progress there has been made with regard to BC's compliance with his restrictions you have made, so that the matter can be concluded quickly and equitably. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So far, no progress. I had to go to bed. I'm hoping I can bring him around somewhat... I guess I'll comment at the ArbCom case. // roux   18:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom appears to be inclined to decline - unless the ANI discussion breaks down into fractional attacks or something... LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Righto. I need to think about wording. // roux   18:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Hooray

Thanks for getting this right. Discussion seems to have gotten off course otherwise. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Canada topics icon

Since I believe that you led the reform of Template:Canada topic and reverted the recent removal of its maple leaf, you may be interested in a discussion that was recently begun at WT:CANADA#Remove the icon from Template:Canada topic. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 00:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's kind of over... ping me if it flares up again? // roux   02:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages

To try to avoid this mass MfD degenerating into a mass of Wiki-drama, could you please refactor that comment so that it deals more with the relation of the subpages to policy, rather than their relation to reality? Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 19:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

{{tb}}

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

This one is for both you and iMatthew. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 19:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 21:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Dylan620's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 23:56, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation

I think you should look at the contributions of User:Artw. He seems to think that simply writing WITHDRAWN isn't good enough. I tried to withdraw one of those AfDs no fewer than three times but he kept reverting me. He's also reverting perfectly legitimate edits I'm making to other pages claiming that they're vandalism. Can you tell him to clam down? ScienceApologist (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Hope all is going well with you, my friend. bibliomaniac15 21:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. Thank you. Things are.. well, things. If you feel like restarting our back and forth, I'd like to. If you'd prefer not, I understand of course. // roux   07:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I stalk your talk page, so I know what's going on. I'd love to resume our discussion; I'd expect it to be much more informal though. bibliomaniac15 17:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Well.. it didn't strike me as particularly formal before? Maybe I'm missing something.. // roux   19:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

WikiCup

Delivered by neuro^(talk) for Garden and ayematthew at 20:50, 31 December 2008 (UTC)