User talk:Roux/Archives/2008/November

RfC outcome II

Hi Roux. Not to be rude, but I believe that editors should not communicate with each other outside Wiki, especially in instances like this. I think it tempts bad faith collusion in edit wars and the like. It's a personal opinion, but I like to live by it. I think if we have something to say to each other, it's best to be above board and document it on wiki.

You may wish to follow the continuing saga here.

It was mighty big of you to agree to these restrictions. For the record, I handled it voluntarily by simply avoiding these topics for a few months. It does wonders for your perspective and may save your marriage/career/sanity/sleep.

I'm glad you took the time to document everything so copiously, though. --soulscanner (talk) 06:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I went through the same thing, and so did many others. Passing on the message. Take heart and nurture other interests. --soulscanner (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so on that 3RR. [1] --soulscanner (talk) 09:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete

Please be more cautious in the use of the speedy delete tags. Just because an article is badly written does not mean it qualifies for speedy deletion; it may be able to be rewritten. If you think an article should be deleted but it doesn't meet the strict (and narrow) qualifications for a speedy, then you are welcome to use {{prod}} instead. --Russ (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

CSD

Epiphone 5102T / EA-250 was not a CSD category. Please be more careful with what you tag, thanks :) Gwen Gale (talk) 12:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Your message

{{talkback|Steve_carlson}}

Wiki-break

Oops, I meant wiki-break from Canadian monarchy related articles (i.e. articles G2 frequents). GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Wowsers. GoodDay (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Trouting

Fine. You help me promote a country music article to featured article status and I'll quit whining. :-P Seriously, though, I seem to be the only editor on Wikipedia who gives a rip about country music articles. You don't have to like country music, just please help me. 22:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Go ask one of them. BTW, today's Daily Kitten is ugly as hell! :P –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:28, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Um, dude, the country music wikiproject is dead. Dead dead dead dead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Rootology (talk · contribs) might be able to help, but yeah, that project is primarily dead. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 22:31, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about all this, Roux. I try to help out wherever I can, I just happen to specialize in two minute areas that seemingly no one else cares about. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So nobody else cares. And? Wikipedia isn't about gaining glory and recognition, it's about contributing to a project. You're contributing; anything else is window-dressing. [ roux ] [x] 22:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to gain glory and recognition. I'm just trying to get someone to help me because I can only do so much and it's kinda got me wikistressed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:49, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Then take a break. WP is not a race. [ roux ] [x] 22:50, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Oh I see, thank you, it has been deleted just when I was typing the message; I understand now that these cases do not require further work, such as posting in some talk page and so on. It's funny. :) --Eco DJ (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Adventures Of Cow

How is it non-notable when it has two reviews from major book reviewers? Schuym1 (talk) 22:55, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I said may not meet notability standards; I placed the tag so that notability could be asserted. [ roux ] [x] 23:01, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

How does having two reviews from major book reviewers not assert notability? Schuym1 (talk) 23:02, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

They don't appear to be easily verifiable, and there is nothing in the article itself to suggest that the book is notable. Non-notable books (films, songs, whatever) get reviewed all the time. It doesn't inherently make them notable. Tell me, what does make the book notable? [ roux ] [x] 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Significant coverage in reliable sources. I can provide the links to the two reviews. I also found a third one easily. So there is three reviews so it passes WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BK. That's how. Schuym1 (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

And yet, there's still nothing in the article suggesting why the book is notable. Based on what the article says, it's just another bog-standard children's picture book with bright colours and an adorable main character. The simple fact of it having been reviewed doesn't make it notable. Is there anything that does? Is the book particularly popular? Has it been made into a movie? Is it notorious because the author was found to run an illegal Mexican wrestling ring in her basement, the proceeds of which funded the promotion for the book? Is the author particularly well-known? In short, is there anything other than the existence of a couple of reviews that shows any form of notability whatsoever? [ roux ] [x] 23:10, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

There is 3 reviews which are reliable sources. Reviews show notability. Not every book gets reviewed. It passes criteria one of WP:BK. 23:15, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Being reviewed does make it notable because it is significant coverage in WP:RS. It passes WP:NOTABILITY also because of that. Schuym1 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:BK: The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary. Schuym1 (talk) 23:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So that proves that notability is shown. Schuym1 (talk) 23:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Armchairinterviews is little more than a blog; any author can ask to be reviewed there. School Library Journal doesn't serve a general audience. Kirkus reviews seems relatively trustworthy, but again: simply being reviewed isn't enough to make a book notable. Two reviews by nontrivial sources, one of which serves only a specialised audience, doesn't really fill that point of BK. I'm going to propose this at AfD, I'm sorry. There's just nothing notable about this book. [ roux ] [x] 23:24, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that you withdrawed the AFD even though you thought it was non-notable. Weird. WP:BK allows reviews so it does show notability. Even if you didn't withdraw, it would still have been a keep because articles get kept all the time just because they have multiple reviews. An admin even voted keep because it had multiple sources so that should tell you that it does show notability. I'm not watching this page, I just felt like posting this. Schuym1 (talk) 03:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, I will not do anymore work to the article. Me and Schmidt showed notability. I have partipated in AFD a lot and most editors think that articles should stay if it has multiple reviews. Your opinion is not more important than the policies and guidelines. Schuym1 (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew the nomination because Schmidt had added so many references that it was clear the book had been widely (not narrowly) covered, and because it was clear that the consensus was to keep. Please don't be rude. Thank you. [ roux ] [x] 03:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello to you too :)

Gots ma fingahs all ober the nets! ;-D --Kickstart70TC 06:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Heh, as do I ;) [ roux ] [x] 06:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Why I Will Never Ever Ever Ever Have Enough Time to Read This Book

I added two more reliable sources so it passes WP:NOTABILITY with significant coverage in WP:RS. It has a good chance in AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BK allows reviews so that means that WP:NOTABILITY allows reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 06:27, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Schuym, I mean this respectfully, but please read WIKILAWYER, IAR, and BEANS; just because a policy does not specifically exclude or forbid something doesn't mean that we shouldn't be thoughtful about exclusions. [ roux ] [x] 06:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Reviews are significant coverage so it passes WP:NOTABILITY and it passes WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. [ roux ] [x] 07:10, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

So you always go against the rules? Schuym1 (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

From WP:NOTABILITY: "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive.

From WP:BK: The book has been the subject [1] of multiple, non-trivial[2] published works whose sources are independent of the book itself,[3] with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

So it passes two things. If you take it to AFD, I know that it will be a keep. Schuym1 (talk) 07:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, take it up on the talk page of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BK. Schuym1 (talk) 07:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 4 or 5) Again, Schuym, I will politely ask that you read and internalise WIKILAWYER, BEANS, and IAR, as well as NPA and CIVIL before making comments like "So you always go against the rules?"

No, I look at the rules and try to abide by them in the spirit in which they are intended, rather than the very specific letter of what they say. Have you read BEANS? In a nutshell, it points out that it is impossible to think of everything that can be covered by a given rule. So, we come up with rules that have pretty clear subtexts. For example, CIVIL boils down to 'be nice'. It doesn't specifically say "don't call someone a cheese-eating surrender monkey," right? But we all know that calling someone that would go against the spirit of CIVIL, if not the exact words in the policy. Similarly, BK does say that reviews are indicative of notability--but take a look, it says that books with reviews are generally notable. This doesn't mean that if a book has reviews it is automatically notable. Tens and tens and tens of thousands of books are published each year, and they all get reviewed. Does this mean they are all notable? Of course not. We need to look at context for that. A single book which has a couple of reviews and no other mention in any news sources is almost certainly not notable. Someone wrote it, someone else published it, ho-hum. That is the case here. I would politely request that you be more polite in your responses, and assume good faith in my actions. The really short version of what I am saying is this: you are stuck on the letter of the guideline while not, I think, looking at the spirit of what it intends. Context is a really, really important thing in all human endeavours. I don't want to be rude, and this is intended as constructive criticism: someone has already commented in your editor review that your conception of what notability means may be faulty. I urge you to look at that, and look at what you are doing here, and evaluate honestly whether the article in question is truly notable. That is not an insult, it's not an attack, it's just asking you to take a look. [ roux ] [x] 07:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't care about that user's opinion. He nominated two articles of mine for deletion and they both closed as keep. It does not say that on BK. I just looked though it again. Schuym1 (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I just read it again and I saw nothing that said that. Schuym1 (talk) 07:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It does, actually: "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets through reliable sources, one or more of the following criteria:" (emphasis mine). Again, and I understand how easy it is to do this, you are stuck on the letter of the guideline and not its spirit. [ roux ] [x] 07:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that's a bunch of bull crap because having multiple reliable sources passes WP:NOTABILITY. Take it to AFD, I know that it will close as keep. Schuym1 (talk) 07:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) (I really would appreciate it if you would use 'preview' rather than save. These edit conflicts are getting a bit annoying). You are welcome to hold whatever opinion you want to, but if you're going to quote BK as policy, you cant' pick-and-choose what you're going to quote. BK says that books are generally notable if they meet one of the criteria, but it doesn't say they are definitely notable if they do. For that, we need to look at the context: is the book well known? Is the author well known? Is there something special about the book such as huge sales or controversy or movie deals or TV adaptations or $x? The answer in this case--and in the previous one which you challenged--is 'no'. Just a standard children's book with pretty pictures, nothing special about it at all. [ roux ] [x] 07:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominate it for AFD if you feel so strongly about it. Schuym1 (talk) 07:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(out) For now, I'm trying to discuss things with you so that I can try and show you where I'm coming from. I understand your point of view; you feel that any mention in any media is automatic gurantee of notability. Do you understand my point of view? [ roux ] [x] 08:04, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not a mention, it is significant coverage. I don't think that mentions show notability. Take it to AFD if you think it isn't notable. Many AFDs close as keep because of reviews. Schuym1 (talk) 08:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Um.. again: I'm trying to come to a point where we understand each other. I think I understand where you are coming from (and please, tell me if I'm wrong about your position), and I'm asking if you understand where I'm coming from. Do you? [ roux ] [x] 08:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just take it to AFD. Schuym1 (talk) 08:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I get your points and I can go against every point of yours with something else. So please take this to AFD because it will get really long. Schuym1 (talk) 08:15, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Let's let others determine the notability of this article. Schuym1 (talk) 08:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3, and again, could you please use 'preview' instead of 'save'?) Okay, um, it seems like you're seeing this as some sort of combat. That's not what it is for me, and I'm sorry if I've done anything to make it seem that way. I'm seeing this as trying to see where the other is coming from, and I'm hoping you can see it that way too. Could you do me a small favour? You say you 'get' what I'm saying; could you please state what you think I'm saying? I want to make sure we're speaking the same language and can get to a common ground. [ roux ] [x] 08:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

You think that the book is non-notable because lots of reviews are released every year. I am saying that it does show notability per WP:NOTABILITY because it is significant coverage in WP:RS because the reliable sources are not trivial. Why don't you just take it to AFD and let others decide? Schuym1 (talk) 08:25, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

(out) Almost. I think the book is non-notable because nothing notable about it has been put forward. Is there anything notable about the book, other than the fact that it has been reviewed? [ roux ] [x] 08:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be notable for anything else because it is significant coverage in WP:RS. Schuym1 (talk) 08:31, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay. I think you can't or won't understand what I'm saying, and that's fine. [ roux ] [x] 08:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do understand, I just want to go by the policies and guidelines and not your made up rules. Schuym1 (talk) 08:36, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, um, again I need to ask you to read and internalise CIVIL and AGF. I am not 'making up' any rules, I am looking at the rules as they are intended, and not solely as they are written.

Let me make an analogy. In the Judeo-Christian mythos, Thou shalt not kill is the First Commandment. But as you read through, it becomes clear that killing is okay sometimes. And most people (other than Buddhists, Jains, and Quakers) would say that killing in self-defence is probably okay. But the rule says no! Not ever! All rules are made to be broken, and all rules need to be interpreted in context. That's what IAR means: it means 'don't get stuck in nitpicking rules when the rules get in the way of making the project better.' [ roux ] [x] 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Metroid Prime 3: Corruption/archive2

Could you take another look when you can? Thanks. Gary King (talk) 18:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Knesset template

Sorry, I'm lost (there are several Knesset templates) - which one are you referring to? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, ok, just seen that you replied to me on the Navbox talkpage. Basically, could you colour Kadima, Labor-Meimad, Gil and Shas red, and the rest blue? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The same colours as the table in Foreign Affairs Minister of Israel would be suitable. The red reflects that it is a centre-left coalition. Blue because the opposition is led by the right-wing Likud. Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 19:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the current one is the result of quite a bit of discussion, and I think we've only just got to the point where everyone is happy with the format, so perhaps not best to tinker with the layout. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Great - many thanks. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Oohai!!!

{{Talkback|SriMesh}}

Same type of idea....I see there is a ad for WP Canada; maybe there could be an ad for the Portal..that is if there isn't one already? SriMesh | talk 05:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I made a mistake when I attempted to use your new suggest image, suggest article thingie. I entered the word yes into the text box which shouldn't have anything at all entered into it and oops my entry was added to the wikipedia article named yes Took me awhile to figure out the coding to get it off there. When I left the text box empty I got a page which needed an administrator's permission to edit so leaving the text box empty didn't work. Adding yes to the text box was a bad idea... but I added the instructions to where to have the suggestion end up, and your cute automated suggestion thingie works!!!! I'll have to find some more suggestions now.  :-) Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 04:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Also for editors unfamiliar with box sections there was a help section to use on the Canada wikiproject, as the portal cannot have the help section because portals cannot be self referential... The help page to add content was at [[2]] maybe it could be changed.SriMesh | talk

Also will begin a new box section for main tab called quotations, so could you make a suggestion thingie for quotes once tis started? Thanks me again,SriMesh | talk 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The RfC/U discussion continues.

• The RfC/U discussion continues. Is this a reasonable addition and does it warrant your signature? [3]

I wasn't aware of a canvassing rule, but that's not what I'm doing in any case. This wasn't a mass mailing, or a biased message. I want to know if these experiences are shared or if it's just me. I understand exactly what you're saying, but my main point is that it your request isn't included in the restrictions. I think perhaps the admins involved feared that it could mean that you have to answer every question that is asked of you; that could be used against you. I just reworded it to indicate that what you should be after is acknowledgement of (not agreement with) your points. --soulscanner (talk) 05:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

A Message on your Talk Page

I am one! - FlyingToaster 07:04, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi - just come aross the farrago you've been going through, and wanted to give you a friendly nod. No rush responding to the stuff on my adoption page; you obviously have a lot going on. Hang in there. Gonzonoir (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Deaths/refs

Please wait for a discussion and consensus at Talk:Deaths in 2008 before rushing in to make such a sweeping change. Regards, WWGB (talk) 21:38, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Nested refs

Ah thanks, I needed it for the first time. Gary King (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi!

Hi Roux! VandalismDestroyer | Talk to me 05:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Tb

{{Talkback|sct9000}}

ahk i understand, im not really intersted in the marketing side of this, i have been requested to make the page, as you would know wiki ranks well on google. i am just try to add a factual non bias article.

have you seen and other wiki articles that would make good reference for my case?

is the way im linking to articles to correct way? i am gathering some published links now, but i dont want to just dump them on there, how do you should i present it correctly?

thanks for the help really appreciate it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sct9000 (talk • contribs) 08:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

WCNL

I'm a bit puzzled regarding your edit at the Workers Committee for National Liberation article. I have now divided the article in sections, and now it has a lead. Which are the claims in the article which you think are not properly referenced? What are the main problems in tone and language? --Soman (talk) 08:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Portal Canada

Updates have been made to the Canada portal re current events tab and wikiquotes and header colours. I am not sure how else to keep the current events page up to date besides the note left on the Portal Canada talk page. What thinks you? SriMesh | talk 03:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey! How'd I do this time? BTW, it's featured DYK today :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

TB

{{talkback|TopGearFreak}}

Closure

Hi! per this post both you and G2bambino have accepted this solution and it is now in effect. Thank you for working through this dispute, it's appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 03:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you thank you!

We did! Not just America, but Canada and the rest of the world. Thank you for your support and love through this. Let's hope this is a first step to a better world. :D - FlyingToaster 06:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

*grumble, grumble* –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:22, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I adore you, kiddo, but the better man won. [ roux ] [x] 19:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada approves of Obama :) Gary King (talk) 20:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The funny thing being, of course, that he's likely to be worse for us than McCain would have been in terms of trade. [ roux ] [x] 20:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's time we pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps then. Gary King (talk) 20:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes. Thanks for the early strong support!!! •If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy• ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 19:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey

Well, I reverted youre reasons by accident. Sorry, but huggle showed them as unconstructive. I forgot to undo them and the eidts to your talk page. My bad, I Guess.Cheers! II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 01:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Im gonna go now, get some sleep. Im thinking of stopping revert vandalism by HG ... I mcausing too many problems, instead of solving them... Laters. II MusLiM HyBRiD II ^{Ja Ja Ja Ja Ja} 01:35, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

CHA

Saw your note on Raul's page. Canadian Heraldic Authority is a former featured article and was on the main page back in 2005, so it's unlikely to run again. If you're set on getting it back to FA, let me know. And if you have time, give me some feedback on P:HV. Gimmetrow 01:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't asking you so much to participate in P:HV, but to provide some suggestions. See Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Heraldry/archive1. Gimmetrow 02:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Thought I posted this, thanks for your help and promptness. EagleScout18 (talk) 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

still not working...

Hello, you recently fixed the navbox problem on this page, but it is still messed up on this one. Please help, Richmond96 (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

what now?

umm... actually the navbox problem isn't fixed, like on this page. If you could tell me how you fixed it the first time, I could do it. Thanks --Richmond96 (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, I think I fixed it. I just tinkered around with it. How did you do it the first time though? --Richmond96 (talk) 00:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

what other colors could be used? Florida's colors are orange and blue Richmond96 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks, how can I know what colors cannot be used together? is {{University of Georgia}} okay? I guess {{FloridaGatorsFootball}} needs to be changed to? --Richmond96 (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks, maybe this style could be used for Georgia. I'll try it. Richmond96 (talk) 01:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

man, i can find a right color for Georgia, any suggestions? I think it would be nice if it was the same style as Florida (you know with the border) Richmond96 (talk) 02:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

actually, i think this look pretty good, what do you think? Richmond96 (talk) 02:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Template: Ca-residence

Sorry Roux. Forgive my thick headedness. GoodDay (talk) 00:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll be more careful. PS- Thanks for reminding & correcting me. GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

PS- I don't wanna even begin, to tell ya how many blunders I've made on Wikipedia in my 3-years here. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

1 RR and civility violations G2bambino

Please see entry on administrator board.

He's definitely violated the restrictions a few times over. I suggested in the notice that G2 take the same 1 month hiatus as you as a sign of good faith, so you're sort of involved.

I think you misunderstood my previous request as an attack. I was trying to help the community identify what is meant by "evasiveness", which administrators are understandably hesitant to identify. Maybe I've been more clear this time. --soulscanner (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Understood, but I do mention your name so I feel obligated to let you know in case you object. Better to be up front lest misunderstandings occur. I appreciate your vulnerable position. --soulscanner (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wise to stay out of it unless it directly concerns you or you can offer clarification on the terms of restriction. It is also kind of soulscanner to advise you of a discussion that mentions you.

BTW, the daily kitty in your editnotice is just as ugly as my brother's cats. :-) DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Do you take the 1RR restriction on "Commonwealth monarchies" to be on monarchies of the Commonwealth only or also countries of the Commonwealth. In other words, are you restricted to 1RR on Canada or United Kingdom even if your edit has nothing to do with the monarchy? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just curious about your personal perspective and, as I said, I think it's wise and big of you to stay out of it when you're not directly involved. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Questions

Hi, Roux. I have a question. I asked Cam already but I didn't get a reply, so I'm asking you. There is a picture on Wikimedia Commons called Image:Hannover7908.jpg. I want to put it on my User Page but the Fact Box underneath it says that it has a special kind of licence and I'm not sure if I can use it. I know all pictures on Wikimedia Commons are fair use, but I just want to make sure because I've never seen this kind of licence before. TopGearFreak ^Talk 19:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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

2008-11-07 Big Ben

Hi there - I'm Mononomic, and I've been trying to get involved in the Mediation Cabal. I noticed that you have become a (the?) mediator for Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-11-07 Big Ben, and I was wondering if I could maybe be an assistant-mediator so I can kind of learn the ropes. If you have any advice for me about this, or other ideas, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for your time! Mononomic (talk) 03:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

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

I have a problem with some of the wording in the section: Mediator notes

• MedCab is not a formal part of the dispute resolution process, and cannot provide binding sanctions. Nevertheless, I ask that everyone involved agree to:

1. Abide by the outcome of this case
2. Immediately move to the next phase of dispute resolution if you are unable to agree with the final outcome

If I am going to take part in this -- I do not think this is the right forum, WP:ANI is more appropriate -- at a minimum the above needs striking out.

I am leery about taking part in this process because many times when administrators make decisions on controversial page moves there are people who query the outcome. If we Wikipedians had to go through this process for every one of these decisions that was questioned, the WP:RM system would become impossible to administer unless we to go back to simply counting the "votes" in a local poll. Please read the sections:

• Category talk:Transmitter sites in the United Kingdom#Further discussion
• User talk:Born2cycle#Big Ben move despite lack of consensus
• User talk:Chillysnow#Big Ben

and then get back to me if you think Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is a suitable forum for discussions about the outcome of WP:RM decisions, or would a better solution be to wait six months (the traditional time between requests to revert WP:RM moves) and put in another request which will be considered by another administrator. The whole point of WP:RM requests is that unlike RfD's these moves can be reversed and no decision is final. --PBS (talk) 11:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to put in the strike out above. So I have just done so. I am disappointed that you have not read the above links,[4] because without reading them and Talk:Big Ben#Requested move, I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal is the appropriate forum for User:Chillysnow to present his/her grievance.

.

Query on AIV report

Recently on AIV, you reported [5] that Unival (talk · contribs) is "evidently a spambot or a compromised account." How did you come to that determination when this account has only made one article and one talk page edit, and both of them were four days ago? --Kralizec! (talk) 07:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Colour me confused ... why did you report it as a "spambot" or "compromised account" account then? Neither of those are advertising-only accounts. Regardless, your AIV report does not meet criteria #3 ("The user must be given sufficient recent warnings to stop") since the last edit made by this editor was four days before your level-one warning. --Kralizec! (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the evidence, I agree that it could well be an SPA. However blocking the editor without even trying to talk to him or her regarding our spam policy strikes me as a pretty big assumption of bad faith, not to mention a violation of blocking policy (specifically Education and warnings). Judging by your edit history, I recognize that you only have the best intentions in mind for the project (and I do not mean to give you a hard time about this), but can you see how requesting a block might be jumping the gun a bit here? --Kralizec! (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thank you for your time, and especially your dedication to improving Wikipedia! --Kralizec! (talk) 08:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

TB at my page

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

Template:GW Bush cabinet

The group sections in the template aren't able to hole all 21 members, it omits the Trade Representative. As the Obama presidency comes in, I'd like a new template to be ready. Do you know how to stretch it just one more? Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it's been annoying me for some time now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the first one because it shows the office and it's holder, which matches the other templates (they would have to be updated to the new formatting). Attorney General would be moved to the secretary section because it's equal to them, though. And I know that National Security Adviser isn't a Cabinet post but close to it. White House Press Secretary is another. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Pretty good. Just for looks, I don't suppose there's a way for the sections to have the same length? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well thanks. It looks great! I'll go implement it into the other templates. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Freddyboytoy

WHAT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyboytoy (talk • contribs) 22:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Err... beg your pardon? [roux » x] 22:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just removed some confusional contributions by Freddyboytoy, other stuff was removed by Davidng150. Vandalism? --Vejvančický (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Kamau Kambon

An article that you have been involved in editing, Kamau Kambon, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kamau Kambon (2nd nomination). Thank you. --Eastmain (talk) 00:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the advise. More power. Kampfgruppe (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Just Plain Brittish

I don't know. He was originally blocked due to an inappropriate username and when he was renamed, he asked for the automatic IP block to be removed, which I did. If you believe he's a sockpuppet of a blocked user, may I suggest making a checkuser request? - Mike Rosoft (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this Stereotyper yet again?--79.73.54.44 (talk) 14:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So, the answer to your (i.e. Roux's) question seems to be in the positive. You should definitely make the checkuser request. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 15:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks For The Help!

Roseinrosebear (talk) 11:20, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey thanks for your offer :-) I was hoping to get someone who is interested in LGBT studies as my mentor. Please let me know how we can move forward. Once again, thanks for your help ;-)

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Cameronb87's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

My Guestbook

Hi Roux. I noticed that you nominated my guestbook for speedy deletion. Im a bit confused because many wikipedians have guestbooks. Why is my guestbook nominated for deletion? ♣PrincessClown♥ 20:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Because guestbooks are basically just social networking, which Wikipedia is not. There's a fine line, sometimes, between goofing off and venturing into territory that isn't what we do. Guestbooks are the latter. I wasn't intending it to be mean at all, and there's obviously nothing wrong with having an aesthetically-pleasing userspace. Most of us make our userspaces nice, and put in some things that make working here either easier or more pleasant. That's fine, and even expected. But guestbooks don't contribute to building the encyclopedia in any way, and while we should all take everything here a little bit less seriously than most of us do, there is such a thing as going too far in the other direction, y'know? [roux » x] 21:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I get what you mean but Im saying that lots of users and even adminastrators have userpages and guestbooks like mine so I think my guestbook shouldn't be deleted or, you know! ♣PrincessClown♥ 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty certain that admins aren't using their userpages as quasi-blogs, and I'd be surprised if any admins had guestbooks. [roux » x] 22:00, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen some admins with guestbooks. Actually LaPianista has one and I signed it. ♣PrincessClown♥ 22:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

La Pianista is not an admin. [roux » x] 22:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I saw it on the userpage. Oh well. Thanks so much for helping me out. Can you tell me what changes should I make to my userpage? ♣PrincessClown♥ 23:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

New look

Hey, dig the new look of your moniker. GoodDay (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Your addition of tags to Bethmanns and Rothschilds

I am somewhat mystified that you added two tags -- "Peacock terms" and "Reads like a personal reflection or essay" to Bethmanns and Rothschilds, without a word of explanation to me or on the article's Talk page.

The Usage notes for one of the Templates state to

Add a new item to the talk page explaining the problem so editors will know what to address, and when to remove this tag.

It would be terrific to have you improve the article by editing it or by starting a discussion on its Talk page. For now, I am removing the two tags.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

My userpage

No if you read it carefully I added wikipedia stuff. I still want the layout but I change the content if you read it. ♣PrincessClown♥ 23:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

AN

My advice is don't trust a Sockpuppet Master. IMO, such an editor deserves a 1-year ban (atleast). GoodDay (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Bethmann/Rothchilds

I just put a notice for AfD. I read the article, it just looks like an opinion piece of which there is not much to salvage. I never heard of the "Bethmanns" family, but I just found House of Bethmann. Already from the very title the article is confused. Anyway, in my opinion anything useful should be moved to Rothschild family, etc. Otherwise it needs a lot of work. I also find it kind of strange to be linking two Jewish banking dynasties in this fashion. Laval (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

If he keeps removing the tag, then he is either at 3RR or has broken 3RR. Either way I suggest admin intervention. He cannot simply keep taking tags off especially when more than one editor agrees that its written like an essay. It is an essay, in fact. "Wikipedia is not a term paper". Laval (talk) 03:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Already working on having an admin drop a kindly word on his page. [roux » x] 04:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Getting into "References"

Hello again Roux, and thanks for your help. I am still unable to edit the actual references at Don Juanism. Whichever page approach I try, I get only the spot where the references are supposed to go. The "edit" at the right doesn't actually get me to the text to edit. Xophorus (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Roux, I'd like to put the Kierkegaard and Camus references into the Sources list, and make sure there are close quotes at the end of the Camus. The Kierkegaard chapter title should I think be in quotes too, yes? The second and third footnote numbers in the text thus will also need to be deleted. Thanks for this, but I still don't know how to go about it... what's my problem, can you tell? Thanks, Xophorus (talk) 05:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah.. I see now. Okay, you should probably read this, as it will tell you everything you need to know (and then some...) about how to edit and use citations. Try that out and let me know if you're still having problems. [roux » x] 05:56, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

{{help me}}

Hi! I am new and have no real html knowledge.

I want to make a page for The Soweto Marimba Youth League [www.smyle.co.za]

your help is highly appreciated!

AN/I thread involving you

An AN/I thread involving you is here.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Help

What talk page? Do you mean Multimedia? I meant from the point of view of WP:C would it be acceptable to use on MultimediaGnevin (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for trying to help but your missing my point . I am going to repost the help template Gnevin (talk) 22:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights will overrule WP:CON every time and as such their is no point in talking about using the image on the page if it not allow on the page .I am not planning to force the image on anyone just wanted an answer to a simple question which you have not provided . Can you either answer the question or leave the template on the page for someone who will Gnevin (talk) 22:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your help . Gnevin (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I need your help!

Hi roux. I saw that you were open for adoption. Can you adopt me? Im not that pro with wikipedia yet, and you know, I need serious help. Im also not exactly sure how you adopt others so yeah. Hehe. I know. ♣PrincessClown♥ 23:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Template thing

But it worked when I tested it! :( Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 08:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

May I be of service here? What's wrong?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I could say I'm taking a shot in the dark here, but fortunately, my gun has a flashlight. I'm going to assume that you want the template you are speaking of to appear in a category if the current namespace it is in is a specified namespace. I would like to fix this for you if you let me.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 08:50, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Close... I'm trying to clean up this. The issue with most of the 'Wikipedians' categories is the inclusion of the userboxes in the page header. Obviously the simplest method would be to just remove all the userboxes, but I figure they look decent and people should be able to see what they'd be adding with the template syntax. So that means finding a way to strip the category out of the UBX template. We thought that {{#ifeq:{{ns:{{ns:14}}}}||[[Category:foo]]}} would work, but alas no. Shorter version: I want userboxes to not put the page in a category if the page the UBX is on is in the Category: namespace. Any thoughts? [roux » x]08:52, November 12, 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but first, can you fix your post so that I can sign? I don't want to fix it myself, as I fear it might interpret the tildes as my sig instead of yours.

Secondly, your current coding will never work, it must be {{#ifeq:variable1|variable2|action if variable1 = variable 2|action if variable 1 does not = variable 2}}. So, in this particular instance, it would be: {{#ifeq:{{ns:14}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|action}}. I took the liberty and fixed it for you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found a way to fix it that would preserve things. I copied your sig from Mop's talk page, then I found the time that you added the message to your talk page, and placed it on the end.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:12, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Doh, sorry about forgetting to close the tag. And aha! So what I want is: {{#ifeq:{{ns:2}}|{{ns:14}}|[[Category:Foo]]}} to place Category:Foo only on userpages, and not in Category namespace? [roux » x] 09:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Trust me, you don't. That is not how the function works, it asks, if A=B, then display true, if A does not = B, then display false. Since you put in two constantly different variables, it will always display as false, what you want to do is, find the number that the userspace exists in, then do:{{#ifeq:{{ns:(namespace number(ie, 13, 6, 5, etc))}}|{{NAMESPACE}}|[[Category:Foo]]|action if the current namespace the template is in, and the constant value are not equal}}.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

And I do mean {{NAMESPACE}}, it is a Magic word, and will change depending on the namespace it is currently used in.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quarry at La Quinta

1) Holy crap. How'd you edit your comment page? That's impressive, and I want to know how, so I can steal its prettiness.

2) I just fixed your header for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quarry at La Quinta, and just wanted to let you know. Cheers! DARTH PANDA^duel 15:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Your redaction

Your unilateral behavior] is not only uncalled and inappropriate. The question that I asked to Bukubku is a very related matter and to make Durova or third party to understand the situation. I don't really know what Bukubku wants from the meditation. Calling spade is a spade is not uncivil. Please don't do such unacceptable behavior. Regards.--Caspian blue 20:47, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your stance for the unpermitted deletion and is the meditation going to be meditated by non-admin? That seems uncommon too. If you suffer two bad faith reports to ANI for the content dispute, and the user constantly accused me that I'm a liar, you can not be calm as right now. As I said, calling spade is not civil nor bad faith. There is no reason that my question should not be by you with such dreadful labeling. The question is so important for me to decide whether I agree to involve in the MED or not.--Caspian blue 20:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

At this time, I'm not calm for your uncalled redaction with the accusation. The question should be stated as long as Bukubku who wants the meditation so badly would answer the question unlike his quite time.--Caspian blue 21:07, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I totally disagree with your false labeling on my question. The "liar" comment is from Bukubku, and I'm the one who has been attacked by him constantly. Perhaps, you're not the right person for the meditation. I don't want more drama by a meditator--Caspian blue 21:17, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

David H. Healy

The article title is David H. Healy. It should be David B. Healy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceGary (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

{{talkback|BruceGary}}The article title is David H. Healy. It should be David B. Healy. {{talkback|BruceGary}} Roux: No, his name does not appear with a link on the page. Also, I'm such a novice at the method of having a conversation that I don't understand your suggestion for an easier way to talk back. Sorry. {{talkback|BruceGary}} Just spoke with David Healy & he doesn't know of a URL with his middle initial. He suggests simply removing the wrong middle initial (H.) from the article title and leaving the correct one (B.) in the text, as I have already done. Would that work? Bruce {{talkback|BruceGary}} That's a good solution. THANKS! Bruce

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Thanks!

Thanks for orgonizing my user page! You are the best!

I am being restricted :)

That is why I am limited with my actions in the extent of this and that.. though I am restrained within bounds, to tell you the truth, I am relieved. Axxand (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Garden/WikiCup

Canada is taken. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Crap. I must be blind. //roux   04:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I chose China a few months ago before realizing that we could use any flag we wanted. You've reminded me again that we could do that—so, I'm going Toronto! Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I chose Ontario, but I've just had a rather more smartass idea. :D roux   04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

DON'T PANIC!

Well...don't. :) I've been wondering for a while how you've applied that attention-grabbing notice there in edit mode. Is there some special user rights involved? —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 03:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't click here ;) //roux   04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't click there. Furthermore, I did not create it. What should I not do next? :P —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Never mind...heh heh. Thanks a bunch! :) —La Pianista ^(T•C•S) 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Villabear

Welcome back.

You stole my AIV claim >_< DARTH PANDA^duel 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm an asshole like that. roux   15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Have I ever told you I hate you? I don't think I have. I hate you. *bites and gnaws* Ah, at least he got banned. Maybe I should create Roux to flame you for stealing my vandalkill. Too bad there's already an article there... (to any of those who think I'm being serious, I'm 120% kidding. Roux is the man). DARTH PANDA^duel 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back, mate. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but... *cough* :) // roux   15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ohai –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What? I didn't hear anything... ;) Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Yay! You're back! :D - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ guestbook ♦ contribs} 17:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Woohoo, *hugs roux*. Your back! RockManQ ^(talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oops sorry, didn't read that above. RockManQ ^(talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• OH NOES, IT IS A MIXTURE OR WHEAT FLOUR AND FAT COME BACK TO HAUNT US!!!11!!shiftone! - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 01:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

\o/ FlyingToaster 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers

Good 2 see you.--Gazzster (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wondered if you were interested in checking out Dual monarchy. I've put a delate tag on it.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest an AfD rather than a prod; it's a clear duplication. //roux   08:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm still gettin used to these different procedures and templates n crap.--Gazzster (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A prod is more "well, I kinda think this should go, unless someone objects once, in which case it stays." AFD is more like "this article should go, this is why, let's make a decision." //roux   08:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Building user-owned sandbox template

My motive: Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox#Stupid non-noinclude instruction of the template:X1~X9

There's no instruction what syntax will work under my user sub-page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thx. I hope they understand the problem with the tl:x1~x9 . It's too confusing and misleading. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

A Quick Note

Yes, I'm back. It's beginning to look like the situation which I left in order to avoid is permanently resolved. Plus I miss this place. Gets under yer skin, it does.

Thank you to everyone who showed support. Thank you as well to those who did not, you gave me a lot to think about.

Apart from this comment, I would really appreciate it if this whole thing can be treated as a blip and no further comment made about either me leaving, the situation which caused it, or my return. roux   // 11:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no intention of doing anything, if the message you left me is true. If it is not, don't expect to get handled with the kid gloves. WilyD 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Per your above statement, I intended not to muck into the details to respect your desire to start afresh. That said, it is also part of my role as an administrator to remind you this will only get treated as a blip if it is a blip. While possibly harsh (and while my language might be rough, I certainly think the substance is quite generous) it is necessary. WilyD 13:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

While I'm loath to quote Ronald Reagan, there is great sense in "trust, but verify". Please be assured that if I'd assumed bad faith, this conversation would be of an entirely less friendly nature. You are being trusted to return and behave yourself, but this will be verified - I felt it was only fair to make this explicitly clear. Cheers, WilyD 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see that you came to your sense. You need to understand that Wikipedia is like a street gang. Once you're inducted you can't ever leave. Wikipedia for life. -- Tyler D Mace (talk · contr) 16:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Link removal

The link your removed from Public Register of Arms, Flags and Badges of Canada has an archived copy in the Wayback Machine. — Dispenser 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You're back!

In b4 this section header gets grouped. WE MISSED YOU! — neuro^(talk) 16:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

nyaaaaaa! :3 — neuro^(talk) 23:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just wanted to say hiya, Roux. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your help :) DellLaptop (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey Roux

So...I saw the note at the top...and I had to comment anyway (my apologies in advance)...

I just wanted to say that I am very sorry. Over the course of this evening, I've dove into some of the archives of pages, hunting for disputes that involved you. And I have a slightly different opinion of you now... sure, you instigated a lot of the disputes, and those seem to be the ones I looked at when I was deciding to support you or G2. When I looked harder, it can be seen that G2 started just as many of them (and which ones did I miss?)... By itself, this wouldn't be quite enough. But then I read the big pretty notice at the top of this page involving "self-imposed editing restrictions" (italics added by me), and that swayed me fully. Please accept my sincere apologies for not doing what you said and looking farther into the conflict...

Respectfully, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

That is most gracious of you, thank you. Or to put it another way: no harm, no foul. Or yet another way: water under the bridge. //roux   05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, no. Thank you for coming back. Who else is going to improve the world's knowledge of the Canadian monarchy? :) Cheers, —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't leave again!What!?Why?Who? (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Talkbacks

Please to be leaving talkback notices here, to keep conversations together. Meaning, if I commented at your talkpage, please reply there and leave some sort of {{talkback}} or note here to alert me. //roux   06:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back buddy. *huggles* :D Sunderland06 (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

*cough* :P –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 16:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Good article reviews

When adding the review to the talk page, be sure to include the full page name and not just /GA1 otherwise it won't work once it's archived. So, {{Talk:Half-Life 2: Lost Coast/GA1}} Also, I don't think it's required, but it's also suggested to update the status= field to on hold on the talk page. Gary King (talk) 19:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Richmond Hospital

Thanks very much for your help and explanations. I see you fixed the words under my image, I couldn't figure that out. What suspicion do you have abuot copi and how can I fix it? Thanks again RandomMD (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. My concern about the copyvio is that the timelines read as though copied from another source. Was any part of the article copied directly? //roux   06:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it is not copied directly but it is certainly sourced and paraphrased. Can I just add th source site as a reference or does including it as an external link, which it already is, count? Thanks. RandomMD (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it just read a little off to me, no worries. Yes, statements should be sourced to reliable, third-parties whenever possible. Self-published sources are okay sometimes, but third-party is always best. //roux   06:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [6] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [7] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [8] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [9] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [10] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [11] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [12] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [13] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [14] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [15] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [16] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [17] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [18] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [19] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing usernames on jawp

Hello Roux. My name is Carkuni.

Announce your application for username change on Wikipedia:利用者名変更依頼 (See User rename log). Thank you. --Carkuni (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You speak Japanese? o_O GlassCobra 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahah, no.. I was just tidying up loose ends for SUL. //roux   18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

		The Template Barnstar
		For fixing up Template:Infobox Park, so I can remove non-free images without worrying about breaking anything. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. It was really nothing.. //roux   18:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Roux/Archives/2008, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Good to see you back.

Wikipedia was a little bit worse the couple of days you were gone. I'm glad to see you back. Mononomic (talk) 03:06, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Query on AIV report

Thank you for your recent AIV report [20] on 82.132.138.200 (talk · contribs). After reviewing the IP`s contributions, I am not sure why you listed it as being a "spambot or a compromised account." Any light you could shed on this would be appreciated. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm lazy and used TW.. I hate filling out AIV by hand. It looks like the stalker that has ben plaguing Possum's page for months. //roux   16:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

You get points for honesty. Thanks! But that said, please do not be lazy when making AIV reports, because it made me waste time checking out the IP`s other contributions looking for "spambot" or "compromised account" activity when I could have just blocked the IP for NPA violations after seeing the first diff. Thank you for your time, Kralizec! (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Just not Right

Hey Roux! I am QEII's Little Spy. What you did to the template was good but I was looking more in the line ofTemplate:House of Tudor rather than collapsing each section. I was wondering if you know how to do that.Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. yes. I'll get to it later tonight. //roux   01:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Changing usernames on jawp

Hello Roux. My name is Carkuni.

Announce your application for username change on Wikipedia:利用者名変更依頼 (See User rename log). Thank you. --Carkuni (talk) 13:58, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

You speak Japanese? o_O GlassCobra 18:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Hahah, no.. I was just tidying up loose ends for SUL. //roux   18:57, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

		The Template Barnstar
		For fixing up Template:Infobox Park, so I can remove non-free images without worrying about breaking anything. J Milburn (talk) 18:46, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thanks. It was really nothing.. //roux   18:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

		The RfA Barnstar
		Roux/Archives/2008, I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent Request for Adminship, which passed with 112 supports, 4 opposes and 5 neutrals. A special mention goes out to Stwalkerster and Pedro for nominating me, thanks a lot for having trust in me! In response to the neutrals, I will try to double check articles that have been tagged for speedy deletion before I CSD them and will start off slowly with the drama boards of ANI and AN to ensure that I get used to them. In response to the oppose !votes on my RfA, I will check that any images I use meet the non-free content criteria and will attempt to handle any disputes or queries as well as I can. If you need my help at all, feel free to simply ask at my talk page and I'll see if I can help. Once again, thank you for your participation, and have a great day! :) The Helpful One 22:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

design by neurolysis | to add this barnstar to your awards page, simply copy and paste {{subst:User:Neurolysis/THOBS}} and remove this bottom text | if you don't like thankspam, please accept my sincere apologies

Notice of request for deletion of editor Roux/Archives/2008 :)

Roux/Archives/2008, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#Roux/Archives/2008 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). iMatthew 01:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Space music

I'm sorry to see you've closed the case. If it's any consolation, I suspect Milomedes would have deliberately objected to any mediator, so don't take it personally. Anyway, thanks for making an attempt. There's no need to reply, as I want you to maintain your neutrality. But I did want you to know that your effort is greatly appreciated. I was actually going to take the case myself but declined for this very reason. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. All I can say is that Milo objected to me personally, and the other users have elected to pursue other methods of DR. So it goes. //roux   08:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

"I suspect Milomedes would have deliberately objected to any mediator"
Viriditas, you really need to work on your AGF. Since I have mediation skills, I have high standards for mediators. Surprised? See my "Wiki Wiffle Bat" barnstar-like small mediation award: #Wisdom shown should always be rewarded.
"going to take the case myself"
Of course I would have declined you (also), but not because I would have declined anyone. I looked over the MedCab mediators page, and I'd say the best choice for Space music would have been the one or two that specialize in near-hopeless cases.
Mediators need to be as uninvolved and neutral as possible. You became heavily involved with one side at Space music, and would have added another COI to what is already a tough non-profit-commercial WP:COI case.
Since a mediator must know policies and guiderules as well as an admin, they should also consider going to admin school even if they don't plan to become admins.
You aren't my good buddy, but I don't dislike you, and we do have a lot of culture in common. Milo 11:16, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The only hopeless case here is you, Milo. Your longterm ceaseless trolling, endless bad faith personal attacks, repeated false COI accusations and incessant tendentious obstructionism are finally coming to an end. I warned you 2 years ago it would come to this; now all your chickens are coming home to roost. And there are a lot of chickens. Best you go find yourself a new hobby. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I would appreciate it greatly if your disputes were not carried out on my talkpage. Please note that is directed at both of you; I am singling no one out here. //roux   06:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

RE:

I did the bot style thing you gave me, but it doesn't give me a picture of the thing i chose. What should I do? SteelersFan-94 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't find all the sub pages, all I can find is your main status, and status template. How do I find them? SteelersFan-94 07:58, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

About your design

I would just like you to know that your talk and user pages are the best-designed that I've seen on Wikipedia thus far. That DON'T PANIC cat is also awesome. ←Spidern→ 15:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Aw, thank you. The cat isn't mine though... {{User:Ceiling Cat/dailykitten}} to use it. //roux   16:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)