User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/July

You should know...

...that comments like that are out-of-line. I know Ottava is not the easiest to get along with, but if he's getting on your nerves, don't feed him. I don't need a response to this, just keep an eye on yourself. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That's out of line, but accusing another editor of lying and manipulating the words of others... isn't, somehow? Not to mention calling what I said trolling? → ROUX ₪ 01:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Miss you!

Miss you on IRC <3 --Mixwell!^Talk 12:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Meh. IRC is run by petty tyrants. → ROUX ₪ 19:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: British Central Bank

Hi Roux! I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on British Central Bank- because: R3 already declined by User:DGG. Suggest WP:RFD If you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. decltype (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see the history of the user in question and relevant current discussion on WP:AN#User:Mr Taz; he has a long history of creating nonsense redirects and is now indefinitely blocked for both that and other disruption. Taking the enormous number of these to RFD is a waste of time. → ROUX ₪ 19:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds reasonable. I'll delete it under G6. Regards, decltype (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. → ROUX ₪ 19:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

RFA Reform

Thanks for the smile[1]. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who can eff up my own typo fix. :)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh bloody buggery bollocks! Also I can't type any day, it's not just today! Rented fingers, you see. → ROUX ₪ 22:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, if they're rented, take them back and demand new ones. FWIW, I tried it with the fingers I own, but my parents said the warranty had expired.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry....

Sorry... but I don't know what to say, I edit from an IP. Sorry, as that seems to offend you. But after a couple of years of dealing with this Wikipedia BS when I try and just offer a purposefully opposing position, I'm just about to give this shit up. The DIALECTIC method is over 2000 years old, and it seems to be what Wikipedia (though it may not realize it) is actually based on; however, in reality it seems in unable to accommodate it. That's what I try to espouse. Sorry. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 03:35, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Next time, no attacks. And sorry, but editing from an IP raises all sorts of entirely reasonable questions. And it doesn't allow you to build any reputation. There is, frankly, no good reason not to create an account. Also, please see WP:POINT; deliberately taking opposing positions that you don't actually espouse is more-or-less explicitly frowned on here. It's worth noting that you complain about being treated differently because you refuse to create a login. Newsflash: that is not going to change. The logical solution is left as an exercise for the reader. → ROUX ₪ 04:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

IPs and contradiction

"I'm rather sick and tired of being told what to do by people who are either a) obviously logged-out regular users, or b) unwilling to put their reputation on the line by actually registering an account and being accountable on a regular basis for their behaviour. And don't bother with the tired old 'anonymity' canard; you are more anonymous as a logged-in user, not less. "
You contradict yourself here with i:"unwilling to put their reputation on the line" followed by ii:"you are more anonymous as a logged-in user".
Your comments about IP editors are not acceptable. You might want to re-read the five pillars and reacquaint yourself with founding policy. 82.33.48.96 (talk) 22:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You've got hold of rather the wrong end of the stick there. Logged-in users are more anonymous in the sense that they cannot be tracked down except by Checkusers. IPs can be geolocated, and people with more nefarious interests than I are able to find out a lot more data from that. No, that's not a threat or any crap like that; I truly don't care. I have no interest in being lectured further by someone who isn't willing to take responsibility for their edits by logging in. → ROUX ₪ 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP issue

I've been hunting for that discussion ... looks like it has been archived too since I was last here! Okay, I can see why some might thing that it should be archived ... the policy itself seems quite discriminatory to me ... but I guess Wikipedia is mostly American, and they are allowed to legally discriminate against gays there ...

... however there remains 2 oustanding issues. One is that User:Steve Smith should not be allowed to make personal attacks, simply because he disagrees with me. And two is that the discussion shouldn't be archived while it is still active! One the discussion had been inactive for a couple of days, I can see that archiving may have made sense ... but that's not what happened. Nfitz (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow, you just can't stop beating the dead horse, can you? Again: the policy is not discriminatory, it is reflective of the real world. I wish it were otherwise but it is not, so get over it. Second, he made no personal attack. Third, what you were proposing was a blatant BLP violation and was archived quickly as such.

I'm going to say this as bluntly as possible in the hopes that it will work where more reasoned language has failed to get through to you: you are wrong, you have always been wrong on this issue, none of your whining about it will change a single thing. Get over it and move on. Unless you have something new to say about the issue, I am singularly uninterested in listening to you repeat the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over while refusing to listen to a single thing that is said to you. If you persist in this, I will seek to have you blocked for continuing disruption, as by continually raising this topic you are quite effectively--and no doubt purposefully--ensuring that your personal views, unsubstantiated by any reliable source whatsoever continue to get aired.

I trust that is crystal clear. → ROUX ₪ 23:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'm dropping this - I just don't want to get into this kind of debate. However may I ask that in the future you conform to WP:NPA and WP:NPOV in both your comments and your edit summaries. Nfitz (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Good, you're dropping it. There was no personal attack, and you appear to understand NPOV about as well as you understand BLP; NPOV refers to articles only. Please re-read the relevant policy to reacquaint yourself with it. → ROUX ₪ 03:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It was a personal attack. I suggest you read Wikipedia:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack to reacquaint yourself with it; it notes that 'Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done.' It also violates the key guideline of WP:NPA 'Comment on content, not on the contributor.'. Yes, technically your correct, NPOV refers to articles - though I think that maintaining such on a talk page would also help keep things more civil. Nfitz (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
      • Enough is enough. You were wrong--about everything to do with this issue--and it is over. Get over it and go do something productive. Preferably not including BLPs until you understand the policy. Please do not comment here unless you have something new to say. → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
        • your both retarded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.166.121.85 (talk) 04:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
• I'm not discussing BLP - as far as I understand that issue is closed; I'm not re-opening it. I really don't think personally attacking someone ... and then telling them to get over it is good form. I simply ask that you follow WP:NPA and WP:CIV in the future; nothing more need be said. Nfitz (talk) 03:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried saying it the polite way. I'll now say it the blunt way: go away. Unless you actually have anything constructive to say...? Thought not. → ROUX ₪ 05:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MFD script

Yep, I'll get to it ASAP.   JJ (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

sig question

Is there something you do in your preferences to make it so the timestamp is displayed in your signature? I see how you are making it so on ~~~~ you get the sig and 5 tildes, but I cannot make it output the timestamp in place of the tildes (it just displays as ~~~~~ and not add it outside of the box. Only other way I seen it done is coding in the timestamp with magicwords and only typing 3 tildes. But I would be interested in how you do it, typing 4 tildes is a hard habit to break. nableezy - 04:29 11.07.2009 (UTC)

It took me a little bit to figure out what you meant. You could add your own little bit of .js magic to your toolbar that would automatically input <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 4px 1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User:Nableezy|<font color="#C11B17">nableezy</font>]]''' ~~~~~ </font></small>. → ROUX ₪ 23:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

so you just customized the sig button (or added another) to input the whole code and dont type out ~~~~? nableezy - 03:43 12.07.2009 (UTC)

Essentially yes. You'll need to use this script to add personal buttons. → ROUX ₪ 03:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, unfortunately I use an inline section editor that does not have an edit toolbar. Think I will just get used to typing 3 tildes instead of 4, but thanks again for info. nableezy - 04:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding a roo to your "what I am not" section

You have heard of La Roux, yes? For obvious reasons, it reminds me of you when I hear about it on the radio or the internet. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I had not! I shall have to leap over to YouTube. → ROUX ₪ 05:13, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, they're fun. I did prefer electro when it was called New Wave, but eh, everything old is new again ;) My turn; check out Yoav. (Official music channel from Universal Records, no copyright infringement.) → ROUX ₪ 05:22, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

And inaccessible from the UK due to stupid copyright law. Sceptre ^(talk) 05:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Try here, I think he has his songs on his website. His MySpace only has snippets now. → ROUX ₪ 05:29, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

A constitution is a very good idea, and you've made an excellent start on it. Thank you. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It has been kicking around in my head for a while (ditto the RFA reform stuff), and events of the past couple of days persuaded me to dig up the notes I'd made a while ago and get started. I look forward to your input. → ROUX ₪ 18:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Oy vey…

Hi, Roux. Take a look here and here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C14:08, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

…and especially here. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C05:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you made a bad call in filing that SPI. Unless there is evidence (which I do not see from the diffs) that VVB was logged out to evade 3RR limits or stack votes, this is (unfortunately) an acceptable set of behaviours. → ROUX ₪ 23:03, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

You might be right. However, an admin has found it sufficiently meritorious to block VVB for 72 hours, and it seems Leivick, who has tended to defend VVB, does not find the block or its basis problematic. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C23:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

as the section is closed

[2] - but I didn't. hmwith suggested it; I asked if he thought it would help reassure. I didn't even remotely "require" it; as you acknowledge I dont' think JC would hold a grudge there is no grounds for accusing me of AGF, and for what it is worth I hope his assurance will help reduce the rather poisonous atmosphere of his Rfb, which his aggressive arguing with the opposes has caused. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain I misread, but I defer to your interpretation and apologise. → ROUX ₪ 18:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize! If I was unclear, the onus is on me to clarify, which I hopefully now have done. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:

As long as you remember to sign, yes :P — neuro^(talk) 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Two sections in a minute. My my, you are a popular boy. — neuro^(talk) 18:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You say popular, others say slutty. Six of one. Welcome back! → ROUX ₪ 18:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Carr81

I would say abusive. The user has had the following usernames...many were banned. The user would try to impersonate certain subjects of articles, namely Houston McCoy

• 1 Aug 2005 24.178.174.90
• 4 Nov 2005 68.187.194.251
• 7 Dec 2005 Subwayjack
• 26 Apr 2006 Organizedconfusion
• 24 May 2006 68.187.204.214
• 31 May 2006 Sbharris
• 17 Jun 2006 HoustonMcCoy
• 11 Aug 2006 71.121.103.147 19
• Oct 2006 2HOT2
• 18 Apr 2007 24.150.14.28 19 Apr 2007 68.115.166.54
• 20 Jul 2008 Detroitnews9
• 21 Oct 2008 Victor9876

Carrt81 (talk) 05:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Have you got any proof of this? I recognised User:Sbharris as a valued and productive contributor, for example. → ROUX ₪ 05:53, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, yes. My ears are burning. And it's only by the shearest coincidence that I happen to be looking at this page, and -- lo!-- my name comes up. Enough to make you believe in synchronicity.

The Houston McCoy article was one on which I did dispute sometime back with some BLP warriors who just had to keep the article, despite that fact that the subject is notable for just ONE major newsworthy event in his life (helping shoot the Texas Tower Sniper Charles Whitman). But because he filed for disability later, he made the news, so his BLP stayed on a technicality. AFAIK, at least one of the "Houston McCoy" users is the subject himself, who is (or was) still living in 2006, and wanted his BLP removed. Of course, nobody listened. This is one of the incidents that helped educate me as to the ultimately corrosive nature of BLP on Wikipedia (Wales and Marsden being another). In any case, anybody you see posting as user:SBHarris is likely the real SBHarris. It's my real name, and I know of no other on WP. None of the other users above are me. I do not sock. SBHarris 18:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Righto. I don't really feel like getting any further involved in this. → ROUX ₪ 18:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing user name Sbharris was my mistake. Sorry about that and for any controversy it may have created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carrt81 (talk • contribs) 21:46, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:My reading

Obviously you are very confident in your assessment of arb contributions to that page, but you don't need to state this opinion three times. This is especially useless if you don't back it up. In answer to your questions, yes I have been reading the contribs there. I've responded to some of them there too. You would have known that if you'd checked my contribs. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me for not stalking your contribs. Either way, it seems clear that you're not actually going to listen to anything until the arbs do what you tell them to. Best of luck with that. → ROUX ₪ 10:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Erm, you were the one asking me if I was reading the thread. You could have answered it yourself by "stalking" me ... i.e. clicking on my contribs which are linked for this kind of reason. If you wanna argue like a teenager, by all means, but don't expect it to generate respect. You had several opportunities to link answers yourself, which would have taken you less time than it took you to make the pointless lackey comments you made. Instead you choose innuendo about how I couldn't have read it or didn't understand. Fair enough, but why would you think that'd be something I'd "listen" to? In reality, you don't care, and you're just putting on a show for which I'm not the intended audience. Have fun then I guess. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting on a show...? Well, it's gratifying to see that your bizarre accusations against ArbCom are nothing personal, it's something you do to everyone. Past experience in noting your contributions has told me that there's pretty much nothing you'll listen to that doesn't match what you have decided you will hear, but one lives in hope and tries anyway. Here, as there, you may have the last word if you'd like. → ROUX ₪ 10:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess removing my comment[3] meant you really did want the last word, which is presumably what you hoped you'd gain from "you may have the last word if you'd like". Though given what you've said about me you wouldn't really have any grounds to complain if it were, no insult was intended. I wish you all the best, honestly. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:23, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor point

Re your oppose, user's early edits were in July 2008. Otherwise completely agree (no chance) but it's longer than a few weeks. Just FYI.  Frank  |  talk  21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't teach us how to read calendars in Canada. → ROUX ₪ 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Canada, eh? ;-)  Frank  |  talk  21:31, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

If you believe, following the hyperbole of Rootology, that I have edit-warred, please raise it with me on my talk page, rather than suggesting so in a thread on a separate topic. Thanks. Geometry guy 00:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe there was incipient editwarring, yes. And I will raise such concerns in whatever venue is most appropriate. In this case, that page was the most appropriate place: two birds, one stone, and it was the affected page. → ROUX ₪ 00:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I reverted precisely once and carefully refrained from reverting again. That does not amount to an edit war on my part. Had I reverted again, it might have been a different story... Geometry guy 00:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of what edit warring is. Are you aware of what 'incipient' means? I did not use the word by accident. → ROUX ₪ 00:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Sure, which is why I indicated my effort to engage in dialogue (and not revert again) after Rootology's second revert. Anyway, I understand how you might have been led to the comments you made, and wish you well. Geometry guy 00:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ACDP new section

Yes, I'm trying to sort it out - hang on. Black Kite 00:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Attention Talkpage Stalkers! Your help is urgently needed.

Hi all. The NPP buffer is basically at zero right now, and patrolling new pages is urgently required. Please be sure to patrol from the back (oldest pages) of the log. If you click here you will be taken to the current 5 oldest articles. Below is the process I use when patrolling; your mileage may vary. No idea how many people stalk this page, but I figure there's at least 10, so if everyone could do say 15 pages, that's 150 out of the log. → ROUX ₪ 05:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the major backlogs on Wikipedia is new page patrol. Basically, as new pages get created they get added to a log. They need to be checked to make sure they meet our criteria--a worrying number are attack pages, hoaxes, yet another MySpace band, etc. The problem is, the log can only hold so many, and once a page is more than 31 days old, it vanishes. And new pages being what they are, the likelihood of seeing them again is pretty low. This can allow for some pretty bad/dumb stuff to sit around in mainspace effectively forever, when it should be removed. I think it would be great for you to get involved in patrolling a few new pages every day. Here's my process:

1. I click here. It takes me to the back of the log, the oldest pages, which is where all patrolling should happen.
2. I open up all five pages in new tabs
3. Click the 'mark as patrolled' link at the very bottom-right of every page immediately. This gets it out of the log.
4. Click on 'page' after the 'This page has been marked as patrolled' page loads to get back to all five pages
5. If something seems off with how it's written, copy/paste the text into this, which does a fast Google search for copyvio/plagiarism
6. Mark for speedy deletion or AFD (using Twinkle) if appropriate, otherwise
7. Edit:

• grammar
• spelling
• MOS
• tidy up web-based references using thislink. I have another version that I use, it's a javascript bookmarklet in my toolbar, automatically fills in the pagename and stuff. Let me know if you want it.
• Remove unreliable refs, etc.

And finally tag (using Friendly or Twinkle) for cleanup, unreferenced, refimprove, etc etc, for any issues I don't feel like handling immediately

Technically...

...I could argue that the race of a blocked editor is the race of "block 'eds". :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Rights/constitution

Here are some vaguely organised thoughts. Wikipedia needs both the rule of law and democracy. Historically and logically the rule of law comes first: contributors need to know what the rules are, and the rules need to be effectively enforced. Without the rule of law, democracy has no secure existence. The rules then need to reflect the rights and responsibilities of the contributors, who are free and equal as people. Lastly the constitution needs to set up a formal structure that gives effect to the rules and rights. Groomtech (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

If you could make your observations over at the talk page, that would be a lot more helpful (this page gets archived, and that is going to be a loooong process). → ROUX ₪ 19:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Re your observation

Looks like the new bickering came about because arbcom asked some people to talk about stuff. Have I got it? Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

That's just some of the bickering.. in reality, it never changes; people fight over the same stuff, though now we are becoming increasingly paralysed by inertia. → ROUX ₪ 02:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Help

Dear Roux, I tried to clean-up my page Umar Mihayshi. Would you read it again and tell if mistakes still exists. Thanks--Maher A. A. Abdussalam (talk) 22:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew ^talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup participates in the Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout

Hello all, iMatthew here. I just wanted to let you know about "The Great Wikipedia Dramaout" which starts this Saturday. The goal of the Dramaout is to spend five days working on improving articles and abstaining from any of Wikipedia's drama. I don't think that any of you will have a problem focusing on articles for five days, because of course, any work you get done during the Dramaout will count towards your score in the WikiCup. Details are on the page; hope to see you all signing up! :) iMatthew ^talk at 00:27, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

5 pillars, IP users, me

i: I do not have an account. I did have an account but I stopped using it at east 3 years ago. (No, I will not tell you the name).
ii: ASSUME GOOD FAITH. It's right there in the five pillars, which are the only firm rules of Wikipedia.
iii: I'm sorry if you see this comment at lecturing or badgering. Please let me know if you do, and Ill work to improve my word-phrasing and tone. But, that's not a reason to dismiss what are meant to be constructive comments, or to dismiss an editors work. IP editors have the same 'rights' as logged in editors, (apart from a narrow range of stuff which is technically enforced, and an even narrower range of stuff which is community enforced.) They most certainly have the same rights of AGF and CIVIL as logged in users. Indeed, WP needs more better editors, and thus AGF and CIVIL are perhaps more important for IP editors than named editors.
You have said that you don't want to be lectured. Please let me know if you think you are and I will never ever comment to you again, and I'll try to avoid conversations (or at least sub-branches) that you're involved in. I think that's a reasonable whatsit. 87.113.86.207 (talk) 01:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I would bother listening to you if you hadn't started with an outright and baseless attack. Bye now. → ROUX ₪ 01:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it was me who you think is the "outright" attacker. I wasn't nearly as well-mannered and worded as this IP87 above. I've just been watching your talk page since I had my little temper-tantrum and blew up, to see if at any point you actually give a good justification for slamming IP users (rather than just pointing out that basically, in your opinion, we ought to edit from an account), as I've noticed some other IPs have taken you to task for the issue. Let me promise you, they're not me. (Even though IP87 above used all-caps for "assume...," lol, as I did in my little tantrum). Your comments regarding IPs do really seem to be quite harsh and inflammatory with respect to policies. Eg., "lay in the bed you have made," "oh well, lead a horse to water," etc. From what I've seen, you appear to just employ rude snipes like these for the most part, with no reference to any Wikipolicies which say editors from IPs ought not defend their opinions as voraciously as any other editor, but rather imply that IPs should just involve themselves in the community in the way you see fit. 66.183.69.201 (talk) 21:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Everything you have just said is wrong, and if you think I am incapable of differentiating two IPs that geolocate to opposite sides of the planet, well, there's really not much I can do to help you. → ROUX ₪ 04:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Shamelessly seeking input at Advisory Council RFC

I've made a proposal on the talk page of the Advisory Council RFC in hopes of finding a constructive way forward. I'm shamelessly asking for input on it from you and others who have taken part in the discussion. Please see this section and contribute as you see fit. Thanks, alanyst ^/talk/ 18:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

{{tb|Jayen466|ACPD}}

I Centro Passi (One Hundred Steps)

{{talkback}} - AKeen (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

You!!

*sashays into your talkpage to a lissom sax soundtrack, strides to the window, lights a cigarette and lets the slatted shadows from the window blind fall across her face. Turns, arches brow over a kohl-rimmed eye.* You! What you did! FTW! (I am having trouble properly amalgamating the gonzo and the noir.) Thank you kindly, sir. Lemme know if there's anything I can do to repay the favour. Gonzonoir (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not a boy who writes like that?!?! :) → ROUX ₪ 04:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ha. I have a brother; you're welcome to him, but he doesn't wear as much kohl... Gonzonoir (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but is he even half as charming? → ROUX ₪ 11:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Lord Cut-Glass (album)

Dude, I am taking this discussion away from the AfD because it doesn't belong there.
WP:BEFORE states that "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." My comment was "please read WP:BEFORE" (and was a good faith attempt to make you aware of the BEFORE policy), after I had searched Google and quickly found sources that would've prevented this article from being nominated had they been included. What you had actually said was "Pitchfork did not come up in a Google search", (which it didn't for me, either). Your comments of "try reading this time: those sources didn't appear in Google when I searched" of "Seriously, it would behoove you to pay attention to what people say; this is a recurring problem at AfD" are implying that I had not read what you had not written, and do not AGF. I am, in fact, perfectly capable of reading exactly what you had written in the first place. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Had you read what I had written, you would not have said what you did. QED. Saying "please read WP:BEFORE" is a blatant assumption that I hadn't, as opposed to what you claim is an assumption of good faith. → ROUX ₪ 12:26, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Telling me what I think or would've thought is a privilege reserved exclusively for my wife. I read your comments and I stand by mine. This AfD nomination suggested that no attempt that WP:BEFORE had been heeded. Good luck with getting this "NN album by barely (if at all) notable artist" deleted. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

'Good luck'...? You act as though I give a tinker's. The article appeared to be about an unnotable album. I looked for references via Google--which you for some bizarre reason assumed I had not; I can only assume you're one of the people who takes it as a personal affront when something is deleted--and found none. Therefore I nominated it for deletion. This is a reasonable and logical action for me to take. Your actions are, conversely, neither. → ROUX ₪ 12:37, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

A page on my watchlist is nominated for deletion. I search Google and find reasons for it not to be deleted. I include my rationale in my !vote and make a good-faith attempt at alerting the nominator of an applicable WP guideline. I don't care which one of these actions you think are illogical; I do not believe that any of them are. "I can only assume you're one of the people who takes it as a personal affront when something is deleted" is an assumption without basis. You followed WP:BEFORE? Fine, but I might suggest that your Google is broken - take it back and get a new internets for it. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 12:47, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

If you say so. → ROUX ₪ 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

For the link to the proposed constitution. It looks like a fine start at codifying existing policy. Being US-centric, I'll be reading up on our first ConCon. Of course they had the advantage in written founding documents. Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a first

I am surprised by your actions especially considering I provided a link to the page were images were provided asserting the validity of my edits. Assuming you are not blind I will direct your vision to the lower portion of the shield where the BC seal can clearly be seen. As for my other edit that you reversed (CoA Manitoba) please look at the right of the shield where an early version of the CoA can be seen with a crown in the center and no rock under the Buffalo. While I admit I have had edits reversed before, the removal of a simple statement describing a picture stands high as a first. Also labelling edits as vandalism is a significant claim and should not be made lightly. I do not appreciate being accused of altering pages specifically with the intention of causing damage and if it happens again I will contact the administrators to sort you out. Lastly I recommend that you take time to better familiarize with the subject matter before attempting to decide what is and what is not an “error”. jfry3 11:08pm ET July 17, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 03:08, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

'Sort me out'..? hah. Cute. Add a source. That image is not a reliable source; one notes that in the upload description itself it says 'unofficial'.. aka, not reliable. → ROUX ₪ 03:55, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXV

Delivered by JCbot (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2009 (UTC).

User:(

I think I would have worded the question, "What is your personal interest in this?" No one quite came out and asked the user that, so the dodging-and-ducking game went on for awhile until the user who start the thread at AN plaxicoed himself (temporarily). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I was operating on the Rope Donation principle. → ROUX ₪ 12:51, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's the problem, I think. The whole thing was monumentally silly. Pmrzd is being decidedly pointy and we, like chumps, fell for it and fuelled the bonfire of his vanity. Crafty (talk) 12:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

It was kind of entertaining to read, though. A little like "Who's on first?" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Arguably, the rope donation principle worked, as he got himself suspended. But then he apparently promised not to do it again until the next time, and got unblocked. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And then promptly edited the WP:AN debate despite his promise not to. In any event, I suspect the prevailing wisdom is that he should be ignored when he indulges himself in barrow-pushing. Something we manifestly did not do. Crafty (talk) 13:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The unblocking admin told him not to bother with the self-imposed AN restriction. –xeno^talk 13:05, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right. Don't comment if you don't know one scintilla of what happened. Don't slander me over a spelling correction. Pzrmd (talk) 01:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The unblock was kind of a weird lapse in usually-impeccable judgement by SK. Pzrmd is obviously a reincarnation of a disruptive user, and the weird and disruptive--self-admittedly so--crusades he's been going on lately are becoming increasingly tiresome. → ROUX ₪ 13:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

← Only if you let it get to you, love. Frankly, I say let him shit the bed. The community will put up with him until they've had enough. In the meantime there are numerous other things one can indulge oneself with. Crafty (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The interesting thing is that he has gone to the trouble of pointing out that he used to edit under a different ID, knowing that a checkuser won't bother trying to figure it out. But you're saying he'll eventually get himself blocked on his own, so why bother. Except he will then come back as yet another user. And the game will continue. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

And when he comes back as another user y'all can continue with the Elmer vs Bunny routine. Grist to the mill what? :) Crafty (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone can. That guy so far has been pointy but mostly harmless, from what I've seen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully with you to cheer that someone on Bugs. ;) Crafty (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

When or if he gets indef'd, and if he comes back, then an SPI can be run with a, "by the way, look for any OTHER socks", and then he'll be found out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:48, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you my friend or not? There was no reason to post at Roux's talk page. Drama-mongering. I don't know what Crafty has against me, and the only point I'm making is that ( should have been unblocked.. Pzrmd (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the game you're playing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:16, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fighting for what I think is right. You are not the person I thought you were. Quite disappointing. Pzrmd (talk) 02:25, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

In fact I was lightly considering revealing my old account to you; what a mistake that would have been….Pzrmd (talk) 02:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure Roux is thrilled about us dialoguing on his page. Here's what I'm getting at: Either be straightforward about your past here, or keep quiet about it. No games. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Crafty, *stop it* I am not trolling; that is a great way to escalate a dispute for no reason. You don't even know me (afaik) Pzrmd (talk) 01:53, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have emailed EVula about my old account so that you wonderful people won't attack me instead of the argument. Pzrmd (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerem43's RFA

The browser crashed when I edited so it prolly messed up the edit. –BuickCenturyDriver 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

DevCom

Hi Roux, your message was quite the coincidence as I was just looking at your proposal, which I think is a decidedly excellent idea. Provided the details of mission and process of DevCom are posed to the community after being constructed by the interim membership, I would very much be in support of a focus group like you suggested. Best regards -- Samir 06:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

On a separate matter I was going to ask you whether you would be interested in helping coordinate a Toronto meetup for later this summer (preferably after the garbage strike gets resolved) -- Samir 06:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Hopefully making this an entirely community-driven process will help make it actually happen. And I've moved it out into projectspace, shortcut WP:DEVCOM. A Toronto meetup, absolutely I'd help organise that. → ROUX ₪ 06:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

XFA / RFDA

Hi, thanks for the message. However I dont't see anything in your latest version that looks to me like Tony1/AdminReview. I think relying on Tony1/AdminReview for part of the XFA proc has some weaknesses:

• As you pointed out, Tony1/AdminReview has not yet been adopted.
• The process by which "Coordinators" are "elected" is totally unspecified - nothing about frequency, elegibility to vote, voting rules (e.g. single tranferable?), etc. While I disagree with some parts of your proposal, it's by a long way the most fully thought-out of all the proposals I've seen for controlling admins.
• It's not at all clear what results Tony1/AdminReview can actually deliver, apart from "a lot of people disapprove of admin X's conduct, and we're inclined to agree".
• Yet another layer of officials (or not-quite officials). Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

So it's another example of why I think a "citizens' initiative" mechanism is needed, in order to prevent an infinite regress. As I said in the XFA / RFDA discussion page, the "citizens' initiative" mechanism need not be particularly easy, but it is needed as a last resort. --Philcha (talk) 06:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, sorry and with all due respect, it seems like you're not really getting what is being said. First, there was nothing I said that indicated this process would look anything like AdminReview. Second, there's no reliance on it; it's merely an alternate path to appease your concern that somehow the entire admin corps would sweep desysop requests under the rug and ArbCom would then do the same. Third, admins would merely be required to certify whether the i's have been dotted and the t's have been crossed--same as clerks do at ArbCom and SPI. Fourth, you still have not given any indication as to why you think 1700 people would collectively conspire to obviate any request for desysop. If nothing else, there are more than enough grudges between various sets of admins to guarantee that certification will go through; again bear in mind that nobody gets to object to certification, they must only ensure that the right process has been followed. Nothing more. → ROUX ₪ 06:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

It would also help if you could provide suggestions for such a process that a) are not gameable by socks, SPAs, or meatpuppets, b) ensure that requests are entered into carefully and thoughtfully, not in the heat of the moment, c) ensure that all RFDA requests have a valid basis. → ROUX ₪ 06:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ebierbing

Dear Roux,

I do not understand your comment line about donwngrading Ebierbing due to "lack of citations" - the article has some citations and a bibliography - nor your tagging it as "low" importance. He is an important Inuit figure in Canadian history, enough so that he and his wife Tookoolito have an entry in The Canadian Encyclopedia. Clevelander96 (talk) 15:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article has exactly one inline citation. According to the quality criteria here:

“ The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup. ”

As for importance... this may be a problem with the fact that the assessment is called 'importance'. It doesn't quite mean 'how important is this article to Canada,' it means 'how important is this article to understanding Canada. Here's what the [[importance assessment has to say:

“ The article is not required knowledge for a broad understanding of Canada, but may cover topics directly related to Canada. ”

Hope that helps. → ROUX ₪ 20:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Page move

Hi. Could you please explain why you moved Rootology's talkpage? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 00:47, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the move. I don't doubt it was made in good faith, but I think you may be mistaken as to how to request protection of a page - for that, simply go to WP:RFPP. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 01:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Sigh. Dylan, there was a reason I asked rather than reverting it myself. You need to stop doing this sort of thing. → ROUX ₪ 01:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 12:23, 16 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rocksanddirt"

Childish protest on his protection being undone. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

In that case, consider yourself in receipt of your only warning against doing anything like that ever again. → ROUX ₪ 20:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Roux!

[4] yeah, I try to gnome it up where possible. I'm going for the record of 'longest time to reach 5000 edits'. Slow and steady. Nice to meet'cha! =) --guyzero | talk 23:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh. You may know me as the artist formerly known as bagel.. → ROUX ₪ 23:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm! I'm trying to figure out the riddle, but I'm drawing a blank. Need more coffee! cheers, --guyzero | talk 23:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A filthy bagel, with no feeling whatsoever :P → ROUX ₪ 23:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Shoot! My brain is too addled to figure this out. I know it'll come to me... (cool recipes btw!) --guyzero | talk 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I have completely mistaken you for someone else. Sorry. → ROUX ₪ 04:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Nice to meet'cha regardless =) --guyzero | talk 05:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

reform

Well, it would make sense for editors who watch one to atch the other as well. From the perspective of your commitee, the Reform project could be a place to test the wates of public opinion for any matter. In any event I hope you will join the conversations already occuring at the Reform projct page. So far no one has addressed the issues of ArbCom and other committees which I think is important to yu, I hope you can get a discussion goins!Slrubenstein | Talk 20:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

My bad

Sorry if this disturbed you, 'twas an accidental misclick and I reverted myself ASAP. Best, Dylan620 (contribs, logs) 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Radio IBS Liberty

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Radio IBS Liberty. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio IBS Liberty. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Long Overdue

		The Royalty and Nobility Barnstar
		Thank you so much for your extremely valuable work on the Coronation article. You definitely took it to the next level--and then some!! It could never have made GA without you. Ecjmartin t | c 03:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about creating barnstars, but I thought you deserved to have one for your hard work on Coronation. I understand your recent decision to leave, but I just wanted to express my own appreciation for all of your hard work and help. I know you've taken a lot of crap from different editors, etc., but it truly could never have made GA without you, and I just wanted to express my own personal appreciation for your extremely valuable contributions. It was a lot of fun, and I'm glad to have been able to work with you on it. I'm just sorry that I didn't think to do this before now! Take care, and I'll see you around the Wikipedia universe again, I'm sure!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey wow, thank you :) I took the liberty of changing the image so I can make it fit in my userpage :) → ROUX ₪ 13:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome!! Looks nice!!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVI

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 15:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Cathy Bursey-Sabourin‎

Hi Roux,

Thanks for your help - however, will you also be adding those required citations? I have seen many stubs tagged by senior users, so I'm unsure what difference it makes. Your expertise is appreciated. Thanks Deadchildstar (talk) 03:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Copyediting request

Hi Roux - you've elsewhere indicated that you're a competent copyeditor, and I need one right now. Charles Stewart (Canadian politician) is at FAC, and User:Tony1 has indicated that he thinks that it needs an independent copyedit, which may well be correct. Would be willing/able to perform one in exchange for some as yet unspecified future favour? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 18:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Would be happy to, but not today; I've been away all weekend. → ROUX ₪ 02:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As to whether more copyediting's needed, I'm not sure; I thought the prose was FA-worthy when I nominated it, but I'm biased. Maybe have a look at it and see what you think? Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 00:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI thread collapsed

I think that there's a consensus that your proposals were not helpful. I have collapsed the section.

Please take some time out from that discussion - you're obviously upset about it and your judgement on that topic appears to be unreliable at the moment.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

You could not be more wrong if you tried. My judgement is far from unreliable on this topic, nand I have uncollapsed in order to address the outrageous accusations from a pair of.. well, I'm not allowed to say what I actually think, now am I? It's worth noting that (again) you have decided to pick on me, and made no mention whatsoever of Caspian Blue's usual behaviour. Fascinating, really. I'd ask for an explanation, but we both know you won't give one. → ROUX ₪ 00:59, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Caspian Blue. At all. I am recollapsing. If you uncollapse again I will block you for being disruptive. Please don't do this again. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

As an addendum - I agree that both ChildofMidnight and Caspian Blue have said things which were not entirely ok in the thread. However, and I hope you understand that I am not anyone's particular friend in this matter, your conduct in thread is about a 7 on the abuse scale, and theirs are at worst 4's. They should be warned, yes - but yours is bordering on blockable right now. And I can't go warn them for the incivility until your situation is over / calmed down.

Please stop. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be excellent, really, if you could point out where there was any abuse? Caspian decided to call me abusive, and I explained that is his usual M.O; hell, the topicban that was so recently expired was imposed precisely because instead of addressing concerns, he began attacking me. And then on a later date harassed me here.. for which I was blocked--punitively, I might add, given that it was 12 hours afterwards--for getting pissed off when he wouldn't stop. And yet somehow, he starts the abuse, I make factual statements about how he behaves, and I'm the one threatened with a block. There are days when I wonder exactly what hold he has on which admins, given that he has a history of abusive socking, for God's sake, attacks people on a regular basis, and yet is allowed to contribute. Without a single warning, it's worth noting. Or, shorter: there was no abuse whatsoever coming from me. That you see it as such and view his behaviour as relatively okay is extremely educational. → ROUX ₪ 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, ignoring whether the proposals themselves were disruptive, the very first thing you said to CoM after his carefully phrased and civil comment on the proposals: "And I find just about everything you do disruptive.". He was very careful to not insult you and stay focused on the content issue, and you led off with a personal attack.

Your first response to Caspian Blue: "Nothing about this proposal is abusive, and calling it such is merely your usual reduction to offensive comments in order to discredit someone you don't happen to like, as opposed to actually engaging with what people say". CB was not as careful as CoM - and your comment was not more uncivil than his was - but the thread was already off track despite your protestations that you're trying to stay focused on the issues.

Looie's comment - that this sounded like it was going off the deep end - was not particularly polite either, but he's not someone I've ever seen in conflict with you, and that he felt compelled to say that should have tipped you off. Your extreme reaction to my comments here too - I don't think we've ever had a serious conflict that I can recall, though I may just be forgetting something - should have made you step back and review your own behavior.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

CoM's intent with the 'careful' phrasing was quite clear, and I responded in kind. But that's not okay--I'll bear that in mind in the future; it's okay to attack people, but it's not okay to respond. As for the past.. I suggest you look at the most recent entry in my block log, and examine your talkpage and contributions from around the same time. Caspian Blue attacks me outrageously every chance he gets, which is why I generally refrain from ever responding to him. He did so again, and against my better judgement I responded.. but again: he. attacked. me. And somehow.. no warning, no nothing. Fascinating, it really is. → ROUX ₪ 02:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comment to Caspian is equally fascinating. He crossed the line by being incivil back? What, pray tell, would you call accusing me of being abusive and disruptive? That's perfectly civil, is it? Ugh, this is why the jerks around here always win.. they provoke and provoke, and when you get annoyed and respond, somehow you are the badguy. → ROUX ₪ 02:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Nor, indeed, was there any fucking harassment, his edit summary notwithstanding. He gets to sit there and lie and lie and lie and lie, but I'm not allowed to say anything. And it's amazing how all of a sudden the 'don't post here' thing is fine for him to say, but when I told him the same thing I was all wrong--both in his eyes and yours. Gee. Double standard much? → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In response to AN/I discussion

You need to be careful what you think about because one of my jobs at Wikipedia is to read your mind ;)--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 04:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:51, 31 July 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.