User talk:Roux: Difference between revisions
Reverted to revision 476074320 by Roux: I told you that you are not allowed to edit this page. Any edits you make here will be summarily reverted as harassment. (TW) |
|||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
::::Hey Roux, when you're unblocked, follow your past advise & stay clear of Mies. Remember, you guys don't get along. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
::::Hey Roux, when you're unblocked, follow your past advise & stay clear of Mies. Remember, you guys don't get along. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::The difference is, one of us isn't twisting Wikipedia rules to push a stupid POV. You're no help, you enable his nonsense. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)</small> |
:::::The difference is, one of us isn't twisting Wikipedia rules to push a stupid POV. You're no help, you enable his nonsense. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#614051;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)</small> |
||
::::::As a passerby that commented on this talk page above, I just want to say that I think you should listen to GoodDay. Mies clearly sparks something in you that makes you blow up... do you know how many f-bombs you dropped? Sorry, but I just had to comment... [[Special:Contributions/174.7.90.110|174.7.90.110]] ([[User talk:174.7.90.110|talk]]) 05:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:48, 10 February 2012
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial InfoboxesHi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC) Okay, that is the third time I have heard something negative about Miesianiacal. Could you tell me why people hate him so much? 174.7.90.110 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
February 2011You have been mentioned in a incident at the Administrators noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_Roux_insisting_on_biased_RFC_language – Lionel (talk) 04:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Dude, tone it down. You're way out of line in the manner in which you're speaking. Like, consider this a serious civility warning. Can you agree to talk like you would to my grandma, so that the actual issue can be looked at? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Unblock
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: oh what a great job, yet again. Someone is allowed to lie about me, and I'm not allowed to tell the truth. Decline reason: User clearly doesn't get why he's blocked. Jayron's advice is sound and should be followed, especially in this case. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
This user is asking that his block be reviewed:
Roux (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Quote from the blocking admin:"Note to any other admins, if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock." Now that the lying and biased section title has been removed, there will be no editwarring.
Notes:
Administrator use only:
If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting
Editwarring is bad...I have blocked you for 24 hours because you insist on edit warring over a section title at WP:ANI. You've blown past WP:3RR several edits ago. You know how to use the unblock template if you wish to. Note to any other admins, if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock him without asking my further input. --Jayron32 05:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
|