Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes
Hi, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I will apologize neither for perfectly reasonable and justified burning frustration at yet more of Miesianical's bullshit pedantry and wikilawyering nor for changing that section title to something rather more accurate than Lionelt's bullshit accusations that I was insisting on biased language in an RfC that I NEVER FUCKING CREATED. → ROUX₪04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
*facepalm* Please, I'm not asking you not to be frustrated. A brief persusal of that talk page made me frustrated. But you simply can't expect to lash out like that and be listened to. Were the above not on your talk page (where we generally provide wide latitude for people to vent) I'd have been saying "stop or be blocked to prevent further disruption." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Blah, blah, blah. Address the actual problem, including the deliberate lie--once everyone had been alerted to the truth, insisting on that section title became a lie--or go away. → ROUX₪05:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aww man, I was tryuing to change the section header and got edit conflicts. If you can just stop, and say you'll work and play well with others, I'll unblock per the note below. But is it really so hard to understand that communicating is a civil manner will work in your benefit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I made clear below, I will stop editwarring if and only if the lying biased section title is removed. Unless and until that is done, I will continue to revert. Lionelt needs, also, a strong dose of WP:CLUE, as he is continuing to assert things unsupported by reality. → ROUX₪05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Roux, I hope this advice does not fall on deaf ears, but I feel the need to say it anyways. It roughly mirrors what Aaron Brenneman says above: Your behavior obscures your rightness. That is, the way in which you go about presenting yourself makes it impossible for people to take your side in disputes. This is a prime example. You may very well have a valid point, but when you package the valid point the way you do, it makes it impossible for others to come to your support. When your behavior becomes a distraction, it ruins any point you are trying to make. Try a different approach next time. --Jayron3205:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can only assume you have never been on the receiving end of Miesianiacal's bullshit, mulish obduracy, and misrepresentation of sources--that is, misrepresentation when he even has the sources to back up his monarchist POV-pushing. I am still waiting for my unblock. → ROUX₪05:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: "if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock"
Quote: "I will stop editwarring when, and only when, that lying biased section heading is either removed or amended to include the truth about Lionelt's apparent total inability to comprehend reality"
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).
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.
As a note, you're allowed to tell anything you want, you just cannot modify what others have written. And more importantly, you're not allowed to edit war to force others to accept your modifications of the text others have written.--Jayron32 12:13 am, Today (UTC−5)
Yes, because section titles are never changed anywhere. Try again. I will not allow deliberate lies about me to stand. Period. → ROUX₪ 12:14 am, Today (UTC−5)
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:
In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.
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:
{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=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. |3 = ~~~~}}
If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.
{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}
If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:
{{unblock reviewed |1=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. |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}
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. --Jayron3205:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will stop editwarring when, and only when, that lying biased section heading is either removed or amended to include the truth about Lionelt's apparent total inability to comprehend reality. → ROUX₪05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a misunderstanding on my part because the template talk page is not chronological. Roux has certainly overreacted and been uncivil. However, as the aggrieved party, I would Support an unblock. – Lionel(talk)05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The page is, in fact, chronological. Look at the history. I am awaiting your apology. I have not overreacted; you made an enormous mistake and accused me of bias, and after being told what reality was you continued to insist. Given that you had been told the facts, continuing to insist on your disgustingly insulting section title then became deliberate lying. I will not allow myself to be lied about. Is that crystal fucking clear? → ROUX₪05:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is, one of us isn't twisting Wikipedia rules to push a stupid POV. You're no help, you enable his nonsense. → ROUX₪05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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... 174.7.90.110 (talk) 05:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
