User talk:Roux: Difference between revisions

The restrictions are to last for 2 months, ending on 2 Jan 2009, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit.
1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
Required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
On article talk pages is required to stick solely to content.

If you feel I have violated any of these, please let me know so I can correct myself. If you feel the situation is beyond that, please contact Nixeagle.

Talkbacks (pls place talkback notices here)

dear roux, i was refering to when i edit my talk ?user pageRuddyman11 (talk) 21:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Hi Roux, I have a wiki page about me that someone created some years ago. Actually, they went to my website at the time, and copied and pasted an old bio that I had written and put it up on wiki. I found it this year by accident, and I decided to add details to the facts that were being listed about me- seeing as they were my words anyway and could use some better adjustments. It was just adding dates and things that happened, but careful to do so without praise, of course. Having no idea how to navigate around wiki, I am writing you here. It looks like you flagged it for conflict of interest, but I thought maybe you could help me out with this one, seeing as I wasn't trying to write "I am the best, blah blah" and just trying to make things more clear. I didn't know I couldn't add anything on like that, and I was hoping you could take the notability/conflict of interest flag off, or at least advice me the best course of action to take. It is nice to have it up there on wiki, I don't want it to be deleted, I guess. Thanks! Tucker Livingston Tuckerlivingston (talk) 13:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whoo!

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

Notice

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at User talk:IRP#Rollback.
You may remove this notice at any time by removing the {{newmessages}} template.

Barnstar of brilliance

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

Re: script

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

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

Guido den Broeder

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

Wonderflonium

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

replied

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

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

Heya

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Sorry about our little disagreement earlier, but I was rather worried about you. Anyway, it's great to have you back Patton 123 19:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for advice

Regarding [1] please advice what the next course of action would be.

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

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

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

Re: Coat of arms of Scarborough

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

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

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

@@ Line 137: / Line 137: @@
 With regards to [[Coat of arms of Scarborough]] I would like to thank you for finding the information regarding the official coat of arms for the city.  I would also want to know where information regarding the "crest" of Scarborough would then belong.  The image and information removed from that article pertained to the "crest".  Reference:  [http://web.archive.org/web/19970104031114/http://www.city.scarborough.on.ca/mm/about/history.html City of Scarborough website in 1997 courtesy of the Internet Archives].  [[User:UTSRelativity|UTSRelativity]] ([[User talk:UTSRelativity|talk]]) 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 :Hi there. A [[Crest (heraldry)|'''crest''']] is part of a coat of arms. There really is no such thing as a crest as a standalone entity. The website you provided got it wrong--many, many people use 'crest' and 'coat of arms' interchangeably. //[[User:Roux|<font color=#465945> <font size=1>'''roux'''</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Roux|<span style="border:1px solid #465945;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">&nbsp;</font></font>]] 01:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)</small>
+::I see, thanks for the clarification.  It would look like the City of Scarborough had previously adopted a coat of arms but it may not have been granted by an external authority.  The one described in my reference is different from the one currently described by the article. --[[User:UTSRelativity|UTSRelativity]] ([[User talk:UTSRelativity|talk]]) 01:10, 22 December 2008 (UTC)