User talk:Roux

I answered your question. Ian (talk) 21:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"" "" "" "" Ian (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I replied too. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:45am • 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, 1, cute kitten. On the reason I am here, I have created a cool sandbox and shall get started at once. YEAH! Now NO one can revert my edits! YAY! At least on my sandbox. MY FAVORITE PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA!!!!! Ian (talk) 21:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done and have all of it on my clipboard (copied). Ian (talk) 22:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer. I don't get how to get the external link working. Copy and paste this link to you're URL bar. Please, then tell me the real name of it so I can get it to work. Ian (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dan-ball.jp/en/javagame/dust Ian (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? → ROUX ₪ 22:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The external link part of editing 101. Ian (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Try adding another slash, like so: [http://dan-ball.jp/en/javagames/dust/ Powder game]. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It won't work. Ian (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you use "http://"? Brambleclawx 21:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sang, It worked!!!!!!!! Ian (talk) 21:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roux, when are you going to check it? I (in response to the adults and the **** word)can't have known your age, until you told me that you were an adult. I can check no matter what. You can start a talk page on it. I was going to do that anyway. I.P. (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check what? Ian, I am here to participate in writing and maintaining an encyclopedia. Not to play games and mess about with sandboxes and replying to talkpage comments that are over a year old. What are you here for? We have tried explaining kindly and patiently what Wikipedia is for and what you need to be doing differently. → ROUX ₪ 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Roux, you are forced to appear on IRC on the channel #wikipedia-en. WE FUCKING MISS YOU! --Zalgo (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do. It's Cream, derp or whatever nick i used before. I'M the guy from Montréal :) --Zalgo (talk) 16:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. hey homoslice. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't ****ing a bit bad word? Ian (talk) 23:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zalgo and I are grownups, and friends after a fashion. We can use whatever language we like. Please go edit some articles. That means using sources. → ROUX ₪ 01:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I miss talking to you honestly... --Zalgo (talk) 17:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. As you can see on my talk, I am just a kid who is addicted to the Warriors series. I.P. (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue on ANI was that you demanded a retraction rather bluntly. The way you said that you essentially got up in his face and pushed buttons back, escalating the situation. Pointing out that you had just been attacked, without escalating, would have gotten a warning at him only.

You didn't outright break NPA or Civil, no. I didn't say you did. I did say you were assuming bad faith (and i think you did). I did ask you to calm down and back off, from getting up in his face and escalating the confrontation, which you did.

Once a situation goes from "A personal attack" to "A two-sided fight" then it's much more complicated and harder to deal with. You had a reason to be offended, but you then escalated most of the way to a fight. Fortunately he then struck out the section and stepped back.

I am not trying to pick on you. And he did make a personal attack. He seems to have realized that. You got angry but didn't make a personal attack. I appreciate that. But angry and aggressive rarely stops there. It did this time, after my request to the two of you, and I appreciate that.

You didn't do anything wrong requiring action. I was stopping it from going further.

You may not have noticed, but Xanderliptak very nearly got himself blocked yesterday on my talk page. I know you think I've been following you around since that and was unfair in that situation. I understand what he's been doing, and it's on the record. You have been in a bad mood but you're not being disruptive. He is. I know you're editing in good faith.

Please don't take what I've been doing too seriously or too personally. You're one of the good guys. I don't want to treat you otherwise. Even if I frustrate you, please believe me that I AGF with you, and I'm not out to get you.

Happier editing. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:12, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my actions as 'petty vengeance'... perhaps you could explain, precisely, where in that statement there is any GF to be A'd? → ROUX ₪ 10:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How interesting, and unsurprising; you show up, pontificate, and then don't bother addressing the basic error in your pontification. → ROUX ₪ 22:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check this out, if you haven't already seen it:[1] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did. It's a pretty clumsy way to avoid scrutiny, particularly since he has been insisting on removing any text from his userpages linking the two. → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I see here[2] that he continues to argue the licensing issue. He's eventually going to get sent to the phantom zone, but it might take awhile. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He appears to be incapable of understanding that anyone else can possibly be correct. Or, indeed, that everybody else can possibly be correct. Ho hum. I'm looking forward to pasting a great big I TOLD YOU SO on several admin tpages when he does finally get blocked, permanently. → ROUX ₪ 05:57, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or, just post this link:[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, he seems to have gone on hiatus, as he hasn't edited either site in almost 3 days. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. Wild guess: he thinks if he vanishes for a few days it'll all disappear. → ROUX ₪ 04:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had been tempted to say that. It would take more than a few days for that strategy to work, though. Maybe a year or two or three. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from a couple of IP edits 3 days ago, he has been inactive under his known handles for 5 days now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'Known' is probably the relevant term here. Sigh. → ROUX ₪ 22:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey roux,

Remember me? I am user:Irunongames and I am soooooo sad you never told me you came back, you left wikipedia before you could let me graduate :P Peter.C • talk 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey kiddo. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. -- from an anonymous admirer. 216.40.74.166 (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly like getting messages from people who are logged out to avoid scrutiny. → ROUX ₪ 02:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Loved the user page and the clever list of all the things you aren't, but thought I would check whether you were also not a base for a sauce? hamiltonstone (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is supposed to display a definition of roux in the title bar. I guess they've disabled that code hack. → ROUX ₪ 02:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another argument to join, have a look at Talk:Canada#northern_North_America as I see you might have an interest in Canadian topics. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roux, thanks for your comment under my "other view" statement. I thought the mentor thing would be a good idea as it would give him someone neutral looking over things, etc. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think the time for that is long, long past. Xanderliptak needs to shape up or ship out. That being said, I won't object strenuously if consensus arrives at an agreement with your suggestiong. I highly doubt, however, that Xanderliptak would agree to any such mentoring condition.

One also hopes, now that you have seen the depth and breadth of the problem, and the fairly wide-ranging (in terms of subject areas edited, etc) people who have agreed with the various summaries posted, that you have looked back on your comments at ANI and realized how entirely unhelpful they were. → ROUX ₪ 22:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Roux, I can see where you had enormous frustrations there. And I do apologize if any of my comments were upsetting to you. That was not my intent. My input there was more to the AN/I not being the appropriate venue at the moment, and because I do understand Xanderliptak's frustrations. But I was sympathetic to you, as well. I did see your block here. Your unblock request really made me feel your sense of frustration and I felt very bad for what you were going through. I thought the admin, GeorgeHerbertWilliam (hope I got that name combination right) said a very nice thing to you and tried to be helpful.

The whole issue is so complex for editors who aren't familiar with the issues that go along with images, etc., that I'm afraid I fell into the TL,DR bit. I read some at the time, but not all as I've done now. This is why I say I think a mentor will help. It can not only take some pressure off Xanderliptak, it can relieve stress for the community as well.Malke 2010 (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't hold it against someone for having more faith in an ornery user than seems warranted. If they are let down by such a user, it is the user in question who's failed, not the one showing extraordinary good faith. I also concur that the idea of mentoring Xanderlip (or, specifically, the idea that he would even consider being mentored) is hopelessly optimistic. It's hard to mentor someone who's convinced that he's right and everyone else is wrong. There's no way past that hurdle, short of a blinding light on the road to some biblical destination. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, good analogy to the light. But as we know that can happen, and why not just leave the door open a bit for it. Hope springs eternal. Afterall, at the end of any conflict all we have left to show for ourselves is not what we've gained, but rather what we've done to the other fellow. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think of blocks as being analogous to the story about whacking a really intelligent mule over the head because you have to get his attention first. (And I should point out that quite a few of us regulars have required getting "whacked" by that shillelagh from time to time.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair questions. For the record, I was not involved in a content dispute or edit warring with the editor in question. As an administrator I was attempting to restore some order and preserve a talk page from having recent content archived and placed "out of sight". I am happy to enlighten those who are curious as to exactly what happened and why this editor has been blocked for a short period of cooling off time. I happened upon the Juan Williams article last night and noticed that there was some edit warring going on. And in particular there were some attempts to archive current material from the talk page which is not appropriate conduct. One of the threads being put out of sight had responses from this month - indeed this past few days (though the section itself had been started a year back.) It discusses some sensitive matters. But the discussion was not of a tabloid nature, it quoted from and linked to the Washington Post - the employer of Williams at the time of the incidents discussed. And referred to matters for which Williams was investigated, disciplined and apologized. Matters that were very widely reported at the time. The sole area of contention was the exact nature of the incidents. And that is precisely why we have talk pages - for forthright, civil discussion between editors. There was other recent content that the editor was seeking to archive. Wearing my Administrator hat I stepped in civilly and restored the content. Not as an editor warring with an editor. But as an Administrator restoring a long-held protocol. And I requested that this recent material not be deleted or archived. The editor immediately reversed the restoration. It was then that I spent a little time looking through the recent histories of the editor's interactions with other editors and discovered that there were several complaints of bullying by this editor. I investigated and I regret to say that I did find numerous examples in just the preceding 24 hours of a very aggressive tone and threatening text towards other editors in both his messages and in his edit summaries. They are all there to be seen. By way of example he wrote to Veriss1 "I've set you right. Don't do it again". And "Anyone who continues to use Wikipedia to fight these battles will be taken to task". He wrote to Davidpatrick: "You either go with the sources or you don't edit." And "You either need to learn how to write biography articles on Wikipedia, or you need to stop writing. It's very simple." Those types of comments are not conducive to healthy discourse.

Being charitable and assuming that the editor is generally of good faith but perhaps being a hot head in the heat of edit warring, I decided to give him a clear warning that he could be blocked for his actions in removing article talk page material and uncivil interactions and inviting him to respond. By referring to the specific Wikipedia guidelines that he would be encouraged to review during such a suspension I truly hoped he would take a deep breath and realize that if several people (at least two editors and an Administrator) were all unhappy with his tone of discourse that perhaps he needed to cool down. But his immediate response was belligerent and to declare that I was "a meat puppet for Davidpatrick and Veriss1". Apart from the fact that this is patently false, it unfortunately confirmed the identical issue that the other editors have complained of. Namely a bullying aggressive tone that is counter-productive to civil discourse on Wikipedia. That is the reason for the block. I truly hope that the time off will help the editor to read Wikipedia:WikiBullying, Wikipedia:No angry mastodons, and WP:CIVIL and reflect on the merits of a calmer more friendly approach to fellow editors, even in the heat of disagreements. (PS. I'm sending this same reply to the other two individuals who responded, plus I'm posting this on my own talk page in case anyone else posts a similar query). 23skidoo (talk) 12:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• - This block looks very poor imo, can we please post in on ANI for review. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

.. on User talk:Kiefer.Wolfowitz. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 19:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Well put. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You did too so what's the diff? And DTTR. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I referred only to article quality. You made it personal. Flinging DTTR at me is childish in the extreme. I used to respect you. Oh well. → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make it stereo, WP:DTTR. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of childish... → ROUX ₪ 01:17, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are, very. Glad you see that now. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]