User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/June

my application

Thank you for your comment. But this time I accept 2 Admins dismissal. Because they gave me chance last time. But they think premature. Sorry. Most of our misfortune comes from encountered the machine gun. You seem to know I am not racist. I am consoled. Thank you.--Bukubku (talk) 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

My rationale.

You said on MFD that you had trouble understanding why I didn't want to attempt to engage the user with a very promotional userpage, well, here's the main rationale:

"I am issuing a call to arms to the community to act in a much more

draconian fashion in response to corporate self-editing and vanity page creation [...] shoot on sight"

-Brad Patrick, WMF

[1] Gigs (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

And none of that precludes asking nicely first. It's a kid, not some corporate marketroid. //roux   17:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, I admit I was a little bitey. Point taken. Gigs (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Honestly

I was higly impressed with your insight here and I'm really sorry you failed your RFA after having read it. Hipocrite (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. There's a lot that is broken with Wikipedia, and adopting a much lower tolerance for things like that will start fixing it, fast. This will, of course, never happen. //roux   18:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Good closure, naughty language

Then how about joining me in writing the fucking DYK? Was planning to counter systemic bias by reducing our redlinks about African geography. Tanzania or Egypt? Your choice. Durova^Charge! 20:03, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Fucking, Austria? I'm afraid geography isn't much my interest. //roux   20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeking help in presenting thoughts clearly

I write to ask for prospective help. In a sense, I'm only interested laying the foundation for the I-don't-know-what in the future. Perhaps this may be construed as taking steps to avert problems might be mitigated by a timely comment or suggestion ...?

ArbCom remedy

Voting is underway at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision. In part because of "Evidence presented by Caspian blue", the locus of dispute was modified and "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved." You will be surprised to learn that Roux has anything at all to do with this so-called "evidence" at "Tenmei's wikihounding and trolling" and at "Tenmei's ad hominem attacks and disruption during the ArbCom case". I don't think this timeless prose is worth struggling to read, but I mention the links to explain a bit more of the reasons why I'm reaching out to you.

ArbCom findings of fact included:

• 3.2.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution. "... many of Tenmei's talkpage posts and submissions during this arbitration case have been very difficult for other editors to understand, to the point that experienced participants in dispute resolution have had difficulty in following them, despite what we accept as Tenmei's good-faith best efforts to assist us in resolving the case."

ArbCom remedies included:

• 3.3.2 Tenmei and dispute resolution: "Should Tenmei become involved in any further disputes with other editors, whether concerning the content of articles (beyond ordinary day-to-day editing issues) or more formal dispute resolution procedures, he shall seek the assistance of a volunteer mentor or adviser to work with him in maximizing the value of his presentation by assisting him with formulating it in a clear and civil fashion."

• 3.3.3 Editors advised: "Editors who encounter difficulties in communicating with others on-wiki are advised to seek help from others in presenting their thoughts clearly, particularly when disputes arise or when dispute resolution is sought."

It is clear that ArbCom anticipates future difficulties; and I guess I need to do the same. Arguably, my previous postings on your talk page are congruent with exactly the sort of thing ArbCom wants me to do in future; however, I note with regret that "How to disagree without being disagreeable" at User talk:Georgewilliamherbert is cited several times by Caspian blue as evidence of harassment?

If you want to discuss this off-wiki, I'm working on figuring out how to set up an appropriate e-mail address.. -- Tenmei (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I refuse to get involved in anything where CB is continuing his usual patterns; the only reason I commented on the recent AN/I involving Bukubku (which CB, predictably, took over with the usual behaviour) was because it had gone so far off track I wanted to find Bukubku a final resolution one way or the other. I would suggest someone like User:Durova as someone who is good at helping work things out. In the future, please do not ask me to participate in anything involving CB. //roux   18:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Yes, I thought it likely that "no, thanks" would be your answer. However, you were on the list which Caspian blue posted as "evidence;" and I thought that beginning with usernames from this "evidence" section was less likely to garner extravagant complaints ...? I anticipate that others will decline for reasons similar to yours; but who knows? It's a start. In due course, my writing skills can only improve. One way or the other, I need to work on developing the skills neccessary to survive in abrasive situations like Caspian blue contrives again and again.

Bonsai: Japanese white pine

To return to the point: May I reach out to you in future in circumstances where there is no taint of Caspian blue? Rather than struggling with minor problems after they have evolved, it might be more effective to ask for help/feedback at the first hint that someone seems not to be understanding my words. --Tenmei (talk) 19:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as CB is not involved. yes. //roux   19:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Please accept this small token of appreciation -- a fine example of bonsai. --Tenmei (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Arigato gozaimasu. //roux   19:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Please

This is why I moved the article out from the article space. This is part of the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge. We are adding the provinces of Canada to it. It is still a work in progress. Again, I will stress to you this is not in the normal article space so please if you would be so kind as to not abuse the power you have on Wikipedia and remove the deletion tag on it. The article is not harming you, Thanks. Burningview (talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is, however, harming Wikipedia by creating essentially a duplicate of every article. This is utterly, utterly pointless busywork that serves nobody any use, least of all the readers--you know, the people we're here for--who I can guarantee will not be searching for things like Outline of British Columbia. No, they'll search for British Columbia, and they will find this, and they will read about the province, and then click to their hearts' content to find out more specific information. This entire 'outline' project is a waste of time, and the BC one just happens to have been the first to catch my attention. //roux   21:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

So, I'm speculating that you are an enforcer for a group of wikipedians, that do not like the "Outline" projects, which I believe is in the minority. Is the other "outline" projects next on your hitlist? I disagree with your position; it helps Wikipedia out In my opinion. Burningview (talk) 21:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

'Enforcer'...? What the...? Grow up. //roux   21:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to you to answer my question. Are you going to tag the other "Outline" projects, as you did in my case? Since you stated that you do not agree with the idea of an Outline of Knowledge. You have more influence on wikipedia than I do so you could do that. Burningview (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Stubs

My bad sorry about that Rocknroll714 (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Readers...

...all browse content in different ways, roux. Some will use categories, others navboxes, etc. Some may enjoy these "Outline of" articles - who knows? I don't see how they can be harmful. However, if you truly believe they must be eliminated, I think an RFC would be a better way to go about that. best, –xeno^talk 02:14, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Browsing differently, sure. And yes, I believe an RFC is required on this enormous (and impossible to maintain) duplication of extant articles, categories, and navboxes. Unfortunately I am far too busy with school to compile one, so as usual for Wikipedia nothing will be done. It's a shame to see people otherwise so energetic wasting so much time when they could be building content--another thing I do not unfortunately have much time for--but, well, it's WP. Plus ca change... //roux   06:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I think I should as well, I keep on trying.. I'm going to ask for some admin's assistance in this. I need to try and focus on my 3D work.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Since a block is apparently out of the question, I'm using the wikibreak enforcer.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

It's his own talk page

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I think it's best we leave him alone about it. -GTBacchus(talk) 16:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC) You're hardly unbiased, and it is painfully obvious that he is--yet again--gaming the rules. Ah well, this is Wikipedia after all, where gaming everything is perfectly allowed as long as you're notorious enough. Frankly, his sad attempt to rewrite what actually happened in favour of his...umm...non-reality-based version should be deleted per WP:SOAPBOX, but I'm sure you'll find a reason why the lies should be allowed to stand. //roux   16:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC) What's my bias, and what harm is being done? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:57, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Your bias is obvious. The harm is allowing someone who gamed and exhausted the patience of the community to keep on doing it after being banned, indeed flat-out lying about what happened. Few are going to bother sifting to find the truth. He is deliberately obfuscating the declined unblock and emphasising a dishonest version of what happened. That neither of you see a problem with this is distressing. //roux   17:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC) He added a couple of line breaks, what's the big deal? The scroll bar in your browser alerts you to content below the fold. –xenotalk 17:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Missing the point, xeno. Again: He is deliberately obfuscating the declined unblock and emphasising a dishonest version of what happened. //roux   17:14, 1 June 2009 (UTC) So he's digging a hole deeper? And you're trying to prevent him? Roux, I generally agree with you but on this point I don't quite follow. Everyone involved here know's what's up. –xenotalk 17:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Key point: those involved. Those not involved? They'll see that, and particularly if they've ever had what they'd term as a bad interaction with an admin, they'll walk away thinking "Wow! If I piss off an admin I can get blocked just for that?" It's about perception, and allowing DT to use his talkpage as a soapbox not only goes against policy, but very specifically enables future twits to do the same thing. This is bad. //roux   17:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I think it's fine if he pushes the declined unblock below the fold. People can draw their own conclusions about the rest. –xenotalk 16:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Roux: you claim that my bias is "obvious"; I want to know what you imagine it is. (Others have placed me on both sides of this dispute, so I wonder which fallacy you've chosen.) If you think that people will be more apt to believe a message left by an indef-blocked user than they will be to believe that he's blocked for a good reason, then I disagree with your assessment of human nature. Who will even look at that page, and then become convinced that... what? All admins are scum? What are they going to do, get so mad they burn down Wikipedia? You have not answered the question about actual concrete harm being done; you've simply asserted without justification or explanation that I'm biased, and that his message will somehow be mistaken as gospel by some indeterminate "public"(?). -GTBacchus(talk) 17:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Given how strongly you have lobbied him to get unblocked, yes, your bias is obvious. Mine is too; I think he should have been blocked long ago as an obvious disruption to the project who was solely here to make a point about something--aka an OBVIOUS SOCK IS OBVIOUS--and obfuscated that with some piddly Huggling action. That being said, I never participated particularly fervently in the various discussions, as he was just yet another elephant in the room that Wikipedia refuses to deal with. He is now, however, banned by the will of the community, and our usual response in that situation is to deny users the ability to keep firing shots from their talk page. Again: what he is saying on his talkpage is provably dishonest. So we are allowing this because why? We are allowing him to deliberately game policies about removing declined unblocks because...? Is there an actual good reason for that? Of course there is not. The harm, as I have mentioned already, is the harm of allowing a banned editor to continue taking potshots, thus enabling the next banned editor to do so, and the next, and the next. I don't know about you, but I am sick to death of these elephants taking up so much space on the rug we sweep everything under. He is banned, he is gone, if he wants to appeal he can Special:EmailUser/ARBCOM and be done with it. He does not get to continue using his talkpage to post lies about why he was permanently disinvited. Well, I say permanently.. I think we all know that there's another sock. At least. //roux   17:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC) I can play nice. Your statement about my bias is incorrect. I was one of the first editors to support the indef block, and I would never lobby for it to be reversed unless DT is able to meet rather strict conditions. I apologize for any misunderstanding. Perhaps I should have been clearer that I consider DT's posts to Ryulong's talk page utterly unacceptable, and grounds for permanent blocking. During the conversations, I have referred to his posts at Ryulong's talk page as "juvenile 'nyah-nyah'ing", "unacceptable kicking of someone who's down", and as utterly beneath the dignity of the project. If I think there's a chance that he'll repeat it, then I will not push for an unblock. I apologize for the tone of my previous post, and again for not being clearer about my position. Meanwhile, I fail to see how the "harm" that you describe is real. I see no actual disadvantage, in the form of anyone being hurt, anyone believing something they shouldn't (a banned user isn't considered a credible source for how they got banned), or the project being compromised in any way. It seems clear to you, so perhaps I'm just being dense. I apologize for that, and if you don't feel like breaking it down and explaining it to me, I understand. Meanwhile, I'm going to keep doing what I think is right. If I really am wrong, then I do hope that you, or someone, will stop me. I don't wish to bring harm to the project, because I love this project very much. Thanks for listening, and I'm sorry again for the previous post. I should not post in frustration. Thank you for correcting me. -GTBacchus(talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC) Fair enough. Thank you for being the bigger man. The issues I have with this whole mess are: What he is posting on his talkpage is manifestly untrue. Most people on Wikipedia are lazy and don't dig into the background (we see this in every. single. RFA). Ergo most people who see such screeds take them at face value, which does cause lasting harm for the project; to illustrate an extreme example, how many news stories are written about WP every day? Think on that. WP:SOAPBOX is relatively unambiguous. He is gaming the user talk deletion policies by deliberately trying to hide the declined unblock requests. Gaming, as we all know, is nothing new to DT. Given the above points, what possible purpose is served by indulging an editor who, by very similar actions to the ridiculousness on his talkpage, exhausted the community's patience to the point where he has been permanently revoked of editing privileges? //roux   00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I don't believe that "most people" will take the parting words of a banned user at face value. People might not dig much, but it's pretty clear he was on the losing end, and it's pretty clear his view didn't have much support. That makes it pretty clear to any halfway reasonable reader that he's probably licking his wounds, rather than relating an accurate history. Maybe I just think more of people's good sense than you might. Can you show me a news story about Wikipedia in which a banned user's views were presented as fact, an for which the reporter only talked to the banned editor? I don't believe that has happened, and I don't believe it will happen. Has it? It would be news to me, and I'd be very disappointed with that news source. Next, I request, in the interest of respectful discourse, that you refrain from telling me what "we all know". I don't "know" that gaming is something DT does a lot. I don't necessarily trust your interpretation either, especially considering the mistakes you've already made about my views. Think about that. If you tell me what I believe, and you get it wrong... what should I think? Think about that. If you show that you actually understand what I'm saying, then we'll be much closer to sharing a perspective. Right now, you don't speak for me. I hope that's not a rude thing to say; it's just what it is. I know about WP:SOAPBOX; I just don't see that as what's going on here. Do you think it's possible that I have come to my views by anything resembling reasonable thought? If so, don't you think it would be fair to try and find out what my views actually are? I can learn from you, and you from me. It won't happen if we just assert our views at each other. I'm willing to have open, generous, thoughtful dialogue with you. That would involve a little bit of stepping back from certainly, and a little bit of trying other people's heads on for size. I'm game; are you? I hope so. You're clearly a thoughtful, intelligent person; why not have a thoughtful, intelligent, respectful discourse? Now, this is how I see DT. DougsTech had a very bad experience with Ryulong, a while back. It was related to Ryulong using the buttons in a way that eventually led to his desysopping. From Doug's perspective, Ryulong and others have had it in for him ever since, and have abused their powers repeatedly. Now, Doug may be wrong about this, but this is what he truly believes. Saying what one truly believes is not lying. Therefore, I don't see him "soapboxing". I see him attempting to set the record straight. That said, I don't see any hopelessly naive reporting buying into it. If anyone buys into it, they won't get far before they run into a dozen people who say the opposite. Who will that person believe, the blocked users, or the dozens of users in good standing. The point in allowing him his one page of space to vent, or whatever he chooses to do with it, is that it's a harmless way to be a little bit merciful to someone who we're not trying to hate or punish, but whom we've had to block. We don't have to be decent to him, but I think we impoverish ourselves morally if we're not. I think that trying to control his talk page is another way of kicking someone who is down, and since I utterly hate and repudiate his doing that, I'd better be against others doing it too, because I don't wish to be a hypocrite. Is it starting to make sense, where I'm coming from? -GTBacchus(talk) 00:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC) That your thinking may be reasonable doesn't mean it's not flawed. Doug exhausted the patience of the community... well almost, we'll let him bitch and moan on his talkpage. Do you not see the enormous logical inconsistency here? Moving on, there's no way he was a new user. His antipathy started from the moment he started editing, well before Ryulong's involvement. More to the point, his subtle gaming of the system started back then too, including his insanity at RFAs, gaming his way around being restricted from it the exact same way that Kmweber did. I do not for one moment he truly believes anything he says. If he did, he would not have e.g. nominated ChildOfMidnight for admin, and indeed he would have been going out of his way to a) find good people to be admins, and work on getting procedures set in place for getting rid of bad ones. He was here for disruption and he is continuing the disruption after the community has said enough. I guess what I'm not making clear is that especially in a community like Wikipedia where none of us can see each other, honesty is the most important thing we have. We need to know that what we see--whether in an article or not--is both true and verifiable. Doug, and all the other banned people who leave parting shots--remember the Bstone insanity a few months ago?--damage that irreparably. We have to trust that the people we are interacting with are acting in good faith, are who they say they are, and are not actively deceiving us. Doug is and was actively deceiving us the whole time. I see absolutely no reason why we should indulge that behaviour after we told him we were no longer going to indulge that behaviour. //roux   00:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC) What?! My point was that we're both of sound mind. I respect you! Why must you read an attack into that? I was simply trying to point out that I can be sane, and still believe what I believe. I haven't got such a small mind that I think that means that you can't do so as well. I think we've got every right to disagree, and to both be considered, reasonable and intelligent. I'm sorry for using language that evidently failed to get my point across. I guess this conversation is over. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:58, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I'm a pretty direct communicator. If I wish to say that your mind is unsound, then I'll say that, in so many words. I don't wish to say that, because I don't believe it, and because it would be a dickish thing to say. I feel bad that you think I said it, because I respect you and don't wish to be a dick. If you think that I've insulted you, why not ask, rather than jumping to conclusions about what I meant? -GTBacchus(talk) 01:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC) With the wording fixed Well, I think we're partially hearing each other, anyway. I don't consider DT's RFA participation to be insanity, but I do consider the responses of others to him to be utterly deplorable. Please read WP:TYFYV, which expresses how I think we should handle "RFA insanity". I don't remember "Bstone"; I must not have been looking then. I've seen a lot of users banned, though, and I've seen a lot of talk pages left unprotected, despite the blocked user saying nonsense there. I guess I can try to dig up examples, if you like. You say that there's a "logical inconsistency" in letting a banned user complain on the one page left to them. I've got a degree in philosophy, and another in math. I think I know what a "logical inconsistency" looks like. This isn't one, unless a few other assumptions are added. (For example: exhausting the community patience does not imply that he'll never come back. We really do leave the door open a crack. We don't have to shut off his avenue of possibly saying, "what I did was wrong, and I'd like to come back and play by the rules.") If you'd like to break down the logic for me, I'll listen, but remember that I've got very high standards for logical proof. Can you present an airtight argument that "exhausting community patience" clearly implies "protect their talk page"? I don't buy at all that we expect talk page content to be "true and verifiable". I think we treat article space very differently form the rest of the project. We don't claim that statements on talk pages are all true. How on Earth could we have conversations with disagreements in them, if only the true statements are allowed to stand? You, being of sound mind, are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind - just as you are, am not. This is a point about which intelligent people may disagree, it turns out. I believe that Doug is operating honestly according to his honestly held beliefs. I think he's wrong about some stuff, but I don't think he's trying to deceive us. The behavior that we're not indulging is his doing a victory dance on the talk page of a desysopped editor. That's what he was blocked for, and we don't indulge that. On his talk page, he's not naming names, just saying that he was run off by abusive admins. He's welcome to believe that, in my book. I'm an admin, and I don't feel hurt by it. I'm comfortable with it. -GTBacchus(talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC) I think this discussion is at an end. Given that we cannot even agree why he was blocked--hint, the dancing on Ryulong's grave was the final straw, not the cause--and that you have twice now said massively offensive things only to retract them after (while simultaneously complaining--wrongly!--that one thing I said was offensive and then having the gall to lecture me about how to say what I meant--rest assured, I said quite precisely what I meant), I'm really not interested in continuing this any further. //roux   01:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Suits me fine. What I said really was offensive, and I really meant it that way, and you made no error of interpretation in taking offense. Meanwhile, what you said wasn't offensive, and could not be taken as such, and therefore I was utterly wrong in taking offense. That sounds great. Goodbye. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC) You mean what you said twice? The first time coming on a full-bore attack and insulting me left and right? That was pretty blatantly and purposefully offensive. So I'm fairly certain you can forgive me for thinking the same thing was happening when you wrote, quote, "You are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind, am not."? Really, you're saying I shouldn't have taken any offence to that? And I shouldn't be taking any offence to your sarcastic 'I'm getting the last snarky word in' crap? When I have not attacked you at any time? This is sad, really. I wanted to end the discussion precisely to avoid this shit. When you are willing to apologise for this nonsense, I would be happy to converse with you. After all, you claimed that you respected me. Then again, actions do speak rather louder than words. Cheers. //roux   01:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC) The first one was offensive, and I admitted that immediately, and tried again. As for the second one, see my talk page, bottom section, about something I just learned. I absolutely understand why you took it that way, but I will not apologize for meaning something that I didn't mean, nor will I lie to you about what I meant, or about anything. I suggest you ask around, and see whether your interpretation of my words, or my own, comports better with my character as observed by others. I certainly don't expect you to trust me. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC) My wording was quite careless. I distinguish carelessness from malice. -GTBacchus(talk) 02:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC) Given that your previous post, since amended, was malicious it was not exactly a leap of the imagination to see malice in your second. So no, you do not get to blame me for putting an entirely reasonable interpretation on your carelessness. However, I am going to choose to believe that you meant what you said as an apology, and I will take it as such. //roux   06:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC) I certainly don't "blame" you for anything, nor have I suggested that I blame you for anything. I'm sorry if you perceive some kind of "blame". According to my own personal beliefs, the concept of "blame" is meaningless, so I'm incapable of blaming you for anything. The way I see it, my initial post was angry, and I apologized for it. After that, I have only tried to communicate appropriately. You perceived an insult where none was intended, but I don't "blame" you for that. It simply is what it is. I perceived an insult from you where none was intended, and apparently in your book, I'm also a jerk for that? If you insult someone unintentionally, do you apologize? I was rather insulted that you seemed (correct me if I'm wrong) to blame me for both cases, where I accidentally offended you, and where you accidentally offended me. I don't see that as very even-handed. If I'm capable of screwing up accidentally, then so are you. I don't "blame" you for anything, nor will I ever. I don't appreciate you putting those words in my mouth, but I don't expect you to care, nor to apologize. That's clearly not your style, so I'll leave you now. If we ever communicate again, I hope you won't invent the idea that I'm blaming you for anything. Ever. Those words you put in my mouth sicken me. I wish you wouldn't do it. You can't read my mind. I don't know if you read the section on my talk page to which I pointed, in which I reacted to our interactions. I was hurt by all that; should I expect you to care? No. I know better than to "expect" things from people. Goodbye. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC) By the way, the word "grovel" has connotations. You know who "grovels"; who "abases themselves"? Worms grovel, in metaphor. Slaves grovel. Condemned prisoners grovel. Dogs grovel. If I try to do the honorable thing and apologize to you in a place where people who've seen your accusation can also see my apology, then I don't see how that makes me a worm, a slave, a condemned prisoner, nor a dog. Rather than recognizing that I was attempting to do the honorable thing, you chose to characterize me as "groveling". If you don't see anything rude about that, then I question your judgment. There is a huge difference between, "You don't need to apologize again," and "Don't grovel". The first comes across as gracious; the second as contemptuous. I don't assume that you meant to sound contemptuous, not any more than I did when I mentioned being of sound mind ("just like you", being the phrase I omitted). I don't assume that you intended an insult, but you managed to do it anyway. -GTBacchus(talk) 15:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC) There is a vast difference between you taking something not as intended, and me taking the only possible meaning from "You are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind, am not.". Whether your phrasing was 'careless' or not, the statement was unambiguously offensive. Coming on the heels of a screed filled with malice, it was that much easier to see that meaning. If it truly was just you being 'careless', you should have simply apologised for the error. Instead, you left a sarcasm-laden rant, have gone on the offensive, and continued to attack me as though I had been attacking you. I do in fact apologise when it is warranted, so your further snark about that not being my style... well, I'm going to choose to believe that you're having a bad few days and thus will not seek to have you blocked for your ongoing violations of NPA. I will also repeat my previous invitation: When you are willing to apologise for this nonsense, I would be happy to converse with you. That means an actual apology; no snark, no attacks, no sarcasm, no other bullshit. Until then, I suggest you reflect on your behaviour in this matter. I hope that doing so will be educational. //roux   15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Roux, it's not "unambiguously offensive". It depends what tone of voice you read it in. This is where we're still not quite communicating. I can absolutely see why you might read some other tone of voice into it, but I do not accept that an offensive reading is the only possible one. I can't accept that, because I know what my intended tone was, and it wasn't offensive. I can still hear it, in my mind, it's a perfectly agreeable tone. You're right, about the context. It makes a lot of sense that you would take it as offensive. That doesn't mean that's the only way to read it. I don't blame you. I do wish that you would try to have me blocked. That's not snark; that's very sincere. The other one wasn't snark either, but I don't know whether you'll believe that. I'm actually fine with the possibility that you might not apologize much. If that's true, there's no judgment from me. Some people aren't apologizers. They're still Good People. I don't care which kind you are. You're Good. I see your style as being one that conflicts with my own, but not as anything bad. More people on Wikipedia tell me that I am a clear communicator and a good mediator of disputes than criticize my style. More people say, "GTBacchus put what I was thinking into words more clearly than I could have", than ever complain about my being offensive or unclear. I don't know why they see that, while you clearly see some other GTBacchus. I'd like to know if they're all wrong, so I can stop taking encouragement from what might be misplaced confidence. I think there are some fundamental assumptions that you and I don't share. There is a minority of people here with whom I've had interactions a lot like this one. I would very much like to understand what's going on there, and avoid those interactions. I'm glad you've encouraged me to reflect. I have been reflecting on this, because I've been quite hurt by this interaction, and I'm trying to learn from it. I will absolutely continue to reflect, probably for the rest of my life. That's what I tend to do with these things - chew on 'em until I learn from 'em. I really truly do wish that you would take me to ANI or open an RFC for this. I sincerely think it would be a Good Thing - no sarcasm. If I'm as out-of-line as you seem to suggest, I'd like to know it, and I can't claim to be fully convinced by what you're saying here. You seem to keep reading things into my statements that I never put there. I wish you would read back over my previous post, but try this. Take out the sarcasm. Read each sentence as fully literal, non-judgmental, and open. If you think I'm judging you, you're probably wrong. Try to read it without the judgment. I cannot lie to you. I cannot claim that I meant to insult you when I did not mean to insult you. The honest and true point I was trying to make was that people of sound mind can think both sides of the issue, and the issue is therefore debatable, and not simply closed. That is precisely what my intention was, and I cannot lie to you, and claim that my intention was to be a jerk. If I had proofread my post more carefully, I probably would have clarified it, but as I said - that post, as I typed it, had in my mind a different tone that you're reading. That doesn't make you wrong, but it doesn't make me wrong either. It was a misunderstanding. I'd like to know whether you read anything in this post as an insult. I haven't put any here, so any that you see, are accidental. I don't see them, and I hope you'll point them out. Finally: If you want me to apologize for intentionally being offensive, then I can not do that, because I would have to lie. I will not lie to you, anymore than I would lie to my own creator. If you want me to apologize for accidentally offending you, then of course. I'm very sorry that I carelessly said something that could easily be taken as an insult. I really must be more careful, and learn from this. That's pretty much the point of this entire post. As you can see, this means a lot to me - I care about being understood. If I really disrespected you, would I bother to do all this? -GTBacchus(talk) 16:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC) ← "You're right, about the context. It makes a lot of sense that you would take it as offensive. That doesn't mean that's the only way to read it. I don't blame you." Sigh. No. There is in fact only one way to read the statement. You claim to be well-educated; one would hope that your education has included fairly basic English and how it is parsed. Stating "You are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind, am not" is, through obvious implication, the same as saying "You are not of sound mind, and are entirely convinced that Doug is deceiving us, but I, being of sound mind, am not." There is simply no possible interpretation of that arrangement of words that is not offensive. It's the same as saying "You may like those pants, but I have taste." There is just no other way to look at it, and believe me I have tried. Incorrect. I can have taste, dislike your pants, and you can still have taste and like them. I do not believe that everything has to be one way or the other. If you believe that 2 people of sound mind cannot disagree, then your implication follows. If, however, you believe as I do, that people of sound mind disagree all the time, then your implication does not follow. I figured that we were already both assuming you to be of sound mind, and that I didn't have to say that explicitly. "You think X" + "I think not X" + "I'm sane and intelligent" do not combine to imply that you're not also sane and intelligent. Only if you assume that all statements come in black and white truth values would that follow. My entire point was, and remains, that 2 people, both of sound mind, may disagree. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) But that's not really the issue here. The issue is that you have been rude and combative and malicious on multiple occasions through this conversation. I have tried to continue engaging you, but you keep returning with sarcastic barbs, accusations that I am putting words in your mouth--something I never did--histrionics about refusing to lie to me (I asked you to lie where, exactly? Oh right, I didn't), and so on and so on and so on. I had tried to end this conversation after your allegedly 'careless' use of words... but you kept right on going. Your lack of self-awareness in this matter is truly breathtaking. You begain attacking me. Not the other way around. In fact, at no point have I attacked you; the one thing I have said which you unreasonably took offense to was my attempt to lighten the discussion by making an obviously over-the top response to your multiple--and, in retrospect, again histrionic--apologies. You, on the other hand, have deliberately attacked me, have deliberately made ridiculous sarcastic statements when I tried to head this nonsense off at the pass, have disingenuously made various claims about me, have pretended that you respect me while simultaneously doing all of the above. How can you tell me that I mean something I never meant? How are my motivations clearer to you than they are to me? What motive have I for lying? Do you think I enjoy this conversation? What disingenuous claim have I made, and how do you know it's disingenuous? Show me. Teach me. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Let me make crystal clear my invitation: you. Apologise to me. No self-serving whining about "I won't lie about anything." A simple, bald, clear apology for being a dick throughout this conversation. Wouldn't I have to believe that I've been a dick, to do that? Do you think I've been trying to be a dick? -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) At that point, and at that point only, will I permit you to comment any further here. Unless and until you actually apologise, without any of the tl;dr stuff you wittered on about above, you are not welcome to post here ever again, under any circumstances, period. I am very sorry for offending you. I didn't mean to do it, but I clearly failed, repeatedly. I hope to learn from this experience. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Should you persist in making any edits to my talk page, they will be treated as vandalism and you will be reverted and reported accordingly. The very simple fact is you attacked me once, then apparently attacked me again, and when I tried to disengage from this mess you kept right on with the snark and bullshit and self-serving mealy-mouthed rationalisations of why you haven't actually done anything wrong and why I am a bad bad person for not listening to poor little old you with your hurt feelings. YOUR hurt feelings? Yours? How about mine, from being attacked by you? But I'm supposed to care about your hurt feelings that your allegedly careless statement offended me? I have never called you a bad person. I have never thought that you're a bad person. I do not believe that there is such a thing as a "bad person". I consider you to be a Good Person - no questions. If you think I said that you're bad - re-read. I haven't. Only with added assumptions could that follow from anything I said. "Bad people" do not exist - how can you be one? I have never claimed that I did nothing wrong. I do claim that my statement that caused offense was not intended that way. It's true. It's very clear that I screwed up badly. Is that the same as "doing nothing wrong"? Your feelings are completely justified, and utterly valid. I am sorry to have trodden on them. Mea culpa. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Get over yourself. The conditions for anything you wish to say remaining on this page are noted above. Until you meet those conditions, do not post here. I hope that further reflection on your part will bring you to an understanding of exactly everything you have done wrong here, and how you have seemingly deliberately made it all worse while pretending to make it better. Your allegation that I'm "deliberately" making it worse is... I don't know. I'm sorry. If my goal were to make things worse, I hope somebody would stop me. I very, very much wish that you would take me to some kind of DR forum. I want you to show me how wrong I am, by using the processes provided here. Seriously. Take me to ANI. Open an RFC. Get me de-sysopped. Please. I don't want to do wrong. Stop me. Stop me. Do it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I see no purpose being served by increasing the drama level here by visiting any sort of DR; you don't want to listen and/or you're using me as therapy. I don't know which. For future reference, "I am very sorry for offending you. I didn't mean to do it, but I clearly failed, repeatedly. I hope to learn from this experience." is what you should have said in the first place, instead of all the "I'm sorry, sort of kind of, but..." tl;dr nonsense above. Given that you have--finally--done what I have asked, I will now ask you very politely to please leave me alone. //roux   21:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Good day. //roux   19:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I really, really do wish that you would take this somewhere up the dispute resolution ladder. It's really the best solution at this point. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC) The DR ladder I've posted a note at WP:WQA. I think a third person's perspective would be valuable here, and hopefully in line with your desire that I reflect on the situation. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC) (I'm pasting my reply from WQA here as well) Oh for craps sake, I am soooo sick of arguments related to DougsTech. And that thread is very WP:TLDR. My quick advice, to you and Roux, and everyone else still talking about this, let it go. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the revert of the personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. //roux   18:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASE

Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !voters there, early close is not appropriate. Let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who voted in the discussion, you should not be either closing or reopening it. Please note that I said no issues with re-nominating, I wanted to generate a discussion without the continuation of the grudge by Damiens.rf. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel so strongly; I shall be re-closing it otherwise. //roux   19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. Viridae^Talk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude. //roux   02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences&Windows 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For the revert of the personal attack.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. //roux   18:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XIX and XX

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:ASE

Bad faith nom or not, there are delete !voters there, early close is not appropriate. Let it run its course. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

As someone who voted in the discussion, you should not be either closing or reopening it. Please note that I said no issues with re-nominating, I wanted to generate a discussion without the continuation of the grudge by Damiens.rf. Please re-close and re-nom if you feel so strongly; I shall be re-closing it otherwise. //roux   19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous, there are so many other opinions on that MfD the motives of the nom mean little. Viridae^Talk 00:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No need to be rude. //roux   02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

AfD

Your opinion would be appreciated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let's Rock (event). Fences&Windows 01:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus at Talk:Bible translations by language

You made two edits[2][3] which are at odds with previous Talk consensus and a notice on the article's edit screen[4].
The consensus is discussed on the larger article's Talk page:

Following discussion on the 'Talk' page in June 2008, it is intended to split this article into separate articles, one per language, usually called "Bible translations (Language)" (substitute 'Language'). Eventually this article will reduce towards a list of pointers to such articles.

1. Starting a new language? Could you do so at such a page, please? The only change you would make to this page would be in the index immediately following. See, for instance, "Bible translations (Apache)".

2. Editing an existing language? Could you consider splitting it out into a separate article?

I've no intention of beginning an Edit war with you. It would be best for you to either correct your own actions or explain yourself on the relevant Talk page(s).--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I have resplied. In addition, I suggest you revisit your combative attitude. "It would be best for you to either correct..." give me a break. Ask nicely next time, got it? //roux   21:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXI

Delivered by The Helpful Bot at 22:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC) for the WikiCup. To report errors, please leave a message on the talk page.

^_^

Come on IRC again sometime. Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 17:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hello Meetare! Naa, I'm done with IRC and the petty tyrants who run the place. I do use MSN and Facebook though... //roux   17:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

"Meetare"? Lol, do you remember who I am? Meetare Shappy ^Cunkelfratz! 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, Shappypants. I call lots of people 'mister'; you're 'MEEEEEEETAAAAARE!' :P //roux   18:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

ACC

I don't wish to be annoying, but you account privs no longer include account creator. Without knowing why, how, whatever, you should probably change your userpage. I have no idea of the circumstances, but at least one person found that out (me). Just to point that out. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd forgotten it was on there, actually. Ta. //roux   19:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Nicholas' arms

Why are they better on the right side of the page than the left? -- Evertype·✆ 18:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Three reasons: one, left-aligned images can cause ugly formatting issues depending on screen resolution, two, humans (who read L-R) find it easier to read when all text is aligned the same on the left (the opposite obtains for R-L scripts), three, MOS (which in many cases I abhor due to its general ignorance of basic design and layout principles) calls for images to 'face' the text (which is not a bad idea, so long as it doesn't mess with points one and two); the crest 'faces' left. //roux   18:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the last part. Nice that the bird looks inward. By the way I like the Daily Kitten. I have one on my own arms... -- Evertype·✆ 18:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The daily kitten is from User:Raul654. Bonus points for using tenne in your (hopefully to be granted one day) arms; nobody uses it anymore. (Though there are some very weird Canadian arms involving copper, teal, and a shade I can only think of as puce). Question though, shouldn't your boar be ..langued gules as you are defining how he is armed and unguled? //roux   19:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

He changes every day? Squeeeeee! Tenné is important, actually, because I need orange to go with the green quill to highlight my connection with Ireland! Puce in arms? I shudder. Apparently there are rules that an animal's tongue need not be blazoned specifically if it is proper.. or if he is one of certain species, I forget. -- Evertype·✆ 19:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

On this last point I was reminded of a long discussion I had a year ago that I didn't want to dredge up just then because dinner had been set on the table. when I made the comment above. The rules for lions and some other are sometimes disputed. "It is not necessary to mention that a lion is 'armed and langued' in the blazon when tongue and claws are emblazoned in gules, but whenever any other colour is introduced for the purpose it is better that it should be specified" ((Fox-Davies & Brooke-Little p. 135); "The board, like the lion, is usually described as armed and langued, but this is not necessary when the tusks are represented in their own colour and when the tongue is gules. It will, however, be very frequently found that the tusks are or. The 'armed', however, does not include the hoofs, and if these are to be of any colour different from that of the animal, it must be blazoned 'unguled' of such and such a tincture" (ibid. p. 151). -- Evertype·✆ 13:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: BOO

Wah! I do, I'll email you the address if you like.

Sure thing, doing now. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm well - a little worried over exam results but they're not until the start of August and there's nothing I can do to change them now :) As for the summer - it's ridiculously hot here too. I think today in London it was 29'C at times and we got something close to 21. Now for a Scotsman that's like being on an open fire with a snowsuit on. :P weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nah, exams were in May, we get the results in August... unfortunately I'll be in Denmark then so the wait will be even longer :/ I've lived in Australia before - I know heat :P I remember when we got off the plane (in January might I add) it was 40+ and it was like hitting a wall. I mean, from 1 under to 40 over... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Cool is the word ;) Haha, never been to USA full stop so can imagine the shock... weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's me off for the night so... good night :) weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Peer review limits

The guidelines for Wikipedia:Peer review ask that editors nominate no more than one article per day (and four total at any one time). While the rules say that one of the requests can be removed, I will let it slide since this is the first time. Take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't much see the point of adding one, waiting 24h, and adding the other. Seemed like a bit of a waste of time. Thanks though. → ROUX ₪ 04:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I missed the "except for Roux" section in the PR instructions ;-) Seriously, there are over 20 peer reviews in the backlog and have been for several days - spreading them out in time helps reduce the backlog. Both articles are similar in topic (Canadian heraldry) and seem unlikely to attract two different reviewers on the same day anyway - hope I'm wrong on that. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware.. but again: there's not a lot of difference doing it both at once or adding one yesterday and one today; at the end of 24 hours both articles are still there. If I were putting three or four up, I'd understand the concern. → ROUX ₪ 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability

(I'd rather talk to you personally.) WP:NONENG is part of WP:V? You'll actually have a source for whatever you're trying to say - the original. We normally don't have any problem when translating articles as to requiring sources that confirm the translation is correct. I mean, there are lots of pages translated from other-language Wikipedias. Are you sure you're not misinterpreting this? I mean, I've done work translating pages from German to English, and there you've got to credit the page you took it from (for plagurism purposes) but you don't need a source saying your translation's correct. WP:TRANSLATE flies against this. I think you've got it wrong. We can get a 3O on this as it's just a policy point if you want (not a heraldry one). Take this example, just so we're clear:

If the German text said (in German) "The coat of arms is ermine.^[1]" with a German ref, then you could have the English page say "The coat of arms is ermine.^[1] and use the same source. That way, it's verifiable, albeit with a foreign language source, which is as we know, not preferred but allowed. No ref need for the translation itself. Am I mistaken? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, you can throw out the word "translation". If you use my earlier example, the German State Constitution defines the coat of arms of Lower Saxony. All we have to do is to say "The coat of arms of Lower Saxony shows [this]" and then use the original law as a foreign-language source. Simples. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 14:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No no, I guess I didn't write clearly. What I meant was that WP:V trumps every other policy, modulated slightly by consensus, and subject to BLP concerns. That we allow amateur translations of often complex text is worrisome. → ROUX ₪ 14:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think I see. I think when you said "This translation must be cited to a reliable source", you didn't mean a source that said it was a correct translation, just one that backed up its meaning, like "The coat of arms is ermine.^[1]" - where the source said something like "The coat of arms is ermine" in a foreign language. Have I got you right this time? - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, your change in proposal doesn't reflect that view. If you're happy to go with my amendment to your version of my proposal, good. I've had hour after hour of this. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 15:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Something like that, yes. But we should be conservative; "The coat of arms is ermine" (in German) hey that rhymes should not be translated as erminois, because then that requires further explanation. And while yes the meaning is the same, it's (as you pointed out) unnecessarily technical to do so, particularly when there is no source stating such. In an ideal world, there should be a sourced translation--as in someone else (an expert) translated the original text. If there isn't one, the translation provided by an editor should be as literally word-for-word as possible while still remaining grammatically correct English, so as to avoid any concerns about interpretation. The change to the proposal is not what I actually want--all material on Wikipedia should be sourced, and translations doubly so because of the potential for errors, POV-pushing, etc--but it was as close as I could get to E's desire to throw unverifiable information into any article about foreign-language coats of arms as I could without compromising how desperately we need to improve sourcing across the entire project. → ROUX ₪ 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXII

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 21:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Nothing important, just...

...thank you! You truly intend to have a positive relationship with me. I was criticizing one of your comments (with no intention to write anything) when I saw a sentence which immediately changed my mind. Again, thank you. It's not important what I am talking about; it just means a lot to me. Good luck! :) Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pursuivant barnstar

LMAO! I love it! So you want to fix it up to provide a grant of arms text like that and subst the recipient's username into it? Way to raise the bar Roux! That's sure to put a smile on any heraldry buff's face. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 06:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Style guide for foreign blazons

I just want to thank you for your invaluable contributions to the discussion at WT:WikiProject Heraldry and vexillology/Style guide for foreign blazons. Even when consensus seems impossible, it is the contributions of all of us that keeps the discussion moving forward, and as long as we all keep WP:COOL and stay on task, consensus is almost inevitable. Each of us has helped to keep this discussion more collegial than most and yield a high quality result. I have little doubt that whatever style guide we end up with will be a fair-minded, comprehensive guide that will serve our editors (and more importantly, our readers) well. At this point, we each agree on some points and disagree on other points with one another, but we all agree on our interest passion for the topic and our esteem of the history and traditions of heraldry, including the rules of blazonry. I would like to ask each of you to consider the particular relevance of systemic bias on this discussion, since we are crafting a style guide specifically for dealing with interlingual/international sources. In view of the historical and linguistic background of English and French heraldry, I think it may be the most appropriate solution to recommend Anglo-Norman blazons for French, British, Irish, Canadian, American, Australian, New Zealand and South African coat armory (other than French, most of these are likely provided in Anglo-Norman in published sources anyway), while recommending Modern English plaintext translations of other blazons. The point of emphasis is that these should be translations of verifiable blazons, not "sight blazons". If we all agree on that point, that is one more step toward consensus, but if you have any genuine reservations, I would love to hear them. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I hope we can keep the discussion moving forward. I don't think there is all that much that we really disagree on, but you seem to be so hung up on a particular worry over WP:OR that I don't see you even trying to discuss anything else. I think we should all remember that we are only writing a mere style guide - something to give editors some direction in how to present foreign language blazons in a way that is clear, concise, and consistent - and we should let WP:OR cover OR and WP:V cover verifiability. I'm really not at all concerned with our style guide ensuring compliance with policies. That's not what a style guide is. Its purpose is to recommend a method for presenting the information in a cohesive style. Nothing more. Let's let policy be policy and get back to writing a style guide. I don't disagree with you at all about the importance of verifiability (or WP's shortcomings in practice), but that is something to be discussed at WT:Verifiability, not at our style guide discussion. Do you see how Quixotic this verifiability crusade of yours is becoming? I'm sorry if any of that came across as less than civil. I don't mean it in any other way than as one friend and peer to another. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 07:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it makes no sense to have a style guide that explicitly contravenes V and OR. → ROUX ₪ 07:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen anything in that discussion that specifically contravenes policy. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Best of luck

Pity, but I'm not going to argue with you if that's how you feel. Best of luck with whatever else you choose to do. Maybe in six months you could reconsider, but at least until then... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 09:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The history is such that no, six months will not make a difference. → ROUX ₪ 18:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please don't

Roux, please don't do this. I really do value your contributions to the project, I just disagree with you on the relevance of WP:OR to Anglo-Norman blazons to the exclusion of all other blazons. That's hardly a breaking issue in my thinking. Please, take a wikibreak, blow off some steam, and I will try to hold off the discussion and await your return before declaring any premature consensus. We do need you, we just need to find a way to get over this one sticking point. Please, for goodness' sake, don't leave the project. You're far too good an editor to be pushed aside over this one little issue. I hope you didn't take any of my comments as a personal attack, and please don't be too put off by Evertype's comments. Some of them were a bit harsh, as were some of yours. Just go, take a break, and I really hope you will always feel welcome to come back and contribute more. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Roux can speak for himself, but I think a) we should let people make up their own minds and b) it's not just that - recurring problems with another editor in another subject that I'm not going to mention. Real life has to take priority, let people do what they will. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 11:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I will let Roux make up his own mind, but I really don't want him to go away feeling unwanted or excluded. I suspected there was more to it than that discussion (there usually is), but I can't just watch him leave the project without saying anything. I've seen some of his valuable H&V contributions and I have no doubt there is much more where that came from, once he has had a chance to recharge his batteries. I just hope he's not gone for good. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 12:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I have left WP:WPHV, not Wikipedia. Evertype's insults have proved that I am not wanted there, so you lot can carry on amongst yourselves. For myself, I shall do very odd things like using sources and not engaging in original research or misleading readers into believing that random translations are authoritative. I don't particularly understand what the objection to using sources is, but since you lot appear to be happy to enshrine it in the WPHV style guidelines, I have zero interest in participating. → ROUX ₪ 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What?!

We've had so much quarells over that article! You can't leave now when we managed to co-work! Who is going to fix my grammar? :) Anyway, I haven't noticed his contributions to the article. The page history doesn't contain his edits. How is he becoming involved? Surtsicna (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

He has become involved on the talkpage. Seeing as talkpages are where most of his insanity occurs, I cannot sit here waiting, knowing he's going to start it up all over again. → ROUX ₪ 18:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Look, I understand your concerns for the user. I know that I should NOT have behaved in that way but, after a series of bad days, I was unable to control my actions. I have, of course, apologised to the user- in person- and wish to apologise to wikipedia in its entirety. I do hope that my actions are forgiven by you and the wiki community. I am sorry for wasting your time. Now I must contemplate what to do about my page that is up for deletion... --Jefuab (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)