User talk:Roux/Archives/2012/March

WikiProject Cleanup

Hello, Roux. You are invited to join WikiProject Cleanup, a WikiProject and resource for Wikipedia cleanup listings, information and discussion. To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned post

See [1]. Four tildes and all that. Cheers! Edison (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Vile accusation?

And what accusation is that? Here is, as far as I can tell, the complete text that refers to you:

And Roux, I know in the past you've hacked my writing because it didn't follow the rules. Don't you think now you should agree with all this since the rules are the rules (as you've stated). After you deleted my work, I didn't go and try and re-insert it. I followed the rules, as you stated them. It appears you might be trying to use the rules to advance some agenda. I could be wrong though.

So what's the "vile accusation"? That you "hacked" his writing? You did (and so did I), at least by the meaning of "to cut out". That you "deleted [his] work"? You and I both did? The second to last sentence--that you're advancing an agenda? If that's a "vile accusation", then you need to take a step back and consider whether Wikipedia is the right place for you. The language is civil, the claim is mild and tentative, and the concern is genuine. If xe had said, "I'm concerned that you're not following WP:NPOV", would that have been better? His words don't even begin to compare to the aggressive, directly abusive language you're using. If you insist, that section can stay open, but everything you say there brings you, not Danceking05, closer to a block. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:24, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you have forgotten the accusation of stalking. The one you commented on. → ROUX ₪ 16:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to check back here. "X is stalking me" is not a "vile accusation". It's a claim, which shouldn't be made without diffs, and it's probably an assumption of bad faith, but it's really not that bad--not enough to try to keep that section open to extract an apology you know won't be forthcoming. All I want is for everyone to stop commenting about everyone else, and instead comment about the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If you were more observant, you would note that I wanted only a retraction; I'm not stupid or naive enough to believe that an 'editor' as completely uninterested in understanding anything about Wikipedia as Danceking5 would apologize for anything. I don't particularly care what you want; I am sick and fucking tired of accusations being hurled at me by people like that, and said accusations being allowed to stand. → ROUX ₪ 15:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thus, collapsing the section is a good plan, so that the accusations are no longer immediately visible. If you have a further complaint (if you think they really are WP:NPA) take it to a noticeboard. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, because that'll get anything done. The usual suspects will have a great time having another go at me, and nobody will pay one fucking lick of attention to something which you know for a fact--accusations of stalking without evidence--is a personal attack. Collapsing is not good, because it simply leaves the bullshit there. The only acceptable response is to remove the statements entirely, which I will do if you don't. → ROUX ₪ 08:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

You should read Wikipedia:Competency is required

Hi, I agreed with almost every single one of your comments in the recent thread, but you should read Wikipedia:Competency is required in full. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I have, many times. I suspect you have not. If an editor has spent six years unable to comprehend the very simple concept of what is and what is not vandalism, they are not competent to edit. → ROUX ₪ 20:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Your suspicions are wrong. Also, you call into question topics that you seem not to understand. I wish you good luck. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I do no such thing, so... here's a message about sex and travel. → ROUX ₪ 08:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

GG

I think that WP:DENY may be a good starting point. I dont think it is worth your effort or energy. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

The "soft bunny" of happiness and tranquility.

I know you're upset, but, would you please tone down the swearing? It's a family joint. Many thanks. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Fuck no. → ROUX ₪ 09:36, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I have to go with Anna on this one. It just gives those who dislike you yet another reason to keep poking you. I like a good swear as much as the next man but it's not appropriate in every situation, IMO. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Please see my response above. → ROUX ₪ 08:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Never remove genuine content again.

I'm so sick of Wikipedia terrorists such as yourself who ruin this site with your harassments. Kindly stay away. --Yellowpigeon (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jolly good thing that I didn't remove any 'genuine content,' then. Wikipedia is not for promoting your pet project. → ROUX ₪ 14:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Roux, you should put that on your user page: "Wikipedia terrorist". Funny, funny stuff. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a funny idea, but I'd rather not contribute--even in a small way--to the trivialization of the word. It should be a word that is synonymous with evil; its prevalence in the news today minimizes the actual damage and horror wrought by cowards and bullies who think that blowing shit up/kidnapping people/hojacking planes/gassing subway passengers is a reasonable way to behave. → ROUX ₪ 19:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

• I see that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents you wrote "I reported to ARV but nobody seems to be watching". I thought you might like to know that I was watching, and in fact I was busy reading all of the user's edits to determine exactly what the extent of the problem was before deciding what to do about it. In the meanwhile, Edokter has blocked for 31 hours. I will post a message to the user's talk page, and if the problem continues after the block then please feel welcome to contact me about it on my talk page. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
  • ARV tends to have extremely quick response times, which is why I went there first instead of AN/I. Anyway, the obvious spam-troll has been blocked as a sock. Your AGF, while laudable I guess, was about as misplaced as it could possibly have been. Too often AGF is used as a blindfold, and it looks like you made that mistake here. To my mind, AGF is about borderline cases--not obvious self-promotion and abuse. As an aside, I'd noticed one of the socks' prolific postings at the refdesks and was mentally counting the days until the inevitable block. → ROUX ₪ 19:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Template:Music of Canada

Hello. Regarding the discussion at Template talk:Music of Canada, in which you have been involved, a MedCab case has been opened and User:Lord Roem has kindly volunteered to mediate. Please indicate at the MedCab page (here, specifically) if you accept Lord Roem as an intercessor. Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: Hint

Thanks for the hint. I normally move on, unless the editor repeatedly makes false accusations, which Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) did. But again, thanks for you comment, and have a great day! Cresix (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Roux/Archives/2012/March: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal: Case update

Dear Roux/Archives/2012/March: Hello, this is to let you know that a Mediation Cabal case that you are involved in, or have some connection with:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 March 2012/Template:Music of Canada

is currently inactive as it has not been edited in at least a week. If the issues in the case have been resolved, please let us know on our talk page so we can close the case. If there are still issues that need to be addressed, let us know. If your mediator has become inactive, also let us know. The case will be closed in one month if it remains inactive. You can let us know what's going on by sending a message through to your mediator, Lord Roem, on their talk page. Thanks! MedcabBot (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2012 (UTC)