Talk:Roux-Ga-Roux

Bother, I thought I was logged in when I created this article, but apparently I wasn't.

Anyhow, I don't know much about this legend. I only stumbled across it on the web and decided to add it to Wikipedia. So, if anyone here is an expert on Roux-Ga-Rouxs, please feel free to embellish. Thanks. [unsigned, but by User:Nortonew ]

I don't know if this article should even be here. A Google search only gets the two links listed on this article and Wikipedia (and affiliates) itself. The websites don;t provide that much information (one is just a sentence or two long, basically). That sounds to me like it may not actually be authentic. I'd like some real sources so this can be verified. DreamGuy 21:23, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

In regards to legitimacy
Simply because this legend only produces two hits on the web doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In fact, the fact that it is mentioned on two unrelated sites shows that the legend does exist. I don't know exactly how you would define an "authentic legend", but as legends are basically just stories, if it exists anywhere, then it exists.

Also, as noted in the article, the roux-ga-roux may simply be the product of some tour guide's imagination. Even in that case, there is no reason why this article should not be here. Its not as if this article is claiming that a roux-ga-roux actually exists in reality.

In regards to your editing, some of your changes were WRONG. The paragraph you removed regarding the lack of description for the roux-ga-roux was neither redundant nor inaccurate. It was there to explain why no description of the creature exists. Just because you are supposedly a "published author" doesn't mean that you should be editing ever article on Wikipedia to fit your own, quite obviously capricious, tastes.

Unless you want to waste a great deal of your own time, and the time of others, by getting into reversion wars, I strongly suggest you limit your edits to whatever is absolutely necessary. [unsigned, but by User:Nortonew


 * First, please sign your comments. Any easy way o do this is to use four of hese symbols in a row: ~


 * Second, two solitary web references does not prove the legend exists, as it is quite easy for people to create pranks and get them up on websites, or have misheard rumors, and so forth. Wikipedia policy requires verifiability and notability. This article does not cut it in either criteria.


 * Third, you don't understand the meaning of the word "legend". Some one simply telling a story somewhere does not make something a legend. This particular article sounds more like fakelore instead of folklore.


 * Fourth, it's your opinion that my edits were wrong, but then you, like a lot of new or infriequent users here, seem to have the ideo that your opinion should overrule other editors with more experience. Note the submission page says that you must accept that other editors with edits and change your article mercilessly and you must agree to that before you submit. If you think my changes or comments were horrible then you are probably way too thin-skinned to be participating at Wikipedia. DreamGuy 21:39, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)

More regarding legitimacy
Sorry if the roux-ga-roux story doesn't meet your definition of "legend". However, the roux-ga-roux story is apparently something that exists at least in some form or another. From the two references I found, I see absolutely no reason to suspect that they were both set up by some prankster or someone trying to somehow fool the public.

Whether it is fakelore or folklore, people will probably come across it, and will quite possibly try to find more information on it here on Wikipedia. There is no reason not to have an entry on it that at least provides what little information we have so far found on the subject.

As for being thin-skinned, I invite you to take a look at another article I initiated, the Caganer. Since I started that article, it has been edited significantly. Quite frankly, I welcomed those edits and additions because they improved the article. You, on the other hand, seem to like making changes that simply change articles to fit your personal tastes.

Granted, some of your changes were warranted, such as correcting some capitalization, and such. However, other changes were unnecessary. While I expect articles to be edited, seemingly random, unnecessary changes are irritating, both to myself, and every other reasonable person participating in Wikipedia. Obviously, I can't stop you from editing, but I strongly suspect you are going to become rather unpopular here if you continue these kind of activities. If you enjoy spending your time irritating others, then go ahead and waste your life as you see fit.

Nortonew 22:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Definition of legend
The roux-ga-roux definitely meets at least one of the definitions for the word "legend" shown at Dictionary.com

legend n 1: a story about mythical or supernatural beings or events

Nortonew 22:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)