User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/August

Help with using reflinks
I have added a bunch of references to List of current National Football League stadiums. I was hoping you could help me use reflinks to properly format the references. If you could do it yourself, that would certainly be helpful too. Thank you in advance. --Pgp688 (talk) 05:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. --Pgp688 (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but please don't do wholesale reversions like that. For one, you removed 'dead link' notes (essential for fixing them; all sources need to be verifiable). For another, it's best to change title attributes by hand. For yet another, the various cite templates are good in case we migrate to different referencing formats; it allows for backwards compatibility. And for yet another, using those templates means consistency within and across articles. → ROUX   ₪  02:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Just let it go
I wasn't taking sides in your scuffle with Prodego; I honestly couldn't care less. But it was unrelated to the RfA candidate or the particular opposer (or his !vote), so it got removed. Don't take it as a personal affront or anything. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I will not allow other users to blatantly and deliberately lie about me. Please either restore my comment or remove Pmanderson's. Allowing his lie to sit there is indefensible. → ROUX   ₪  20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * ...what lie? The closest thing to that is his comment about you responding to every oppose, which calling "a lie" is just blowing it out of proportion, and anyone with half a brain can see it's just a stupid comment. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be the one. It is a deliberate falsehood--a lie--specifically designed to cast me in a bad light. I was under the impression that Wikipedia is generally against that sort of thing. Again: please remove the lie or restore my statement, as I am intensely disinclined to allow such ridiculous characterisations of my behaviour to stand. → ROUX   ₪  20:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've pointed out that his comment is pretty far from the truth. Nobody is going to put any stock in his comment; calling it a ridiculous characterization is an overstatement. However, reacting (in the RfA) to his comment (which anyone can see is bogus) in such a dramatic fashion is far, far more likely to cast you in a bad light, and by your own hand no less; again, I recommend just letting it go. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 20:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 'A bit of a stretch'? It's a deliberate lie, you know it, I know it, and most important of all: he knows it. But whatever, the usual Wikipedia mentality takes over; people are allowed to make attacks and lie about others, but God forbid anyone tries to defend himself. → ROUX   ₪  20:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what, fuck it, do whatever you want. I'm tired of babysitting. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an astonishing lack of clue from someone I usually respect, EVula. It's really very simple: did Pmanderson lie about me or not? He did. Did you remove my defence against his lies? You did. There is a problem with allowing lies to stand but the defence not. And don't you dare ever insult me like that again. Adults are, believe it or not, allowed to object to people lying about them. → ROUX   ₪  21:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear. Do whatever you want. Make a fuss in the RfA if you think that'll be a worthwhile use of your energy. I think you'll make yourself look silly, making a mountain out of a molehill, but hey, there's nothing I can do to stop you from making yourself look bad. I tried to address a pathetically minor situation in my own fashion, but you didn't care for it; I've reverted my edits and restored the comments, which is more or less what you wanted. Knock yourself out. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for restoring. However, I don't think it is making a mountain out of a molehill to dissuade editors from lying about each other. Every day on this site it becomes more and more apparent that policies regarding interaction are hot air, and multiple editors are simply allowed to get away with whatever they want. I am saddened that you--again, someone I respect--don't see that as a problem. More to the point, I had made a single comment regarding it.. it was only when Prodego--an admin with a very clear bias against me who frankly should have been desysopped for a blatantly anti-policy block of me some time ago--stuck his nose in that it started getting bigger. And then you came along and removed the wrong things, which didn't exactly help. → ROUX   ₪  21:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Dropping the hyperbole and rhetoric in discussions helps greatly. Had you said "could you restore my 2<5 comment please?" instead of "I deserve to defend myself against lies!" we'd be talking with far fewer colons in front of our comments. :) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no hyperbole on my part. He lied. That is simple fact, which by definition hyperbole is not. For what it's worth, I do understand where you're coming from, but there's a systemic problem inasmuch as statements like that are frequently allowed to stand and defences are removed. That needs to change. → ROUX   ₪  21:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps move it to the talk page rather than removing it outright. –xenotalk 20:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In which case my defence should stand. It is an endless failing of Wikipedia that people are allowed to lie about others, but the subjects are not permitted to defend themselves. I don't really care--remove it outright, or restore my comment. Either is fine. Pmanderson should also be unequivocally warned against lying about other editors. It is unacceptable, period. → ROUX   ₪  20:49, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Communications with ArbCom
Hi Roux. I noticed you said this: "Because in my experience and that of others emails to ArbCom fall into a black hole and never resurface". This was one of the things that this year's ArbCom moved fairly swiftly to resolve, as we were aware of those concerns from last year. There were some teething problems, but since at least April, we have acknowledged and logged all the incoming e-mail. Please don't carry over experience from the past, if that is what you are referring to. I can personally assure you that if you had sent an e-mail to ArbCom about this, it would have got a reply and it would have been dealt with. Maybe not as swiftly as you might have liked, but it would have been dealt with. If this is about any particular e-mail you sent us, please e-mail me personally, and I'll see if I can find out what happened to it. If you want more of an insight into the volume of e-mail we deal with, please see here. Over a period of six months, we received 1,064 e-mails from people outside the mailing list. Not all those needed a response (some were part of threaded discussion), but each new e-mail on a new topic did get logged (once we realised we needed to do that). That's the "252 external queries or submissions logged over the 100 days from 23 March to 30 June 2009" bit. Now, we can't do much if people are refusing to e-mail us, but as I said, if you had e-mailed us about this, it would have been dealt with. Carcharoth (talk) 23:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Swiftness wasn't the concern. Some sort of response was. I'm glad that ArbCom is fixing its communication issues. → ROUX   ₪  23:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Fabrictramp |  talk to me  00:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Blah blah blah
(comment by admin who would rather threaten regular editors than take on abusive admins removed)


 * "To make it clear - I have, before issuing this - issued a new, balanced set of warnings ( another warning to David Fuchs for the original behavior, and an AGF warning on the meatpuppetry claim to Jehochman ) to the administrators involved." Did you threaten them with blocks, as you have done here? --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I see that you didn't. No surprise there then. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you expect otherwise, honestly? Again it has been proven: you can say whatever you want, but woe betide someone who makes the egregious mistake of responding to it. → ROUX   ₪  01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me put something to you Roux. You and I conspicuously don't get on, but is that really a problem for either of us that needs to be solved? Aren't people allowed to take a dislike to each other here in this "best of all possible worlds"? I often find myself agreeing with an opinion expressed by someone I generally would have no time for, and you clearly do as well. Very few of us actually know each other anyway, so why in Hell should we care whether someone we don't know likes or dislikes us anyway? I know I don't, and I can't even be bothered to keep track of all the people who claim that I've upset them, because I just don't care. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that was in response to the 'you' in my statement above? It was intended as the generalised 'you,' not you-Malleus-Fatuorum. Sie if you prefer I guess. Sorry for the confusion. → ROUX   ₪  02:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You assume wrongly, I was making a general comment. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, then it was my surprise at agreeing with you? That has nothing to do with whether or not I like you. It has much to do with me finding most of your pronouncements asinine in the extreme, a feeling which I am sure is mutual. I am not the sort of person who makes the mistake of thinking "X said Y, therefore it is wrong," it's just that I don't like you and you happen to be wrong most of the time, in my opinion. The two issues are separate, which I think is what you are getting at here. → ROUX   ₪  02:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Or probably better: 1) I don't like you, 2) I disagree with almost everything you have to say. The first does not cause the second for me, with you or with anyone else. → ROUX   ₪  03:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Have it your own way. You know how little I value your opinion on anything anyway. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:15, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I have misunderstood you somewhere, or you me. What I was trying to say is that no, it doesn't matter; whether I like or dislike someone has no bearing on whether or not I will agree or disagree with something they have said. I'm not sure why you felt you had to get a dig in. What exactly is the point you are trying to make here? → ROUX   ₪  03:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Better question: why ask me for my opinion only to tell me how little you think of any opinion I give? Seems a bit off. → ROUX   ₪  03:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Admins
Thanks for resurrecting the David Fuchs ANI after Jehochman tried to sweep it under the carpet.

How are your "de-sysop" proposals going? And where? I've lost track of them. This may be a good time to go public with a discussion draft. --Philcha (talk) 07:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Ping

 * User:Ironholds/t
 * Right sorry, got a bit distracted. → ROUX   ₪  03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's alright, don't let me tell you what to work on. Or do, my Patrick Hastings rewrite needs help :P. Ironholds (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's good, but could probably be shortened a bit to the more salient points, with the details (much of what you have written is far better than what I originally wrote) provided at WP:DEVCOM. Then we just need a template for the election pages and it's ready to go. → ROUX   ₪  03:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okie-dokies, I guess a seealso tag could be useful. Want me to try and tweak the actual DevCom page then as well? Btw, was the layout for the ArbCom liason and their voting responsibilities a deliberate reference to Speaker Denison's rule or coincidence? :p Ironholds (talk) 03:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes please, and I don't know Denison's rule particularly, I was just going on the rules the Speaker follows here--which obviously came from Westminster in their entirety. → ROUX   ₪  03:29, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you nicked lots of things from us, as my recent article on the Chancery Amendment Act 1858 shows :p. Righto, I'll shorten it and tweak the main DevCom page, if you want to draft a template up at the same time? Feel free to use my userspace for easy transfer. Ironholds (talk) 03:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, tweaked the draft election thing and the main DevCom page both. May I suggest removing the Jimbo bit? It seems a bit extraneous since the page makes clear that if he fails to appoint members, they'll be appointed anyway without his shiny rubber stamp. Ironholds (talk) 03:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Good call. → ROUX   ₪  03:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, I'll snip that out then. I'm just working on a template at the moment, apologies if it comes out malformed. Sorry for the constant orange bars, btw. Ironholds (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Stripped-down RFA template here - no idea how to do any of the fancy-dan templating stuff that allows you to semi-auto-create a candidate page like RFA does. Ironholds (talk) 03:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Added some stuff, and the fancypants stuff I know how to do. But probably not tonight. It's been a long and painful day--not the wikisilliness; pulled my back the other day, not exactly conducive to kitchen work. → ROUX   ₪  04:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Eep. Well we've got a while - I'd suggest blaring out notices about the election only a few days before the nominations period opens to avoid the inevitable horde of "it will never work, too many hats, too much bureaucracy, etc etc" comments drowning out the proposal. That gives us some time to tweak. Ironholds (talk) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional suggestion - should MedCom members be excluded from membership as well? Since the committee expects to be working with them at some point as well. Ironholds (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

impugn motives
Hi Roux, I certainly do not mean to impugn motives. My concern is that a newcomer may feel an insult, regardless of motive or intent. I also do not challenge the accuracy of your statement. I am sorry if you read an insult from my comments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Attn: TPS - short wikibreak
My monitor has just died, so won't be around for a week or so. → ROUX   ₪

User:Smith Jones
it looks alright now. thanks! User:Smith Jones 16:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC) talkback

Re:Infobox heraldry
This edition was changed it because I think 200px is wrong used for a coat of arms, it is too big, I think we need to change this selection as opcional and we could change the size as we need, because now it's obligatory to use 200px or 210px or 150px, I can make it optional, if you want, but I just put it with 150px. What do you think?. --TownDownHow's going? 01:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to answer on your talk-page, Roux, but surely it would be simpler to create an image_size = parameter (re-reading it, perhaps this was your suggestion too), with a default of perhaps 200. I could code it, as I'm fairly certain Roux can, since it's not particularly complicated. - Jarry1250 [ In the UK? Sign the petition! ] 08:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXVIII
Delivered by – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk at 15:53, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

hello
Hello there...I am sorry about Template:Music of Canada change, was just trying to help make the link standout. I did not read the Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board I did not mean to cause you any work. again sorry and have fun!!!!! (pls delete this message at will) Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Aw, Caden's cute
Thanks so much Roux for helping. Man, it's getting out of hand with that ANI but it's good to know that at least some editors are mature enough to see what HalfShadow and Bugs etc are doing.  Caden  cool  00:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Life is too short...
Life is too short, don't let Wikipedia related conflict ruin your day. I read your comments on the talk page of the Development committee proposal and see that you are now disillusioned and what to give up on the idea of a proposal to start a think tank. Maybe take a break and then come back to it. I see some potential for goodness in all the proposals floated but they need discussion and tweaking as most good ideas do before they go live. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

re:psychosurgeons
Uhh, No I didn't. Maybe if I had written it like WP:IAR... Oh well. It doesn't really matter, however way its justified, because your argument as it stands is stale and invalid. I know my policies (better than you, I'll bet) so I'm not as foolish as to refer to a policy without actually knowing what I'm doing. If the reason for your comments is out of fascination and/or respect and/or interest for the policies currently at Wikipedia, maybe you'd enjoy reading them all or perhaps you could propose a new policy that you think would be good for Wikipedia. Either way, I've got other things I could be doing than playing a game of blind-man's-buff policy tit-for-tat right now. Maybe later, Roux. ;) Goodbye.-- The LegendarySky Attacker 20:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What cute little insults, and what breathtaking leaps of fallacy. → ROUX   ₪  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad indent on compromise proposal
Sorry about that -- I intentionally removed the indent. For some reason I thought "oppose" mean opposing Drew, rather than the compromise, even though I had edited it properly myself. *whacks self with clue-by-4*--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:16, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries! → ROUX   ₪  21:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
As you participated at the above discussion, this is to let you know I've proposed an alternate wording (for reasons stated there). However, it is essentially the same proposal. If you have any objections to it, please note them down. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion and poll on reviewer usergroup criteria
You may be interested in a discussion and poll I've started to decide the criteria that will be used for promoting users to the reviewer group at Wikipedia talk:Reviewers - please put your comments there. AndrewRT(Talk) 17:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Netalarm  talk  22:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Are you sure this meets the policy definition at WP:VAN ... ? — Kralizec! (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It fits NPA and o2u's ongoing spamming about Knol; TW adds the edit summary. → ROUX   ₪  15:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Personal attacks are explicitly not vandalism as per WP:VAND, and blaming Twinkle for using the wrong edit summary strikes me as being at odds with the bold text at the top of WP:TW that states "you take full responsibility for any action performed using Twinkle." Regardless, Oracle2universe`s comment about "every amateur admin at Wiki without a life" hardly meets even the controversial "clear-cut" and "true personal attack" standard listed at WP:RPA.  I would like to encourage you to revert your removal and instead consider denying the recognition and infamy that Oracle2universe obviously craves.  Thank you for your time and consideration, — Kralizec! (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do take responsibility, I do consider personal attacks vandalism, and no I will not be reverting that. o2u has been using VPP to soapbox for some time now, and I am disinclined to indulge it. Thus the removal of the bullshit comments, and the warning on his talkpage against personal attacks and spamming. → ROUX   ₪  15:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

De-sysop proposal
Hi, Roux. If your de-sysop proposal is still around, can you please let me know where. Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. --Philcha (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

E-mail
I just sent you one. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant
Perfect, btw. :) Protonk (talk) 06:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC)