User talk:Roux/Archives/2010/February

Edit on VP
I've had this happen to me before. If you want, request a CheckUser. If you want any insurance, I won't run for adminship. I was planning to do so when I graduated from college (9 years in the future). I'll just sit around Wikipedia making good edits as a normal user.

Sorry for [|that edit]

Buggie111 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Trout
for Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Not a page I usually monitor, was looking at something else, yada, yada...

Anyway thought I'd drop you a note because I've found ignoring WP:PEOPLE WHO ANNOY ME tremendously effective. I just took a look at my December talk page archive and found a bunch of warnings/messages/junk I just ignored. Nothing happened to me afterwards and I'd totally forgotten about most of them. And a couple of the annoying people annoyed others and eventually got themselves blocked anyway. Life is good.

If just one person accuses you of something and no one else adds backs them up, it just don't get any traction. Hope this helps. (and I'm emailing you another tidbit) Gerardw (talk) 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
Welcome back to the project Roux. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  ark  // 09:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * < 3 → ROUX   ₪  09:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

;) Jack Merridew 09:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi. Good to see you again. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You're back! The Thing  //  Talk  //  Contribs  17:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am not. → ROUX   ₪  18:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You are merely a bizarre figment of our imaginations? Perhaps a compromised account, we should block it ;-P  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You haven't been paying attention. I don't compromise. Congrats on the mop, btw. About fucking time the community grew a brain cell and gave it to you. → ROUX   ₪  15:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Heh, nice of you to disappear after suggesting I run again ... I may have needed your !vote, and where would I be then? LOL ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 17:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw you post on ANI and thought it was an impersonator, but you're really back? Welcome back! :) --  At am a  頭 16:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You must be imagining things. → ROUX   ₪  17:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

← You won't leave again, will you? :P  fetch  comms  ☛ 01:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcom back, to the land of Wikia. GoodDay (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

*Surreptitious wave* Gonzonoir (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fuck you all.
Yup! It's perfectly okay for an editor to call me a liar. That's fine and dandy! Woe betide anyone who gets pissed off at having their integrity--the only commodity we have on this site--impugned.

So, go fuck yourselves. → ROUX   ₪  16:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you take the word of that editor-in-question, so seriously? There could be numerious editors on Wikipedia telling fibs about me, so what? GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning
I'm not going to block you, but this crosses the line and then some. Without commenting on the situation at hand, if you comment like that again to another editor then you'll be blocked. Please take time to think about your edits before hitting save.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see another admin has already blocked you. Whilst I wouldn't personally have blocked you, I can understand why they have.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 16:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Bit late there, Postlethwaite. It is, and I will freely admit this, quite deliberately crossing the line to prove a point. He called me a liar.. nobody bats an eyelash. I tell him to fuck off, and kaboom! Blocked. With, I note, account creation disabled. Rather insulting given the utter lack of sockpuppetry anywhere in my history. → ROUX   ₪  16:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Account creation blocked is the default, and typically is only unchecked for soft-blocking uw-username violations. Roux, I think you need to take it easy. Your blood pressure must be through the roof! This is a website, don't take it so seriously... –xenotalk 16:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not, actually. I am just pissed off that I took a chance on coming back, and had hoped some of the stupidity had drained from the site. Apparently not. Yet again, someone is allowed to attack and harass and lie about me with virtual impunity (Malleus), while one of his sycophants is explicitly allowed to call me a liar. But if I get pissed off about it? Blockitty block block. Do you not see the double standard here? Do you not see how there is a significant fucking problem when assholes are allowed to quell discussion by making accusations of lying with zero consequences? Honesty is all we've got here, and to attack that is to attack the foundations of the so-called community and what binds it together.


 * But you don't care. No admins care. The only thing you lot care about is quieting whoever is shouting loudest, without bothering to make the tiniest investigation into what is actually happening or even a scintilla of effort to actually address the fucking problem. → ROUX   ₪  16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't care per se, it's that I've pretty much made a commitment to myself to not get involved with the petty day to day incivility and such that goes on around here. Not that I endorse it, I just can't be arsed enough to deal with it. And no, I'm not 'quieting' anyone, I just think you're getting awful worked up. I admit I haven't dug too deep into what prompted this. –xenotalk 17:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you look into it. A novel concept for an admin, but perhaps you can teach others this Bold New Way of dealing with things. → ROUX   ₪  17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, looked into it. Looks like Malleus slinged a barb your way and you took him on. I've personally come to the conclusion that attempting to change or engage Malleus is a non-starter. Best to just ignore him and hope the treatment sends him back to article writing, where he is apparently a proven commodity. shrug it off. –xenotalk 17:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't give a flying fuck about changing Malleus. I care about a bunch of lazy and useless admins who just go "Ho hum, he's allowed to make attacks that would get anyone else blocked in a heartbeat, just deal with it" instead of doing their job, which is to enforce policy and foster a collegial environment. Moreover the utterly halfassed way in which they prefer to simply silence whoever is pissed off? Oh please. It's fucking bullshit, you know it, and thank God ArbCom finally had the collective sense to ban Ottava for his crap. One would have thought that would be a big fucking clue to admins, but lead a horse to water... → ROUX   ₪  17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not trying being cute, but this certainly isn't my job =) And if it is, the pay sure stinks. I think Tan said it best at User:Xeno/misc. Anyhow, simply I came here to suggest a little more laissez faire. That's all. I'll take my leave if it's not helpful or welcome. –xenotalk 17:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I came here to warn you in the same way I did with Parrot of Doom, but there's no point given that the admin blocked. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And one notes, naturally, that he's not blocked. Accusations of lying: A-OK! Admin Approved! Telling someone to fuck off: Booo, hisss, block. → ROUX   ₪  16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah well: 'Ask and thou shall yada yada.' You realise that if you get banned the problem is also effectively dealt with. Consider that the next time you have a tantrum like that one one of the busiest pages on the site.  Half  Shadow  16:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How terribly entertaining that you call it a tantrum. Yet another utterly useless admin. Tell me, do any of you actually have any interest in dealing with the real problem?
 * I thought not. How pathetic. → ROUX   ₪  16:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin. I am, however, smarter than you. If you don't want to have anything to do with another user, ignore them. You didn't. See how that worked out? Half  Shadow  16:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't post here again unless it's an apology for your insult. → ROUX   ₪  17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone else would've removed the comment entirely; if you still consider it a stupid refactor, I have no problems reverting my action in favour of someone doing more. In any event, you are talking in the same fashion that you spoke to me on a previous occasion - I suggest you leave Wikipedia for the day before you say something even more personal that you will come to regret; also, it would be sad to see you leave as a result of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you stay the hell out of my business. → ROUX   ₪  17:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice
Assume good faith much? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Heya
Hey man. Welcome back and all that crap. Why do you bother to post at WP:WQA? Believe you me, I'm a fan of your no-bullshit style and tend to see us thinking alike, but WQA is probably a venue more suited to the police-state thinkers among us, dontcha think? I dunno, maybe it amuses you. You've been on a serious "fuck you" bender since you got back, tho - maybe sticking to "fuck you" in ANI would be sufficient... Tan  &#124;   39  22:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I explained above, the fuck you was carefully calculated to show a glaring disparity in how editors are treated; calling someone a liar passes without comment, telling them to go fuck themselves is a block. This is wrong, of course. Personally I say you and I mutiny and take over this joint. We could hardly do a worse job than the seething mass of mouthbreathers. → ROUX   ₪  02:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization
Please see WP:CAPS In "(How to Be A) Millionaire" the word "be" is capitalized because it is a verb and the word "a" is capitalized because it is the last word inside of parenthesis (the same situation would apply if the word "a" was at the end of the title of a song, for instance.) Please respond on my talk if you are so inclined. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Warning
You need to tone them down, and you need to calm down. I've warned HalfShadow because he was out of line, but you are as well. You have been warned repeatedly and blocked twice in the past days. Stop it. You win no arguments by behaving like a child yourself. ÷seresin 04:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what exactly am I being warned for? Oh right... being pissed off that someone is attacking and baiting me. With zero consequences. Do forgive me if I ignore your 'warning' (laced with an insult, nice touch) for exactly what it is. → ROUX   ₪  04:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked
I'm sorry to say, but I've blocked you for 2 weeks for personal attacks incivility after coming off two very recent blocks for the same thing. Over the last 24 hours you have made these uncivil remarks;
 * - You used the edit summary "You don't know what you're talking about" and in the edit said "I beg your fucking pardon?"
 * "I would just like to note for the record that the removal was complete and utter bullshit"
 * "Your smartassery has trumped mine. I doff my cap to you, sir."
 * "I suggest you check your cornflakes for piss before eating them next time, Tan."
 * "Personally I say you and I mutiny and take over this joint. We could hardly do a worse job than the seething mass of mouthbreathers."

When you return, please consider how you talk to other editors and try to be more collegial in your responses.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 18:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow. Uh... wow. My opinion of the admin corps has just sunk to a new low. Let's look at these comments, shall we?


 * - the edit summary was because he didn't have the foggiest idea of what he was talking about. Nor do you, apparently. And yeah, "I beg your fucking pardon" because by that point I was singularly fed up with his continued insistence on sticking his nose in when he had--get this--no idea what he was talking about.
 * "I would just like to note for the record that the removal was complete and utter bullshit". It was. Period. Do note that there was no attack on Chillum there.
 * "Your smartassery has trumped mine. I doff my cap to you, sir." Time for a bit more incivility: reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. Look at both my reply and Tan's to your comment there.
 * "I suggest you check your cornflakes for piss before eating them next time, Tan." Tan and I frequently talk to each other in this style. One notes you didn't warn Tan for calling me a douche. Fascinating, that.
 * "Personally I say you and I mutiny and take over this joint. We could hardly do a worse job than the seething mass of mouthbreathers." See above.
 * Piss-poor block from someone who usually uses his brain. Way to take things out of context, Ryan. → ROUX   ₪  18:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And it's worth noting that at least two of those comments are in the past, making this punitive. Are we finally going to admit that blocks are punitive? → ROUX   ₪  18:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In the last 24 hours is hardly in the past - it shows a pattern of poor behaviour and that you're not responding to shorter blocks.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is if one ignores the fact that you are simply not understanding those comments. And if one ignores that I have been pissed off at the treatment I have received for being fucking attacked and harassed by at least two people, and now by a sockpuppet. But hey, facts, who needs them when you have that shiny button that lets you shut people up whenever you feel like it? → ROUX   ₪  19:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Talk page disabled, as this doesn't seem to be leading towards an actual unblock request. unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org if necessary. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg ya Roux, cut down the profanity, please. GoodDay (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm worried about the precedent the locking down of this talk page sets. Editors who get blocked are likely to be frustrated and pissed. But I don't think it's appropriate to prevent them from venting or expressing their views. It's easy to remove (refactor) an f-bomb if it's considered offensive and too unseemly for the puritanical standards of an uncensored encyclopedia. I didn't see any personal attacks or hateful bile that would need to be stopped. And as a DBH it seems to me that getting some of the bile out is not always a bad thing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The orange bar thingy...
I was coming to thank you for the code for the new message alert - now mine says 'Ping' and 'diff' but I can't see how to make it quicklink to the 'history' as well....but I see things have gone a little pear-shaped here. :/ Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Try my modification, it should work. ( X! ·  talk )  · @326  · 06:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay I will...Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Email blocked....
.... because of that ridiculous attack you just sent me, which is now being sent to ArbCom to verify.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * After being blocked, User:Roux sent the blocking admin an email calling him an obscenity. The block may be reviewed by the community in ordinary fashion. Roux is, of course, free to contact unblock-en-l if he is dissatisfied.
 * For the Arbitration Committee, Cool Hand Luke 16:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User page
Per your edit summary, I requested that your user page be deleted, so please don't blame the deleter. I hope that after some period of time you relax and consider contributing to non-heated areas either by getting this account unblocked or by the obvious method. Hipocrite (talk) 20:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Random placement of comment...
I'm not usually in for grave dancing, but since an entire palace complex has already been erected here:

Roux, what the fuck are you thinking? You're on a hair-trigger about perceived or actual slights to yourself (viz your construance of what is "lied ahout me"), but you have been raging about using whatever personal characterizations your emotions see fit (not the same thing as what your reason might say). You have very clearly crossed the line multiple times lately, are you just trying to make a POINT about how editors get treated differently? We've discussed this before privately (and briefly). I'll tell you right now that the way to resolve that sort of problem is not to model worst-behaviour, it is to model best-behaviour. Just think about if you got into an ArbCase, would you want to be someone arguing that you should be pardoned 'cause the other guy was worse or would you want to be the person who everyone can see took a calm and rational approach through the whole dispute? Which way would the decision come more quickly, and which way is more likely to resolve in your favour? You already have my email address, so replying won't be a problem; I just thought this would be better served as a public statement. You make very intelligent and useful contributions when your brain is in gear, we shouldn't have to lose that just because you're often also a dickhead. You have no choice on being intelligent, you do have a choice on being a dickhead. Franamax (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)