User talk:Roux/Archives/2012/February

Swedish heraldry FAC

I recently nominated Swedish heraldry for WP:FAC, and we need knowledgeable editors to comment on the article. Since you have been a contributor to that article, I hope you will take some time to look it over and leave your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Swedish heraldry/archive1. Thank you for your time and your contributions! Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Yup, saw the notification at WPHV. Will read later when I am in less of a hellaciously foul mood. → ROUX ₪ 14:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for watching out for me. :) Freakin' neo-Nazis. >:( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I hate Illinois Wikipedia Nazis. → ROUX ₪ 21:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How...?

Hi. I'm fairly new and I wanted to ask a question. Why are people saying the picture of the Arms of Canada is copyrighted? It's the same picture used on the Canada page, Arms of Canada page, and other pages about Canada. I'm kind of confused... Could you clear things up? Thanks, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk: Prime Minister of Canada - Ministerial Infoboxes

Hi, Would you like to voice your opinion about this topic? I see you are an experienced editor, so if you want to, please contribute to the discussion. 174.7.90.110 (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that is the third time I have heard something negative about Miesianiacal. Could you tell me why people hate him so much? 174.7.90.110 (talk) 04:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Read his contributions and draw your own conclusions. → ROUX ₪ 04:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Do you mind if you show me how to do that... I have no idea. Thanks, 174.7.90.110 (talk) 04:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Miesianiacal → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2011

You have been mentioned in a incident at the Administrators noticeboard here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Editor_Roux_insisting_on_biased_RFC_language – Lionel ^(talk) 04:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What utter stupid garbage. → ROUX ₪ 04:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Dude, tone it down. You're way out of line in the manner in which you're speaking. Like, consider this a serious civility warning. Can you agree to talk like you would to my grandma, so that the actual issue can be looked at? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This is not helpful. —Dark 04:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

• I will apologize neither for perfectly reasonable and justified burning frustration at yet more of Miesianical's bullshit pedantry and wikilawyering nor for changing that section title to something rather more accurate than Lionelt's bullshit accusations that I was insisting on biased language in an RfC that I NEVER FUCKING CREATED. → ROUX ₪ 04:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

*facepalm* Please, I'm not asking you not to be frustrated. A brief persusal of that talk page made me frustrated. But you simply can't expect to lash out like that and be listened to. Were the above not on your talk page (where we generally provide wide latitude for people to vent) I'd have been saying "stop or be blocked to prevent further disruption." - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Blah, blah, blah. Address the actual problem, including the deliberate lie--once everyone had been alerted to the truth, insisting on that section title became a lie--or go away. → ROUX ₪ 05:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Aww man, I was tryuing to change the section header and got edit conflicts. If you can just stop, and say you'll work and play well with others, I'll unblock per the note below. But is it really so hard to understand that communicating is a civil manner will work in your benefit? - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As I made clear below, I will stop editwarring if and only if the lying biased section title is removed. Unless and until that is done, I will continue to revert. Lionelt needs, also, a strong dose of WP:CLUE, as he is continuing to assert things unsupported by reality. → ROUX ₪ 05:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Roux, I hope this advice does not fall on deaf ears, but I feel the need to say it anyways. It roughly mirrors what Aaron Brenneman says above: Your behavior obscures your rightness. That is, the way in which you go about presenting yourself makes it impossible for people to take your side in disputes. This is a prime example. You may very well have a valid point, but when you package the valid point the way you do, it makes it impossible for others to come to your support. When your behavior becomes a distraction, it ruins any point you are trying to make. Try a different approach next time. --Jayron32 05:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can only assume you have never been on the receiving end of Miesianiacal's bullshit, mulish obduracy, and misrepresentation of sources--that is, misrepresentation when he even has the sources to back up his monarchist POV-pushing. I am still waiting for my unblock. → ROUX ₪ 05:27, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

On what grounds? --Jayron32 05:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Quote: "if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock"

Quote: "I will stop editwarring when, and only when, that lying biased section heading is either removed or amended to include the truth about Lionelt's apparent total inability to comprehend reality"

The section title has been amended to remove Lionelt's baseless and sickening accusation of bias. Ergo... → ROUX ₪ 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roux/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

oh what a great job, yet again. Someone is allowed to lie about me, and I'm not allowed to tell the truth.

Decline reason:

User clearly doesn't get why he's blocked. Jayron's advice is sound and should be followed, especially in this case. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

As a note, you're allowed to tell anything you want, you just cannot modify what others have written. And more importantly, you're not allowed to edit war to force others to accept your modifications of the text others have written.--Jayron32 12:13 am, Today (UTC−5)

Yes, because section titles are never changed anywhere. Try again. I will not allow deliberate lies about me to stand. Period. → ROUX ₪ 12:14 am, Today (UTC−5)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Roux/Archives/2012 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Quote from the blocking admin:"Note to any other admins, if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock." Now that the lying and biased section title has been removed, there will be no editwarring.

Decline reason:

Still actively engaging fellow editors over perceived wrongs, incivility issues have not been addressed and acting in a hostile manner. —Dark 08:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Engaging how, precisely? By reverting harassment on my talkpage? And you're shocked that I'm angry and hostile over being attacked? 'Perceived' wrongs, in-fucking-deed. The intelligence of the admin corps knows no bounds. The stated reason for the block was editwarring. There will be no more, now that the lies have been removed. This block is purely punitive at this point. → ROUX ₪ 08:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your attitude right there is why I am reluctant to unblock. —Dark 08:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And your attitude is precisely why admins are widely regarded as useless and stupid. I was attacked, for no reason, and got pissed off. Someone was deliberately lying about me. What part of that do you not understand? What part of 'there will be no more editwarring' do you not understand? What part of 'there was no 'perceived' wrong, there was an actual wrong' do you not understand? What part of your condescension do you not understand is infuriating? → ROUX ₪ 08:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

PoC, I've seen you do this before, you decide somwthing is a lie (when lying implies motivation) and then fly off the handle, and you won't fly back to base. It seems to end up with sustained or longer blocks or you retiring, and it doesn't have to go that way There certainly was a misunderstanding here, which has been acknowledged - so can you suggest a way forward which doesn't involve harvesting all possible pounds of flesh? Franamax (talk) 09:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

As soon as Lionelt was provided with the actual facts (before he ever posted to AN/I), his insistence on claiming that I had instigated a biased RfC became a lie, period. I will not stand for that shit, and I am sickened by those implying or outright stating that I should. Reputation is all we have here and I am perfectly fine accepting lumps for something I have actually done. I will, however, categorically not allow lies about me to stand. One notes it took Lionelt well over an hour to even comprehend what he had been told, and quite some time after that to accept it. One notes further, intriguingly, that he only said so after someone else had told him. Guess a right-wing conservative Christian wasn't interested in hearing the truth from some leftie faggot. → ROUX ₪ 09:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

"took...over an hour..."? lol, you set one hour as a timeframe for other people to understand what you're saying? You are putting en.wikipedia.org into the address bar, right? What I'm trying to point out is the way you take your interpretation of "lying" and turn it into a mortal offence which must be avenged at all costs - not everyone has the same simple definitions as you, nor do all others understand your desire for justice tantamount to revenge. You are correct that integrity is all here, but the way you approached things this time 'round, and have done in the past, is not productive. If you swear enough, people stop listening. You seem to be vindicated on the substance, the thread title has been changed, what more do you want?.

Moxy has pointed out an item of concern though, is there still an underlying dispute between yourself and Mies? I remember that from my earliest days of editing here, is that still happening? Maybe there is some third-party way to get that settled if so. Franamax (talk) 09:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Took over an hour of him repeatedly posting, having been told multiple times he was wrong. So yes, I set that as a timeframe. My interpretation of lying is, y'know, the actual definition of the word: persisting in saying something known to be false. My dispute with Mies is his continued obdurate POV-pushing. An RFCU had zero effect--he just killed his old account and disingenuously started a new one. Multiple blocks have had zero effect. The only thing which will change his fucking bullshit is Arbcom, and he is extremely careful to skate juuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuust close enough to the line to avoid that.

What more do I want? I want the fucking morons around here to STOP blaming the victims for getting pissed off when they are attacked. That's what I fucking want. → ROUX ₪ 17:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Editwarring is bad...

I have blocked you for 24 hours because you insist on edit warring over a section title at WP:ANI. You've blown past WP:3RR several edits ago. You know how to use the unblock template if you wish to. Note to any other admins, if Roux indicates he will stop edit warring, feel free to unblock him without asking my further input. --Jayron32 05:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I will stop editwarring when, and only when, that lying biased section heading is either removed or amended to include the truth about Lionelt's apparent total inability to comprehend reality. → ROUX ₪ 05:12, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There was a misunderstanding on my part because the template talk page is not chronological. Roux has certainly overreacted and been uncivil. However, as the aggrieved party, I would Support an unblock. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:16, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The page is, in fact, chronological. Look at the history. I am awaiting your apology. I have not overreacted; you made an enormous mistake and accused me of bias, and after being told what reality was you continued to insist. Given that you had been told the facts, continuing to insist on your disgustingly insulting section title then became deliberate lying. I will not allow myself to be lied about. Is that crystal fucking clear? → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey Roux, when you're unblocked, follow your past advise & stay clear of Mies. Remember, you guys don't get along. GoodDay (talk) 05:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The difference is, one of us isn't twisting Wikipedia rules to push a stupid POV. You're no help, you enable his nonsense. → ROUX ₪ 05:40, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't take Mies (or any editor) on, in any such heated discussions. Having gone through a Rfc/U, has that kinda effect on a guy. GoodDay (talk) 05:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

And that is precisely why he has been allowed to continue his bullshit for so long, quite apart from the disingenuous new account name. → ROUX ₪ 05:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

All watching

Ya know, perhaps everyone should take five for a minute? Reverts of this nature elevate tempers in a rather rapid fashion. Just, ya know, have a cup of tea or some hard liquor or something... Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm waiting for Jayron to unblock. That or admit the blocking rationale was a lie, and that it is merely punitive at this point. → ROUX ₪ 05:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I wish I had an icon for "triple face-palm" or somesuch. Yes, you've indicated that you won't edit war over the section title anymore. But the manner in which you're doing so... well, would you be happy if I unblocked you for edit warring then blocked you for disruption? Would we then be able to discuss the issue of your communication style? Here's what you need to do for me to unblock you, quoting from your own page notice: be polite. Say something that indicates you understand at all that you can't say "fuckity fuck fuck fuck" like we're in the fucking Marines. Anything that indicates you are listening to the advice multiple people have given you. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

When I get some understanding from someone that I am justified in being angry at accusations being leveled at me that are simply untrue, and that said accusations then turned into deliberate lies when the facts were presented to the uninformed... person who made them, and that I am justified in not allowing lies to be spread about me, fine. Until then? Fuck no. I use salty fucking language. That's who I am, and imposing a culture of language use is puritanical Americentrism of the highest order. I quite simply refuse to acknowledge anyone anymore unless and until one fucking person will acknowledge that lying about other editors is bad and wrong and must not be allowed. → ROUX ₪ 06:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Quadruple facepalm. Are you even reading what I write?

• I've stated above that yes, you have a reason to feel aggrieved. That Template talk page... *shudder*
• I've stated above that yes, the section header was unnacceptable. I was trying to change it, even what it's ended up as is a bit poor.

It's not the "salty" words per se (I've told people "fuck you and the hat you rode in on" before) it's the obvious venom. It's disruptive. It stops people (in this case, me) from dealing with the real issue. Had I not been having this exchange, I'd have been looking at the other editor's contributions.

I'm going to go to bed now, so it won't be me unblocking you. Which is a shame, because although we've never directly interacted to my memory, I have had (and continue to have) a good impression of you. When I see your multi-chromatic signature on something, I typically file it under "good guy." And I fear that, after this, you'll file me under "utter bastard."

Aaron Brenneman (talk) 06:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You find it strange that I am obviously venomous that not only was someone allowed to deliberately lie about me unchallenged, but that a bunch of clueless... people then editwarred to retain the lies? You are surprised that I am viciously angry about this? Seriously?

The rest of your commentary is depressingly passive-aggressive. Stop using excuses to avoid dealing with the real issues. → ROUX ₪ 06:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To put it another way, saying "you got mad so you're just as bad" is complete and total horseshit. It's like telling someone they're in the wrong for being pissed off at someone punching them in the face with no bystanders doing one fucking thing about the person doing the punching. → ROUX ₪ 06:23, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually a better comparison is if someone accidentally punches you in the hand while fighting with someone else and you start punching that person in response in to a bloody pulp, you shouldn't be surprised if people are more concerned about your behaviour and don't particularly care about the accidental punch. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Except it is actually nothing like that. Lionelt had been told before he ever posted to AN/I that I had absolutely nothing to do with that RfC tag, and yet he bulled ahead with his insulting lying bullshit anyway. Try again. → ROUX ₪ 17:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Adjusted templates

Hi Roux, While looking at your talk page, I noticed that all of my page controls were obscured by your nav template at the top of the page so I made some minor adjustments to bump the template lower and to the right a bit to allow me to use the standard controls. I'm using the modern skin which I'm guessing that you aren't or you would have seen this before. I realize that the box below it isn't aligned correctly now but I can see the controls. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 15:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You have screwed up my talkpage. Revert at once. → ROUX ₪ 17:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've undone the changes. Berean Hunter, it's not very nice to fiddle with someone's userpage layout without asking them first, especially when they're blocked and can't fix anything you might break. Please don't do that again. 28bytes (talk) 17:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, I didn't break anything and I am being nice by leaving the message. I'm assuming that he can edit within his talk page space while blocked to tweak. I'm not trying to pick a fight here...I have no problem with Roux. Upon finding all of my controls blocked by the placement of his template, I corrected it. Users may not screw up the Media Wiki interface ==> WP:SMI and any user is allowed to correct this. Try switching to the modern skin in your preferences to see what I'm talking about.

I was just wanting to move the template down and over so that I could access the standard controls. I will be happy to send a screenshot to anyone who requests this by my email.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:26, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you did break the layout. I use monobook, which was once the default. I'm not changing it, and I am skeptical that you were unaware that blocking means a user can edit only their talkpage and nothing else. → ROUX ₪ 18:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You are not able to edit subpages within your talkspace (archives, etc.) ? Does this include your userpage also? I've never been in the position to know. I've assumed that an editor was strictly confined to their talk space but didn't realize that it confines to only their talk page. I just assumed that the minor spacing issue was something that you can correct while blocked. My apologies for not realizing that you couldn't.

I would like to request that you please reconsider making slight adjustments once the block expires that allow users to still see their controls. I'm not wanting you to lose functionality with your templates, just alter the placement down enough to accommodate for users visiting your page. Thank you,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 18:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I am singularly uninterested in doing anything whatsoever for a bunch of people who are singularly uninterested in doing anything for me. → ROUX ₪ 18:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

What would you want me to do? I'm confused by your response. AFAIK, we have have never clashed anywhere and my impression of you has always been positive...that was one of the reasons why I was taking the time to look into this because I thought it was worthwhile to see what was going on. If I didn't value you as an editor, I wouldn't have bothered looking. If I thought that I could do something constructive in the threads above, I would.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Standing up for people who are being attacked would be a good start, followed by excoriating those who prefer to blame victims. I am not changing my user or talkpages, period. → ROUX ₪ 19:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't seen any clear attacks. I don't know the full background/history between editors here and have not completed due diligence to understand this as a whole. I could see the edit-warring at ANI over a section title and I think 28bytes' solution was best for fixing the title...it is a pity that the neutral title had not happened first because then you would not be blocked (I believe).
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 19:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

It's also a shame that the stupid admin who blocked me reverted to the lying, biased, attacking section title and failed to make it neutral. It's a further shame that the two other stupid admins who reviewed the block failed to actually pay any fucking attention to the reason for the block or to the stupid blocking admin's commentary. Of course, expecting any sort of intelligence from admins is a losing proposition, as is expecting them to do anything other than wield their fancy little button not at the instigator of the problem--again I point out that Lionelt knew he was lying because he had already been told the facts before he posted to AN/I--but would much rather simply blame the victim for getting pissed off at being attacked and lied about. → ROUX ₪ 20:01, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Trance

I get it...I know you're frustrated in general (re: the earlier block). I know that Danceking5 makes you crazy. But you have to tone down the incivility. It's not just the invective, it's that your response that everything xe or even other editors do is aggressive, forceful, and demeaning. Those removals were perfectly appropriate per WP:V, one of our core policies. Now, conceivably some of them could have been tagged with "cn" tags first...but there is no requirement that they be. Danceking's removals are really no different than my own removals, or the ones you even agreed to on the talk page. If you're absolutely certain about one or more of the pieces of information, feel free to bring it up on the talk page, and we can consider re-adding for a limited period of time while we try to find sources. But it's a step backwards to suddenly add back in a bunch of unsourced information. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Thx

Thank you! SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You have been mentioned here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:35, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the addition of unsourced commentary to The Supreme Court of the United States article. Pinetalk 07:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)