User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/May
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Roux. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Piping on Category:Canadian heraldry stubs
Hi Roux - re this edit, it is standard practice for stub categories to be piped using the symbol µ (for "micro"). It puts the stub category at the end of a category's list of subcategories. Grutness...wha? 08:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- That's as may be, but it's less than useless to readers. You know.. the people we're actually here for. Plus it just looks absolutely bizarre. I'll be removing it again--you shouldn't have put it back until the conclusion of discussion, by the way. //roux 15:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm putting it back again, and would advise you to leave it there - unless you also want to remove the same piping from the several thousand other categories it's used on. I repeat - it is standard practice. Stub categories are not there primarily for readers, they are there primarily for editors. As such, it does not belong in the middle of a list intended primarily for people who are looking for articles to read. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cute, you expect me to simply accede to your demands, while ignoring the point of WP:BRD. //roux 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not. I expect you to conform to the standards of WP:Consensus - a key policy of Wikipedia. WP:BRD - which is not policy or even a guideline, but only an essay - makes it clear that it is for use in those cases where consensus is difficult, or where there is no consensus. BRD, in that page's own words, is "not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus." It is also "not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it." Where there is a long-standing consensus, which in this case there is, BRD is not the correct course of action. Look at it this way - do you want this one category to be piped differently to all other stub categories. If so, please give a logical and rational reason why it should be. If not, either present a logical and rational reason why all the other categories should be changed. This should be done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. It should not be done by changing one piece of piping with what seems to be little justification other than "I think it should be done this way". That is not a sensible way to make a change in a long-standing procedure, and certainly not a way to achieve consensus. Grutness...wha? 09:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did; it looks weird, is meaningless unless you've been told what it means, and serves no useful purpose. Whatever you may say about it being for editors, it is readers that become editors, and it behooves us to not confuse them. And despite your protestations, I have never seen it elsewhere. Oh well, I really should know better than to make the mistake of challenging peoples' little fiefdoms by now. Have it as you wish; clearly other opinions are not worth as much as yours.//roux 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It looks weird" in your opinion, but is widely seen as useful. "It is meaningless unless you've been told what it means" - not true - anyone who looks at a category with many subcategories will see stub and other "behind-the-scenes" categories at the end of the list - it should be obvious from that why they are piped. "It serves no purpose" - I've already explained the purpose it serves. Readers may become editors, but the two are distinct for the purposes of a lot of the work that goes on behind the scenes in Wikipedia. That's why many cleanup categories are not placed front-and-centre among navigation categories, but are rather hidden behind the scenes - either literally, by being hidden categories, or by being piped to the end of the list of subcategories (note that Category:Canadian heraldry templates should also be piped in this way). As to your opinions "not being worth as much as mine", of course they are - one person's opinion on here is worth every bit as much as any one other person's opinion. But your one opinion flies in the face of many other opinions - I am not the only one who has put so many identical pipings on stub categories. It is, as I have said before but you clearly have not comprehended, standard practice, done by many different editors. In fact, it is part of the standard coding on {{Stub Category}}, which is used to create stub categories (and which is now used on Category:Canadian heraldry stubs. This is thus one opinion compared with many who have reached a consensus, not one opinion compared with one other. By the way, given the tone of your comments, once you finish checking WP:Consensus it may also be worth your while reading WP:Etiquette and WP:Civility. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge either your condescension or your rank hypocrisy. Your only interest is in getting your own way, rather than thinking, even for a nanosecond, that someone else might have valid input into your guarded little fiefdom. Accordingly, this conversation is now over and you are no longer welcome to post here until such time as you a) apologise, and b) approach the discussion with the radical idea that I might just have something valid to say; anything else will be reverted on sight and will be treated as vandalism if you persist. Since I am less than confident that you will do either of those things, just don't post here again. //roux 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to interfere here, but this seems like a huge misunderstanding that spiraled out of control. Roux, I can understand your frustration. It would be helpful if the stub sorting project had some kind of Manual of Style that they could point people to about their special characters, as I'm sure Roux isn't the only one who has questions about this. Hopefully, this dispute will blow over and the both of you can put this behind you. Viriditas (talk) 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
- I have neither the time nor the inclination to indulge either your condescension or your rank hypocrisy. Your only interest is in getting your own way, rather than thinking, even for a nanosecond, that someone else might have valid input into your guarded little fiefdom. Accordingly, this conversation is now over and you are no longer welcome to post here until such time as you a) apologise, and b) approach the discussion with the radical idea that I might just have something valid to say; anything else will be reverted on sight and will be treated as vandalism if you persist. Since I am less than confident that you will do either of those things, just don't post here again. //roux 00:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- "It looks weird" in your opinion, but is widely seen as useful. "It is meaningless unless you've been told what it means" - not true - anyone who looks at a category with many subcategories will see stub and other "behind-the-scenes" categories at the end of the list - it should be obvious from that why they are piped. "It serves no purpose" - I've already explained the purpose it serves. Readers may become editors, but the two are distinct for the purposes of a lot of the work that goes on behind the scenes in Wikipedia. That's why many cleanup categories are not placed front-and-centre among navigation categories, but are rather hidden behind the scenes - either literally, by being hidden categories, or by being piped to the end of the list of subcategories (note that Category:Canadian heraldry templates should also be piped in this way). As to your opinions "not being worth as much as mine", of course they are - one person's opinion on here is worth every bit as much as any one other person's opinion. But your one opinion flies in the face of many other opinions - I am not the only one who has put so many identical pipings on stub categories. It is, as I have said before but you clearly have not comprehended, standard practice, done by many different editors. In fact, it is part of the standard coding on {{Stub Category}}, which is used to create stub categories (and which is now used on Category:Canadian heraldry stubs. This is thus one opinion compared with many who have reached a consensus, not one opinion compared with one other. By the way, given the tone of your comments, once you finish checking WP:Consensus it may also be worth your while reading WP:Etiquette and WP:Civility. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I did; it looks weird, is meaningless unless you've been told what it means, and serves no useful purpose. Whatever you may say about it being for editors, it is readers that become editors, and it behooves us to not confuse them. And despite your protestations, I have never seen it elsewhere. Oh well, I really should know better than to make the mistake of challenging peoples' little fiefdoms by now. Have it as you wish; clearly other opinions are not worth as much as yours.//roux 12:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Of course not. I expect you to conform to the standards of WP:Consensus - a key policy of Wikipedia. WP:BRD - which is not policy or even a guideline, but only an essay - makes it clear that it is for use in those cases where consensus is difficult, or where there is no consensus. BRD, in that page's own words, is "not a justification for imposing one's own view, or tendentious editing without consensus." It is also "not a substitute for prior research which would support the initial edit or a reversion of it." Where there is a long-standing consensus, which in this case there is, BRD is not the correct course of action. Look at it this way - do you want this one category to be piped differently to all other stub categories. If so, please give a logical and rational reason why it should be. If not, either present a logical and rational reason why all the other categories should be changed. This should be done at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting. It should not be done by changing one piece of piping with what seems to be little justification other than "I think it should be done this way". That is not a sensible way to make a change in a long-standing procedure, and certainly not a way to achieve consensus. Grutness...wha? 09:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- Cute, you expect me to simply accede to your demands, while ignoring the point of WP:BRD. //roux 02:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'm putting it back again, and would advise you to leave it there - unless you also want to remove the same piping from the several thousand other categories it's used on. I repeat - it is standard practice. Stub categories are not there primarily for readers, they are there primarily for editors. As such, it does not belong in the middle of a list intended primarily for people who are looking for articles to read. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XV
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 08:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Editorial harrassment
Hey Roux, thanks for the words on the AN thread the other day in relation to Biophy's harrassment. You may like to note that he has continued such behaviour, except now he has moved onto the next editor, and I have posted at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Biophys_continuing_harrassment. --Russavia Dialogue 16:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I Talking to a Person or Machines
I am new user Middle Fork, sending this note in response to a "Welcome" that I just received. I have a 30 year research project on one of your (current/former) level 9 subjects, California Indians, that I am considering pouring into Wikipedia. I just bought Andrew Lih's "Wikipedia Revolution" and decided to get a login name and look around. I am curious about getting an immediate welcome. At top of message there was a SQLBot reference, and I am learning that "Bots" are your workhorse cleanup robots, no? But at bottom of page was a signature of maeden (clicked and found it is a real person). Now on top of this page is the phrase "Editing User Talk:Roux (new section). Is Roux a personal name also?
Please answer if you can enlighten me. If you are a machine, don't worry. I am committed and will find my way around.
Middle Fork (talk) 21:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)Middle Fork
Some Basic Directions are Opaque to Me
To whatever kind administrator reads this message (Maedin? Roux?):
I logged on for the first time a few days ago. Just now I made my first edit contribution in my field of expertise, complete with published source. Very proud of myself. However, there are some things I would like to do, things I would like to tell people, but I cannot find the pathways.
For instance, you suggest above that I go to {..{talkback}..} in order to communicate. I just clicked on it, came to a page that had ways to edit, and warnings about editing it. But nowhere on the page did I see a place where I would write out and send anyone a request for help. In fact, that problem relates to other directions I cannot figure out. Down some pathway earlier today I read that I could write {{help me}} on my own talk page, state the question, and get feedback. But where on my talk page is there any place to do that (i.e. any place like this message box, which I brought up by clicking the "If you want to respond to this message" hyperlink that accompanied the original welcome from Maedin.
Also, I found that a really good editor, Goldenrowley, has, over the past couple of years, edited and maintained the page I want to improve. I thought I read that I can message him at his "talk" tab on his user page. I did get to that page, but when I click his "mytalk" tab, it, once again I do not see any "message box" that I can use to write a message to him. Instead, I see a very long history box showing his past text interactions with others.
Next, when I did my edit today on the "Ohlone Indians" page, I clicked "sandbox", figuring that my edits would pop up in there and I could check out if they worked. (I later used "preview ..." and it worked fine.) But when I opened the sandbox, I found a short string of erotic text in its text box! Does everybody have their own sandbox? Did I just walk into a vandalized community sandbox? Otherwise, I need to report that I am new and my sandbox has already been vandalized!
Finally, is it too late for me to change my username to the more common single-word moniker "Middlefork" so I can be like everybody else? Hope someone sees this and responds, because I think Wikipedia is really cool and I really want to jump in and help.
Regards, Middle Fork
User page designer
Hello. Let me say that I am impresed with you userpage designs (your page and the others you have upgraded (with your original sign mark)). Also, I want to tell you that the thing of asking for payment (constructive wikipedia edits) was MY idea and YOU STOLE IT!! ARRG!
Of course, I´m just kidding, I had that idea and I didn´t realize that someone else already had it. Anyway, I noticed that my works (at least in this, the english wikipedia) have became more numerous in internal styling and social side of wikipedia, and although that´s not something so bad, it´s not very good to wikipedia (in the encyclopedic way). So I said to my self: "Why not using my evil powers for the good". So as a creative way to encourage others to constructively contribute to wikipedia I decided to offer them things (like templates, decoratives and designs) in exchange of valuable edits, I also thought in signature creation and whole userpage design, but it could be too much work for me to do, so then I found you (who make whole page designs) and the signature designer also. I´m then thinking in linking you too in my shop (when it´s finished). So what is your opinion?
I also do contructive edits, not only selfish decor edits. - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 22:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Check WP:UPHTS. ResMar 00:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
--- I can't believe it! I am less original than I thought, perhaps I flew too high..... - Damërung ...ÏìíÏ..._ΞΞΞ_ . -- 03:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC) 
- Check WP:UPHTS. ResMar 00:44, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XVI
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by ROBOTIC GARDEN at 09:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.
Shameless thankspam
FlyingToaster Barnstar
Hello Roux! Thank you so much for your support in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of 126/32/5. I am truly humbled by the trust you placed in me, and will endeavor to live up to that trust. Here's to the chef! FlyingToaster
RE: ewhat
I been good :D As you might have read, I've got exams which are a pain in the arse to be polite. Wiki-wise I'm on an FT rampage with Rafablu which is more fun that I thought it would be. How's about you? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 20:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Aww. That would explain why you're never on IRC any more :P A great trait in a chef to be allergic to anything let alone shellfish. Be allergic to E-numbers - that would be so useful in a Michelin Star kitchen :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- My channel is run exceedingly well I'll have you know ;) Yes, that would be brilliant hey? :D weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XVII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 20:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
ThankSpam
Thank you for participating in my "RecFA", which passed with a final tally of 153/39/22. There were issues raised regarding my adminship that I intend to cogitate upon, but I am grateful for the very many supportive comments I received and for the efforts of certain editors (Ceoil, Noroton and Lar especially) in responding to some issues. I wish to note how humbled I was when I read Buster7's support comment, although a fair majority gave me great pleasure. I would also note those whose opposes or neutral were based in process concerns and who otherwise commented kindly in regard to my record. ~~~~~ |
 |
OOH, The dreaded warning and block like Tennis expert tried to do to me!
This doesn't work with me, and by the way Tennis expert is gone now, and for good reason! That user did not comply with wikipedia's stadards of implementing things. I have got an Admin working on this, which this admin knows the rules and says it is a bit excessive with the icons and the weird color scheme! I am not going to be afraid of you by any reason! BLuEDOgTn 17:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- Replied at your talkpage. Also... don't threaten me. Claiming you 'have an admin working on this' is a complete lie, as is your claim that they say it's a bit excessive. You left one message on one admin's talkpage, and as of this message have not received any response. //roux 18:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is not the only time, and here is BlackFalcon's response here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Dancing_with_the_Stars_-_Champions. Please, don't ever give warning for no good reason, and you were threatening me for making the appropriate edits and getting this in line with wikipedia's standards. How come in those discussion boards were never linked to the Wikipedia:Navboxes, which would have told you that it was a wrongheaded idea. I can't believe no one on this Wikipedia:Canada has never read this before. BLuEDOgTn 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- "the Manual of Style discourages use of icons "for exclusively decorative purposes"" - distinguishing is not decorative. Discourage does not mean forbid. You were warned for very good reason--you even admitted what you were doing. Get over it. //roux 18:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is not the only time, and here is BlackFalcon's response here Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Dancing_with_the_Stars_-_Champions. Please, don't ever give warning for no good reason, and you were threatening me for making the appropriate edits and getting this in line with wikipedia's standards. How come in those discussion boards were never linked to the Wikipedia:Navboxes, which would have told you that it was a wrongheaded idea. I can't believe no one on this Wikipedia:Canada has never read this before. BLuEDOgTn 18:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
My Love of this Land
I got your message and i know you want me to pick up the pace, but please place the article on hold or whatever it is called just dont delete the article. thank you. i will get back to it. i have been busy recently. --J miester25 (talk) 03:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Signature
Hi; can I ask, your signature seems to come out a different colour every time. It's really cool, how do you do it? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Ooh, spotted it now—hope you don't mind if I do a spot of plagiarism... :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is cool. iMatthew : Chat 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it? :) iMatthew : Chat 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Yep. (I just did that to see mine come out in another colour!) ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- Isn't it? :) iMatthew : Chat 19:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
- It is cool. iMatthew : Chat 19:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup newsletter XVII.V
This is just a quick reminder that the round ends this Friday, May 29, 2009. I wanted to let you guys know the current standings. If you are very close, but not close enough, work as hard as possible these next two days. Pool leaders are listed as usual, and under the 10 wildcards, are competitors that are still fighting for a spot. Also, if you currently have any un-reviewed GAN's up and you'd like them to be reviewed and counted for this round, you must place them on the appropriate thread of the WikiCup talk page.
- Pool A
Shoemaker's Holiday (647)
- Pool B
ThinkBlue (247)
- Pool C
Theleftorium (455)
- Pool D
Candlewicke (539)
- Pool E
Durova (479)
- Pool F
Sasata (961)
- Current Wildcards
Useight (393)
Scorpion0422 (372)
Rlevse (329)
Wrestlinglover (307)
Paxse (285)
Ottava Rima (248)
Mitchazenia (226)
Juliancolton (181)
the_ed17 (179)
J Milburn (168)
Bedford (156)
Gary King (147)
97198 (142)
Ceranthor (111)
Tinucherian (106)
Matthewedwards (98)
GARDEN , iMatthew : Chat , and The Helpful One The Helpful Bot 00:53, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WikiCup Newsletter XVIII
| The WikiCup Newsletter | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Delivered for the WikiCup by The Helpful Bot at 14:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC). To report errors leave at message here.
Good idea
I like this. But this will not pass, CIV has for ages been the underdog. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- I too article. The gross incivility on Wiki is what makes it a disaster on many occassions.--Molobo (talk) 17:56, 31 May 2009 (UTC)