Misplaced Pages

Request for input

Hello Roux. You had initially brought up the idea of a topic ban on Shutterbug (talk · contribs) and related accounts, in a WP:ANI thread that was later moved to WP:AE. As a result of Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/COFS, all Scientology-related articles are under Article probation, so technically according to Misplaced Pages:Article_probation#Types_of_sanctions any administrator may carry out the topic ban. However WP:BAN is clear this should be decided by uninvolved administrator(s): The Arbitration Committee may delegate the authority to ban a user, such as by authorizing discretionary sanctions in certain topic areas, which can be imposed by any uninvolved administrator. You are not an admin, but you were the original uninvolved editor to bring up the idea of an indef topic ban. Would appreciate your further input in this matter. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Your vote on Cool Hand Luke

Dear Roux, I noticed your vote statement on Cool Hand Luke, and I just wanted to encourage you not to blanket-oppose somebody just because they have a Misplaced Pages Review account. While I myself do not have one, I know many pillars of our community do-- New York Brad comes to mind as a shining example of someone who, I think, has used that forum from time to time for meta-discussions.

I've never spoken to Luke before the elections, I don't know him that well, I'm not writing you here on his behalf. I just notice that some very "battleground"-esque people have targeted Luke and are making some very intense accusations against him. Before his name was dragged through the mud, Luke was almost unopposed, a veritable shoo-in for election. Now, he's not.

Roux--if you think the accusations are true, if you've investigated them and are convinced Cool Hand Luke has acted improperly, then obviously, you have to oppose.

But please, don't oppose just because of innuendo, bold accusations, or generic labels of "drama" or "bad associations". Don't make the decision based upon a question like "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of WR". Don't let a tiny minority of users, through grandiose statements of mudslinging, sink an otherwise untarnished candidate. I don't think that's the kind of project we want.

Anyway, thanks for listening to this ranting. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured. I want to be clear, I wasn't saying you were voting that way, I just wanted to be sure. Truth be told, you've probably know the candidates and their stories better than I do, so no worries. :) Cheers! --Alecmconroy (talk)

Thank you for participating in my RfA

I just wanted to take a moment to say "thank you" for taking the time and effort to participate in my recent RfA. As you may know, the discussion closed 66/0/1 and I'm now a holder of the mop. I will keep working to improve the encyclopedia and appreciate the trust which you have placed in me. - Dravecky (talk) 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Quick question...

I know that requests for comment can be used on a Talk page of an article or user, but is it acceptable to do so on a WP:AE? I'd like to get some uninvolved opinions for the Scientology-related thread for which you suggested a topic ban. ←Spidern→ 05:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DoTTR

I fail to see why you think this needs to be posted to ANI at this point. ANI is too busy as it is. Your concern would be put to better use if you tried to help solving the issue right there. --dab (𒁳) 18:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Background Information Page

The Background Information Box on my artist's pageShaunarae (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the box on right side of the Marlee Scott page...am I in the right place now?Shaunarae (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

yes...the box on the right side of the Marlee Scott pageShaunarae (talk) 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

removing self-categorization

I greatly appreciate your help in removing self-categorization from categories. I wonder if you'd be interested in taking your efforts a step further and supplying one or more parent categories in cases where the self-cat was the only parent. Best wishes, -- Stepheng3 (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought I had been.. what did I miss?// roux   editor review 11:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Cookies

		Cookies!
		For your auto-archiving help. has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Really?

"I thought about it and feel that opposing other candidates just isn't right."

Really? So, when there are over 30 people running, you honestly think that a candidate doesn't have the right to promote which 7 he thinks should be there and that his opinion doesn't matter? Wow. I really hope that you don't ever run for any other position, because I will definitely have to point this out in order to show that you don't believe that people have the right to express their opinions, especially if you ever go and do the same thing. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? I think it's fine to support other candidates. Voting against other candidates is what I find distasteful, because it looks like you're trying to lessen their chances while improving your own. And I am not saying it was the intention, but people on ArbCom need as much as possible to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Supporting other candidates shows "I think this person would also be good"; it's an act against self-interest and is therefore commendable. At no point did I say his opinion didn't matter, so don't put words in my mouth. I also don't much appreciate being badgered for my vote, thanks. // roux   editor review 16:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So, only you get to vote against opponents, and its perfectly okay if you vote against them for voting against others? Isn't that the very definition of hypocrisy? You created a standard that you do not live up to. At least attempt to create a legitimate basis instead of opposing a standard that you, yourself, refuse. Voting oppose is not improper. However, opposing because you don't want them to have the ability to freely speak their mind probably should be improper. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to have me mistaken for someone else. I'm not running, which means I'm not voting against any opponents. Please re-read what I wrote above, as it seems as though you didn't. // roux   editor review 17:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you have mistaken people for someone completely else. Everyone running is a wikipedian. You are a wikipedian. It is disrespectful to claim that you have the right to oppose but other wikipedians don't. That is really rude and really unfair, and possibly even incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

OKay, you know what? Who the hell do you think you are to come to my talkpage and badger me regarding my vote? I made my opinion crystal clear. Oh BOO HOO your favourite candidate had ONE vote against him for doing something that I found distasteful. Did I say he wasn't entitled to his opinion? NO. Did I say he wasn't allowed to show his opinion? NO. Did I say that he should be prevented from giving his opinion? NO. On the other hand, did you show up at my talk page and fucking accuse me of a bunch of shit I never did? YES. The next time you post here, unless you are posting an apology, you will be reported and blocked for harassment. // roux   editor review 22:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your current incivility is indicative of your constant incivility, which connected to the incivility in your hypocritical stance against a person for opposing others. Who are you, going off your own standards, to oppose another because they opposed someone? What gives you the right that you can then deny the others the same right? Hmm? This is not Rouxapedia. This is Misplaced Pages. You have no right to dominate others, to abuse them, and to claim that they don't deserve a say. Thats really unfair, highly incivil, and not up to the Misplaced Pages standards and policies. You can't bully your way like that, and that is extremely inappropriate. Go ahead, ask for me to be blocked, but your incivility here and there is extremely inappropriate. The only one who should be apologizing is you for your abuse. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

roux is entitled to oppose standing candidates for any reason, or no reason at all. It's not unreasonable for him to have concerns about candidates who oppose other candidates (certainly I've thought about the implications of it.) His oppose are certainly not uncivil or rude - I can't speak to unfair. Feel free to question roux's vote(s), but don't come to his talk page to sling about accusations and hassle him in such a manner, that truly is uncivil. WilyD 22:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I still need help editing my background info box...

I'm new to the talk pages, so I hope I'm doing this properly. I just need to edit Marlee Scott's record label info, as she has signed to a new one...I'm with her management team.Shaunarae (talk) 18:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response, I will do what you suggestedShaunarae (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)