User talk:Roux/Archives/2009/September

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Request for arbitration filed

This is to let you know that I've filed a request for arbitration at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Scope of NLT concerning a case in which you have commented at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#Legal threats by Milomedes. I have not listed you as an involved party; should you, however, prefer to be considered involved, let me know and I'll add you to the list.  --Lambiam 12:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXX

Delivered for the WikiCup by  ROBOTIC GARDEN  at 19:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC). To report errors see the talk page.

Statement

Can you fix your signature on that statement that you just made? I moved my statement, and apparently it screwed up the page. Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved it because I thought that you and Thatcher were responding to Balloonman. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 Done Doh. And I thought Dunc moved it... but same goes to you: don't move my comments. On very rare occasions I will put one in the wrong place and I will fix it myself. In this case, it was precisely where I intended it to be, and you should assume that people are doing that. → ROUX ₪ 15:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Move your comments?

Doesn't look like it. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&diff=314356207&oldid=314355645 but as I said later in the thread, possibnly caused by the anti edit conflict software. (redacted personal attack → ROUX ₪ 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)). DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you stopped beating your wife yet? You have about five minutes to remove this repetition of your disgusting personal attack or I will do it for you. → ROUX ₪ 15:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
You can remove what you like from your talk page - but how about removing your false accusation that I moved your comment? And how about you tell everyone else to stop beating a dead horse, not just someone who can point to earlier evidence that Pastor Theo was a lousy admin? DuncanHill (talk) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Redacted, then. And you don't seem to understand; you bring this up at eveyr possible opportunity. You're beating a dead horse, and unless you have anything constructive to say, you are no longer welcome to post here. → ROUX ₪ 15:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Miscellany for deletion

The close template syntax as of now is {{subst:mfd top|result}} with {{subst:mfd bottom}}. Just for FYI. @harej 02:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry... I keep forgetting. I use a script for closing and it hasn't yet been updated. → ROUX ₪ 14:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Looks like you won't have to bother updating. MZMcBride changed it back. @harej 21:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Trainee

I don't mind if we call it "Trainee" in some contexts, but if the vandal who's being blocked thinks they're being blocked by a "trainee", it only gives them ammunition. We could call them "trainees" among ourselves I guess. Is there another suitable word? (Watching) - Dank (push to talk) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone likely to bitch and moan about 'trainee' would probably also bitch about 'assistant' or indeed any other term which indicates a junior role. Freshman, maybe? Though that would only have meaning to North Americans. → ROUX ₪ 18:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I think all the terms have potential problems. - Dank (push to talk) 20:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Which is why debundling is probably a better way forward. I'm working on a fairly massive post discussing it. → ROUX ₪ 20:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

You want an apology

You're right. I'm screwing up. I hate it when I lose my patience and immediately become hypocritical. I'm sorry for doing it. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Much better. I shall therefore also consider your threat of a block retracted, unless you block yourself first. → ROUX ₪ 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope. You're not in a position to make demands. If I block you, though. I'll go offline for just as long. That's a promise. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh hooray, more throwing the admin weight around. Well done, really. No, I will consider it retracted, and if you do block me it will not go well for you. → ROUX ₪ 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok. -GTBacchus(talk) 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And you have my apology for whatever role I've had in fanning the flames of our discussion derailment. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Not good enough, sorry. Until you acknowledge your tendentious behaviour, there's really no point in saying anything. "I apologise for whatever I have done that may have offended someone" is what politicians say. → ROUX ₪ 21:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to apologize for suggesting people find a problem before positing a solution. If you want satisfaction for that, I recommend you take the advice I posted here. With that, adieu. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • How adorably disingenuous. → ROUX ₪ 21:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: Question.

Not anytime soon. I'm just too busy with stuff; I don't edit nearly as much nowadays as I used to. I'm always around though, but usually just doing minor edits here and there on articles that I'm reading. Gary King (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Righto. Another time, then. → ROUX ₪ 21:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Absurd

The fact that you think posts to a general noticeboard observed by many if not all of the community, to seek further input on a matter of community consensus is canvassing, is absurd. I've reposted the section and would like an apology. --Mask? 06:17, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. No other discussions canvas on that board, it's strictly for requesting admin attention. Admittedly I came to this page to complain about Roux's conduct on that MfD, but this is jsut ridiculous. That does not belong on ANI. And roux please do be more diplomatic in discussions like that.--Patton123 (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Have removed it again.--Patton123 (talk) 09:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roux. You have new messages at Bsmithme's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

  bsmithme  05:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

What's up Roux? Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 14:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Er, hi? Do I know you? → ROUX ₪ 14:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Not really, just wanted to say hi: hi! Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Well hi then. → ROUX ₪ 14:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! So anyways, what's up? Is there anything I can do for you? Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm good, thanks. Um, not to be rude or anything, but two things... 1) how did you find me?, 2) Wikipedia talk pages aren't--generally--for random chatting of this nature. → ROUX ₪ 14:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
File:Sadface Sorry I guess I thought we'd make a good team. Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Team for...? I don't see any editing interests that overlap. I applaud your enthusiasm, though :) → ROUX ₪ 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to say hey too!Accdude92 (talk) (sign) 16:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Accdude! Long time no see! Anyways Roux, I was just looking for something to do on the wiki - is there a particular area where I might be of help? Dipotassitrimanganate (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


You can help improve the articles listed below! This list updates frequently, so check back here for more tasks to try. (See Wikipedia:Maintenance or the Task Center for further information.)

Help counter systemic bias by creating new articles on important women.

Help improve popular pages, especially those of low quality.

help

ok, I saw that your willing to help me, So please help--Orangesodakid 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Most people worry about contributing to Wikipedia because they don't know how or they're scared of making a mistake. Many of us have created lessons for new users. So how about starting here and working your way through the lessons? Click here to use a subpage for answering questions. I'll be watching that page. → ROUX ₪ 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thanks Ill check it out --Orangesodakid 18:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
It should help you gain more confidence in how things work, which should then help you branch out into making content edits. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

ANI

[1] you've been reverted. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Far be it for me to stand in the way of someone's death spiral. → ROUX ₪ 02:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are you doing this?

That secret page thing you nominated for deletion is unneccesary. The page is just for having fun on Wikipedia. Let it be! (I've got one too. Check my navbar to find it) RascalthePeaceful (t) 23:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

How long

How long do you have to edit before your ready for adminship?Dr. Szląchski (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Depends on the user. Some people are never ready. As a general rule of thumb, 6 months and 5000+ edits seems to be a rough minimum. You should also ensure you have a good understanding of policy and contribute to projectspace (any page that begins with Wikipedia:). → ROUX ₪ 00:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Please share your thoughts

Hidden pages at the village pump. I'm on your side :-) ZooFari 03:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

"Hidden Pages" nonsense

Congratulations on standing up to these people who think Wikipedia is an open site to play on. I found you were doing this because I came back to one of them I had seen with the intention of taking action against it myself, and found you were already involved. The notion that "as long as it's only on user pages it doesn't matter" is all too prevalent on Wikipedia. You know, and I know, and all serious Wikipedians know, what Wikipedia is not meant to be, and we need to work at making sure it is not. So to speak. JamesBWatson (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Hi there, I am just a little tiny bit confused as to why my "hidden page" was nominated for deletion. Could you please explain to me why it has happened. User:Nemesis of Reason|Nemesis]]ofReason 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I couldn't resist... Until It Sleeps alternate 04:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Btw, how come you never come on IRC anymore? Until It Sleeps alternate 05:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Lack of interest in indulging the petty and inconsistent tyrannies of petty and inconsistent tyrants. Also, I will MfD that if you don't db-u1 it first. → ROUX ₪ 15:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and it was both MFD'ed, and CSD'ed (By me voting to delete...) Until It Sleeps alternate 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way, your talk page slows down my laptop... significantly... Until It Sleeps alternate 04:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea why it would do that. → ROUX ₪ 04:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WikiCup Newsletter XXXII

2010 Winter Olympics

I hate and loath Winter time, but I like it every four years because of the Olympics, and I can't wait till Vancouver 2010 gets its behind here! Long enough already, I like the hockey and speed skating.BLuEDOgTn 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Question:

This Is A Question: What does "I am get influenced by that policy on bots" mean? I Want To Be Nice To You. iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R!_-=₪ 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

GHC regardless of your intentions, you don't seem to have a full grasp on what's being asked of you. For example, if you don't know to make comments on talk pages and not user pages, it's probably best to slow down on talk of running bots. Please participate in the discussions linked on your talk page to help other editors understand what you're trying to do. Dayewalker (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
GHC, that is the question I asked you. The question that you did not answer. You have also not proved your access to User:Red Thunder yet. So, either you have access or you are lying. Which one is it? → ROUX ₪ 21:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

For the last time I am not Guitarherochristopher, I dont even live in California!--Coldplay Expert 23:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This. By The Way Coldplay Expert, I Am Guitarherochristopher (My Name Is On My Signature). iGUItARH3R0KHR!ZT0PH3R!_-=₪ 03:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I know which account you claim you have access to. Please prove it. → ROUX ₪ 03:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
GHC, if that's your alternate account, please log in as the user and show us. Just pointing to you editing the account doesn't indicate anything. Dayewalker (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please log in and post something! I want my name cleared! (I swear we live three time zones apart.)--Coldplay Expert 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)


Hello! Have you read this?

The department of fun is a HUGE part of wikipedia, filled with pages you hate. Plus Jimbo Wales, the creator of wikipedia is also a member!Darkside2000 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand what you're talking about. → ROUX ₪ 15:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: revert

I'm not going to revert you back because revert warring is even worse than the initial revert. However, the proper course of action is to discuss and assume good faith that I, a bureaucrat and an observer of RfA for over 5 years, might have a good reason to redirect a redundant and spuriously created process which in fact, did not have consensus to exist. Andre (talk) 00:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Could you please show me where the consensus against the process existing is? Thanks. → ROUX ₪ 02:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

"Another in the recent spate of hidden page challenges, all of which seem to be coming from users who are somehow linked, or somehow magically find each other immediately upon registering.".

This is the message I read and correct me if I'm wrong: I think you are talking about User:Vetgirl13 and User:Naturegal25 and how it seems as if they are my sockpocket accounts. If that is what your thinking your wrong. Ashley Dennis (Vetgirl123) and Avery Dennis (Naturegal25) are my friends and me and my sister (User:Meganmccarty) told them about wiki and they created their accounts together. That's why it seems as if they created accounts at the same time which I believe was one of the questions in your message.

If this is not why my page is being deleted, please message me back as soon as possible and PLEASE do not delete anything until I know whats going on. Thank you. BIONICLE233 17:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. One more time to make sure I am clear with this: You tagged it for deletion because I edited it to much or because I put to much social chat on each page!? That's crazy! The "social chat" on each page is actually instructions on how to play (because mine is a bit harder then others). Besides, everyone edits their hidden page once in awhile. Why are you picking on ME and not everyone else who has a hidden page. BIONICLE233 22:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

"Picked on" was not the right word choice I admit, but hidden pages have been around for a long time and many users have them. It seems as if when I try to make something that I'm really excited about, it always gets deleted. I mean, why MINE? Why MINE!? BIONICLE233 22:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know that. What my question is this: Are you trying to delete ALL the hidden pages on wiki? If not, why only SOME and not all? And can you give me some history on when this hidden pages became quote, "a waste of time". Last time I checked, admins, users, and everybody in between had no problems with hidden pages. And yes, I know that wiki is not made for hidden pages. All a want to know is that how, and when, and why this whole thing started. BIONICLE233 23:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

In order: Only the ones I see; because I can't be arsed finding them all; has been part of the policy on what is an is not acceptable in userspace and Wikipedia is not a social networking service either explicitly or implictly since they were written. As it turns out, you are exactly and completely wrong about people having no problems with hidden pages. If that were the case, people--a wide variety, in fact--wouldn't be saying they should be deleted. So.. well I'm not really what else to tell you, except this, and as bluntly as possible: get over it. Wikipedia is not your private little playground for playing stupid little games--and yes, the hidden page thing is possibly one of the stupidest 'games' I have ever seen online. If you want to do that sort of thing there are tons of free webhosts out there, and even more social networking sites for playing on. Wikipedia is neither of those things; now I strongly suggest you go and start doing something that will actually contribute productively towards the building of an encyclopedia. If you are not interested in doing that, you are likely to be blocked from editing sooner or later. It's happened before. And that, I believe, is the end of this conversation. If you have something constructive to add, then by all means do so. If all you have is more complaining about having to follow the rules, please take it somewhere else and do not waste my time. → ROUX ₪ 00:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey you dont have to act like a jerk roux, he was just asking a question of why his page was nominated and you just started to...well attack him. try to be civil--Coldplay Expert 01:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

There was not a single attack there--and as someone approximately as devoted to improving the encyclopedia as Bionicle is, I'm not really sure your opinion carries all that much weight when we're talking about how to improve the encyclopedia. Moreover, you don't understand policy and are apparently unwilling to learn. That is not my problem. I have attempted to explain to your oddly-connected little group of people exactly what the problem with these pages is, and pointed you towards sites that would better serve your purposes, as in the aggregate you guys have little to no interest in improving the encyclopedia. → ROUX ₪ 02:25, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you saying that im not devoted or I am?--Coldplay Expert 10:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
well actually scratch that, I know that you think that I am not a good editor, well first off...your wrong and second I never said that your attacking anyone, your just comming off the wrong way.--Coldplay Expert 10:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
12% of your edits are to articles. 76% of your edits are to user and user talk pages. I leave the question of your devotion to the encyclopedia as an exercise for the reader. And you did, in fact, say I was attacking. Quote: "and you just started to...well attack him". → ROUX ₪ 14:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You know why 72% of my edits are to talk pages, just look at User:Spongefrog's talk page. And I edited my user page like 20 times in one sitting because I was messing it up by acident so I whent back to fix it over and over again. Almost all of my edits to the article are good and sourced. only 33 have been reverted. Now if you can stop questioning my ability to contribute to this site and get back to talking about the secret pages we can get somewhere.--Coldplay Expert 17:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You have entirely missed the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Games don't belong here. → ROUX ₪ 13:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

"stupidest 'games'"? Easy bro! Your the one that says "be polite" on the top of the talk page. 2nd, you didn't answer my last question:"how, and when, and why this whole thing started". That's my question. I bet your to scared to answer it! HAHA BIONICLE233 16:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

They are stupid. Sorry if you don't like that. And I did answer your question; the proscription against games that have nothing to do with Wikipedia have been part of WP:NOT and WP:UP--describing what Wikipedia is not, and what is acceptable in userspace--for quite some time. I have no interest in finding the exact dates the wording was added. You can do that yourself. → ROUX ₪ 19:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

YOU have been avoiding my questions. Im tired of you being critical of my edits alright. You're the one who has missed the point.--Coldplay Expert 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

What questions would those be, exactly? → ROUX ₪ 01:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Scratch that its Deserted Cities who answers everything with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS--Coldplay Expert 17:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, and what part of that page is unclear to you? Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we therefor have to accept the stuff that comes to our notice. → ROUX ₪ 18:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes I understand but It is annoying when instead of answering a question someone says OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.--Coldplay Expert 18:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
But that is an answer. It's one you don't like, but that's hardly our problem. → ROUX ₪ 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No its not an answer, its avoidning a question while useing some rule as an excuse.--Coldplay Expert 19:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, yes actually it is an answer. "Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we therefor have to accept the stuff that comes to our notice." You have now been told this twice. You now have a choice: either post something constructive that indicates you understand anything you have been told, or leave this page permanently. → ROUX ₪ 03:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand everything that you have told me. And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS can be an answer but it does not resolve a question. It is just like when a parent says "Because I told you to!" to a little kid who wanted to know the answer to a simple question.--Coldplay Expert 23:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. It's giving you the shorter version of "Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we therefore have to accept the stuff that comes to our notice." Which I have now told you three times. Your choice is now more blunt: stop whining or go away. Got it? → ROUX ₪ 23:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that you dont like my comments on your talk page, therefore I will leave you alone if you wish. Do you?--Coldplay Expert 23:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't like whining on my page. When you've been told the same thing three times, continuing to whine and moan about it comes under the definition found on this page. Go read it. Educate yourself. While you're at it, please read this. → ROUX ₪ 00:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Im not whining, alright? now I never wanted you to explain three times. That was your doing. Now I seggest that you read WP:SORRY and we both agree to dissagree. Does that sound fair?--Coldplay Expert 00:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have nothing to apologise to you for. Goodbye. → ROUX ₪ 02:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Look im sorry for all of the trouble Ok? I hope that you forgive me and yes I understand your position. I even support it. (I changed my vote) I hope that you dont hold a grudge...--Coldplay Expert 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't hold grudges. Please stop using Wikipedia as a social networking site and/or supporting those who do. Please also soo Wikipedia:Alternative outlets for a list of sites where you can do so to your heart's content. Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 19:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont use it as a Social Networking Site and I dont support it either but thank you and goodbye.--Coldplay Expert 21:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, actually, you do support it by supporting those stupid games being kept. Whatever, it's hardly worth continuing to bang my head against this particular wall. Please also learn to use colons to indent your comments properly. Thank you. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admin coaching with tools

Was this the discussion that you were referencing in my Rfa a little while back? - Regards, Gaelen S.Talk • Contribs 02:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. It failed to gain traction. One major concern is that gaining the viewdeleted userright (the ability to see the contents and histories of deleted pages) requires approval by the community via RfA. This comes directly from the WMF lawyer, Mike Godwin. There are other concerns too. → ROUX ₪ 02:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Concerning this discussion

In the AFD discussion here, I feel that you're being overly harsh, with comments such as, for example, "...apart from providing a useful distraction from articles for people who can't string together a simple sentence in English?"

Might I suggest taking a moment off to enjoy some delicious baked goods? They tend to increase my goodwill (and tolerance) towards my fellow humans, after I've been dealing with idiots overly annoying persons too long. Sophus Bie (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

My Deletion Page

Okay, first of all, my name isn't Nemesis. It's Nemesis of Reason, and second, why are you always picking on me for my hidden page? There are thousands of other users with hidden pages and out of all of them, you pick me. WHY???--NemesisofReason 11:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

USA Political Navboxes?

Hello Roux, What do you think about these here navboxes?BLuEDOgTn 04:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the first is relatively restrained, though I would avoid red text in the header, as redlinks tend to have a specific meaning on Wikipedia. The second is unpleasantly garish. → ROUX ₪ 04:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I changed the first.BLuEDOgTn 05:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The USA flag shall always be put on the right of a logo or other flag in the USA because this signifies honor and respect.BLuEDOgTn 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The red is still unpleasantly garish. The first version was much nicer. And we honour the USA flag no more and no less than any other flag on Wikipedia, so no, it shall not 'always be put on the right of a logo or other flag'. → ROUX ₪ 15:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
I still don't know how to incorporate the red, but I fixed the flag issue...BLuEDOgTn 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Another example

Here is one that looks like the Canadian one, but with a few exceptions to be USA!BLuEDOgTn 00:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the stars, it's nice. The thing is, there is no simple symbol that works well at small sizes. → ROUX ₪ 00:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Okay, took away the stars, and you make the choice of the flag to go above or below or to the left of the seal! I like it a very bunch.BLuEDOgTn 16:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The flag is redundant with the seal. And frankly, the seal doesn't look good at that small a resolution--which is exactly what people were trying to explain to you months ago. I would ditch the images entirely. → ROUX ₪ 16:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Seal is in the current one, which I will leave it for this one, but I will take out the flag per previous request!BLuEDOgTn 16:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
I have taken this discussion to talk to get consensus on this navbox. Thanks!BLuEDOgTn 17:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Truce

Hello, again. I just wantd to let you know that I am tired of arguing with everyone. I have one quick question. I was wondering how to add references to other articles, because I have some current information that could be useful to one article. So, truce?--NemesisofReason 14:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

hey, ROUX, yeah, I know I have been a jerk for the past few days, but I was wondering if you could adopt me because I really could use a LOT of information regarding Wikipedia and creating an article. So, if you could, please consider it and let me know A.S.A.P!! Thank You and again I am sorry--NemesisofReason 16:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roux/Archives/2009/September&oldid=1184611853"