This user is currently under the following self-imposed editing restrictions, per the AN thread located here.
- The restrictions are to last for 2 months, ending on 2 Jan 2009, enforced by escalating blocks which will also reset the six month limit.
- 1RR on any and all articles related to Commonwealth monarchies and the Royal Family thereof (clear vandalism excepted), to be broadly construed.
- Required to stick solely to guidelines and gain consensus for any unique interpretations of existing guidelines and/or implementation of new ones, again to be broadly construed.
- Required to follow Strict civility restrictions on any and all talk pages and in edit summaries; the severity of and required action due to incivility, personal attacks, and/or assumptions of bad faith, to be judged by any uninvolved administrator.
- On article talk pages is required to stick solely to content.
|
| If you feel I have violated any of these, please let me know so I can correct myself. If you feel the situation is beyond that, please contact Nixeagle.
|
Yes, I'm back. It's beginning to look like the situation which I left in order to avoid is permanently resolved. Plus I miss this place. Gets under yer skin, it does.
Thank you to everyone who showed support. Thank you as well to those who did not, you gave me a lot to think about.
Apart from this comment, I would really appreciate it if this whole thing can be treated as a blip and no further comment made about either me leaving, the situation which caused it, or my return. roux // 11:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no intention of doing anything, if the message you left me is true. If it is not, don't expect to get handled with the kid gloves. WilyD 13:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per your above statement, I intended not to muck into the details to respect your desire to start afresh. That said, it is also part of my role as an administrator to remind you this will only get treated as a blip if it is a blip. While possibly harsh (and while my language might be rough, I certainly think the substance is quite generous) it is necessary. WilyD 13:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I'm loath to quote Ronald Reagan, there is great sense in "trust, but verify". Please be assured that if I'd assumed bad faith, this conversation would be of an entirely less friendly nature. You are being trusted to return and behave yourself, but this will be verified - I felt it was only fair to make this explicitly clear. Cheers, WilyD 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I am limited with my actions in the extent of this and that.. though I am restrained within bounds, to tell you the truth, I am relieved. Axxand (talk) 11:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back.
You stole my AIV claim >_< DARTH PANDAduel 15:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm an asshole like that. roux 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Have I ever told you I hate you? I don't think I have. I hate you. *bites and gnaws* Ah, at least he got banned. Maybe I should create Roux to flame you for stealing my vandalkill. Too bad there's already an article there... (to any of those who think I'm being serious, I'm 120% kidding. Roux is the man). DARTH PANDAduel 16:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Welcome back, mate. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, but... *cough* :) // roux 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ohai –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? I didn't hear anything... ;) Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 16:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Woohoo, *hugs roux*. Your back! RockManQ (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Oops sorry, didn't read that above. RockManQ (talk) 21:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- \o/ FlyingToaster 08:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canada is taken. Gary King (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Crap. I must be blind. //roux 04:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose China a few months ago before realizing that we could use any flag we wanted. You've reminded me again that we could do that—so, I'm going Toronto! Gary King (talk) 04:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I chose Ontario, but I've just had a rather more smartass idea. :D roux 04:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well...don't. :) I've been wondering for a while how you've applied that attention-grabbing notice there in edit mode. Is there some special user rights involved? —La Pianista (T•C•S) 03:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't click here ;) //roux 04:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I didn't click there. Furthermore, I did not create it. What should I not do next? :P —La Pianista (T•C•S) 04:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wow! Never mind...heh heh. Thanks a bunch! :) —La Pianista (T•C•S) 04:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So...I saw the note at the top...and I had to comment anyway (my apologies in advance)...
I just wanted to say that I am very sorry. Over the course of this evening, I've dove into some of the archives of pages, hunting for disputes that involved you. And I have a slightly different opinion of you now... sure, you instigated a lot of the disputes, and those seem to be the ones I looked at when I was deciding to support you or G2. When I looked harder, it can be seen that G2 started just as many of them (and which ones did I miss?)... By itself, this wouldn't be quite enough. But then I read the big pretty notice at the top of this page involving "self-imposed editing restrictions" (italics added by me), and that swayed me fully. Please accept my sincere apologies for not doing what you said and looking farther into the conflict...
Respectfully, —Ed 17 (Talk / Contribs) 05:00, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
- That is most gracious of you, thank you. Or to put it another way: no harm, no foul. Or yet another way: water under the bridge. //roux 05:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good 2 see you.--Gazzster (talk) 08:08, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wondered if you were interested in checking out Dual monarchy. I've put a delate tag on it.--Gazzster (talk) 08:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd suggest an AfD rather than a prod; it's a clear duplication. //roux 08:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. I'm still gettin used to these different procedures and templates n crap.--Gazzster (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A prod is more "well, I kinda think this should go, unless someone objects once, in which case it stays." AFD is more like "this article should go, this is why, let's make a decision." //roux 08:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My motive: Wikipedia talk:About the Sandbox#Stupid non-noinclude instruction of the template:X1~X9
- There's no instruction what syntax will work under my user sub-page. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
