Jump to content

User talk:Roxy the dog/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

BLP's proof of concept

BLP has released a few videos demonstrating an arc welder running amok proof that they can get power with hydrinos! [1] Maybe we should rewrite the article that they have successfully invalidated quantum physics? Jim1138 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to say, I don't have the right words. I got into a tiny bit of bother once when referring to the subject of a BLP as "batshit insane" and if I let loose on this subject I'd probably get into a quantum amount of trouble again. Just when you think it cant get worse, it does, and I start to suffer from the 386 problem. That's me, that is. -Roxy the dog™ woof 21:47, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, for Mills it's quite sane. For his investors... I have heard many investors see it as high risk but with very high payoff. Probably don't understand it's zero-risk with zero-payoff. Jim1138 (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Giro

I have been reading Wikipedia policies and cruising notice boards to try and learn more about Wikipedia. Notability is one of the things I have been focusing on. Based on my reading of the notability rules Giro (company) doesn't meet the bar. Do I have this right? If so, what do I do about it? Averyevilcentipede (talk) 14:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Are articles in trade magazines enough to establish notability? My concern is that they can often be prisoners of the companies that they cover. Averyevilcentipede (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Just noticed this, I'll give it some thought, but I'm really not an expert. I'd start by reading WP:RSN to get a flavour of the discussion that goes on around this sort of thing. -Roxy the dog™ woof 22:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Musahiban

Thanks. My revert was just big fingers on an iPad, then I managed to copy some txt and search for it and found the copyvio. Doug Weller talk 12:03, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have problems related to paw size and my ipad too. I almost edit conflicted with you there, and I was having ipad copy/paste problems. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at my talk page, "Message from the MusHabin family ". Doug Weller talk 12:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I think that is why I watchlisted it, I've certainly seen that on your Talk page before. Perhaps it was via a noticeboard, not sure. -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T._P._Lahane

T. P. Lahane

When I print a tagged and sourced edit in the wikipedia page, you say that I am at war with T.P Lahane. Ok. Am I permitted to write positive white lies on that page master ? User:Soundofthesea —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

What you have written above makes no sense at all to me. I offer you this advice again, don't try to fight your battles with the dean on wikipedia. You will not be allowed to. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 12:29, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrote this, then discovered that user has been blocked. Told him. -Roxy the dog of Doom™ woof 12:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Fury F3 Flight Control Board

You proposed this for deletion 5 minutes after it was created. WP:NPP policy suggests waiting a bit longer. Your delete reason, "Unsourced, not notable and meaningless" is not going to be particularly helpful to a new editor and definitely WP:BITES. ~Kvng (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Kvng did you even look at the content of that page? Jytdog (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Regarding your question, that's why I added meaningless. I'm surprised the article still exists. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:15, 18 June 2016 (UTC) Misread JD reply. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
:) you could have tagged this for {{Db-a11}} in my view. Jytdog (talk) 14:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Now you are above my pay grade, but I believe you. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:19, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I did look at it. I did not deprod it. My point is that your actions give little time and no help for the new editor to improve the content. They have been bitten and will likely not return. ~Kvng (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog had nothing to do with it, it was all my own work. First PROD I ever did. Looking at it, I wouldn't change a thing. -Roxy the dog™ woof 14:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Query

Hi. I noticed this. Can you explain what is going on? Those tags looked reasonable to me. --John (talk) 10:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Then put them back. Check the citations already in place first though. -Roxy the dog™ woof 11:22, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
@John: is this now finished? -Roxy the dog™ woof 18:16, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Keep up the good work! You should add [[Category:List of Wikipedians who secretly use alternative medicine]] to your talk page... Jim1138 (talk) 03:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Naturopathy

Oh, fer cryin' out loud... PepperBeast (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. I've had so many edit conflicts this morning ! -Roxy the dog™ woof 08:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Sea Lions. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 14:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

TCM on Lonicera caerulea

What do you think of this addition? Seems a bit too strong of claim. What do you think? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 05:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

A new editor making what appears to be a good faith attempt to improve the project. The sources don't meet MEDRS imho because at first glance I'd say they are Primary. I cant comment as to reliability of the publications. The claim made, (copied from one of the sources), means that MEDRS applies, and COPYVIO should be considered. I think. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
It's all moot now anyway. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:29, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification of DRN discussion of Michael Greger

I requested dispute resolution on Michael Greger. I'm notifying you because you made an edit concerning the relevant material. --Sammy1339 (talk) 09:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 09:54, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Musahiban

Thanks. This is a California based editor who has threatened to get Anonymous onto me, and believes that his "Afghan Royal Family" is in a formal relationship with Israel. You can even find him editing Afghan Hound[2]. Weird but a real pain. Doug Weller talk 07:44, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I remembered from last time. -Roxy the dog™ bark 07:45, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I've used Twinkle to report this to WP:RPP, you might want to chime in there. I don't want to do it myself as I've been to active at the article, although it's been because of this idiot. Doug Weller talk 07:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Result. I've gotta do some Zen stuff now, get my karma aligned after e/c. -Roxy the dog™ bark 08:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Text of an email I sent a couple of hours ago.

Hi doc.

As I cant comment on your talk page, I'd just like to say that by that stage, you'd probably go to another pub, where you'd find a better welcome, Yes?

Best

Roxy

Roxy the dog™ bark 22:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Please, Roxy, don't have any contact with him whatsoever, either on wiki or off. No good can possibly come of it. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
In other news, a councillor claimed that "get in the sea" amounted to a threat of attempted drowning. Thin skinned people with persecution mania, very much of the minute I suppose. Guy (Help!) 20:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Roxy, please do not do anything like that again. It was completely counterproductive, and certainly did nothing to improve Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
[3]. I'm serious about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
..and yet if you put something like that on the doc's page, he'd fly off the handle. No, not harassment, merely the logical extension of a crappy analogy. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:28, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Oh come on, you've been around long enough to know how it goes. Anti-science types do not want to hear anything that conflicts with their beliefs. They consider anything that causes cognitive dissonance to be a form of harassment. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
True. I had to laugh at the latest porkies on that page though. Nobody has ever been asked to stay away from this page. -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Roxy, I have struck the message at my talk page and I have come here to apologise for unintentionally misrepresenting you. I genuinely thought you had banned me from here. DrChrissy (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm happy to see that things seem to have cooled down; that's good. But Roxy, your (and Guy's) dismissal of what I said does not fly with me. Whether DrChrissy would react negatively to a similar message from me is irrelevant to how you react to the message I actually gave you. You know that, on the whole, I am friendly towards you, and I sure ain't no anti-science type. But I'm telling you very seriously that sending such an email (even if it was lighthearted in your mind) was a bad idea. Why would you have thought that your advice was wanted? I'm not having any cognitive dissonance, and I still say it was harassment. If you disagree with me, that's your choice, but don't be surprised if I take you to ANI if I see it happen again, where you will find out which one of us understands the harassment policy better. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
@JzG: Are you labeling me as an "anti-science type"? A direct question. DrChrissy (talk) 22:00, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Trypto: I don't dismiss what you said. Roxy's action was fultile and only ever likely to feed DrChrissy's persecution mania. @DrChrissy: Yes. That is, after all, why you were given topic bans from areas where your anti-science advocacy caused issues. Also, engaging here while "banning" the same people from your own talk page is hypocritical. Guy (Help!) 22:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I will add that to the list of your indiscretions against me, including editing my edits to change their meaning and tell lies about me. DrChrissy (talk) 22:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Guy, it sounded to me like you were encouraging Roxy, not discouraging him. And if you are disinclined to feed whatever that is, your reply to me sure sounds like a second dish-full. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
You are wrong. I am not encouraging Roxy. I consider DrChrissy to be a time-sink and everybody is best off leaving him alone other than checking his edits and advocacy within the actual encyclopaedia. Just look at the comment above - it leaves no space for the possibility that there could be anything other than a campaign of lies and smears. It's wearisome, but it's absolutely standard for frustrated POV-pushers.
However, the email is not harassment. It's just pointless. Guy (Help!) 05:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I have not told lies about you - If I had, I have no doubt you would have whisked me off to a noticeboard. DrChrissy (talk) 17:34, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
You have, in fact, and I did, and they agreed. However, the ability of sanctioned POV-pushers to critically examine their own behaviour is typically very low, and you are no exception. You see yourself as a warrior for The Truth™. Hence the sanctions. Guy (Help!) 19:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Ermmmmm.... what lies have I told about you, which noticeboard did you take me to and who is "they" that agreed with you? DrChrissy (talk) 20:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Your major problem is that you are so caught up in your activism that you don't allow for the possibility that reasonable people may differ, and you certainly don't allow for the possibility that any criticism of you might be legitimate. Hence you start flinging accusations of "lies" and "indiscretions". That's classic battleground mentality. You take everything so very personally. You're the one who wants to cast everything as The Truth™ and Lies™. That's not a game I'm interested in playing. Your own actions are sufficiently problematic that they have earned you topic bans, but you seem unwilling to accept these (or any other criticisms) as legitimate. That is your problem, not mine, Roxy's, or anyone else's. And now we're done because life is too short to try to overcome the cognitive dissonance of anti-science activists on Wikipedia user talk pages. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
@JZG: I asked you as an administrator, a direct question. Please will you give me a direct answer. DrChrissy (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

I think it is understandable that the Doc believed he had been asked not to post here, as I have just found (I'm crappy with page history) a post I made the last time he posted here, viz ... "I find it interesting Doc that you feel able to post on this page, after having forbidden me from posting on yours." I would like to thank Boris, Trypto and Guy for their sage advice. -Roxy the dog™ bark 18:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Now how could anyone not respect and appreciate your coming forward with that tidbit of information? I know in my heart DrChrissy will appreciate it. I don't want to be part of this discussion - I'm just here to learn - and wanted to tell you, Rox, that what I just learned makes me smile because I saw such good things in all of you. Oh, day-em! I just burned the popcorn!! Oh, well - that's ok - won't be needing it. How about a beer? Atsme📞📧 00:08, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

User warnings

Hi. I noticed your reverted a bunch of vandalism on Fan death. It's helpful to warn the user/IP responsible for the vandalism as it creates a paper trail upon which an admin can block the offending account. Without the paper trail admins often hesitate even when, like in this case, the vandal repeatedly damages an article. Thanks for your help with this. Chris Troutman (talk) 12:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. If an admin wanted to sanction the IP concerned, no paper trail greater than that which exists already would be needed, but I take your point. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:23, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Where are you taking it? X-) Atsme📞📧 17:48, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog: By paper trail I don't mean contributions; obviously those are logged. Often admins will refuse to block an editor or IP because insufficient warnings were given. Thanks for your countervandalism, though. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, admins block or ban editors who make too many complaints. QuackGuru (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Only if those complaints are frivolous or intedned to try to silence legitimate criticism. Guy (Help!) 20:26, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Even if those complaints are legitimate and backed up with diffs. QuackGuru (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Topic ban for Jed Stuart

I really think it's time to request a topic ban for Jed Stuart. Do you agree? If so, a simple "yes" will be enough. If I can find a couple of good editors who agree, I'll start an ANI thread requesting it and post a link back here. If you don't agree, please let me know why. Thanks, MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I just noticed your categories below. I'm totally stealing them. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Edit conflict on my own talk Page! I would support such a proposal. note, if you look at the page markup, you will see comments as to where the cats came from. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:51, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Ha! I engender conflict everywhere I go. I think that's a new category idea right there... I saw that, I copied and pasted two of them from your page, and added two of my own. I'm thinking I might like a great big wall of red link categories.... Or funnier yet: Make some of the shared ones bluelinks. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rathfelder#WTF_are_you_playing_at.3F et.seq. for further info, including the block issued. -Roxy the dog™ bark 14:07, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Jesus effing christ on a pogo stick. Every time I think I've seen everything, I see something new. Crusading anti-redlink category Knights. For fuck's sake. (this is coming from a guy who just recently had 'thrown in his face' the 'fact' that Halloween has Jewish and Christian origins and nothing to do with paganism whatsoever, because that's 19th century 'bullshit' by the same guy who earlier told me that theology was an empirical science.) And of course, we've both been requested to engage in formal mediation to determine whether the government is mind controlling people... WP is the funniest/saddest websites I've ever found. I am laughing hard enough to get funny looks from my boss right now... MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 14:22, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Proposed Topic ban of user:Jed Stuart from editing articles related to conspiracy theories. Thank you. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:50, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Not trout little 'shonen

Very sensible not trout little 'shonen, she scary even though so small! Donate trout to 'Zilla fridge instead. BIG trout for 'Zilla! Always hungry! bishzilla ROARR!! 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

PS, have stolen fine category. bishzilla ROARR!! 20:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC).

Vandalism patrolling

Hello! Thanks for reverting the vandalism at West Side Story, but when you revert vandalism, please leave a vandalism warning on the vandal's Talk page, like this. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ bark 11:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic

See: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Curious. My edits to German Wikipedia?

I've just discovered two edits that have been made by me, according to the software. I never edited de.wiki and cannot explain. [diff] and [diff] I did make them on en.wiki though.

How? -Roxy the dog™ bark 16:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

it looks like here someone imported the en-wiki article to de-wiki, history and all. it was subsequently translated. i ~think~ that is something admins can do. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Fascinating, and strange to discover. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for SportsDirect.com

An article that you have been involved in editing—SportsDirect.com—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. zazpot (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder...

Right to be forgotten has been enforced fairly strictly against Google to remove all search link results regarding past bad acts. Do you think a correctly formatted request to google to remove a *wikipedia* search result where the past bad act is covered heavily would have any success? Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

All I know about this is on display at the place that brought you here. If the right to nobble search results gets torn up, it'll be the only good thing that comes out of Brexit. I don't know how the process of nobbling gets done, but I hope that a court has to actually order the cover up nobbling rather than a simple request. I'll answer your Q instead of opening a rant though. I don't know if a search result that returned an article as first result could be nobbled. I suspect it could easily happen. -Roxy the dog™ bark 19:20, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I had a look into it, in terms of requesting the nobbling, you just submit a request to google directly now. They have set up a process for it. They approve quite a large amount. No court direction is needed (unless google deny the request at which point you need to persuade a court to direct them to). The problem from the outside is that its a bit difficult to tell what exactly has been removed from the results unless you already know something should be there or someone has been affected. RE what brought me here, theoretically the person concerned should be able to apply to google to remove their wikipedia biography from the search results and the preview pane, as far as I can see the actual nobbling does not distinguish between different types of websites (it has removed links to the BBC, webforums, personal sites, blogs etc) but it would remove it entirely (which is generally counter to what people who want a biography on wikipedia actually want - exposure). The only real barrier to the subject is currently that they are not an EU resident (one of the criteria) but that is being challenged indirectly by someone indicating Google neeed to remove listings worldwide. So I expect that may change. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Flemings

We don't need to reopen the COI case, so much as keep an eye on the article and revert further advertising. I have left what amounts to a final warning on the user's page, so they're likely to be blocked if they persist. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Your reply ... is on my page this time :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammar

Hi, you restored the following ungrammatical sentence at Great Britain:

The island of Ireland is situated to the west of Great Britain and together, along with over 1,000 smaller surrounding islands, comprise the British Isles archipelago.

What is the subject of the verb "comprise"? For subject-verb agreement the subject has to be plural, so it can't be "island of Ireland". Loraof (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I could have used the edsum "better before" or perhaps "Not an improvement." -Roxy the dog™ bark 21:52, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, it was an improvement. "they comprise the British Isles archipelago" is a correct independent clause, while "comprise the British Isles archipelago" is not.
If you don't like my wording, it is incumbent on you to put in something that is correct, rather than restoring something that is incorrect. Loraof (talk) 22:55, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with you, which is why I corrected you it in the first place. I shall not respond further. -Roxy the dog™ bark 23:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
(lurker response) I'd suggest this as superior to either of the current statements: "The island of Ireland is situated to the west of Great Britain; Ireland and its over 1,000 smaller surrounding islands comprise the British Isles archipelago." Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
But that is factually wrong. -Roxy the dog™ bark 15:45, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
True; though the grammatical structure would work, it does need edited to have the facts correct. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Contentious statement on Chronic Fatigue syndrome page "Exercise does not (appear to) make people worse".

Roxy the dog, there is quite a lengthy discussion on the talk page regarding this contentious statement. You must have missed it. A number of editors consider the statement to be inappropriate - some believe it is merely incautious, others believe it is not supported by the evidence.

Your change to "Exercise does not appear to make people worse" is an improvement, but many have argued to omit this statement altogether.

Anyway, take a look at the talk page and if you think this sentence should be reinstated, let us know why. There are no other editors but who have taken this view, other than the OP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilshica (talk • contribs) 04:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your assessment of the talk page discussion is interesting. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Null Comment

Hi, seems that you have duplicated my warning, but good that we agree! :-) Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:09, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I think you duplicated mine, but who's counting? ;) Roxy the dog. bark 16:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Nope, beat you by a minute! :-) Paste Let’s have a chat. 16:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad you guys are bonding over this clear abuse of power in your editing prowess.

This quote in in Gary Null's introductory paragraph or first section in his biography: "His views on health and nutrition are at odds with scientific consensus; psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, co-founder of the National Council Against Health Fraud and webmaster of Quackwatch, described Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease".[1]

Since when is another's point of view permitted in the introductory paragraph of a living person. They are not peers or related in any way other one dismisses the other as a hobby or occupation. Secondly, I removed the obvious duplicate quote and you threatened to block me from editing. I am in the right here. Why would the same quote belong in the first and second sections?

Second section: "His credentials, including the degree-granting practices at Edison State and the rigor of the Ph.D. program at Union Institute, have been questioned by Stephen Barrett on his Quackwatch website, who labeled Null as "one of the nation's leading promoters of dubious treatment for serious disease" and a fraud. "

Perpetual808 (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Stephen Barrett himself could be considered a "quack" himself by the his own standards. Gary Null is not sharing his wikipedia page with Barrett's yet it is under attack to promote his point of view. Conversely, Stephen Barrett himself could be considered a "quack" himself by the his own standards. "According to the Quackwatch website, Stephen Barrett, M.D. says this about quackery: Dictionaries define quack as "a pretender to medical skill; a charlatan" and "one who talks pretentiously without sound knowledge of the subject discussed. Stephen Barrett, M.D. does not have a degree in nutrition science." He has been trained in psychiatry but has not practiced psychiatry for over 23 years and was last licensed in 1993. [1] Perpetual808 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

Why did you insist on having Gary Null's biography promote Seth Kalichman who is a professor of social psychology at the University of Connecticut with an eBook? Seth Kalichman's opinion Null makes money off his AIDS is not relevant to this biography. It could be said Kalichman is trying to make money off AIDS too. Perpetual808 (talk) 20:58, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A few facts:
  1. Key items used in the lead section MUST be duplicates of content already in the body of the article. That's the way it's supposed to be.
  2. Barrett has never claimed to have a "degree in nutrition," so that attack is a straw man logical fallacy. Neither does he claim to have the same knowledge as an RD. His specialty is still as one who recognizes false claims, in this case about nutrition. Interestingly, he is so knowledgeable on the subject, and especially in recognizing when false claims are being made about nutrition, that he received an honorary membership in the ADA. Here is some content from the article relevant to him and nutrition: "In 1984, he received an FDA Commissioner's Special Citation Award for Public Service in fighting nutrition quackery.[13] ... In 1986, he was awarded honorary membership in the American Dietetic Association.[13]"
This is advice. When you meet resistance here at Wikipedia, stop and take stock of the situation. Regardless of how right you think you are, you must cooperate with other editors. We edit collaboratively here. You must also assume that other editors have more experience than you and that you need to learn from them. Instead of attacking or accusing them, ask them to explain what's wrong. That approach is much more likely to ensure smoother sailing. FYI, I have been here since about 2003, first as an occasional IP editor, and since 2005 as a registered editor. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Wool

Yes, surely you must be very funny to some other people as well as to yourself. Is that the kind of comment you want me to write on here? Acknowledgment? Recognition? Eddaido (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean, but what I would like is for you to either stop adding nonsense, it doesn't improve the project, or to provide a WP:RS for the nonsense, at which point I will show my arse in the town hall square. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Of Course, ha ha ha. After you've provided a source for removing something long established - if unsourced. Cheers, ha ha ha, Eddaido (talk) 22:11, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
No User:Eddaido. Read WP:BURDEN. If you restore it you have to provide a source. That is policy. Jytdog (talk) 23:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Then the responsibility for the misinformation lies on the dogs? Eddaido (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
Please use colons to properly format this talk page User:Eddaido, and note that, as I previously informed you, you bear responsibility for anything you add to the project. I don't understand how you feel the need to ask me to source the removal of nonsense. There is nothing in policy or guideline to require that. Where do we go from here? Do you actually have a source? And have you read WP:BURDEN yet? Roxy the dog. bark 00:23, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

All the burden is on you as any reader can testify. Bye, ha ha ha.Eddaido (talk) 00:25, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Warm poultry

That section at ANI is hilarious! --Tryptofish (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

It's late. I had to think a moment, then it clicked. Roxy the dog. bark 00:57, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, at least it didn't cluck! --Tryptofish (talk) 01:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a reason I don't comment at EEng's talk page often, and you do. People are remarkably inventive, and funny. Roxy the dog. bark 01:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "plot" on my page "Photo (2006 film)"

Thank you for your contribution but may I know why have you removed the information I have added regarding the plot in the page. So I can consider whether to re-add or notthe plot in a shorter length as its huge in length.

Regards, SBson1357 SBson1357 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss at the Article talk page. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Water fasting revision

Hello, can you please engage with me to improve this article and stop deleting useful edits without any explanation? The sources I used were from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's publication 'Science', and the US National Library of Medicine's Integrative Medicine journal. Please explain why these sources do not meet citation guidelines rather than deleting my hard work. I am trying to improve an article which is about a subject popular with fad dieting enthusiasts, so it is difficult to find medical journal articles. So please explain why you have deleted all the medical journal sources I used. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please place new posts at the bottom of the page, and content discussion belongs on the article talk page. Roxy the dog. bark 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Removal of "plot" on my page "Photo (2006 film)"

Thank you for your contribution but may I know why have you removed the information I have added regarding the plot in the page. So I can consider whether to re-add or notthe plot in a shorter length as its huge in length.

Regards, SBson1357 SBson1357 (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss at the Article talk page. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 17:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Water fasting revision

Hello, can you please engage with me to improve this article and stop deleting useful edits without any explanation? The sources I used were from the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's publication 'Science', and the US National Library of Medicine's Integrative Medicine journal. Please explain why these sources do not meet citation guidelines rather than deleting my hard work. I am trying to improve an article which is about a subject popular with fad dieting enthusiasts, so it is difficult to find medical journal articles. So please explain why you have deleted all the medical journal sources I used. --Jwslubbock (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Please place new posts at the bottom of the page, and content discussion belongs on the article talk page. Roxy the dog. bark 18:01, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for this tip but I have found articles from older articles from wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&diff=prev&oldid=526254369

And the user have STOLEN this article FROM wikipedia english into infogalactic.

https://infogalactic.com/w/index.php?title=Cochlear_implant&action=history . This user have created this article in janaury 2016. Edwtie (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Edwtie (talk) 20:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

rolfing mediation

Hi, I know you've been a part of discussions on the rolfing wiki in the past. == Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Rolfing. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Cyintherye (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:User categories#Request for comment on our proposed policy for users remaining in redlinked categories

As a participant in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 22#Category:People paid by Big Pharma to schill and related discussions, you may be interested in participating in the RfC that addresses one of the main issues brought up in that discussion. Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 22:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Roxy the dog. You have new messages at KJP1's talk page.
Message added 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

FYI & you might wish to comment again Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw that, and was following links as you posted this, thanks. I'll probably comment there. Roxy the dog. bark 20:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello

Just a friendly reminder that the sarcasm in this comment comes across quite clearly. I'm not complaining (I thought to ask almost the same question, verbatim), but the editor in question is acknowledging making a mistake and vowing not to do so again. We're more likely to continue along this path of improving their contributions by maintaining civility than by giving them an excuse to push back. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'll apologise if necessary, but I think the question was worth asking; I thought the sarcasm was well hidden. Oh dear. Roxy the dog. bark 19:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
To be fair, it might have been more apparent to me than to others. I don't think an apology should be necessary. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

January 2017

The PTC does not censor nor does it advocate censorship. You're blindly going by what the media says about them (people don't even trust the media anymore). So there. Stop including the censorship accusation in the lede. They are not a censorship advocacy group and that's the end of it. Stop reverting that edit and quit overprotecting the page. 2605:A601:7013:400:F877:B2FA:F10E:DC2A (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You should raise this at the article Talk page. Roxy the dog. bark 21:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

template

maybe you want to try Template:Bots? Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Thx. See above. Roxy the dog. bark 05:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Source you added to 5:2 diet

You've added this [1] as a source to support "skeptics and dieticians have categorized it as a fad diet". The source doesn't say either thing. Please could you quote the lines from it you see as supporting that claim?61.90.59.68 (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ Trueland J (2013). "Fast and effective?". Nursing Standard (Pictorial). 28 (16): 26–27. doi:10.7748/ns2013.12.28.16.26.s28.
Please discuss article content at the Talk page. Thanks. Roxy the dog. bark 00:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Flixborough disaster

I made the edit in good faith, not deliberate vandalism. Flixborough_disaster#The_explosion says that the explosion occurred about 16:53 on Saturday 1 June 1974. I inserted "in the early morning" in the lede, because the next sentence refers to the fact that it was not during normal business hours. Therefore, I do not think my edit was "Unsourced nonsense."

The article Ethylene glycol poisoning mistakenly attributes the FDA to the wrong chemical. The poisoning was caused by Diethylene glycol, not Ethylene glycol. Please read Elixir sulfanilamide, which mentions Congress passing the 1938 Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.Comfr (talk) 07:50, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

In regard to the Ethylene Glycol edit, I apologise, and it has since been reverted back to your version. It was an unwise reaction to the madeupness of your disastrous Flixborough Disaster edit. Do you know what 16:53 even means? What you did was at best just plain lazy stupidity. I could rant, but I wont. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know what 16:53 means, but I mistakenly subtracted 12 hours, getting 4:53 in the morning. I am in the US, where the 24 hour clock is not always used. The reason for fewer injuries was the day of the week (Sunday), not hour of the day. While the term, "office hours," could imply that the office was closed on Sundays, it is a bit misleading.
Although I do not think I am lazy or stupid, I do make mistakes. Thank you for catching my mistake. We depend upon editors like you for making sure Wikipedia is accurate. Thank you for your many other contributions to Wikipedia. Comfr (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Saturday. It says Saturday in your original post on this thread. Roxy the dog. bark 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I do make mistakes. I made the same mistake in the article a while ago, but corrected it immediately. I also replaced "office hours" with the same word that appears in the source. Thanks again for your sharp eyes. Comfr (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
June 1, 1974 was a pretty decent album. Eno's rendition of "Baby's On Fire" is especially good, with some terrific guitar from Ollie Halsall and great Robert Wyatt percussion. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:36, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
What a line up! Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the Rainbow that night, having been evacuated from my home which, according to our article, was a mile from a chemical incident that occurred that day. -Roxy the dog. bark 05:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Any friend of

...Bull Rangifer is a person I'd try to befriend as well. Cheers. Le Prof [Leprof_7272] 73.210.155.96 (talk) 04:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Niwada / Niwada (Jhajjar)

A cut/paste move attempt. I redirected Niwada (Jhajjar) to Niwada I wonder how many undos are ahead of me... Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:04, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

See my comment on one of the talk pages ;) -Roxy the dog. bark 08:05, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
More capable? Naw. Perhaps more ADHD/OCD? Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Two reverts... Three? Jim1138 (talk) 08:11, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Revert

Regarding this, please see this CfD. The editor is welcome to restore the category as a redlinked category, I suppose, but I'm required to remove all pages from the category before deleting. ~ Rob13Talk 21:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

You've made your point. Now stop your bot from fiddling with my userpages. -Roxy the dog. bark 04:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the category from WP:CFD/W, which is what was causing the repeated deletion. See {{nobots}} for future use. ~ Rob13Talk 04:45, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sixty years old, speak English as a mother tongue, reasonable French, and some Arabic. That page is written in gibberish, a language I do not speak. Do something useful, help me combat your repeated vandalism. Thanks. -Roxy the dog. bark 05:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Catpol are hard at work I see. -Roxy the dog. bark 13:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Vitalism

I have a few friends who recognize you as having a strictly pro-industry standpoint when editing. This is unacceptable. As such, I warn you not to give undue weight to pro-industry standpoints. --SliverWind (talk) 06:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

You have a few friends. Gosh. Don't worry though. If you keep on putting nonsense into articles, somebody will fix 'em. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rupert Sheldrake, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ralph Abraham. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I added the "s" and removed the "z" sure, but the diff shows a load of stuff I didn't do. Just sayin. Roxy the dog. bark 14:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

So what is this? QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
I've no idea at all. I find it very odd. Firstly, I never have in all my edits that I can recall changed a https thingy in a link. I'm not sure what that does, something about securityness of the site I think. Secondly I recall thinking if I should revert totally, to just "psuedoscience", but decided on just being snarky in the edit summary. I have no idea at all how that happened, but I didn't make the key presses the diff says that I did !!!. Does that make sense? Roxy the dog. bark 19:23, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Probably edited an old version by mistake: [4]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Very possible. I may have gone directly from an unrefreshed Watchlist left open in my browser. I never thought of that. Thanks, something to remember. Roxy the dog. bark 19:31, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
When you clicked to edit you went to an older version. QuackGuru (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Always learning something.Roxy the dog. bark 21:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite - how is it that the above user is able to canvas for support anytime, though when I attempted to included previous commentators on the move, it was frowned upon? Talk about hypocrisy.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I have blocked you for this insult in which you saw an editor blocked for calling someone a "prick", went to that editor's talk page and below the block notice, called the blocking administrator a "prick". Can you see why this was not a wise thing to do? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

What does that make you? -Roxy the dog. bark 16:56, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Talk page access revoked. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:58, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Respectfully, Ivanvector, if you sign up to be an admin, I think you sign up to show a thicker skin than you've displayed here. Admins should strive to model the behavior they seek, including resisting the temptation to escalate situations. They should try to resolve and deescalate conflicts, e.g., in this case, by first giving Roxy the chance to revert or edit his comment to make it conform to the guidelines. Admins should definitely avoid giving the chilling impression that if you criticize an admin, you will be blocked. Admins aren't royalty immune from criticism and behaving as if perhaps they are undermines the legitimacy of the authority you've been granted. Msnicki (talk) 18:26, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
@Ivanvector: I second what Msnicki just said. I would ask you to take 2 minutes and thoroughly read Wikipedia:Civility#Blocking_for_incivility and then to reconsider what you just did here. ~Awilley (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
It's under review at ANI.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, maybe give Roxy a break. Check out the user's block log, clean except for the same people involved in this discussion. Roxy the Dog seems to be giving a personal opinion from some kind of earlier interaction between themself and the admin, so it's more of a you holding them back and both trying to get the last punch in on someone, anyone. Maybe keep Roxy in the hoosegow for a few hours, and then, per Roxy's fairly clean block record, let the good dog loose on society. Randy Kryn 19:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, but I too see this as a bad block. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Roxy! I'm not sure I know you very well, so I suppose I'm uninvolved. I also think Ivanvector is a pretty decent admin, and I think one shouldn't go around yelling bad words at other people. Having said that, if you tell me (and the rest of us) that you'll stop doing that, I will unblock you, if that's OK with Ivanvector. I'll unblock your talk page so you can let us know. Please do ping me when you respond, since I'm sort of out and about--you know, after dinner, kids' baths, James Hardin and his magnificent beard on TV... Drmies (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Roxy, I'm going to jump in here and unblock you, hopefully saving Drmies a little time to spend with his family. I realize you're probably a bit agitated, but I would ask you to refrain from calling anybody names. I've not had the pleasure of being blocked myself, but I imagine that a block would make me feel helpless, like I couldn't control anything that was happening to me. Well, this unblock puts you back in control again. If you want to get blocked again there will be plenty of admins (including myself) watching you closely for the next little while happy to oblige. ~Awilley (talk) 01:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Just wow. Berean Hunter, I think you need to learn how to deescalate. Way too many of your posts are judgemental and filled with hostility. This threat is a new low that nearly takes my breath away. Your objective as an admin should be to encourage good behavior primarily by modeling it, which is definitely not what you're doing here. Msnicki (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Berean, Awilley, I propose we don't do anything until we hear from Roxy; if they don't have anything to say, we don't need to be unblocking right now. Awilley, I do not see a consensus to unblock--not that we necessarily need one--nor do I see a reasonable unblock request; Roxy's next edit might be a valid request to be unblocked. Berean, I do not see a consensus that the block is unproblematic, and you know that we don't need to to plow deeply into policy to come up with a decent solution. Roxy said some stupid things and shouldn't have said them; whether they deserve a block for that is another matter. Let's deal with these one problem at the time, without creating new ones along the way, please. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, Drmies, I'm in no rush. Thanks for stepping in. My priority here is to do this in a way that creates as little drama and wastes as little time as possible. Looks like my first attempt at that backfired. ~Awilley (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks--hey, you can't win them all. I know you a little bit, and I know Berean Hunter a bit too, and we all want what's good for the project. I'll make some coffee and let's all check back in a little bit. You saw, I'm sure, that I offered to unblock too, but I proposed certain conditions based on my (quick) reading of the situation; if you think I misread it, we can discuss--Berean Hunter, I invite you too to weigh in about an unblock and its possible conditions. Oh, it'll be instant coffee--I'm running low on the real thing. Drmies (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you Drmies & SQL but that would be Wheel wouldn't it? I mean on you if you reblocked. I was looking to avert wheel with a block warning. Trust me, I don't want to but the community needs to have it's chance without admins gaming. If you can halt them then I'm fine with that. No cowboy unblocks here. I don't have an issue with Roxy at all, this is about letting proper procedures take there course. Nothing personal against Awilley either. I find the emotions run higher when this happens which is why I want to see it averted. Let it roll 24 hours at ANI. Beeblebrox has made the excellent point of not closing threads so quickly...this one should run a bit.
     — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
You want a discussion about whether a 24 hour block should be lifted to run for 24 hours? --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Good point. :) 12 hours or Roxy and Drmies work something out, whichever comes first...I'm good with that. I can't speak for Ivan or others in that discussion but I'm fine with that.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi Berean--yeah, I suppose so, but that's a price that's worth paying to maintaining a status quo--maybe. IBeeblebrox frequently makes excellent points: of all the admins I want to have a beer with, he's on top of the list. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
If you concede as I hope you will that the guidelines requirement that Roxy be given notice before the block was not followed and that what should have happened was a warning with no response required, then I hope you'll agree there is simply no valid rationale for demanding Roxy say anything at all as a condition of lifting an invalid block. The only thing that should be required of Roxy is that there should not be any repeat offenses. Msnicki (talk) 02:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Msnicki, I appreciate the comment, but please leave it to the admins: this is not ANI, and it will be an admin who decides on an unblock. Any admin who does that will be able to derive plenty of advice from that ANI thread. Drmies (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. I'm allowed to tell you when I think your actions as an admin are unhelpful, unfair or inconsistent with the guidelines as I believe they are right now. Msnicki (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
This is not a free-speech zone, and you can yak all you want but you fail to realize that you got three admins here working to achieve a resolution, and you're not helping. You are the last thing that Roxy the Dog needs. Drmies (talk) 02:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually, it pretty nearly is a free speech zone. As long as I stay within the guidelines, I can say anything I like. Your behavior makes it appear the rules are different for admins and non-admins. Roxy's block was not in accordance with guidelines and happened within minutes. But you'd still like to block him. Yet nothing happens to Ivanvector for the bad block. I implore you to consider how this looks. It's not helped by the "move along kid, nothing to see here" dismissal. Admins must always be clear in communicating that their actions as admins are always answerable to the community and that when they make a mistake, they will admit it and fix it. Msnicki (talk) 02:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
So... You read this as @Drmies: wanting roxy to remain blocked? You might want to re-read. SQLQuery me! 03:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I read this as Drmies insisting on keeping the block until Roxy promises not to do it again. Did I read that wrong? Has Drmies decided to lift the block immediately? The block was wrongly imposed without the required notice. It should be lifted without requiring that Roxy do anything. Msnicki (talk) 03:07, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That's what you say, but you aren't an admin, and there is no consensus that your opinion on the block is correct. That's how you're not helping. If your question is whether Drmies is working on getting the editor unblocked, I think the answer is clear. 03:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)Drmies (talk)
User:Msnicki there was no consensus that the initial block was bad (but it was not ringingly endorsed either). Drmies is and the other admins are working out a reasonable approach to resolve the issue and it would be great for everyone (especially Roxy) if you would just allow that to unfold. Please. Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC) (fix, sorry Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 8 May 2017 (UTC))
If there's a lack of consensus, it's because so many admins appear to believe that only regular users need follow the guidelines. Not one admin endorsing the block at ANI ever addressed the question of whether the guidelines require a notice even though it's black letter that they do. They only considered whether Roxy's behavior met the guidelines, not whether the block met the guidelines. This is unfortunately all too typical. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'll assume that you don't deal with many unblock requests. I do, as many other admins do. It's part of what we do. This is why Drmies is asking you to leave it to us to help work out. One of the things we do is to try to make sure that an unblock is in the best interest of the project. One of the best ways to do this is to verify that the user understands why the behavior that lead to the block in order to protect the project was neeeded. And to try to make sure that the user will avoid this behavior in the future. Hence asking that the user promises not to continue to disrupt the project. SQLQuery me! 03:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
True, I have not dealt with many unblock requests. I did however get a LOT of experience with one block in particular by DangerousPanda, who also had trouble admitting a mistake, leaving me sensitized to the problem. Msnicki (talk) 03:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
That user - whom hasn't edited in 3 years - really isn't relevant to this discussion. SQLQuery me! 03:30, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
It's relevant if you ask about my experience with unblock requests. If you don't want an answer, don't ask the question. This was case of a bad block of Barney the barney barney that ANI refused to do anything about despite a continuous stream of personal attacks from DP. When it went to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/DangerousPanda, DP was desysopped, but not before Drmies defended DP's frankly indefensible behavior as no big deal. It is important to avoid creating the appearance that only users, not admins must follow the guidelines. Msnicki (talk) 03:41, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
  • fwiw, I have a notion that Roxy is from the UK and if that is true, it is 3 AM there, so it is unlikely that Roxy is going to be responding here soon. Jytdog (talk)
    Good point. I'll hope to wake up to a happy resolution in the morning. ~Awilley (talk) 02:34, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, and I suppose because I was asked directly, I endorse Drmies' approach to this situation. I'm likely not going to see it because it's just after midnight here, but if Roxy makes a proper unblock request in what is the morning for them and the reviewing admin approves, then I don't object to unblocking. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 03:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I decline to appeal the block, and wish to thank whoever restored TPA. I haven't read this section yet, I've just got up, but I will be apologising to admins concerned just as soon as I get my thoughts together. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Not your fault EEng, entirely my own. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
In anticipation thereof, Roxy, I have unblocked your account so you can say what you wish to say wherever you wish, and I firmly believe you won't repeat what led to the block; I hope Ivanvector and others will accept my guarantee that I have faith in you. Drmies (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Drmies, but I feel I ought to follow the spirit and intention of Ivanvectors original block, which doesn't seem unreasonable to me. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Go with the flow, Roxy. Block-martyrdom is a lonely road. EEng 15:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, if you insist, I will respond by pointing you to Dante's Inferno. Please see Canto 30.130-48, and then the beginning of the next one, 31.1-6. Drmies (talk) 16:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't care much for blocks being used to compel apologies, for a variety of reasons I think they're silly and that wasn't my intent here. I'm satisfied by your comments and Drmies' personal guarantee that the comment which led to the block won't shortly be repeated, and I endorse this unblock. If you're worried that I'll be upset that you were unblocked early, don't be. Drmies' endorsement is like legal tender here. Cheers. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 18:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
...I could do with a couple of quids' worth myself, as it goes; *rattles tin* — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 18:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back!

Well... better than a cup of coffee or some cookies or something?

Tryptofish has given you a dog bone! Seriously, though, I think that you were treated rather shabbily, and I'm happy to see you back. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Welcome back! Remind me again, why are we doing this shit? Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Was this intentional?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Craniosacral_therapy&diff=781003854&oldid=781003809

Best, Carl Fredrik talk 14:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I suppose it was, but if you had beaten me to it, I wouldn't have reverted you. I've been afk, I'll take a look to see how it stands now. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:37, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Still there, and Jytdog has done more. I just thought it was a reasonable thing to add to fill out the meaning of the term. It isn't explained anywhere else, not that the term has any meaning in the real world, at least to me. -Roxy the dog. bark 15:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Thought I should mention that I didn't see you had edited that page when I did my edit. -Roxy the dog. bark 16:19, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

Hi. On the Henry page, I was actually trying to soften the impact slightly of having the section named just Criticism. Please see WP:CRITS. As an example, see the article on the queen of medium scam artist: Sylvia Browne. There is no section named Critisism there, though many sections actually are just that. RobP (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rob, I do understand where you are coming from on this, and I agree that your edit softened the feel of the title somewhat, and that is why I reverted. I don't think we should waiver from the mainstream scientific POV that Wikipedia is written in. The people listed represent that very well, and don't need to be highlighted as anything special over and above their own articles. (I also note that I personally don't like "Criticism" sections if they can be avoided, but this article is too short to incorporate the mainstream view into other sections.) So, what do we do? Would you mind if I moved this discussion to the article talk page? Roxy the dog. bark 17:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with your points... and please do. RobP (talk) 19:21, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the above discussion to the Tyler wossname talk page. you know... Roxy the dog. bark 20:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

{tps}} I commented at the Tyler wossname talk page too. Bishonen | talk 23:56, 29 May 2017 (UTC).

"Flatulance" claim

I see you reverted the removal of the "Flatulance" claim from the article John A. McDougall (your revert). This claim is not listed in the source provided. If you have a reliable source for this claim feel free to add it back in. DCEvoCE (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@DCEvoCE: "High fiber intake results in increased intestinal gas" - generally known as flatulence. Leave it alone. General Ization Talk 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Good grief. -Roxy the dog. bark 22:53, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Furhman article

Did you see the advert that I removed? -Roxy the dog. bark 18:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Good for you, and TUVM. But the result of your diligent efforts gives us 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' MaynardClark (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I have no idea what 'Bad Request (Invalid Hostname)' means, except that the link doesn't do what it is supposed to do. Much better that a shitty unexpected promotional link to a restaurant, don't you think? -Roxy the dog. bark 08:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

NLP AFD

Hi, as somebody who has contributed occasionally to articles on neuro-linguistic programming I wondered if you could have a look at this AfD, which is not getting much attention. Famousdog (c) 07:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hello Roxy the dog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually... (re:ANI)

I would have apologized for using the word "dishonestly"*, until they got to ANI and claimed that I'd said it "multiple times" which is straight up bullshit. But it would have taken me at least 5 hours (I was sleeping) so not holding their breath remained good advice. ;) *After accusing them of dishonesty, I realized something that made it look more likely to be caused by incompetence than disingenuity. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Although it was only about 7 hours ago, I had forgotten that, and had to look up my own contributions. -Roxy the dog. bark 14:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
That's a frequent occurrence with me, I understand completely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:23, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SRS title talk page

It looks like Alex Shih has closed the discussion. Can you still answer my question: @Roxy the dog: Can you please leave a brief reasoning as to why you believe it does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. From the WP:COMMONNAME page- "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." I've listed 68 sources from 13 countries. Do you want more of these sources? Or do you object to the types of sources? More countries?

This way I can continue to look into what evidence people need to reach consensus on the updated nomenclature from the sources I showed. Thanks UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Please use the article Talk page for content discussion. That way, consensus can be reached. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:25, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
I was until Alex Shih closed it. I will start a new section there. Can you please respond to the question on the article talk page in the new section? Thanks UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Note that consensus has already been achieved on the subject of the article title. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes I saw that Alex Shih closed it. Since this is not a permanent decision as users said they would be okay with the change in the future, I was hoping you could write something as to why you think it did not follow Common policy? This way I can continue to look into what evidence people need to reach consensus on the updated nomenclature from the sources I showed (for a future discussion). Thanks UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

This was a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Asnjjasvonk/Archive. -Roxy the dog. bark 23:51, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Foreign language

Hi, I removed the PROD from دندل because being a foreign language isn't a reason for deletion by itself, but you disagreed. I would refer you to WP:PNT: Articles that are not in English are still subject to all other forms of speedy deletion should they meet the criteria, and can be nominated for deletion by prod or afd should an editor feel they warrant deletion for a reason other than the language it is in, an article not being in English is not itself a criterion for deletion until the two week period has passed. (emphasis added). That's why I removed the PROD, as it should be listed at WP:PNT, then if it's not translated in two weeks, it can then be deleted.  Seagull123  Φ  18:31, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think you wasted your time pissing about like that. The point is trivial I know, but this is supposed to be an encyclopaedia written in english. Arabic belongs on the Arabic wiki really. I shall continue to nominate foreign language articles for not being written in english, not that I've seen many. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I also delete sections of article written in foreign languages wherever I see them. -Roxy the dog. bark 18:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It was pasted into en.Wiki from the Arabic Wikipedia. CSD tag template:db-foreign or template:db-a2 should be used. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks User:Kudpung I have just used one of them, but I don't actually know if the article is copied from another wiki. I think not, so I expect somebody will try to edumacate me further. ;) -Roxy the dog. bark 11:27, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
See WP:NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Well thanks for telling me how to spend my time, and if you feel that what is at WP:PNT is wrong, please raise it at the talk page. This is, to the best of my knowledge, what the community has decided should be done with foreign language articles.  Seagull123  Φ  17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

You are welcome. You know, funny stuff happens here. My eyes just glazed over when I saw WP:PNT. What a load of unfathomable nonsense just to deal with something that is easily dealt with. However, in future, I shall leave it alone as this is the english wikipedia where you can post in any language you want. Another funny thing I learned this week was that despite what is said everywhere you look round here, you can post anything you like to articles because somebody will just pop along at some unspecified time in the future and supply a decent ref maybe or maybe not, but it doesn't matter really. Sheesh. Roxy the dog. bark 22:20, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

In lieu of a barnstar

Just for the heck of it. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:16, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

"Again with the hat, boss? I thought we discussed this?" Roxy the dog. bark 20:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Can I have permission to steal this picture for my userpage?? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐐT₳LKᐬ 16:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Well, on the basis that anything posted to wikipedia is public domain, the answer is yes, but you should be nice, as you have been already, and ask Smallbones on his Talk page. OK? Roxy the dog. bark 22:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
OK. OK. I'm sorry. I'll go and stand in this shallow grave shall I? -Roxy the dog. bark 22:59, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking seppuku, but I guess that will do. EEng 23:40, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital

This article Dr. Rama Sofat Hospital is not a promotional page. I would like to request you to kindly tell me which all points made you think that is work is for pormotion and what all changes I can made to prevent this page from getting deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rama Sofat (talk • contribs) 08:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on the article talk page, which you can do by clicking "Talk" at the top of the article(if viewing on a computer) but looking at the page, one tip off that it is promotional is "We offer". Wikipedia is not social media to tell the world about the services that your hospital offers. This is an encyclopedia, which is more selective about its content. Wikipedia articles must indicate with independent reliable sources how your hospital is notable. Please review those pages.
Since you write "we offer" I assume that you represent this hospital. You will need to review the conflict of interest policy before you edit further. If you work for the hospital, you are required by Wikipedia's Terms of Use to comply with the paid editing policy and declare such status.331dot (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

..

If you're going to be like that maybe add "is a shithead" to your signature to save others the trouble of interacting with you. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thx. I have replied at your Talkpage. -Roxy the dog. bark 17:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Lol don't be a snarky little piece of shit if you can't handle the same in return. <3 Ivar the Boneful (talk) 17:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I shall repeat the message you received at your Talkpage. Fuck. Right. Off. Never besmirch this page with your rudeness again. Roxy the dog. bark 18:03, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks...

...for your edit to my talk page. It's appreciated. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Wasn't sure, but I weighed it up carefully first. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Roxy_the_dog/Archive_4&oldid=1149837044"